Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity

1) How is the raising of young a sexual behavoir? So nuns are lesbians because they live with other women and raise children.

Where does it say in the OP's article that raising children are consider sexual behavior? I don't see it anywhere.

They are not calling them lesbians for no reason.

Birds in Hawaiian populations form long-term female–female pair bonds, which include courtship displays, copulation, mutual grooming behaviour and egg incubation

Link

2) Where did the chick(from the OPs article) come from?

I do not know. Perhaps it came from the other couple or from the lesbian bird. But why does it matter?

It was already explained earlier in the thread why animals hump each other of the same sex. It's hormonal, they don't know what they are doing won't result in offspring.

You may be correct in some cases. However, there are plenty of good examples where the animals know what they are doing.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by CloudySkye

 

I am only answering Staringintoinfinity's question. I am not using the source to put forward my case. There are plenty of good examples in animals which clearly show homosexuality and has been put forward many, many times on ATS.

IN ANY CASE, IN THIS CASE, IT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WERE PAIRS OF MALE PENGUINS ATTEMPTING TO MATE EACH OTHER WHICH MAKE THEM "GAY".

And ill bet my bank account they were all trying to be "the male" lol... I rest my case.

I'm not religious, but it just seems like psuedo science trying to verify somthing that could be natural to a degree...like I said earlier.
The problem is marriage for any couple, shouldnt be tied in with the law like it is. This would be a much better approach.. If you went after the laws.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by Mailman]

Some say homosexuality is normal, in this particular instance their argument that it's normal is because male animals sometimes try to--UNSUCCESSFULLY--copulate with each other.

And homosexuality is not normal simply because people of a decadent, unmoralistic society once engaged in it freely (Romans). They also freely engaged in sex with children and that was accepted too during that time.

I don't care what consenting adults choose to do in privacy. But I don't want to have it wagged in my face out in public, anymore than I wish to see heterosexual people get hot and heavy; if I want to see that I'll rent a porno. If homosexuals want to be considered "normal" then why the gay parades with them wearing thongs and tassels on their nipples, grotesque make-up, etc? How does that meld them into acceptance by society? It impresses me rather that they are PROUD of their deviance and don't want to let anyone forget it.

If I were an advocate of homosexuality I would try to change this tendency to shock people; if they want to be considered normal, they should conduct themselves in a normal manner.

Ever consider the idea that human homosexuality could be nature's way of trying to curb the population explosion? Homosexuality could be one of the best things to ever happen to this quaint little planet we so eagerly proceed with destroying.

In my opinion that could be as applicable to masturbation, however. Its not impossible some humans have a predisposition to masturbate due to an as yet undiscovered gene for all we know....

Socially dictated arguments aside, isnt it possible that homosexual acts are nothing more than a BEHAVIOUR at the end of the day? With no deeper explanation needed and no overly complicated reasoning necessary? No biological drive, no evolutionary reason at all?

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Clark Savage Jr.]

Deaf - You cite other articles and later say it was a bad example. Then post one liners about other people being off topic??? Perhaps you could lay out exactly what the topic is for us so we don't stray from it.

Again you answer the part you want to and ignore the rest. So if the raising of the offsrping wasn't the reason these birds are homosexuals, please explain what was. Then when you're done with that, explain where the baby chick came from. Unless you're going to fully answer both questions, don't bother trying to respond.

Even though you didn't answer my questions in any way, just tried to find a clever around them, I'll answer yours:

1)"They found that on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males. Through these 'lesbian' unions, Laysan albatross are flourishing. Their existence had been dwindling before the adaptation was noticed."

""Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," he said."

2)It matters because if both birds were off screwing males but then raised the young in "lesbian unions"(notice the quotes around lesbian in the article), that kind of throws a wrench in the whole they're "lesbians" bird thing.

We've all seen the news where some wild animal looses it's mother and the family dog takes care of it. I wouldn't say it's "maternal instinct" because males animals have done it too, but rather just instinct. This is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize homosexuality by taking some parts and molding it to fit the argument.


[edit on 22-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


When in reality homosexuality doesn't even need legitimizing...


Homophobia seeks legitimizing, but alas, there is none to be found.

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


I don't understand the block people have, it must be some logical wall some have trouble climbing. Just accept people... it's that simple.

Although we are animals (H. Sapiens Sapiens), we are MORE than animals. We are intensely spiritual beings, and I think if you look inside yourself you will find this out fairly quickly.

We need to see that we are all here for a reason, on a specific journey, on some sort of mission to complete certain things. Try to help people that are different, try to help people that are ostracized, try to understand that most people wouldn't choose something that would bring them immense pain.

To sum it up. Be yourself, and help other people be themselves. We don't have a lot of time in life, and it's easy to get lost in the noise.

Lol ok. I didn't say homosexuality needs legitimizing, I said they are using this example to legitimize homosexual behavior. Perhaps you could answer the questions then try to insult me?

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


No I was agreeing with you... people are using stories like that to legitimize homosexuality when in reality it requires no legitimizing...

Of course I went on to say, that homophobia requires legitimacy it will never have...

If you took that as an insult, then I'm very sorry, it wasn'tnot intended as such.

Ok...I said they are using this as an example to legitimize homosexuality. Then you say it doesn't need legitimization but homophobia does...that doesn't sound like agreeing to me but maybe I'm missing something.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Staringintoinfinity]

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


I agreed whole heartedly that some folks are using this article and these behaviors in animals to legitimize homosexuality, when in fact it doesn't require legitimacy...

Now I used this point which we agree on to pivot into something which I believe is completely illegitimate and that is homophobia...

I really wasn't trying to insult you... but to agree with you...

For example, I believe that prohibition laws are unconstitutional, and that petitioning for a substance to be legalized for lets say medicinal use is trying to legitimize a freedom that doesn't need legitimizing... it stands on it's own without having to come up with odd ways to garner legitimacy from others...

It's the thought that prohibition is somehow constitutional that begs for legitimacy where it can not be found..

So I think we agree that there is no need to point to behaviors in animals as an attempt to end the argument that Homosexuality is unnatural... if it wasn't natural it wouldn't occur in people for crying out loud!

The attempt to leverage these behaviors for justification is simply a defense by those who were attacked as being unnatural by religious fanatics..





[edit on 22-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

How can it be that homosexuality is a natural process but then ignore the fact that homosexuality doesn't produce offspring. Regardless of whether the process is sexual or asexual, not being able to produce offspring to propagate your species isn't natural. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Males and females have either a penis or a vagina. That not only does the penis fit in the vagina but that there are also tubes that the sperm can swim up to get to the eggs. Is there any natural function that male on male or female on female sexual intercourse serves?

If offspring doesn't matter, as some have argued, why are we then making the leap that these birds are homosexuals because they are raising offspring? Yes, we see animals hump each other and trying to hatch offspring, that doesn't make them homosexuals.

Animals also eat their young.

reply to post by Staringintoinfinity


This is really a good question...Of course the mental urge may seem natural. But in a case of same sex intercourse, what is the natural purpose?
Even if this was the way for nature to cull human population...we will still be overpopulating, so thus it wouldnt be a functional natural response imo.

reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE


Not animals in general, some few animals in specific cases. You won't see a cow or a goat or even a dog or a cat in most cases, eat their young.

Originally posted by Staringintoinfinity
How can it be that homosexuality is a natural process but then ignore the fact that homosexuality doesn't produce offspring.

Kissing doesn't produce offspring either but we do it.

Regardless of whether the process is sexual or asexual, not being able to produce offspring to propagate your species isn't natural.

There are many things we do socially which don't result in offspring but do involve touching and loving eachother. Even between the same sexes.

Do you shake hands?

Why do we do that?

How about Kiss? You kiss your mother, your father, your brothers and your sisters and you aren't attempting to have children.

You high five your buddy when you do a good job as a team don't you?

Sexuality is for much more than simple procreation. I wont argue that sexuality does have the side effect of resulting in children, but the intent is seldom to have children. Most times it's to feel good, or release tension after a fight or gain the feeling of validation or acceptance... or to show someone you really feel special about some affection...

Those are all just as natural of reasons as procreation is. Humans, as are all animals, are very complex creatures... And every part of our being has many different evolutionary forces pulling and pushing on them...

And even taking it further, we can't simply stop at the individual when we look at the survival mechanisms in place for our species... we also have to look at the social aspects, and the relations with our society as part of the survival mechanisms...





[edit on 22-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by Staringintoinfinity
How can it be that homosexuality is a natural process but then ignore the fact that homosexuality doesn't produce offspring.

Neither do the sterile, old.

Regardless of whether the process is sexual or asexual, not being able to produce offspring to propagate your species isn't natural. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Then the sterile, old etc. should be blocked as well since they do not propagate the species.

Males and females have either a penis or a vagina.
Some have both.

That not only does the penis fit in the vagina but that there are also tubes that the sperm can swim up to get to the eggs.
Not all sizes fit all. Lots of other things fit too (sex toy industry for comparison)

Is there any natural function that male on male or female on female sexual intercourse serves?

It is natural to be affectionate to one's chosen mate. Or do you insist that the old, sterile etc. have no reason to have sex and that sex itself is nothing more than imagining babies and swelling bellies?

If offspring doesn't matter, as some have argued, why are we then making the leap that these birds are homosexuals because they are raising offspring?

Because they are taking roles of the opposite sex. Females usually don't share young, males usually do not raise children. . Some types pair up for life


Yes, we see animals hump each other and trying to hatch offspring, that doesn't make them homosexuals.

Then you must admit that humans of the same sex humping each other isn't all there is to it. There if a factor called affection, love. I challenge any person to compare their relationship with my uncle's whom has been paired up for over 30 years. You are right that humping is not all there is to being gay because at this time he is an old man. How much humping is in him at this late date? Let me decide upon your partner. Perhaps a very large person because they have good birthing hips.

[edit on 22/6/09 by toochaos4u]

Three questions...

Is homosexuality natural?
Yes, it exists in nature, it is therefore natural.

Is homosexuality normal?
No, its natural occurrence in nature is less than 50%,
therefore, as measured against nature, it is relatively abnormal.

Is homosexuality right or wrong?
This question of right or wrong can be simply qualified;
For something to be shown to be "right,"
it must be shown to be beneficial. For something to be shown
to be "wrong," it must be shown to be detrimental.

Okay, can homosexuality be shown to be beneficial?

Tough question. I suppose one could argue logically that
homosexuality could be used as a function of nature to
reduce population expansion (although it would be tough
to cite a single reference in nature--the argument does
have logical merit.)

Okay, can homosexuality be shown to be detrimental?
Logically, if homosexuality overtakes heterosexuality
and becomes the norm at a more than a 50% rate, then
this could threaten the specie's survival.

Really, I would just like to hear someone make an
argument for why they think homosexuality is wrong
without citing religion. Just one scientific viewpoint
of why homosexuality (in nature or in humans) is
wrong.....just one

reply to post by rival


Okay, can homosexuality be shown to be beneficial?

Mediator between sexes. It happens
Surrogate to orphaned children. happens.

Not to be about religion but, in some cultures gays two-spirits were often
priests. The reason for this was because they could navigate the divide between males/females and be middle ground. On a larger scale I will soon submit an essay to ATS showing that Eunuchs in the bible were indeed gay holy men instead of the castrated men that the churches have lead to believe. It will be rather long so I'm deciding how to do on this limited board format.

You make the assertion that gays may eventually outnumber straights and may eventually wipe out the species. At the same time studies show higher instance of gays coming from highly fertile women. Who knows it could be possible eventual evolution that merges the sexes in the future or just a dead end anomaly as some say.

Either way, what does it matter. Things are as they are why worry about what someone else is doing. The lady up the street now has 10 children. She's taken up my slack very well I might add. Heck until I had to take care and partially raise my niece and nephew I didn't even like children. Other than them, children give me migraines.