# Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one.



## filtereye (Sep 24, 2011)

was looking at my facebook and i see this - "Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one." and then at the bottom "Which one seems unnatural now?"

makes sense to me 

RIP Jamie Rodemeyer


----------



## Nusky (Sep 24, 2011)

I don't think homophobia can be measured in animals. But my theory is gay couples are supposed to adopt, natures way of dealing with child animals who loose their parents


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Sep 24, 2011)

so everything you see on facebook you take for gospel?


----------



## filtereye (Sep 24, 2011)

jesus of Cannabis said:


> so everything you see on facebook you take for gospel?


right... so every person who likes a saying they see on facebook and post it you assume to be them taking it as "gospel" ?


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 24, 2011)

No, in those 450 species, the Homo ones are Eaten & Preyed upon 1st. Darwin 101. I thought you knew?


filtereye said:


> was looking at my facebook and i see this - "Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one." and then at the bottom "Which one seems unnatural now?"
> 
> makes sense to me
> 
> RIP Jamie Rodemeyer


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 24, 2011)

When you see bucks (male deer) fighting, maybe it's because one buck tried to stuff his dick in a homophobic bucks ass.


----------



## Farfenugen (Sep 24, 2011)

I've always wondered why there's no noise in the forest when I play the theme to Will & Grace


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 24, 2011)

Isn't male on male stuff unnatural anyways? I mean the point of our reproductive organs is to have babies. Obviously male on male sexual relations will not produce a baby, so IMO it is far from natural.


Well maybe it's natural but not helpful at all.


----------



## patlpp (Sep 24, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> When you see bucks (male deer) fighting, maybe it's because one buck tried to stuff his dick in a homophobic bucks ass.


Do you have piks?


----------



## patlpp (Sep 24, 2011)

Why do they call it HomoPHOBIA. It's not a fear is it? The word is too broad


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 24, 2011)

I call it Messed up Brain Chemistry.


We are not perfect beings, why try to be. Rock Out With Your Cock Out.!.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 24, 2011)

Oh BTW I'm fina with gays, I have a few gay friends.
They can go off and chase rainbows all they want, jkjkjkjk.
'twas but a joke, .
Here if you're offended make fun of me for living in Texas.


----------



## RawBudzski (Sep 24, 2011)

Good point. <3


patlpp said:


> Why do the call it HomoPHOBIA. It's not a fear is it? The word is too broad


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 24, 2011)

patlpp said:


> Do you have piks?


No because I shoot the bucks before he gets his dick in there.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 24, 2011)

patlpp said:


> Why do they call it HomoPHOBIA. It's not a fear is it? The word is too broad


Well I don't know, maybe some people have a fear of turning their back on a gay person.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 25, 2011)

patlpp said:


> Why do they call it HomoPHOBIA. It's not a fear is it? The word is too broad


In many cases it is fear. I've known people who have no problem with gays, but fear they could be mistaken as gay if they show tolerance. There are guys who feel threatened by homosexuality for fear of being tempted into it. Also some people fear it will erode the moral conviction of society. Even hate is born of fear, and in all these cases, fear can be dispelled by understanding. Some people just find it gross and distasteful, but I don't consider those people homophobic, especially since most of them are guys who do not have a problem with girl on girl stuff. If I find chocolate ice cream distasteful I shouldn't be labeled as chocolaphobic.



Hepheastus420 said:


> Isn't male on male stuff unnatural anyways? I mean the point of our reproductive organs is to have babies. Obviously male on male sexual relations will not produce a baby, so IMO it is far from natural.
> 
> 
> Well maybe it's natural but not helpful at all.


You said it right the second time. It is natural. It is undeniably a result of nature. But in terms of the goals sex is meant to achieve, it is not productive. We happen to live in a world where sex is often not about this goal, whether it's gay sex or not, so the lack of reproduction would seem to be a trivial point. I think the most criticism anyone could come up with is that it's gross, but that same criticism could be said about any of the sex any of us have; it's simply a matter of perspective.

I find homosexuality funny. A great source of comedy. I feel the same way about race. The differences between us are a great reason to laugh, they are just not a good reason to hate.

BTW homosexuality is found in virtually all animals. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 25, 2011)

When it comes down to reproducing babies, homosexuality is no worse than condoms.


----------



## XRagnorX (Sep 25, 2011)

Well, humans are supposed to be above the animals. I have always found homosexual behavior in animals odd. I guess it is simply a drive for pleasure that initiates that behavior. Researchers and other idiots claim animals do not seek out sexual pleasure that they simply procreate out of instinct..... that's a load of shit...
Personally, I am into some erotic behavior that turns allot of people off. However I am just not into men's hairy asses(or shaved) it just seems icky to me (yes, icky). If a person wants to be a cock sucker, well whatever. But please keep it in the closet, I don't go throwing my sexuality in peoples faces and I appreciate the same in return...... That's my take on it.


----------



## spliffendz (Sep 25, 2011)

I've always said that driving up a one way passage is not natural, especially one that dispels waste, whether it is a male or female recipient.

BUT I AM NOT HOMOPHOBIC, NOR DO I INTEND TO OFFEND MEN WITH SMALL DICKS WHO FIND THAT IT LOOKS BIGGER IN A GIRLS BUTTHOLE.  (just jokin)

If you enjoy it, good luck to ya! But you aint getting no medal from me, so


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 25, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> ... I find chocolate ice cream distasteful.


I have no tolerance for chocophobics. Go peddle your vanilla ice cream ass somewhere else. Sheesh. There goes the neighborhood.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 25, 2011)

XRagnorX said:


> Well, humans are supposed to be above the animals. I have always found homosexual behavior in animals odd. I guess it is simply a drive for pleasure that initiates that behavior. Researchers and other idiots claim animals do not seek out sexual pleasure that they simply procreate out of instinct..... that's a load of shit...
> Personally, I am into some erotic behavior that turns allot of people off. However I am just not into men's hairy asses(or shaved) it just seems icky to me (yes, icky). If a person wants to be a cock sucker, well whatever. But please keep it in the closet, I don't go throwing my sexuality in peoples faces and I appreciate the same in return...... That's my take on it.


 That's another thing, I'm not sure if you meant this but I was gonna say it anyways.

As humans we are supposed to be extremely intelligent. So shouldn't our natural instincts tell us alright you're not gonna have a baby with a male so have it with a girl (well from a guys point of view). IDK I mean they say it's not a choice but how do you get turned on by the same sex? Shouldn't we automatically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex? 



Unless the opposite sexes are switching sides, oh no. Males are gonna turn into females and females are gonna turn into males. Jk.


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 25, 2011)

You contradicted yourself. Either it's an intelligent choice or instinctive behavior. Science has shown that it occurs in nature, therefore natural. If heterosexuality were "automatically programmed" then we wouldn't have homosexual coupling exhibited in so many diverse species. Some of our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, exhibit lesbian and gay behavior as part of the social norm.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 25, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> That's another thing, I'm not sure if you meant this but I was gonna say it anyways.
> 
> As humans we are supposed to be extremely intelligent. So shouldn't our natural instincts tell us alright you're not gonna have a baby with a male so have it with a girl (well from a guys point of view). IDK I mean they say it's not a choice but how do you get turned on by the same sex? Shouldn't we automatically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex?
> 
> ...


I think you bring up some interesting points, but perhaps miss a few points as well.

I am not really sure why anyone would think we are above animals. We are different in ways that can be advantageous or unfavorable. Intelligence helps us eat, but also sometimes leads to OCD, for example. (I know this was not Hep's point)

Should intelligence tell us that same sex intercourse does not produce a baby? Of course, and it does. It occurs to humans to the same extent as it occurs to us when we engage in oral sex or masturbation. If you find the reasons why you jerk off or like oral, I expect you will find the same reasons why gay couples have sexual relations. IOW, making babies is not the point. This is not to imply same sex couples only do things because it feels good. It is an expression of intimacy.

Is it a choice? Well you only have to look to your own sexual development to answer this. Was it a choice for you or was it instinct? Do you suppose your sexual development is unique? I think it best to think of homosexuals as also being automatically programmed, just in a different way. Afterall, girls are automatically programmed to like penis, and that is different from your automatic programming, so it's not such a strange concept. Of course it is supported that environment also contributes factors in some cases. Recent findings suggest hormonal conditions of the womb during pregnancy seem to have a lot to do with it, in which case genetics and childhood may have very little influence.

Shouldn't we be automatically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex? This is the question that gets to the heart of it. Why would some humans or animals be programmed for same sex attraction? Does it serve a purpose, or is it simply a mistake of nature? That is a question I can not answer. I could make an argument for both conclusions, but they amount to speculation, and I suspect the true answer is not so black and white.


----------



## filtereye (Sep 25, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> That's another thing, I'm not sure if you meant this but I was gonna say it anyways.
> 
> As humans we are supposed to be extremely intelligent. So shouldn't our natural instincts tell us alright you're not gonna have a baby with a male so have it with a girl (well from a guys point of view). IDK I mean they say it's not a choice but how do you get turned on by the same sex? Shouldn't we automatically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex?
> 
> ...


I see it as playing a positive role for over-population and adoption. Like the some females/males who are straight but cant reproduce for whatever health reason, what do we make of them? 



XRagnorX said:


> Personally, I am into some erotic behavior that turns allot of people off. However I am just not into men's hairy asses(or shaved) it just seems icky to me (yes, icky). If a person wants to be a cock sucker, well whatever. But please keep it in the closet, I don't go throwing my sexuality in peoples faces and I appreciate the same in return...... That's my take on it.


and about flaunting sexuality is a trait a lot of people dont like thats not just in gays. I know of older women who would feel the same way about a girl wearing close to nothing and being overly slutty and sexual even though shes straight. She would want her to keep all THAT in the closet too lol.


----------



## Nusky (Sep 26, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> That's another thing, I'm not sure if you meant this but I was gonna say it anyways.
> 
> As humans we are supposed to be extremely intelligent. So shouldn't our natural instincts tell us alright you're not gonna have a baby with a male so have it with a girl (well from a guys point of view). IDK I mean they say it's not a choice but how do you get turned on by the same sex? Shouldn't we automatically programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex?
> 
> ...


 when humans are in the womb I believe they start out as females (biology was a long time ago, this might be backwards) and some of them "evolve" into male. So maybe the brain just doesn't switch over in some parts and thats why we get people wanting to be the other sex, people being gay etc


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I think you bring up some interesting points, but perhaps miss a few points as well.
> 
> I am not really sure why anyone would think we are above animals. We are different in ways that can be advantageous or unfavorable. Intelligence helps us eat, but also sometimes leads to OCD, for example. (I know this was not Hep's point)
> 
> ...


I don't think we are above other animals, just more intellectual. Like I completely understand how the whole loving if the opposite sex thing works and is natural. My question was why? But you are right, that question cannot be answered in black and white. 

Good point on the intimacy, (my own example im not saying heis said this or anything like this >>>) like humans won't just stop hugging each other because it won't make a baby or do anything beneficial. But hugging is a form of intimacy in one way or another so it is completely normal and natural. Hmm very good point heis.

And I completely forgot about masturbation and oral sex, which answers my question to how gays and lesbians can be attracted to the same sex. But there still is the whole males are, at least slightly, attracted to females and females are attracted to males. There's evidence that proves this. Such as the different scents our bodies give off that attract the opposite sex. But then again there's the intimacy thing, but sure you love your brother but you don't get a hard on which is what confuses me. Just because you feel intimate with someone doesn't mean you have sex with them. I wrote alot more and realized I kept contradicting myself so I deleted it, so yeah the answer is definitely not black and white, ha.

Hmm that makes alot of sense with their new findings of the influence the hormonal conditions have on the child. It could explain why I find it weird that same sexes can be sexually attracted to each other. 

I hope you guys are seeing my unclear point and I hope you don't think I'm saying homosexuality is wrong. I'm just trying to figure out how it happens.

Oh yeah here's a rep for your answer that you put thought into (like pretty much all your answers). I still have not seen one of your posts with 15 words or less, lol.


----------



## robert 14617 (Sep 26, 2011)

patlpp said:


> Why do they call it HomoPHOBIA. It's not a fear is it? The word is too broad


 how about HomoTaedium,


----------



## dannyboy602 (Sep 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Why would some humans or animals be programmed for same sex attraction? Does it serve a purpose, or is it simply a mistake of nature? That is a question I can not answer. I could make an argument for both conclusions, but they amount to speculation, and I suspect the true answer is not so black and white.


I don't think nature made many mistakes in human evolution. Except the ability to breed like rabbits. She makes variations on a theme if you will. Sex exists in the brain. Copulation is a series of actions sequenced to bring pleasure centers of the brain on a joy ride. And orgasm is the heightened result. It exists in male and female but for reasons no science can explain to my satisfaction, presents as hetero and homo. My suspicion is that natures job is simply to create variety within the species in order to survive. This is the nature of most living organisms. That the behavior has not died out in any animal species, but continues to flourish, tells me the behavior is genetic. I also think, but have no proof, that all human beings have it within themselves to be bisexual. Under circumstances favorable to such development. One has no further to look for evidence of this than to look at the prison system. A closed society where all the rules change, a favorable environment.


----------



## Total Head (Sep 26, 2011)

"sex for reproduction" is an argument that always bothered me. i can say for certain that NOT ONCE have i ever had sex and planned on having offspring. it's not why i do it at all. as a matter of fact i make sure there are safeguards AGAINST pregnancy. imagine that. what about people who can't have children? are they less human because they can't "fufill their purpose"? i've always believed that the ability to "be homosexual" is a built in safety for a species to both control population and fufill a sense of purpose. walk in any prison and tell them how "unnatural" it is. they just need to fuck and a lot of them need the intimacy, just like free men. there are no women, yet somehow they figure it out.


----------



## vapor85 (Sep 26, 2011)

Who cares if it's natural or not? It's natural for animals to kill (not always for food) so I can go over to my annoying neighbors house and deal with the mother fuckers once and for all because animals kill in nature? LOL It's just the natural thing to do! Would you live in your own feces? Roll the fuck around in shit like a pig? Thats really *natural*. 

That isn't logical thinking... it's stupid.


----------



## Filthy Phil (Sep 26, 2011)

filtereye said:


> was looking at my facebook and i see this - "Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one." and then at the bottom "Which one seems unnatural now?"
> 
> makes sense to me
> 
> RIP Jamie Rodemeyer


Thats pretty clever, I like that


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 26, 2011)

vapor85 said:


> Who cares if it's natural or not? It's natural for animals to kill (not always for food) so I can go over to my annoying neighbors house and deal with the mother fuckers once and for all because animals kill in nature? LOL It's just the natural thing to do! Would you live in your own feces? Roll the fuck around in shit like a pig? Thats really *natural*.
> 
> That isn't logical thinking... it's stupid.


 very very good point sir. Thats what i was saying, it's natural but very strange behaviour that i feel i will never understand. but ehh homo's can do whatever they want, and should be able to do so without hatred aimed at them. like unless our population is about to die off then im gonna be pissed at all the lesbians and gays. using that logic I would also have to be pissed at condoms and birth control.


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 26, 2011)

what 450 species?..i have never seen this behavior from any such animal... i am no homophobe but i find man on man disgusting and gross.... i think much of this homophobia talk is reverse psychology by gays to make heteros accept this strange behavior in society and if you don't agree than you are a closet fag or insecure..i call bullshit..i don't condone gay bashing or brainwashing kids to think all fags will burn in hell... but 2 men is nasty and two women isn't , so what


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 26, 2011)

vapor85 said:


> Who cares if it's natural or not? It's natural for animals to kill (not always for food) so I can go over to my annoying neighbors house and deal with the mother fuckers once and for all because animals kill in nature? LOL It's just the natural thing to do! Would you live in your own feces? Roll the fuck around in shit like a pig? Thats really *natural*.
> 
> That isn't logical thinking... it's stupid.


I don't think anybody is saying we should engage in any behavior simply because animals do. Incest and rape are also seen widely in the animal world, yet no one is advocating that. The fact that it arrives from nature is an answer to the religious accusation that homosexuality is an abomination, and also lends credence to the idea that it is instinctive, rather than a choice. Homosexuals are not engaging in immoral or antisocial behavior and justifying it by pointing to animals. 



Corso312 said:


> what 450 species?..i have never seen this behavior from any such animal... i am no homophobe but i find man on man disgusting and gross.... i think much of this homophobia talk is reverse psychology by gays to make heteros accept this strange behavior in society and if you don't agree than you are a closet fag or insecure..i call bullshit..i don't condone gay bashing or brainwashing kids to think all fags will burn in hell... but 2 men is nasty and two women isn't , so what


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm


----------



## Filthy Phil (Sep 26, 2011)

who cares if its nasty, it isnt hurting anyone. But lots of animals are gay, most of them mammals. It also tends to happen more often as population densities increase. I'm not saying why, anything I said would be speculation. But dolphins, rabbits, cats, monkeys, buffalo, lions... when I was little my neighbors had a gay rabbit. They had a bunch of rabbits, but one of them was gay and always tried to mount other males. I was puzzled by this as my parents told me homosexuality was a sin and animals cant sin as a lack of free will... yet there they were, gay rabbits. I still laugh about that.... gives the term "fuck like rabbits" a whole new twist I guess

but I always hear people say, "men on men is gross!" (and I agree) but how is that even relevant to any argument? What we find gross pertains to what we decide to do to ourselves, not what others decide to do....its kind of irrelivant. I think Hummers, the big SUV things, are gross, and certainly harm us all more than gay men... but that wouldnt be a relevant point as to why we should get rid of HUmmers...


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 26, 2011)

that just has list of animals...mostly insects...they call affection homo behaviorand parenting and pairing...none would be considered gay in human behavior..only sex would be...three guys that grew up together on the same block that hang around together for life are not homo..we call them friends


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 26, 2011)

Filthy Phil said:


> who cares if its nasty, it isnt hurting anyone. But lots of animals are gay, most of them mammals. It also tends to happen more often as population densities increase. I'm not saying why, anything I said would be speculation. But dolphins, rabbits, cats, monkeys, buffalo, lions... when I was little my neighbors had a gay rabbit. They had a bunch of rabbits, but one of them was gay and always tried to mount other males. I was puzzled by this as my parents told me homosexuality was a sin and animals cant sin as a lack of free will... yet there they were, gay rabbits. I still laugh about that.... gives the term "fuck like rabbits" a whole new twist I guess
> 
> but I always hear people say, "men on men is gross!" (and I agree) but how is that even relevant to any argument? What we find gross pertains to what we decide to do to ourselves, not what others decide to do....its kind of irrelivant. I think Hummers, the big SUV things, are gross, and certainly harm us all more than gay men... but that wouldnt be a relevant point as to why we should get rid of HUmmers...


when you see two dogs that are female or male mounting the other that is same sex..it is not gay or sexual..it is about dominance..i think humans misinterpret animal behavior and come up with some bullshit list that animals are gay


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 26, 2011)




----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 26, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> that just has list of animals...mostly insects...they call affection homo behaviorand parenting and pairing...none would be considered gay in human behavior..only sex would be...three guys that grew up together on the same block that hang around together for life are not homo..we call them friends





> this article *conforms to the usage by modern research* applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (*copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior*) between animals of the *same sex*.


Would those three guy friends copulate, stimulate each others genitals, flirt and display sexual behavior among themselves?



> Same-sex behaviors&#8212;courtship, mounting or parenting


Would those friends court one another to win romantic favor? Would they mount each other? Think they would willfully raise a baby with each other?

My point is science is careful to make the distinction between behavior like dominance and homosexuality. While I do doubt the validity of a Wikipedia list, it's easy enough to check the sources and see genuine examples of homosexuality do exist. 



> The review also reports that same-sex behaviors are not the same across species, and that researchers may be calling qualitatively different phenomena by the same name.
> 
> For example, male fruit flies may court other males because they are lacking a gene that enables them to discriminate between the sexes," Bailey said. "But that is very different from male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in *same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding*, or female Laysan Albatross that can *remain pair-bonded for life and cooperatively rear young*.


----------



## blazinkill504 (Sep 26, 2011)

450 and only one that has a brain to think. thats why animals see a hole and get to fuckin


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 26, 2011)

i would have to see the said behavior ...if a lion is licking his brothers ass he may have a cut from a water buffalo and the saliva acts as a healing agent..if you get an infection in the wild ..you could die..if the brother dies than younger male rogue lions attempt to take the pride over and kill their young to force the lioness into estrus for breeding..see you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.


----------



## patlpp (Sep 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> In many cases it is fear. I've known people who have no problem with gays, but fear they could be mistaken as gay if they show tolerance. There are guys who feel threatened by homosexuality for fear of being tempted into it. Also some people fear it will erode the moral conviction of society. Even hate is born of fear, and in all these cases, fear can be dispelled by understanding. Some people just find it gross and distasteful, but I don't consider those people homophobic, especially since most of them are guys who do not have a problem with girl on girl stuff. If I find chocolate ice cream distasteful I shouldn't be labeled as chocolaphobic.


My take and why I think PHOBIC should be excluded as a catch-all phrase is to take these 2 examples:

1) Man gets blowjob from gay but swears he himself is not gay - That is phobic: the fear to confront ones true sexuality. I think the recipient is just as gay as the giver. 

2) Man is comfortable with his sexuality but finds homosexuality as aberrant. WHy is that phobic?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 26, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.


 Except for that little fact that humans are animals.


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 26, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Except for that little fact that humans are animals.


we are mammals not sure if we are animals..never heard that..is that a fact?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 26, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> i would have to see the said behavior ...if a lion is licking his brothers ass he may have a cut from a water buffalo and the saliva acts as a healing agent..if you get an infection in the wild ..you could die..if the brother dies than younger male rogue lions attempt to take the pride over and kill their young to force the lioness into estrus for breeding..see you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.


You seem to be moving the goalpost. Scientific study is nothing if not careful. The idea that scientific research would mistake wound licking as gay sex is silly and does not reflect the standards science is held to. How do you suppose a pair bonded couple who engage in exclusive sex and attempt to rear children together could just be a case of mistaken behavior? 

The idea is not to compare humans to animals for the sake of showing similarity, the idea is to see if this behavior is particular to humans, which clearly it is not. No one is saying if an animal does it, it must be okay. We are saying animals are doing it, so it must not be exclusive.


----------



## filtereye (Sep 26, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> i would have to see the said behavior ...if a lion is licking his brothers ass he may have a cut from a water buffalo and the saliva acts as a healing agent..if you get an infection in the wild ..you could die..if the brother dies than younger male rogue lions attempt to take the pride over and kill their young to force the lioness into estrus for breeding..see you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.


[video=youtube;ggl5ZGaJFFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggl5ZGaJFFM[/video]


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 26, 2011)

it may happen..i have never seen it or heard of it


----------



## filtereye (Sep 26, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You seem to be moving the goalpost. Scientific study is nothing if not careful. The idea that scientific research would mistake wound licking as gay sex is silly and does not reflect the standards science is held to. How do you suppose a pair bonded couple who engage in exclusive sex and attempt to rear children together could just be a case of mistaken behavior?
> 
> The idea is not to compare humans to animals for the sake of showing similarity, the idea is to see if this behavior is particular to humans, which clearly it is not. No one is saying if an animal does it, it must be okay. We are saying animals are doing it, so it must not be exclusive.


well said.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 26, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> it may happen..i have never seen it or heard of it


That is fair enough, but now you have seen it and heard of it. Maybe not personally, but if you go to a doctor and he tells you that a medication can help you, and it has been shown to be effective through research and scientific study, would you reject it until you have seen the effects personally? Doubt is a useful tool, baseless distrust is not.


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 26, 2011)

i see why you make the best blue meth around


----------



## charlesdarwin (Sep 26, 2011)

Heres an interesting experiment on homophobia:
http://youtu.be/Ei0xsEXleGU


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 26, 2011)

They'll just claim it's part of the "Gay Agenda".


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 26, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> we are mammals not sure if we are animals..never heard that..is that a fact?


_"Yes, humans are animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is __mammalia. It's order is __primate (the same as apes). It's family is __Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is __Homininae. It's tribe is __Hominini. It's genus is __Homo and it's specie is scientifically named __Homo Sapiens."_

​


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 26, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> we are mammals not sure if we are animals..never heard that..is that a fact?


Well we aren't plants fungus or bacteria. 

Maybe you better lay off discussion things related to science. Mammals are just a class of vertebrate animals. Curious what exactly you thought we were?


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 26, 2011)

filtereye said:


> was looking at my facebook and i see this - "Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one." and then at the bottom "Which one seems unnatural now?"
> 
> makes sense to me
> 
> RIP Jamie Rodemeyer


Where's this proof that only one species is homophobic? Like my example with the bucks, we don't k ow what the hell animals are thinking. And corso is right, animals can hump the same sex but to establish dominance (lol imagine if we did that, eww), so it's not being gay at all. Maybe we are the smartest species yet, so maybe we know better than to go hump the same sex, therefore we have the homophobic people and the people that just think it's gross.


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 27, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> _"Yes, humans are animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is __mammalia. It's order is __primate (the same as apes). It's family is __Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is __Homininae. It's tribe is __Hominini. It's genus is __Homo and it's specie is scientifically named __Homo Sapiens."_
> 
> ​



interesting, i never even knew what homo sapien meant


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 27, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Well we aren't plants fungus or bacteria.
> 
> Maybe you better lay off discussion things related to science. Mammals are just a class of vertebrate animals. Curious what exactly you thought we were?


i will not lay off discussing anything that i find interesting, i never really gave it much thought about humans and how we are classified


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 27, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> Where's this proof that only one species is homophobic? Like my example with the bucks, we don't k ow what the hell animals are thinking. And corso is right, animals can hump the same sex but to establish dominance (lol imagine if we did that, eww), so it's not being gay at all. Maybe we are the smartest species yet, so maybe we know better than to go hump the same sex, therefore we have the homophobic people and the people that just think it's gross.


You're forgetting species that form life long bonds. Also, you didn't address the habit of bonobos and chimps using sex in social bonding. Heterosexual and homosexual alike.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 27, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> They'll just claim it's part of the "Gay Agenda".


Oh dear ... are they trying to sneak something in through the back door again? cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 27, 2011)

On this thread I have seen my fellow RIUnians use two arguments whose validity I question:
1) The anus was designed for excretion, not for sex.
2) The purpose of sex is reproduction. 
I'd like to address these quasi-utilitarian premises with a quote from Stephen Jay Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes". 

"Any feature, regardless of how or why it first evolved, becomes available for co-optation to other roles, often strikingly different. Complex features are bursting with potentialities; their conceivable use is not confined to their original function." 

So imo to saddle same-sex sex with "shouldas" about the anatomy andor physiology of the affected features of the relevant humans is difficult to defend from a natural philosopher's perspective. What i see in such statements is the camouflage of morality as biology. cn
cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 27, 2011)

Racism and homophobia are forms of bigotry so closely related, yet produce a very contradictory position on marriage. Bigots say, it isn't right to allow bi-racial couples to marry. We should outlaw it and only allow them to marry each other. When it comes to gay people the opinion is opposite, it's not right for them to get married. We should outlaw gay marriage and make them marry us...


----------



## sso (Sep 27, 2011)

homo means human

homo sapiens means, intelligent man. (or something like that, i just remembered the translation from latin in my language)

hominid means something like "humanish" (that monkey kinda looks like a small hairy man mommy!"


i think we are actually homo sapiens sapiens now, to distinguish between us and cromagnon man, or something same that..
so, intelligent intelligent man lol,, guess scientists arent big on names.
dont think there ever was just a plain homo, guess people had some insecurities when they decided to call themselves (us) intelligent.

but anyway, funnily, every time someone calls someone a homo, they are, actually , just calling them a human


----------



## sso (Sep 27, 2011)

so homo sexual is really a bit of a misnomer (human sexual)

probably came from thinking homo = man, so homo sexual = man sexual (men that want to have sex with men)

kinda sexist and stupid but hey 

a human is what a human does.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 27, 2011)

It's an unfortunate consequence of mixing Greek with Latin roots. "homo-" in Greek means "same". Hetero- means "other, cognate" and allo- means "other, not cognate". So if my date says "Ba-a-a" I'm allosexual. cn


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 27, 2011)

Carne Seca said:


> You're forgetting species that form life long bonds. Also, you didn't address the habit of bonobos and chimps using sex in social bonding. Heterosexual and homosexual alike.


You don't have to go outside of our own species to see societies that accepted, and even admired homosexuality and homosexual acts. The only reason people see homosexuality as a stigma now is because of the Abrahamic religions being the dominant religions in the world, and they expressly condemn it.

There were native American tribes that fully accepted homosexual behaviour, and assigned the gay men "women like" responsibilities. Often they were a leader among the women, and often took a husband of their own. Fully accepted, fully integrated and useful.

There are other tribal societies that taught boys they needed to "receive strength" by ingesting the semen of the most powerful warriors in the tribe.... and the boys jumped at the opportunity... lol 

Just sayin', if anyone wasn't explicitly taught that being gay was wrong, then no one would think it was wrong.... and people ceasing to believe it's wrong isn't magically going to make anyone turn gay. It's like the odd adage about drug legalization;

If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, how many people would go on a crystal meth bender until they died? I'm guessing if you weren't inclined to do it already, you wouldn't go out of your way to try it.


----------



## Corso312 (Sep 27, 2011)

i don't have a problem with gays marrying.. i do think two guys is nasty and gross though


----------



## Red1966 (Sep 27, 2011)

patlpp said:


> Why do they call it HomoPHOBIA. It's not a fear is it? The word is too broad



The words original definition was a fear that oneself might be a homosexual. It had nothing to do with hating gays. But the word has been co-opted to mean something else than it's original intent.


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 27, 2011)

Corso312 said:


> i don't have a problem with gays marrying.. i do think two guys is nasty and gross though


And you seem quite intent throughout this thread in letting us know how much you find it sickening, disgusting, gross, etc., etc., blah blah blah. To borrow from Shakespeare.

*"She doth protest too much, me thinks."*


----------



## Bobby2times (Sep 27, 2011)

To each their own..But on to a more important conversation who do you guys think will win the superbowl?


----------



## Carne Seca (Sep 27, 2011)

Bobby2times said:


> To each their own..But on to a more important conversation who do you guys think will win the superbowl?


The drunkest fan there?


----------



## Red1966 (Sep 27, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> You don't have to go outside of our own species to see societies that accepted, and even admired homosexuality and homosexual acts. The only reason people see homosexuality as a stigma now is because of the Abrahamic religions being the dominant religions in the world, and they expressly condemn it.
> 
> There were native American tribes that fully accepted homosexual behaviour, and assigned the gay men "women like" responsibilities. Often they were a leader among the women, and often took a husband of their own. Fully accepted, fully integrated and useful.
> 
> ...



I have to comment on the drug legalization statement. After Prohibition (alcohol) ended, the consumption of alcohol increased, as did the incidence of alcoholism. However, Prohibition gave rise to organized crime like nothing before ever had. That is why Prohibition was ended. The banning of drugs has caused much worse consequences than the drug use itself ever did. The horrific crimes we hear about happening on a daily basis in Mexico and other places are a good example. Thousands of lives are ruined by lengthy prison terms for simple possession of minor amounts of illegal drugs. So, if drugs were legalized, and more easily obtained, perhaps a few would overdo it, but not many. But those are trivial compared to the carnage caused by the banning of drugs. Prohibition of alcohol and drugs causes MUCH worse problems than the alcohol and drugs do.


----------



## Red1966 (Sep 27, 2011)

Does anyone disagree? Not at RUI!


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 27, 2011)

Red1966 said:


> I have to comment on the drug legalization statement. After Prohibition (alcohol) ended, the consumption of alcohol increased, as did the incidence of alcoholism. However, Prohibition gave rise to organized crime like nothing before ever had. That is why Prohibition was ended. The banning of drugs has caused much worse consequences than the drug use itself ever did. The horrific crimes we hear about happening on a daily basis in Mexico and other places are a good example. Thousands of lives are ruined by lengthy prison terms for simple possession of minor amounts of illegal drugs. So, if drugs were legalized, and more easily obtained, perhaps a few would overdo it, but not many. But those are trivial compared to the carnage caused by the banning of drugs. Prohibition of alcohol and drugs causes MUCH worse problems than the alcohol and drugs do.


 Not to assume what another poster thinks, I would say that beefy's analogy using the meth example doesn't preclude him from agreeing with everything you just said.


----------



## Red1966 (Sep 27, 2011)

Point accepted.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 28, 2011)

So homosexuality is accepted by some, hated by some, natural,and as pointless as a hug.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 28, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> So homosexuality is accepted by some, hated by some, natural,and as pointless as a hug.


Pointless to those not seeking love and companionship from someone they're attracted to.... Or, if you look at all relationships as a means to procreation, then I guess it would be pointless, but by that definition, any straight couple that chose not to have kids is in a pointless relationship as well because just being in a relationship for love and companionship isn't a reason worth labelling them as anything BUT pointless....


----------



## olylifter420 (Sep 28, 2011)

im pretty sure some dudes have babies,

[video=youtube;rIrwW8lupBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIrwW8lupBs[/video]





Hepheastus420 said:


> Isn't male on male stuff unnatural anyways? I mean the point of our reproductive organs is to have babies. Obviously male on male sexual relations will not produce a baby, so IMO it is far from natural.
> 
> 
> Well maybe it's natural but not helpful at all.


----------



## Hepheastus420 (Sep 28, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> Pointless to those not seeking love and companionship from someone they're attracted to.... Or, if you look at all relationships as a means to procreation, then I guess it would be pointless, but by that definition, any straight couple that chose not to have kids is in a pointless relationship as well because just being in a relationship for love and companionship isn't a reason worth labelling them as anything BUT pointless....


I said as pointless as a hug, I didn't say homosexuality has no point at all. I'm saying a hug shows affection, homosexuality shows affection, and neither have any point other than that.

Hey have you updated your journal?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 28, 2011)

Hepheastus420 said:


> I said as pointless as a hug, I didn't say homosexuality has no point at all. I'm saying a hug shows affection, homosexuality shows affection, and neither have any point other than that.
> 
> Hey have you updated your journal?



I have updated 

You just proved my point. lol



> I'm saying a hug shows affection, homosexuality shows affection, and neither have any point other than that.


Do they need more than one point to be classified as something other than pointless? It would seem to me that only having one point should still exempt them?



The link to my journal is in my sig... lots of new pics!


----------



## grizlbr (Sep 29, 2011)

Wipe female hormones on an object and males go at the hormones together is not homo. Who evers sperm wins reproduces that was the point. Only people think homo. A male frog sits on females back, another male on top is just hoping his seed wins. The drive to reproduce just that except racoons have a bone in their boner.


----------



## filtereye (Oct 11, 2011)

grizlbr said:


> Wipe female hormones on an object and males go at the hormones together is not homo. Who evers sperm wins reproduces that was the point. Only people think homo. A male frog sits on females back, another male on top is just hoping his seed wins. The drive to reproduce just that except racoons have a bone in their boner.


 -----------


Heisenberg said:


> You seem to be moving the goalpost. Scientific study is nothing if not careful. The idea that scientific research would mistake wound licking as gay sex is silly and does not reflect the standards science is held to. How do you suppose a pair bonded couple who engage in exclusive sex and attempt to rear children together could just be a case of mistaken behavior?


----------



## grizlbr (Oct 11, 2011)

Beefbisquit said:


> *Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions*[/I] is an 1884 satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott. Writing pseudonymously as "A Square",[1] Abbott used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to offer pointed observations on the social hierarchy of Victorian culture. However, the novella's more enduring contribution is its examination of dimensions. As such, the novella is still popular amongst mathematics, physics, and computer science students.


----------

