Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
if you want to dismiss science (not saying you do) then it would be easy to say that anything that doesn't involve reproduction isn't natural

Well, if you were to be 100% scientific about the whole notion you would realize that any animal that is truly homosexual does not pass on it;s genetic formula to another generation. If it were true that homosexuality was genetic then there would be no more homosexuals. This seems to indicate that it is a mental state based on the animals opportunity and exposure to situations more than anything else.

Take the infamous Silo and Roy. The "homosexual" penguins in the Central Park zoo. Lots of books (even a children's book) have been written modeling them as a prime example of homosexuality. Yet when a new female penguin was introduced to the exhibit, one of the male penguins left the other male penguin to move in with the new female.

Silo and Roy, two male chinstrap penguins native to the South Atlantic, made local headlines six years ago when they came out with their same-sex relationship.
That all ended when Scrappy, a single female newly arrived from SeaWorld in San Diego, caught Silo's eye.

"Silo and Roy stopped spending as much time together or building a nest," said John Rowden, curator of animals at the zoo.

Silo promptly moved in with Scrappy, building a new nest with her. Zookeepers were at a loss to explain Silo's sudden conversion.

www.foxnews.com...

The homosexual behavior was purely a situational condition. There's no scientific evidence to point to it being genetic. If so please link to a source that has proof. I would be interested in reading that.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
Comparing humans to animals is wrong.

Why? Are you suggesting mankind has always been civilized. You mentioned incest and molestation in one of your posts as unnatural. I would bet the farm that incest and molestation were common during mankinds young years when we lived in small clans in caves and primitive shelters. The idea that man was born into this world with morals against incest and molestation is laughable.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
Animals attack and kill for two reasons, to defend or to eat.

Really, you sure of that fact? I can assure you you are quite wrong.

reply to post by dbates

The homosexual behavior was purely a situational condition. There's no scientific evidence to point to it being genetic. If so please link to a source that has proof. I would be interested in reading that.

but - dbates - I never claimed it was genetic - only natural

:-)

According to Websters New World Dictionary.
ANIMAL: 1. any living organism except a plant or bacterium, typically able to move about 2. any such organism other than MAN: any four footed creature 3. a brutish or beastial person.

So by definition, humans are not animals, though humans can act like animals, it doesn't make it so.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Why do I love you so Spira? :-)


Dbates, what about Bonobos? Granted it's more of a bi-sexuality.... but bi does include homo :-)

From wiki...

Sexual intercourse plays a major role in bonobo society observed in captivity, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of conflict resolution, and post-conflict reconciliation. With the exception of a pair of Cohan gorillas observed doing so,[22] bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex.[23] In scientific literature, the female-female behavior of touching genitals together is often is referred to as GG rubbing or genital-genital rubbing or "scissoring". This behavior, however, has not been established as any more sexual in nature than a friendly greeting.[7]

The sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it.[24] Bonobos never form permanent relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding.[25]

Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital behavior, which is perceived by some scientists as being sexual (frot).[26][27] In one form, two males hang from a tree limb face-to-face while "penis fencing".[28][29] Frot also may occur when two males rub their penises together while in face-to-face position. A special form of frot called "rump rubbing" occurs to express reconciliation between two males after a conflict, when they stand back-to-back and rub their scrotal sacs together. These practices, however, have only been observed in captivity. There is little knowledge of the Bonobos' sexual behavior in their natural habitat.

Bonobo females also engage in female-female genital behavior, (tribadism), possibly to bond socially with each other, thus forming a female nucleus of Bonobo society. The bonding among females allows them to dominate Bonobo society—although male Bonobos are individually stronger, they cannot stand alone against a united group of females.[29] Adolescent females often leave their native community to join another community. Sexual bonding with other females establishes the new females as members of the group. This migration mixes the Bonobo gene pools, providing genetic diversity.

Bonobo reproductive rates are not any higher than that of the Common Chimpanzee. Female Bonobos carry and nurse their young for five years and can give birth every five to six years. Compared to Common Chimpanzees, Bonobo females resume the genital swelling cycle much sooner after giving birth, allowing them to rejoin the sexual activities of their society. Also, Bonobo females who are sterile or too young to reproduce still engage in sexual activity.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE

According to Websters New World Dictionary. ANIMAL:

1. any living organism except a plant or bacterium, typically able to move about

2. any such organism other than MAN: any four footed creature

3. a brutish or beastial person.

So by definition, humans are not animals, though humans can act like animals, it doesn't make it so.

no - only according to definition #2

and - it's just the dictionary - not science or stone tablets

meaning changes all of the time

[edit on 6/26/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Sure, and dogs sniff each other's back end because they have scent glands back there. Still, you can't take that behavior and correlate that with human behavior even if some humans do that. Observing an animal behavior and a human who imitates the same behavior doesn't mean it's natural for a human to do so. As if someone jumping from a bridge can be equated to a bird flying. I know that's an extreme example, but just a point in case.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


:-)

Why do I love you so Spira? :-)

you tell me Hunka - most of the time it feels like I'm babbling out here in the wilderness all by my lonesome

LOL

until different time zones wake up or get off work - and then...FINALLY

Originally posted by dbates
Observing an animal behavior and a human who imitates the same behavior doesn't mean it's natural for a human to do so.

And just who decides what is natural human behaviour? This idea of "natural behaviour" is flawed as there is no authority on human behaviour. Natural behaviour is simply one individuals opinion.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Dr. Duncan MacDougall (c. 1866 – 15 October 1920) was an early 20th century physician in Haverhill, Massachusetts who sought to measure the mass purportedly lost by a human body when the soul departed the body upon death.

In 1907, MacDougall weighed six patients while they were in the process of dying (no detail is given to how this occurred or at what intervals the patients were weighed). He took his results (a varying amount of perceived mass loss in most of the six cases) to support his hypothesis that the soul had mass, and when the soul departed the body, so did this mass. MacDougall also measured fifteen dogs in similar circumstances and reported the results as "uniformly negative," with no perceived change in mass. He took these results as confirmation that the soul had weight, and that dogs did not have souls. MacDougall's complaints about not being able to find dogs dying of the natural causes that would have been ideal have led at least one author to conjecture that he was in fact poisoning dogs to conduct these experiments.[1] In March 1907, accounts of MacDougall's experiments were published in the New York Times and the medical journal American Medicine.

Although generally regarded either as meaningless or considered to have had little if any scientific merit[1], MacDougall's finding that the human soul weighed 21 grams has become a meme in the public consciousness. It lent itself to the title of the film 21 Grams.

Writing in the current issue of Psychological Science (subscription required), Ruth Feldman and colleagues at the Gonda Brain Research Center at Bar-Ilan University in Israel have found evidence that neuroendocrine levels of the hormone oxytocin is a strong predictor of a mother’s bond with her infant. By sampling the blood oxytocin levels of 62 pregnant women (of all educational and employment backgrounds) the researchers found that oxytocin levels remained consistent throughout their pregnancy but differed substantially between the women. By then analyzing video footage of the mothers’ interactions with their infants (which included analysis of how often they gazed at the infant’s face, their amount of affectionate touching, rocking, and how often they spoke in motherese to their child) the researchers found that levels of oxytocin was the major factor in predicting the levels of maternal bonding.

As the authors reported in their study:

The results suggest that the neuroendocrine system associated with bond formation in mammals may play a similar role in humans. OT [oxytocin] was found to be related to a well-defined cluster of maternal behaviors, attachment representations, and a specific maternal behavior that appears across mammalian species . . . These findings lend support to ethological and evolutionary perspectives on human bonding.

primatediaries.blogspot.com...

so - chemical bonding

I've been living with my own special mix of biochemistry for a while now

long enough to know that little chemical tugs and pulls here and there at different times can make me feel all kinds of things in many different ways

I of course can't speak for all women everywhere - but, the wacky roller-coaster ride of hormones I've come to both love and dread has taught me one thing:

I do not get to decide everything

sometimes nothing

I am only poking fun when I say that perhaps you guys - and your hormones - are about as simple and straight forward as a 3 speed bike

so you may or may not get this point - but it has occurred to me for quite some time now that choice is sometimes led by the nose by biology

what is normal for one person is not always going to be the same as what's normal for another person

edit to add: I really am only poking fun - I do understand that your makeup is not that simple - and that you do get the point :-)


[edit on 6/26/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE


so - homosexuality is not normal because dogs have no souls?

I can't believe I'm going to add this, but, I almost have to:

have you ever known a dog?

:-)

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Be careful when venturing into discussions on moral relativism. Once you bring in the philosophers, we'll all veer into chanting stuff like "All we are is dust in the wind... Dude!"

I really do get what you're saying though. Yes, that probably is the heart of the debate here. What exactly is "normal" and who gets to say what we as humans believe is socially acceptable. Cutting to the chase, the homosexual agenda is to push homosexuality as being socially acceptable. Is it bigotry to think that homosexuality is frowned upon? No, it's just what humans accept, for one reason or another, to be outside of the social norm.

I could have an agenda to make public nose-picking acceptable. (Hey, animals do it) Of course you would have every right to dislike my agenda, but you can't be a bigot for disliking what's socially unacceptable. What the homosexual community needs to fulfill their agenda is an actual valid reason for people to appreciate their behavior. Citing animal studies is hardly the way to reach that goal in my opinion since most humans don't like being thought of as animals.

It's amusing that homosexuals would even defend this approach (animal correlation) because by drawing comparisons to animals they're setting them self up to be thought of as sub-human. That's what we all think of animals. They're cute but they're not intelligent like humans. They're just mostly following unlearned behavior like mindless drones.

By all means though, please continue to discuss how homosexuals are just like animals as if that helps anything. We'll feature them on Animal Planet or something.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by dbates]

Oxytocin (pronounced /ˌɒksɨˈtoʊsɪn/) is a mammalian hormone that also acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain. It is best known for its roles in female reproduction: it is released in large amounts after distension of the cervix and vagina during labor, and after stimulation of the nipples, facilitating birth and breastfeeding, respectively. Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, trust, love, and maternal behaviors.

en.wikipedia.org...

just to suggest the idea that all things sexual are not just about reproduction

This discussion seems to be going in several directions.

my last post was in regards to the scientific proof humans are not animals, humans have souls animals do not.

reply to post by dbates

It's amusing that homosexuals would even defend this approach (animal correlation) because by drawing comparisons to animals they're setting them self up to be thought of as sub-human.

just so I'm clear dbates - are you saying that all the scientists - and researchers involved in this - are gay?

:-)

reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE

my last post was in regards to the scientific proof humans are not animals, humans have souls animals do not.

1920 was quite some time ago - I dare say science has come a long way since then

are there any more recent studies that demonstrates that only humans have a soul?

are there any studies that prove the soul at all?

are there any studies that show a connection between the soul and either homosexuality - or heterosexuality for that matter?

I understand where you're coming from - but if you're going to use science to make your particular point - that must mean you are up for including all of science - right?

[edit on 6/26/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
are you saying that all the scientists - and researchers involved in this - are gay?

I don't know if they are happy or sad on a case by case basis. I suppose they do appreciate their field of study so I suppose they're all in good spirits.

reply to post by dbates

I suppose they do appreciate their field of study so I suppose they're all in good spirits.

:-)

very nice - thank you

I'm picturing a big room full of happy scientists right now

Originally posted by dbates
Be careful when venturing into discussions on moral relativism. Once you bring in the philosophers, we'll all veer into chanting stuff like "All we are is dust in the wind... Dude!"

Originally posted by dbates
I really do get what you're saying though. Yes, that probably is the heart of the debate here. What exactly is "normal" and who gets to say what we as humans believe is socially acceptable. Cutting to the chase, the homosexual agenda is to push homosexuality as being socially acceptable. Is it bigotry to think that homosexuality is frowned upon? No, it's just what humans accept, for one reason or another, to be outside of the social norm.

There's a hundred things I do not believe are socially acceptable but I have no right or reason to complain about or act against these things unless they affect my life. A gay pride parade or gay teen novel does not affect anyones life in any way, nor does two men having sex in their own home. Only those who want to force people to conform to they're concieved norm of social behaviour have a problem with the gay issue.

Originally posted by dbates
Citing animal studies is hardly the way to reach that goal in my opinion since most humans don't like being thought of as animals.

I have no problem with it. Science proves its true.

Originally posted by dbates
It's amusing that homosexuals would even defend this approach (animal correlation) because by drawing comparisons to animals they're setting them self up to be thought of as sub-human.

Thinking of them as sub-human has nothing to do with their animal correlation defense but the bigotry and prejudice of the individual assuming they are sub-human. Easy excuse for gay bashers.

Originally posted by dbates
That's what we all think of animals. They're cute but they're not intelligent like humans. They're just mostly following unlearned behavior like mindless drones.

Kinda like us at the begining. Humans did not learn to speak and write over night but developed those skills over time. I'm sure primitive mans thought process wasn't any more complicated than find food, water, shelter, and mate. Basically a uncomplicated view of our lives today. So why is it so hard to believe that homosexuality is natural in nature? Man was a animal and is only a evolved version today with higher thought processes.