Because sodomy and lesbianism do not contribute to the procreation theme, homosexuality is somewhat perceived as an anomaly in Nature.
The concept of "unnatural" in this case may yet take another somewhat different twist.
Gay Penguins???
Roy & Silo
Not only do the penguins nest together, they built their own nests, engage in sexual activities, and have acted as surrogate parents when an egg was placed in the nests by their handlers.
Homosexuality, once thought to be a product of man’s depraved sexual tendencies, has, it seems, unwittingly drawn gay animals into the spotlight.
Homosexuality in The Animal Kingdom
The idea that homosexuality is an abominable crime rests upon one religious dogma: The primary function of sex is not to partake in pleasure, but merely as a essential tool for procreation.
While humans are apt to observe this kind of archaic, convoluted protocol, animals, it seems, have no qualms with regards to humping each other whichever way they choose: Modern biologists have observed that at least 1,500 animals exhibit some form of gay behavior, with 500 species well documented to have performed "outrageous sodomy" in full view of the biologists.
Other species known to exhibit homosexual tendencies include:
Baah......... (Translation: I am gay, I am gay, I am gay!!!)
Birds of the "same feather" flock together.........3.Pairs of male flamingos have also been witnessed raising eggs of female counterparts.
Homosexuality: A Genetic Anomaly, or a Case of Sacrificing for the Common Good?
Homosexuality seems to go against the very grain of evolution: If the genetically encoded goal of every animal is to ensure the survivability of its genes, why then, do some animals choose an act that, at first glance, seems to be the equivalent of an evolutionary dead end?
In scientific parlance, homosexuality does serve several purposes. In the case of the gay penguins, it may be that gay penguins like Roy and Silo may have somehow evolved to play the role as "male nannies" to help look after abandoned or lost eggs and chicks, which would surely help boost the survivability of chicks in the harsh environmental conditions in Antarctica.
Territorial aggression may also have a part to play. In the case of the flamingos, it may be that male flamingos hold larger territories than females: A pale of gay flamingos, followed by their heterosexual counterparts, may be boosted by a pair of alpha males, instead of just one alpha male. The presence of gay flamingos may also lessen the competition for mating partners amongst heterosexual males.
More importantly, homosexuality in herd animals may actually tone down and ease animistic aggressions amongst male animals, who may otherwise fight each other to the death in order to vie for the sexual services of their female cohorts.
Homosexuality: Not A Travesty Unto Nature
Contrary to popular opinion, gays are definitely not outcasts in Mother Nature's scheme of plans. Just as homosexuals play a positive role in the Animal Kingdom, gays can and will contribute to our society as well.
Rather than view homosexuals as travesties of Nature or some other bigoted religious mumbo-jumbos, the better, or should I say best, option is to regard gays as normal, healthy adults with a somewhat different take on sexual preferences.
After all, as the saying goes, one Man's meat is another Man's poison. So long as homosexuals practice consensual, adult relationships, there is no reason for anyone (Religious fundies included) to pry and poke his or her nose behind the doors of every locked bedroom.
I always have wondered why religious people even care what gay people do in the bedroom. I'm sure they commit sexual acts that they themselves look down on. Give me a break!
ReplyDeleteReligious people are obsessed with sex! As much as some of them seem to spend so much time worrying about it. they must have pornos playing in their heads all the time! Unlike us carnal people they can't just do it & enjoy it, they have to fret about it.
ReplyDeleteWell, I>T
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I am a lover of porn: I think the porn industry is a good thing, and I sure as hell will write about it.
The difference between me and the fundie is this: I love porn, I love sex, and I admit it. Fundies like Haggard condemn so called "deviant" sexual sins and yet commit it behind everyone's backs.
The moral of the story: Regardless whether you are a gay or a heterosexual, sex between consensual adults are just normal sexual outlets. There is no need to vilify one or the other. Its a matter of taste.Simple as that.
The moral of the story: Regardless whether you are a gay or a heterosexual, sex between consensual adults are just normal sexual outlets.
ReplyDeleteI completly agree. The Christian has set a standard he calls high & can not obtain himself. To quote Nietzsche(which I happen to be reading at the moment)& put it into convoluted language "The highest thing could not have grown out of the senses. They attain to their stupendus concept, "God" the highest concept, the least most emptiest thing is postulated as the first thing."
I love porn too - but there is clearly some shady folks out there making money off of it and it shows in the media, so I tend to like the stuff where people ar actually enjoying ehat they are doing.
ReplyDeleteThe is a great documentary about the gay animal phenomenon. It shows how reluctant many people are to recognize it and will do mental flips in order to avoid acknowledging it.
Homosexuality found in the animal kingdom does not prove that homosexuality is moral, proper, or good for mankind. The killing of babies, ones own kind, fighting, abuse, etc. is also found among animals and mankind, yet it is not that positive of an influence is it? Looking at the acts of animals to justify the deeds of mankind is really not a logical move forward, but a desire to make that which is immoral and not accepted, morally accepted as “animal” preference. So the answer is “animals do it, so mankind should be able to do”. Interesting indeed.
ReplyDeleteWhy do atheists feel the need to defend an evolutionary "dead end" such as homosexuality? In fact, defense of such a trait is illogical from an evolutionary standpoint when we consider that the trait will unlikely be passed on to the next generation.
ReplyDeleteYes, religious people do enjoy sex. That should be obvious given that religious people produce more offspring than their secular counterparts. This should scare considering Dawkin's defense for a religious gene. In which case, logic and intelligence have nothing to do with an individuals religious or atheist views. And since religious people are spreading their genes around more than non-believers....
timothy(splinters of sliver)
ReplyDeleteThe problem is you aren't looking at it from a human point of veiw. You manufacture a "God" then look at everything from that(manufactured) point of veiw. Human beings are pretty close to the concept of animals & pretty close to the concept of gods. The Christian "God" is only your concept of the perfect human.
Get over it! *sheesh*
Honestly l>t trying to look at this through merely human eyes can also range, for there are those which find the act of homosexuality merely grotesque in itself whether deemed as moral or immoral. But to look at it in light of two penguins “fathering” an egg (which they are unable to produce by nature itself) in a homosexual fashion (or with the other animal claims found) and claim that homosexuality should then be not only permissible but commendable by persons in society is logically flawed.
ReplyDeleteTo use evolution as the means by which man has evolved higher than animals, then use animals as to how man is to live seems most absurd as in going backwards instead of forward into higher and superior evolution. As the writer notes, indeed homosexuality goes against ever fiber of evolution, for in evolution homosexuality would kill itself off by the mere fact of no ability of reproduction from within itself.
Do you wish to lower human intelligence to “animals do it, so we can do it”?
I think the point beast was getting at was homosexuality was "natural" & "normal".
ReplyDeleteTim, You want to use words like "moral" & "proper"
Tim said
Do you wish to lower human intelligence to “animals do it, so we can do it”?
What does sex(hormones) have to do with intelligence, anyway? Even Retards get horny, Tim.
You think your OT God is so elevating?
The Christian heaven is elevating? The Creation museum is elevating?
Faith healing is elevating?
Yo, yo yo, folks:
ReplyDeleteI can see there's a great "moral" debate going on, so let us dissect the arguments a little bit:
I>T:
Thanks for defending my post on my behalf. I think if there were more courageous atheists like yourself, the world would be a much better place to live in.
Mr Splinter:
I agree with you on this count: Certain animal traits, such as infanticide, are traits that humans should not, and cannot tolerate.
But let us pause for a moment and think: Two male, loving penguins, fathering an abandoned egg/chick: What is there to hate?
Like what L>T said, the purpose of this post is not to justify every animalistic trait, but rather to debunk the myth that homosexuality is "unnatural", when in fact, it is not.
And I think you misquote me when you claim that I said homosexuality is a dead end. Allow me to "quote" myself:
"If the genetically encoded goal of every animal is to ensure the survivability of its genes, why then, do some animals choose an act that, at first glance, seems to be the equivalent of an evolutionary dead end?"
The key word here, Mr Splinter is "seem". I also explained, in latter paragraphs, that homosexuality is a balancing instinct, kind of like the ying and the yang, to tamper male egos within a herd.
Apparently, Splinter, like typical Christians, you commit the "taking words out of context" mistake which your kind often blame us atheists of doing.
And finally, what is your basis behind homophobia? If I am not mistaken, it is based on your doctrines and nothing else.
Homosexuality in its very essence is another exhibition of love, as exhibited by our lovable gay penguins (I wonder if any christian counsellors care to "deconvert them", tsk tsk). That, in summary, is the basis of this post, plus the observation that homosexuality is quite prevalent in the animal kingdom.
Rev:
ReplyDeleteI understand what you mean. I for one do not want to watch porn involving underaged kids, and shady porn that seem won to abuse women rather than pleasurizing women.
Thanks you for your compliments. I will strive to write better posts in future.
Beast
Beast,
ReplyDelete"What is there to hate?" - The idea is not, as supposed, merely the twist you portray, --I hate you for loving one another--, but the fact that God defines such acts, as homosexuality, as sin for mankind. I am not to hate a homosexual for sinning by taking part in fornication of homosexuality, but am to see sin as sin and to not accept or claim it to be morally acceptable.
Claiming and/or showing evidence of homosexuality within the animal kingdom does not prove that it is a natural act in animals nor in humans. By mere percentage it could at best show an unnatural flaw, a mistake found in the random means of so-called evolution.
I am afraid that it is you who has misquoted me for another. I said nothing of the words "dead end", but said --As the writer notes, indeed homosexuality goes against ever fiber of evolution-- whereby you did say, "Homosexuality seems to go against the very grain of evolution". Can I claim like typical atheists you see what you want to see? I will not, but indeed I suppose you mixed by text with anothers that did mention "dead end".
"homophobia": I do not fear homosexuality, nor do I personally hate the homosexual, although I firmly believe God has declared such an act between two men or two women to be sin that must be repented of. Therefore I cannot suffer my conscience to allow such an act of pure rebellion against the Word of God, in whom I trust, to be counted as acceptable and morally proper.
Mr Splinter:
ReplyDelete1. Tell me honestly: Would you hate homosexuality if, assuming you haven't read your erstwhile Scripture?
2.If homosexuality was a "mistake" as you claim, would natural selection not eliminate this "mistake"?
3.Again, you are trying to force me to lambast your fucking poor reading skills. Never once did I even allude that homosexuality is a dead end. Note the word "seem", and please do not take my words out of context.
4."....although I firmly believe God has declared such an act between two men or two women to be sin that must be repented of. "
If God did "declare" it, tell him to come down now, in front of the Supreme Court, and voice his freaking displeasure. Not point asking stupid fundamentalists to bitch about what others are doing behind closed doors.
"Therefore I cannot suffer my conscience to allow such an act of pure rebellion against the Word of God, in whom I trust, to be counted as acceptable and morally proper. "
Hmm......I wonder what you would do, when you said "Not allow an act of pure rebellion". Kill a few gays, blow up a few gay bars, kind of like doing the whole Eric Rudolph thing.....be a Christian terrorist?
Tell me, Splinter, what ya gonna do?
Beast, why do always suffer your ego to get the best of you, even in simple discussion?
ReplyDelete1. "What if" questions are most unanswerable.
2. Has natural selection destroyed/removed all of the countless harmful mutations to mankind, i.e. mistakes?
3. Oh please, your following paragraphs (in context) are full of "may" which is based purely upon your personal thoughts.
4. Indeed God will come down, and men will cry as scared children asking for the rocks to hide them from His Holy face. [Revelation 6:16]
And if it is merely behind closed doors, why then do they demand tolerance for that which would not be known lest they themselves have come from out the closed doors promoting it among a soceity that deems is immoral?
Talking about reading skills, you fail yourself. I elementary wrote (in context of "I do not fear homosexuality, nor do I personally hate the homosexual") - "Therefore I cannot suffer my conscience to allow such an act of pure rebellion against the Word of God, in whom I trust, to be counted as acceptable and morally proper."
The simplist reader can see "I CANNOT SUFFER MY CONSCIENCE TO ALLOW...[HOMOSEXUALITY]...TO BE COUNTED AS ACCEPTABLE AND MORALLY PROPER." By no means could any twist the meaning of my statement in context to mean any thing such as you persuade yourself to think namely, --Kill a few gays, blow up a few gay bars, kind of like doing the whole Eric Rudolph thing.....be a Christian terrorist?--. By all means it declares that my conscience will not allow me to accept sin as morally acceptable. I do not accept abortion as morally right, but I do not harm those that believe it is or have them. Hopefully I have made it more understandable now.
Mr Splinter:
ReplyDeleteFuck you and your morality. Its my god damn right to be egoistic, and I am free (and demand) to exercise it in anyway I so choose, just as you have the right to be stupid.
Ok, now that I have finished my rant, let me continue:
1. "What if" questions not answerable? Hmm...what if you are hungry.....you won't, say, eat? Just wait and starve to death? What kind of logic is that? Did Jesus teach you this purported nonsense?
2. Obviously nature will not eliminate every present mistake. Evolution will continue to throw in mistakes, and natural selection eliminates it.
If say, birds on an island with large beaks have great difficulty eating seeds from a large tree, then natural selection would wit out most, if not all birds, with small beaks. Clearly, the number of birds with large beaks would be struggling for survival. But we don't see this case in the homosexual birds/animals.
3.Clearly, you haven't read the scientific post that I have posted, nor have any of my words gone straight into your puny numbskull. "Potential falsifiability" in science states that nothing can be proven, only disproven. That is why I used the word "may". Absolutes do not exist in scientific literature, damn it.
4. It is not that I can't read. I post this back to you, because since you can suffer the thought of homosexuality, it is only natural that I ask what you are going to do....preach to them, kill them, whatever that is in that stupid brain of yours.
And finally, this may sound condescending and even egoistic, but take it from me when I say this, straight in your face, unflinching: My skill factor, be it in the debate or language sense, far outstrips you in every way.
Take a look at the Noah's Ark post. See how you can't even postulate your claims in any coherant sense. Fuck, you even got your bible verses wrong.
My advice to you: Do your homework before you come here to babble your bullshit. Or be prepared to be abused by me.
I have little tolerance for morons.
Oh my, you demand that you be able to be egoistic. By all means, no one has said that you could not.
ReplyDelete1. Again you misquote me, but I have come to expect it. I said, “"What if" questions are most unanswerable.” To have you ask me --Would you hate homosexuality if, assuming you haven't read your erstwhile Scripture?-- and for me to try and answer a question that is impossible to know for I do have Scripture is pointless which serves no purpose. But I could easily say yes I would see homosexuality as wrong even without Scripture for it is natural to see homosexuality as immoral and against nature. I say it is most unnatural and immoral. Disagree as you will, but your post has not proven otherwise.
2. If not for heterosexuals, homosexuals would have already eliminated themselves. Homosexuality cannot continue the human race. Complete homosexuality would bring forth the extinction of humanity. Oh, I forgot, some can play god and simply mix up the batter to impregnate homosexuals to produce offspring. So I guess in a sick and twisted world homosexuality could rule as all there is. But, it would still be unnatural and immoral. Mixing genes in a test-tube is not natural though, so mankind would have to defy the natural way of things to indulge in their sin.
And if homosexuality is natural, then so must be infanticide which you say “are traits that humans should not, and cannot tolerate.” Your acceptance of one over the other is not based on tolerance (for you are intolerant of infanticide) but preference to that which is also immoral. Using animals as a proof that homosexuality is natural, then furthering your conclusion to say it should be accepted among society is pure garbage.
3. The best thing about using “may” and no absolutes is that one can claim 100% they are right, yet also have an out if they are 100% wrong. I suppose in your post there are those which cannot prove that homosexuality in animals proves that it is natural and that it should be also permissible for mankind, but surely hope so at least to the extent that they could have their way, meaning, they will use any means possible to have homosexuality accepted as morally okay.
4. Nah, homosexuals already know that what they do is sin, for it is most unnatural to them, at least maybe until they continue in it searing their conscience. There is no reason for me to desire to kill them, for why would I take glory in the punishment of the wicked in hell? I would much rather that mankind everywhere would repent of their sin and turn to Jesus Christ.
Maybe homosexuality is not based in the genes at all, but merely in the head as with the idea of changing the unnatural into the natural so that it may be accepted as morally right which is actually immoral. Maybe homosexuals and those that suppose it is a natural thing to be accepted should be observed for mental health issues as some would say Christians need.
As for as your comment “My skill factor, be it in the debate or language sense, far outstrips you in every way.” -- lol, we are simply no-bodies in the large scheme of things. Do you consider yourself as some great thinker, some higher intelligence that is worthy of the worlds attention? Oh please.
I will leave you with the quote of another, “Arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics. You might win, but you are still retarded.”
Again, Splinter, my rat-face moron:
ReplyDelete1. If you do not wish to answer a fucking question, just say so. Do not give me the crap that "What if" questions cannot be answered.
As observable in Mother Nature's scheme of things, homosexuality seems to be a relatively common theme, and again you are right that I don't need to prove anything. Just take a trip to the zoo and watch Roy and Silo hump themselves merrily, and then perhaps bring in a Christian counsellor to "deconvert" their gayness.
2. I think that perhaps you have missed the point here. "Complete" homosexuality is technically impossible, and that was not what I am talking about.
The point I was trying to make is that homosexuality is a balancing trait in nature.
Think of it as water and syrup. In order to make a good drink, you have to add a certain amount of syrup and a good amount of water.Too much syrup would make it too sacharrine, while too much water makes it blend.
Again, Splinter, your sense of morality is so eschewed, nothing I say would right it (Probably too much virgins in the bible, tsk tsk).
Infanticide involves taking the lives of babies. That in itself is an abhorrent act, and in civil terms would classify as criminal. Obviously there is harm involved.
Now think about homosexuality. Is there harm done when two consenting adults decide to screw each other's asses? None, except their hurting asses.
Of course, your only defence (other than the "gay sex is unnatural, which I refuted) would be the scriptures, which to me is far more barbarity in nature than even animalistic infanticides (Which curiously the OT god enacts on a grand, colossal scale).
3. I don't want to go into your third point because I have repeated "potential falsifiability" so many times that I suspect you are too fucking stupid to understand.
4.Whether homosexuality is based on choice or genes is not in itself an issue. although there is enough evidence that genes (or even hormones, which I did read from one scientific report), has a part to play.
5.The idea that gays are somehow "mentally sick" is really archaic. One would actually have to include Leonardo da Vinci and the inventer of the Enigma machine as prime patients for this so called "mental problem".
6.Actually, I don't consider myself "great" in any sense, but compared to you, well, let's just say you don't fucking stand a chance.
At least I take the trouble to do honest reading. You,however, trife on bashing atheist sites without even doing your own basic homework.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeast Boy -
ReplyDeleteI don't think "1,500 animals" [a small number considering all animals), "with 500 species" [a tiny portion within], "6-10%" [leaving 90-94%], can even be considered to make the outlandish claim: "As observable in Mother Nature's scheme of things, homosexuality seems to be a relatively common theme".
Do you even document where you get your info?
Remember - You beg me to come, so don't cry when I do. You send me notices telling me to come read what you have written.
Mr Rat Splinter:
ReplyDelete1. I have never begged Christians for anything. Mind your words.
I will never tell you not to come. My advice are such that you must do your homework before you come here to pander your bullshit, otherwise I will be too happy to hurl abuse at you. After all, its your right to be stupid, and my right to abuse you. Your call.
2. Where I get my source from, is for me to know, and for you to find out. Rest assured its a appropriate, secular source, not something biasedly religious.
3. There is much work to be done when it comes to anthrophic studies concerning animals. 1,500 animals isn't a lot, but it does give us enough to form a hypothesis that gay sex is simply not that unpopular.
Actually, 6-10% of animals being gay is quite a high figure: According to a Concensus of the US military, roughly 3% of US military personnel are gays and lesbians.
ReplyDeleteInteresting I thought there was a don't ask, don't tell policy. I sure can't seem to find the numbers, mind sharing the link?
ReplyDeleteAlso 10% of 1000 is not the same as 3% of 10. The complete number of animals upon this earth clearly out numbers the enlisted soliders of the US military. Percentages alone can give false notions if the true numbers for comparision are not also noted.
ReplyDeleteSplinter, Splinter:
ReplyDeleteThe research on gays animals, as far as I am concerned, is still quite limited.
Since this is a blog, not a book, I don't think I am obliged to give my sources.
But since I am pretty much a liberal in these matters, here is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6066606.stm
Splinter, your statements show pretty much about your ignorance is Science.
When scientists tabulate this kind of data, they can't possibly go through every animal on this damn planet.
Say, if scientists wish to investigate a certain trait, such as infanticide, they would still have to nix and pix. This is a resource problem, not a dogmatic problem. If you want to go for absolutes, I suggest you read the bible, not science.
Actually, the 6-10% I mentioned was sheep, not every animal. Comparing the percentage to the number of gays in America was a way to highlight that the percentage of gays roughly corresponds to that in human society.
Digging around here. Looks like this post started the massive commentary (25). And you started it mom.
ReplyDeleteAm I considered a "troublemaker" then? :)
ReplyDelete