Political Crossfire Forums

[StrangerWitCandy]

... apparently they're gay. :wink:

Quote: Birds and bees may be gay: museum exhibition
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
Thu Oct 12, 8:46 AM ET

OSLO (Reuters) - The birds and the bees may be gay, according to the world's first museum exhibition about homosexuality among animals.

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature," told Reuters: "Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."

The museum said the exhibition, opening on Thursday despite condemnation from some Christians, was the first in the world on the subject. Soeli said a Dutch zoo had once organised tours to view homosexual couples among the animals.

"The sexual urge is strong in all animals. ... It's a part of life, it's fun to have sex," Soeli said of the reasons for homosexuality or bisexuality among animals.

One exhibit shows two stuffed female swans on a nest -- birds sometimes raise young in homosexual couples, either after a female has forsaken a male mate or donated an egg to a pair of males.

One photograph shows two giant erect penises flailing above the water as two male right whales rub together. Another shows a male giraffe mounting another for sex, another describes homosexuality among beetles.

BURN IN HELL

One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition -- partly funded by the Norwegian government -- should "burn in hell," Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a "crime against nature" are still on the statutes in some countries.

Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent homosexual behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago but evidence of animal homosexuality has often been ignored by researchers, perhaps because of distaste, lack of interest or fear or ridicule.

Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding. "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said.

Still, it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end.

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, he said.

And a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said.

Every day it seems more and more rediculous when people say homosexuality is "unnatural." Of course people always have a hard time accepting the truth when it doesn't suit their prejudices.

[F'losrix]

The problem with getting into this area is that the presence of some behavior in animals isn't a justification for the practice of that behavior in humans.

Natural/Unnatural isn't synonymous with moral/immoral. While the above may be used to debunk some claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural', it does nothing to inform us of whether or not it's a moral/immoral practice.

My contention would be that homosexuality viewed in isolation from any other factor, is actually amoral - neither moral nor immoral. The morality of some action can largely be assessed by the intent of the actor, and the outcome of the action. A blanket condemnation of homosexuality ignores this principle, as would a blanket celebration of it.

[00timh]

See, you people act just like animals! *runs* :lol:

[Enoch]

00timh wrote: See, you people act just like animals! *runs* :lol: All humans do, to some extent. We are animals, every one of us.

[00timh]

Enoch wrote: 00timh wrote: See, you people act just like animals! *runs* :lol: All humans do, to some extent. We are animals, every one of us. you guys need to lighten up. You know that was a joke, right?

[John Galt]

F'losrix wrote: The problem with getting into this area is that the presence of some behavior in animals isn't a justification for the practice of that behavior in humans.

Natural/Unnatural isn't synonymous with moral/immoral. While the above may be used to debunk some claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural', it does nothing to inform us of whether or not it's a moral/immoral practice.

My contention would be that homosexuality viewed in isolation from any other factor, is actually amoral - neither moral nor immoral. The morality of some action can largely be assessed by the intent of the actor, and the outcome of the action. A blanket condemnation of homosexuality ignores this principle, as would a blanket celebration of it.

Agreed.

Animals also eat their young -- so apparenlty that isn't "unnatural" either. Sure it isn't "unnatural". Everything in nature (everything we can see) is natural, including homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also not "right" or "wrong", it just is. So I think I can agree with the above.

Oh and I don't think any bees are "gay", and the article didn't explain that. Perhaps the OP knows something more about "homosexuality" in bees?

[StrangerWitCandy]

John Galt wrote: F'losrix wrote: The problem with getting into this area is that the presence of some behavior in animals isn't a justification for the practice of that behavior in humans.

Natural/Unnatural isn't synonymous with moral/immoral. While the above may be used to debunk some claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural', it does nothing to inform us of whether or not it's a moral/immoral practice.

My contention would be that homosexuality viewed in isolation from any other factor, is actually amoral - neither moral nor immoral. The morality of some action can largely be assessed by the intent of the actor, and the outcome of the action. A blanket condemnation of homosexuality ignores this principle, as would a blanket celebration of it.

Agreed.

Animals also eat their young -- so apparenlty that isn't "unnatural" either. Sure it isn't "unnatural". Everything in nature (everything we can see) is natural, including homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also not "right" or "wrong", it just is. So I think I can agree with the above.

Oh and I don't think any bees are "gay", and the article didn't explain that. Perhaps the OP knows something more about "homosexuality" in bees?

I pretty much agree with what you both said. It is proof though, of homosexuality being natural. That's all the post was intended for.

The only reason I put the birds and the bees are gay, is because thats how the article starts out. I was sort of a play on the common saying about the 'birds and the bees,' nothing more.

[Enoch]

00timh wrote: Enoch wrote: 00timh wrote: See, you people act just like animals! *runs* :lol: All humans do, to some extent. We are animals, every one of us. you guys need to lighten up. You know that was a joke, right? Yes, I am well aware that what you said was a joke.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: Agreed.

Animals also eat their young -- so apparenlty that isn't "unnatural" either. Sure it isn't "unnatural". Everything in nature (everything we can see) is natural, including homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also not "right" or "wrong", it just is. So I think I can agree with the above.

Oh and I don't think any bees are "gay", and the article didn't explain that. Perhaps the OP knows something more about "homosexuality" in bees?

Galt, have you ever heard of sodomy laws AROUND THE WORLD that treat homosexuality as an "act against nature"? If so, then you will realize why this is a huge deal!

Indeed, much of various religious arguments, which are not based on morality, are based on the assertion that homosexuality goes against "God's natural ways"!!!

[John Galt]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Agreed.

Animals also eat their young -- so apparenlty that isn't "unnatural" either. Sure it isn't "unnatural". Everything in nature (everything we can see) is natural, including homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also not "right" or "wrong", it just is. So I think I can agree with the above.

Oh and I don't think any bees are "gay", and the article didn't explain that. Perhaps the OP knows something more about "homosexuality" in bees?

Galt, have you ever heard of sodomy laws AROUND THE WORLD that treat homosexuality as an "act against nature"? If so, then you will realize why this is a huge deal!

Indeed, much of various religious arguments, which are not based on morality, are based on the assertion that homosexuality goes against "God's natural ways"!!!

I don't see how this would change one person's mind to be honest. They'll just say that the animals are wrong and going against "nature" too, or they are just amoral animals and what do they know (I'd say something like this but not in this particular argument :)). So this is just an exercise in futility.

[StrangerWitCandy]

John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Agreed.

Animals also eat their young -- so apparenlty that isn't "unnatural" either. Sure it isn't "unnatural". Everything in nature (everything we can see) is natural, including homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also not "right" or "wrong", it just is. So I think I can agree with the above.

Oh and I don't think any bees are "gay", and the article didn't explain that. Perhaps the OP knows something more about "homosexuality" in bees?

Galt, have you ever heard of sodomy laws AROUND THE WORLD that treat homosexuality as an "act against nature"? If so, then you will realize why this is a huge deal!

Indeed, much of various religious arguments, which are not based on morality, are based on the assertion that homosexuality goes against "God's natural ways"!!!

I don't see how this would change one person's mind to be honest. They'll just say that the animals are wrong and going against "nature" too, or they are just amoral animals and what do they know (I'd say something like this but not in this particular argument :)). So this is just an exercise in futility.

Animals go against nature? :?

It is simply proof that homosexuality is natural, since it is often claimed as 'unnatural.' How that is somehow unconvincing, I don't know. The only point I'm making is that those who claim homosexuality is unnatural are simply incorrect.

I really don't care what subsequent rationalizations they might make to justify their prejudice. Those can be addressed on their own.

And I disagree that this 'exercise' is futile, for as long as people claim homosexuality is unnatural in their arguements against it, it is a necessary reminder.

[John Galt]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Agreed.

Animals also eat their young -- so apparenlty that isn't "unnatural" either. Sure it isn't "unnatural". Everything in nature (everything we can see) is natural, including homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also not "right" or "wrong", it just is. So I think I can agree with the above.

Oh and I don't think any bees are "gay", and the article didn't explain that. Perhaps the OP knows something more about "homosexuality" in bees?

Galt, have you ever heard of sodomy laws AROUND THE WORLD that treat homosexuality as an "act against nature"? If so, then you will realize why this is a huge deal!

Indeed, much of various religious arguments, which are not based on morality, are based on the assertion that homosexuality goes against "God's natural ways"!!!

I don't see how this would change one person's mind to be honest. They'll just say that the animals are wrong and going against "nature" too, or they are just amoral animals and what do they know (I'd say something like this but not in this particular argument :)). So this is just an exercise in futility.

Animals go against nature? :?

It is simply proof that homosexuality is natural, since it is often claimed as 'unnatural.' How that is somehow unconvincing, I don't know. The only point I'm making is that those who claim homosexuality is unnatural are simply incorrect.

I really don't care what subsequent rationalizations they might make to justify their prejudice. Those can be addressed on their own.

And I disagree that this 'exercise' is futile, for as long as people claim homosexuality is unnatural in their arguements against it, it is a necessary reminder.

I think the two sides are talking past each other with different meanings behind the word "natural". "Natural" to some means as it is intended while to others how it actually is.

[StrangerWitCandy]

John Galt wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: John Galt wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: John Galt wrote: Agreed.

Animals also eat their young -- so apparenlty that isn't "unnatural" either. Sure it isn't "unnatural". Everything in nature (everything we can see) is natural, including homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also not "right" or "wrong", it just is. So I think I can agree with the above.

Oh and I don't think any bees are "gay", and the article didn't explain that. Perhaps the OP knows something more about "homosexuality" in bees?

Galt, have you ever heard of sodomy laws AROUND THE WORLD that treat homosexuality as an "act against nature"? If so, then you will realize why this is a huge deal!

Indeed, much of various religious arguments, which are not based on morality, are based on the assertion that homosexuality goes against "God's natural ways"!!!

I don't see how this would change one person's mind to be honest. They'll just say that the animals are wrong and going against "nature" too, or they are just amoral animals and what do they know (I'd say something like this but not in this particular argument :)). So this is just an exercise in futility.

Animals go against nature? :?

It is simply proof that homosexuality is natural, since it is often claimed as 'unnatural.' How that is somehow unconvincing, I don't know. The only point I'm making is that those who claim homosexuality is unnatural are simply incorrect.

I really don't care what subsequent rationalizations they might make to justify their prejudice. Those can be addressed on their own.

And I disagree that this 'exercise' is futile, for as long as people claim homosexuality is unnatural in their arguements against it, it is a necessary reminder.

I think the two sides are talking past each other with different meanings behind the word "natural". "Natural" to some means as it is intended while to others how it actually is.

Great, now the definition of natural depends on what someone decides was 'intended' or not. Is there any way the debate could be made more confusing? :lol:

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: I think the two sides are talking past each other with different meanings behind the word "natural". "Natural" to some means as it is intended while to others how it actually is.
Which presumes that people have some way of magically discerning what 'Nature' intended, when 'Nature' isn't even a person, but a concept.

Or, we have to take this conversation in the God direction, which will only end in people making unprovable assertions about their faith and the rest of us rolling our eyes.

[John Galt]

F'losrix wrote: John Galt wrote: I think the two sides are talking past each other with different meanings behind the word "natural". "Natural" to some means as it is intended while to others how it actually is.
Which presumes that people have some way of magically discerning what 'Nature' intended, when 'Nature' isn't even a person, but a concept.

Or, we have to take this conversation in the God direction, which will only end in people making unprovable assertions about their faith and the rest of us rolling our eyes.

When I say "what nature intended" I am saying that those who say that expression -- and people do -- mean that God wanted such and such a thing to happen. Usually they blame the devil or something else that God made... yes I would roll my eyes too.

To me, everything that is is natural. I know many people differntiate between the "natural" beaver dam and the "unnatural" man-made dam, and I understand what they mean by saying "natural", but, like I said everything that we can see touch taste etc is natural to me. The only unnatural thing would be, like... God, since he is beyond the rational.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Great, now the definition of natural depends on what someone decides was 'intended' or not. Is there any way the debate could be made more confusing? :lol:

The debate would go along something like this:

The homophobic/religious person: Homosexuality is wrong!

The homosexual person: Why?

The homophobic/religious person: Homosexuality is against nature!

The homosexual person: No, it is not. It could be observed in the animal kingdom.

The homophobic/religious person: God didn't intend it to be that way.

The homosexual person: er ... so are animals acting against God too?

The homophobic/religious person: ???!!!

[John Galt]

Homophobia = same fear. Also, even if it meant "fear of homosexuals". which it doesn't, no one fears homosexuals. At least, no one I have ever met in my life. Most so-called "homophobes" just don't particualllry like homosexuals since they are different, not since they fear them. But that's all neither here nor there, the fact of the matter is there are some deviant animals in this world that satan influenced.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: But that's all neither here nor there, the fact of the matter is there are some deviant animals in this world that satan influenced.

LMAO!!! Satan also controls animals!!! Satan must have too much time on his hands :lol:

John Galt wrote: Homophobia = same fear. Also, even if it meant "fear of homosexuals". which it doesn't, no one fears homosexuals. At least, no one I have ever met in my life. Most so-called "homophobes" just don't particualllry like homosexuals since they are different, not since they fear them.

Galt, hate is often driven by fear! They fear homosexuals out of their religious beliefs or they fear homosexuals because they fear that homosexuals are going to "recruit" their children through their "homosexual agenda"!!!

Unfortunately, they refuse to understand that all the homosexuals really want is to be included in the society [and not be marginalized and be forced to live a secret life or a deviant life] through simple things like:
- They want to have safety in their jobs, so that once the boss finds out they are gay, they don't get fired.
- They don't get the crap beaten out of them when they hold hands in public.
- They want to be able to have the choice of forming families and not be denied the legal and the benefits that go along with it.
- They want the homosexual teenagers to make informed choices about their sexuality and don't be forced to believe "God hates f*gs"!

[John Galt]

Hate is such a strong word. I do not hate anything or anyone. It isn't for me, and I doubt many people truly hate either. They dislike homosexuals mainly because of a few bad apples who have pretty much emasculated themselves.

As for your bullet points... if I had MY way no one could hold hands. Keep it in the bedroom people. Also, bosses OWN yourjob -- not you -- and I would be very upset if they couldn't fire tyou for being gay. Or Muslim. Or have AIDS. Or smlled funny last Monday. Or really... any reason (or lack of a reason). "The legal and the benefits" doesn't make much sense, but if it did, I'd assume you were talking about government benefits, which shouldn't exist for anyone. ANd finally, about teenagers making "informed choices about their sexuality" -- does that mean to imply that their sexuality is a choice? Or were you talking about sexual activity? If so, such talk has no place in the pubic schools (which I despise exist in the first place).

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: Hate is such a strong word. I do not hate anything or anyone. It isn't for me, and I doubt many people truly hate either. They dislike homosexuals mainly because of a few bad apples who have pretty much emasculated themselves.

er ... I didn't mean to imply that you hate homosexuals! :?

John Galt wrote: if I had MY way no one could hold hands. Keep it in the bedroom people.

lol I agree completely, but the point was that no one should get the crap beaten out of them because of it!!!

John Galt wrote: Also, bosses OWN yourjob -- not you -- and I would be very upset if they couldn't fire tyou for being gay. Or Muslim. Or have AIDS. Or smlled funny last Monday. Or really... any reason (or lack of a reason).

I am talking more on the social level, Galt. 50+ years ago, it was acceptable to make someone suffer because of their race. Now, it is not acceptable. That is what I mean by gaining acceptance, etc. Of course, there will be those who are judgemental and will want to make someone suffer because they are gay, black, etc, but one would hope that the society doesn't condone such an act.

John Galt wrote: "The legal and the benefits" doesn't make much sense, but if it did, I'd assume you were talking about government benefits, which shouldn't exist for anyone.

They do exist and as such, one cannot escape them. And "benefits" are not just about money, etc. I am also talking about legal rights such as deciding the fate of your partner while he/she is on the death bed, etc.

John Galt wrote: ANd finally, about teenagers making "informed choices about their sexuality" -- does that mean to imply that their sexuality is a choice? Or were you talking about sexual activity? If so, such talk has no place in the pubic schools (which I despise exist in the first place).

arrrrghhhh ... Galt, did anyone ever tell you that discussing something with you is really difficult as you despise a lot of things?!! :arhhg: lol :lol: