Homosexuality Is Not A Choice

originally posted by: xuenchen
Can two homosexuals of opposite sex reproduce?

()yes
()no

Is this a trick question?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: NavyDoc
First of all, it's not a shock.

Then why challenge anyone to list the various number of other species that exhibit homosexual behavior if you already know it exists? Why are you even here if that is the case?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
There are various species that do not reproduce like humans, however, it is rather moronic to extrapolate invertebrate behavior to human sexuality.

You asked for species in general, so I provided that. Exactly what is the issue here?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Invertebrates are gay. Plants are gay. Really. Perhaps you have too broad a definition of homosexuality. If one has to shoehorn invertebrate and plant and flatworm behavior into human constructs, than perhaps one really does not have much of an argument.

When did I ever state that "Invertabrates are gay. plants are gay. thus - "human constructs"" I showed that many species within those kingdoms have been documented to exhibit homosexuality, which is exactly what you asked for.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I hear that bacteria divide--that is proof that homosexuality is part of the natural order in humans.

Uh, no... Cell division may be a form of reproduction in some simple unicellular organisms, but that in no way describes homosexuality. Nor does Asexual reproduction mean Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is when an individual of a species is sexually attracted to another individual of the same gender within that same species. When did I ever suggest Homosexuality was defined in any way other than that?

That big list I posted wasn't just my opinion, those are actual documented species from various studies.

If you would like, i can also post each and every study that list references?

Yes, why don't you? Then we can discuss the merits of each claim.

a reply to: bucsarg

I've read a lot of research in my time, and this looks like junky research. It's a theory I doubt will pass muster., and there is certainly nothing there to merit the statement "this is true". Nothing at all.

Like everything else that we are, it is I'm sure a combination of factors that make us all unique.

It IS NOT A Mental Illness.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: bucsarg

I've read a lot of research in my time, and this looks like junky research. It's a theory I doubt will pass muster., and there is certainly nothing there to merit the statement "this is true". Nothing at all.

Like everything else that we are, it is I'm sure a combination of factors that make us all unique.

It IS NOT A Mental Illness.

Yes. I think you are correct. As I said in my first post, the true answer is "all of the above." Human behavior is always multifactoral with influences from a variety of things.

The observation that homosexuality is not natural is an assumption.

Indeed it may be a population control mechanism done by a higher intellegance..God if you may.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Of course, and there may be a biological component, but why researchers aren't looking to the endocrine system, leaves me puzzled.

On the otherhand, for now, why is it important that we "figure this out". "Knowing" won't change anything, and I'm just happy to see folks now have a chance to live like they want to --- like the rest of us. That brings me a quiet peacefulness.

originally posted by: Willtell
The observation that homosexuality is not natural is an assumption.

Indeed it may be a population control mechanism done by a higher intellegance..God if you may.

Who knows? Maybe even an exercise in tolerance and acceptance, which many people are failing miserably I might add.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: NavyDoc

Of course, and there may be a biological component, but why researchers aren't looking to the endocrine system, leaves me puzzled.

On the otherhand, for now, why is it important that we "figure this out". "Knowing" won't change anything, and I'm just happy to see folks now have a chance to live like they want to --- like the rest of us. That brings me a quiet peacefulness.

I agree. What does it matter?

Some people think it will give them more credence to find out, some less. Regardless, they are citizebs too, same as any other citizen.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I just tossed out 'endocrine' system, forgetting I was talking to a doctor! Do you think that seems logical, Mr. Spock?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: NavyDoc
First of all, it's not a shock.

Then why challenge anyone to list the various number of other species that exhibit homosexual behavior if you already know it exists? Why are you even here if that is the case?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
There are various species that do not reproduce like humans, however, it is rather moronic to extrapolate invertebrate behavior to human sexuality.

You asked for species in general, so I provided that. Exactly what is the issue here?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Invertebrates are gay. Plants are gay. Really. Perhaps you have too broad a definition of homosexuality. If one has to shoehorn invertebrate and plant and flatworm behavior into human constructs, than perhaps one really does not have much of an argument.

When did I ever state that "Invertabrates are gay. plants are gay. thus - "human constructs"" I showed that many species within those kingdoms have been documented to exhibit homosexuality, which is exactly what you asked for.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I hear that bacteria divide--that is proof that homosexuality is part of the natural order in humans.

Uh, no... Cell division may be a form of reproduction in some simple unicellular organisms, but that in no way describes homosexuality. Nor does Asexual reproduction mean Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is when an individual of a species is sexually attracted to another individual of the same gender within that same species. When did I ever suggest Homosexuality was defined in any way other than that?

That big list I posted wasn't just my opinion, those are actual documented species from various studies.

If you would like, i can also post each and every study that list references?

Yes, why don't you? Then we can discuss the merits of each claim.

Here you go. Feel free to actually respond to the rest of my post instead of ignoring it all.

Bagemihl (1999) page 405
Bagemihl (1999) page 441
Bagemihl (1999) page 469
Bagemihl (1999) pages 388,389
Bagemihl (1999) pages 81, 88
Bagemihl (1999) pages 81, 82, 89
de Waal (2001)
Liggett (1997–2006)
Imaginova (2007j)
Bagemihl (1999) pages 276–279
Bagemihl (1999) page 339
Bagemihl (1999) page 334
Bagemihl (1999) pages 310, 314
Bagemihl (1999) page 427
Bagemihl (1999) pages 218, 231, 317
Bagemihl (1999) page 391
Imaginova (2007d)
Bagemihl (1999) pages 81, 165, 205, 226, 231
Bagemihl (1999) page 432
Sell RL, Wells JA, Wypij D (June 1995). "The prevalence of homosexual behavior and attraction in the United States, the United Kingdom and France: results of national population-based samples". Archives of Sexual Behavior 24 (3): 235–48. doi:10.1007/BF01541598. PMID 7611844.
Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, A., & Wadsworth, J. (1994). Sexual behavior in Britain: The national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London, UK: Penguin Books.[page needed]
Bagemihl (1999) page 455-457
Bagemihl (1999) page 448
Bagemihl (1999) pages 632-5
Bagemihl (1999) pages 83
Bagemihl (1999) pages 544-8
Bagemihl (1999) page 621-6
365 Gay.com (2005)
Bagemihl (1999) pages 491-5
Bagemihl (1999) pages 606-10
Mating Call (1979)
Bagemihl (1999), page 665
Bagemihl (1999), page 37
Bagemihl (1999), pages 658, 664
Bagemihl (1999), page 658
Bagemihl (1999), page 664
Bagemihl (1999), pages 658, 665
Bagemihl (1999), pages 232, 233, 244
Bagemihl (1999), page 657
Bagemihl (1999), page 657, 658
Budzinski, R.-M. (1997) Homosexuelles Verhalten bei Geckos der Gattung Phelsuma. Sauria 19 (3): 33-34
Bagemihl (1999), pages 232, 664
Bagemihl (1999), pages 663–664
Bagemihl (1999), pages 657, 658
Bagemihl (1999), pages 243, 664
Out magazine, By The Numbers sourced to the Journal of Evolutionary Biology; February 2009. Accessed 2009-01-17.
Bagemihl (1999), page 666
Tatarnic1 et al., 22 March 2006
Bagemihl (1999) page 660
Bagemihl (1999) page 667
Bagemihl (1999) pages 704, 713
Bagemihl (1999) pages 150, 232, 236, 246
Bagemihl (1999) pages 33–34, 196, 217, 219, 232
Bagemihl (1999) page 668
Bagemihl (1999) page 666
Bagemihl (1999) page 595
Bagemihl (1999) pages 9, 649, 665
Bagemihl (1999) page 658
Bagemihl (1999) page 3
Kureck, I. M., Neumann, A., & Foitzik, S. (2011). "Wingless ant males adjust mate-guarding behaviour to the competitive situation in the nest". Animal Behaviour 82 (2): 339-346.
Bagemihl (1999) page 232
Bagemihl (1999) pages 666, 660
Bagemihl (1999) pages 661–2
Bagemihl (1999) page 661
Bagemihl (1999), pages 661–2
Bagemihl (1999), page 659
Bagemihl (1999), page 661
Zimmer (2000)
Bagemihl (1999) page 657
Bagemihl (1999) pages 236, 704, 713

And for your further reading, if you wish.



"Gay Penguins Resist 'Aversion Therapy'". 365Gay.com. 11 February 2005. Archived from the original on 29 September 2007. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
Bagemihl, Bruce (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin's Press ISBN 0-312-19239-8
Caramagno, Thomas C (2002). Irreconcilable Differences? Intellectual Stalemate in the Gay Rights Debate; Praeger/Greenwood, ISBN 0275977218.
Cooper, J.B. "An Exploratory Study on African Lions" in Comparative Psychology Monographs 17:1-48.
Cziko, Gary (2000) The Things We Do: Using the Lessons of Bernard and Darwin to Understand the What, How, and Why of Our Behavior; MIT Press, ISBN 0262032775.
de Waal, Frans B. M. (2001) The Ape and The Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections by a Primatologist; Basic Books (chapter Bonobos and Fig Leaves).
Dunkle, S.W. (1991), "Head damage from mating attempts in dragonflies (Odonata:Anisoptera)". Entomological News 102, pp. 37-41. Retrieved on 16 June 2010.
Eaton, R. L. (1974). "The Biology and Social Behavior of Reproduction in the Lion" in Eaton, ed. The World's Cats, vol. II; pp.3-58; Seattle.
Forger, Nancy G., Laurence G. Frank, S. Marc Breedlove, Stephen E. Glickman (6 December 1998). "Sexual Dimorphism of Perineal Muscles and Motoneurons in Spotted Hyenas"; The Journal of Comparative Neurology, Volume 375, Issue 2, Pages 333 - 343. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
Goudarzi, Sara (16 November 2006). "Gay Animals Out of the Closet?: First-ever Museum Display Shows 51 Species Exhibiting Homosexuality". MSNBC. Retrieved on 12 September 2007.
Harrold, Max (16 February 1999). "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" The Advocate, reprinted in Highbeam Encyclopedia. Retrieved on 10 September 2007.
Holekamp, Kay E. (2003). Research: Spotted Hyena - Introduction and Overview. Michigan State University, Department of Zoology]. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
Imaginova (2007). "Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild - Japanese macaques"; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.[dead link]
Imaginova (2007b). "Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild - American Bison"; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.[dead link]
Imaginova (2007c). "Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild - Bottlenose Dolphins"; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.[dead link]
Imaginova (2007d). "Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild - Giraffes"; LiveScience. Retrieved 20 November 2007.[dead link]
Imaginova (2007e). "Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild - Kob"; LiveS

a reply to: Ghost147


Don't cut and paste a wall of references you haven't read. Just pick one, present your case, and we can discuss it.


Ant male guarding behavior extrapolated to homosexuality? Were these ants having sex?

Oh hell. Another thread full of clueless people spouting ridiculous crap while the other side offers reasonable discussion that falls on deaf ears.

For all the "straight" people around here, y'all sure seem to be preoccupied with LGBT* crap.

Just sayin'.

►eKay◄

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Ghost147
Don't cut and paste a wall of references you haven't read. Just pick one, present your case, and we can discuss it.

Again, you asked for the references, so I presented them to you. The initial point to this was that Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon that occurs in thousands of species.

It's pretty evident that that is the case, and I have provided all the evidence for you, yet all you do is slander my responses with nonsensical retorts. You haven't once responded to the context within my posts, yet you freely taunt about how I post them? How about you stop being a troll and actually participate in the discussion at hand?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: NavyDoc
a reply to: Ghost147
Don't cut and paste a wall of references you haven't read. Just pick one, present your case, and we can discuss it.

Again, you asked for the references, so I presented them to you. The initial point to this was that Homosexuality is a completely natural phenomenon that occurs in thousands of species.

It's pretty evident that that is the case, and I have provided all the evidence for you, yet all you do is slander my responses with nonsensical retorts. You haven't once responded to the context within my posts, yet you freely taunt about how I post them? How about you stop being a troll and actually participate in the discussion at hand?

I have. Please explain to me how ant guarding befavior relates to homosexuality? Therein lies the problem with the pseudo-scientific approach to the subject. One extrapolates anything to fit the preconceived notions.

I didn't ask for a wall of cut and paste. You made the claim, you are yet to provide proof. Take one example, explain how it fits your premise. That, sir, is how intellectual discussion progresses.

All you did was GI to Wikipedia or some other site and cut and pasted their bibliography. That is neither proof nor a cogent arguement nor "providing a reference." When you "provide a reference," you put up the relavant points, explain how it supports your arguement, and then reference the source. That's how they do it in university. You did go to university, yes?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Not only were they having sex, but why? Was it pair-bonding behavior, an attempt to breed, or was it a dominance and hierarchy behavior?

Being gay/lesbian is not a mental illness! Some of the posts on here are so ignorant.

I have always believed gay people are born that way. There are an increasing number of studies that show this to be true. It is NOT sexual deviancy, and is NOT a mental illness!

Putting things in Peoples rectums outside of Colonoscopy, Suppositories, Enemas and Thermometers, Is UNNATURAL and will cause Permanent Sphincter Damage, with the possibility of Bowl Perforation with the onset of Septicemia and Death.

1 out of every 13 Colectomy's surgeries end in death

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TheMadTitan

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: bucsarg

Why People Are Gay?

Who cares? but most likely for the same reason some guys like female parts.

Pretty sure guys like female parts for the basic instinct of reproduction.

The reason why Homosexuals are attracted to the "parts" of the same gender is the same as why heterosexuals are attracted to the "parts" of the opposite gender. The Neurological stimulation, triggers, and responses are exactly the same, and for the same reasons.

I don't doubt that for a second, being as that is how biology works. It's the same because the underlying basic instinct is to reproduce. They are called reproductive organs for a reason.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Metallicus
Like the X-Men there is nothing to cure.

That is a poor analogy, unless of course you mean to compare homosexuals to mutants.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I have. Please explain to me how ant guarding befavior relates to homosexuality?

Here's the exact peer-reviewed paper of the specific reference you decided to discuss (Win gless Ant Males Adjust Mate-Gaurding Behaviour...). I'll summarize the homosexual behaviors that the researchers witnessed for your convenience.

The researches main focus was to investigate whether wingless sexuals of the ant Hypoponera opacior adjust mate-guarding behavior to the level of competition in the nest. Males mate with young nestmate females shortly before these emerge from the cocoon. However, they noticed that many males also guarded and attempted to copulate with sterile worker and male pupae. Copulatory behavior towards sterile workers is certainly maladaptive, whereas interactions with young males may provide a fitness benefit: We found a high mortality rate of young males that were embraced and guarded by adult males. Adult male to male pupae interactions predominantly occurred when only a single male was present in the nest. In addition, single-male nests were found at unusually high frequencies. These findings suggest that wingless males try to kill their pupal rivals through embracing when there are few adult competitors in the nest, but switch to mate-guarding behavior when intramale competition is high. They stated that Wingless H. opacior males might directly benefit from the guarding and embracing of male pupae.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Therein lies the problem with the pseudo-scientific approach to the subject. One extrapolates anything to fit the preconceived notions.

If you cared to actually back check my examples, you wouldn't have needed to embarrass yourself with this presupposed slander.

Again, anything I've posted isn't a preconceived notion, nor is it a matter of opinion. These are all examples of homosexuality in nature, and you can request any specific section of the information I've already given you, and I will show you the peer-reviewed material that coincides with it.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I didn't ask for a wall of cut and paste. You made the claim, you are yet to provide proof. Take one example, explain how it fits your premise. That, sir, is how intellectual discussion progresses.

I stated that I could list a number of species that have exhibited homosexual tendencies, You said "oh yeah! prove it!" so I gave you that list.

After I posted that list I said that I have the material in which directly references that list, and said that I could provide you with - and I quote - "Each and every study that list references".

And what did you say? You said....

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Yes, why don't you?

So yes, You did ask for a wall of text... again....

So how about you stop complaining, and assuming, and accusing, and slandering, and actually put for some kind of rebuttal?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
All you did was GI to Wikipedia or some other site and cut and pasted their bibliography. That is neither proof nor a cogent arguement nor "providing a reference." When you "provide a reference," you put up the relavant points, explain how it supports your arguement, and then reference the source. That's how they do it in university. You did go to university, yes?

The original argument is that Homosexuality is Natural and exists in a number of species. You requested that I post a number of them, and I did. You requested that I give references to each and every one, and I did.

So exactly what do you have a problem with?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NavyDoc

Not only were they having sex, but why? Was it pair-bonding behavior, an attempt to breed, or was it a dominance and hierarchy behavior?

In the case of the Wingless Ants, in some instances it was pair-bonding behavior (although likely mistaken identity) and in other instances it wasn't, meaning in some cases it could have been an attempt to breed. It could have been a form of practice for breeding, and also a way to kill off other males.

I provided the link to the article if you'd wish to read more.