Homosexual behaviour widespread in animals according to new study

page: 30
45
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
 


You know what Old Hippie (I like the name) I have used those exact words more than once! The difference between animals and human nature.

I guess my signature has some significance on every thread now that I think about it. I'm not always right though.




posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
There still seems to be several arguments being discussed at the same time.
I have never said being gay is right or wrong.
That is a personal choice that I am not arguing.

My argument is the facts are:
1. humans are not animals.(snip)


I will acknowledge your point that one of the three definitions you posted for "animal" excludes humans. You are right about that. But will you acknowledge my point that the other two definitions you posted do NOT exclude humans? And since we are discussing behaviors somewhat in the context of biology, doesn't it make sense to examine the biological definition?


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

Comparing humans to animals is wrong.


Comparing Humans to animals is wrong, but not for the reasons you state.

All organisms are split into five Kingdoms:
Animal Kingdom: organisms that usually move around and find their own food.
Plant Kingdom: organisms that make their own food and do not actively move around.
Fungi Kingdom: organisms that absorb food from living and non-living things.
Protist Kingdom: organisms that have single, complex cells.
Moneran Kingdom: organisms that have single, simple cells.

Source: www.fcps.edu...

Comparing humans to animals is wrong because humans ARE animals. If they aren't, which of the other 4 kingdoms would you put them in?


Will you answer my question about which of the other 4 kingdoms you would put man in, if you think man is not part of the animal kingdom?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Sorry.
Humans are not animals.
Read your own signature again,and think about it.
Humans are the superior entity or orgaism, we think,reason and CHOOSE.
That alone sets us apart from other organisms, "CHOICE".
What other enity on earth other than humans knows right from wrong good from bad love from hate compassion from logic and can make a choice on how to think, act or react.
Humans like any other living thing evolved and adapted, but unlike any other living thing
we have had choice from the beginning of our existence.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


As human beings we have the ability to over come animal instincts at least most of us. So to use the argument its just nature doesn't apply to us. We can rationalize and over ride even the most basic survival instincts. To argue that we don't make a choice in our actions and its genetic is stupid. If you accept the fact that being gay for example is genetic thats fine but then you have to make the net logical assumption. Well if that is genetic child molesters must have a genetic defect making them rape children,And i guess since they cant control it its OK right.

If your gay or straight who really cares but to say this wasn't a choice is absurd. As far as I'm concerned people can choose to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people but lets not kid our selves were not animals we have free will.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 





If the male animals who try to have sex with anothe male animal had the mental power and reasoning to understand that said sex will not produce an offspring, they would immediately lose interest.


Not if they like doing it they won't, that has to be one of the --

ah why bother.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
 





Humans are the superior entity or orgaism, we think,reason and CHOOSE.


Bacteria and viruses have resided here since the beginning and kill us with ease. They do not reason or choose (so we hope) but are clearly top of the food chain on earth we may be lucky if they don't wipe us out completely.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
Sorry.
Humans are not animals.
Read your own signature again,and think about it.
Humans are the superior entity or orgaism, we think,reason and CHOOSE.
That alone sets us apart from other organisms, "CHOICE".
What other enity on earth other than humans knows right from wrong good from bad love from hate compassion from logic and can make a choice on how to think, act or react.
Humans like any other living thing evolved and adapted, but unlike any other living thing
we have had choice from the beginning of our existence.


Wow.

There is no respected evolutionary biologist on Earth that would agree with you. If they did, they would surely lose their credibility very quickly (not to mention it would tarnish their careers).

Humans are animals, just more complex than most. Get over it.

And yes, many species of animals do have a sense of right and wrong.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeeGee

Originally posted by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
Sorry.
Humans are not animals.
Read your own signature again,and think about it.
Humans are the superior entity or orgaism, we think,reason and CHOOSE.
That alone sets us apart from other organisms, "CHOICE".
What other enity on earth other than humans knows right from wrong good from bad love from hate compassion from logic and can make a choice on how to think, act or react.
Humans like any other living thing evolved and adapted, but unlike any other living thing
we have had choice from the beginning of our existence.


Wow.

There is no respected evolutionary biologist on Earth that would agree with you. If they did, they would surely lose their credibility very quickly (not to mention it would tarnish their careers).

Humans are animals, just more complex than most. Get over it.

And yes, many species of animals do have a sense of right and wrong.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Oldhippiedude, you're answering a question I didn't ask, and not answering the question I did ask. I never argued that homo sapiens is an animal species that doesn't have some differences from other species in the animal kingdom, I acknowledge and agree with you on that. I read my signature many times I don't get your point, is it supposed to support your argument somehow?

I don't understand your point about choice. Let's talk about a dog I don't know coming up to me on the street. The way I see it, that dog has a choice, he can either attack me (bite me), he can growl at me, he can come up and sniff me, and if he likes what he smells he might even try to hump my leg, all those are choices the dog has and can and will make, and different dogs will make different choices based on their personality. So I don't see how the dog doesn't have the ability to make choices, it seems self evident to me that they do. If your argument is that they think and reason less than we do, I concede that statement is valid, however that statement does nothing to support a viewpoint that both species are not part of the animal kingdom. The Homo sapiens animal is better at thinking and reasoning than the dog animal, they are still both animals.

Geegee, that's a fascinating link and is part of a continuing series of discoveries by scientists that these huge gaps they thought existed between homo sapiens and other animal species may not be as huge as once thought. Thanks for the insightful post!

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPIE DUDE
 




...but unlike any other living thing we have had choice from the beginning of our existence.


how do you know this?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by bobbylove321
Being homosexual is a choice and nothing else.

For everyone that argues that there's a gay gene, then show some solid proof. As of today, there's no ACTUAL proof that says there's a gay gene.

Animals can do whatever they want because it's not important.

Humans being gay on the other hand is simply a choice, and it's their lifestyle, so it's NOT natural.


That is the most ignorant thing Ive read on ATS. Homosexuality is not a choice, its obviously a natural thing. I take it you don't know any gay people. Just in the same way you don't choose to be hetrosexual. You may not think there is a specific Gay gene, but there are many genes that effect sexual choices.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by woodwardjnr]


Recent evidence seems to suggest no genetic component at all but rather a developmental component that is related to the hormone and other levels in mother during fetal development. I can't recall the study off hand but it does affect the structure of the brain and sensory system of the developing fetus.

For example, there is a compound in male sweat that straight med cannot smell but women find very arousing. Interestingly enough, many gay men also can smell this compound. It seems that the brains of many gay men are "wired" in way similar to female brains rather then male brains which means that they respond to sensory stimuli (the male body, male sweat etc) as a woman would rather than a man.

Genetic? no. Biological and not choice? yes.

If I ever have time I should look up those references unless someone else knows them and wants to beat me to it.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Yes, I do know a lot of gay people, my social and professional life puts me in contact with many people and yes, it is abnormal, as the very definition of abnormal puts it, as you put it, on one end of bell curve distribution of statistical data. Normal sexual behaviour is in the middle of the curve.



And what is the exact point in terms of standard deviations from the mean where we suddenly switch from normal to abnormal? And speaking of bell curves, what is it we are measuring that makes up this bell curve? Number of partners? Number of orgasms? Length of sexual encounters? Number of kisses? Please enlighten us.. unless you're making it all up.




You're having a negative emotional reaction to my posts but you're not actually countering any of my arguments. Sure, the gay community rationalizes themselves into psuedonormality and are offended if anyone says otherwise. Even pedophiles rationalise that the children want sex, this has been studied.



What is it that they have rationialized themselves into? That they want sex? Or that they want gay sex? Seems to me to be pretty rational behavior for a gay person. What exactly is the response you expect from a person when they are singled out and pilloried as being abnormal? Gratitude and hugs? I would suspect being offended is a pretty normal response in that circumstance.




However, the reality of the situation is less flattering.

But I am not a homophobe, as long as it's consenting adults I consider homosexuality acceptable behaviour. As long as homosexuals don't attempt to make it mainstream human sexual behaviour, which is against our own biology by all accounts, people like me have nothing to say.

But overstep those limits and we have a problem. This is not homophobia, an irrational fear of homosexuals. This is bounderies for acceptable sexual behaviour. Understand?

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Mindmelding]


Nope, sorry not getting that last part at all. What is mainstream sexual behavior? How many people have to do a sexual act and for how long and over what geographical area for it to be mainstream? Fifty years ago oral sex was considered against biology so does that make it out of the mainstream? How many times did it have to be done before it became mainstream. Was there one defining moment in the back of a 1973 Ford where a young woman straightened up, wiped her lips and was the first person to have had mainstream oral sex? And if oral sex can go from being not mainstream to mainstream then why not the choice of who is doing it to who.

You arguments make no sense whatsoever. Vague terms thrown about with incorrect allusions to biology and statistics that have nothing to back them up... I'd go back and revisit your statement about not being homophobic and reconsider it in light of the rest of your post.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by metamagic]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
How does animal behavior equal justification for human behavior? If a dog drops a load on my lawn does that provide justification for me to do the same? Animals mate in pulic, lick themselves and do all sorts of thing that most people would never dream of doing. But it is natural for the animal. Quit trying to justify human behavior with the animal kingdom.


Ever since anti-gay activists started using it to show that gay behavior is "against" nature since animals don't do it. If you dish it out..



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
let me just add, that I am one (of many,many) gay guys who do not fit the stereotypical "gay mould"

I've never worn crotchless leather chaps, I'm not camp, I've never even been on a gay pride march. (but i do appreciate why these marches are held) Don't do the gay scene at all, it's becoming a parody of itself (IMO)

As one guy said when he found out that I'm gay "#me dude, you're the straightest poofter I've ever met"

Things i like. Football, drinking heavily, raves, boxing, using powertools, furious music and doing a hard days graft.

This post is just to show that there are as many different types of gayness, as there are straightness. I couldn't really give a flying monkeys jizz what people think about it, wether it's natural or not. I really don;t care. I laugh at the ignorance that some show, becasue it's funny.

And as i've not put it on this thread yet. I'll add this, as my fin.

If we all paid attention to how we are all alike, and forgot about how we differ. The world would be a much, much better palce.


Thank you for making an important point! We are all human irrespective of any innate characteristic we have and we need to stop segmenting ourselves... well in this case it may depend on which football team you root for... but anyway, thank you fro a voice of reasons!!



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
I believe monkeys also eat other monkeys, some monkeys eat their own faeces, however, we are humans, so what in the name of good chuff does this "find" have to do with us


They also don't have concentration camps, commit genocide, destroy their environment, pollute their water, become addicted to drugs, have slaves, torture each other for fun... Are you implying that there is a "better" to what we do rather than it just being "different" than what monkeys do? if you are, I'm not sure I'm seeing that.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 

Yes, we must accept gay sex, because it is here and now - SO, ACCEPT IT.
It exists, ok, so just get OK with it.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   
According to a new study:
Heterosexual behavior found in nature.

Heterosexual behaviour ensures species diversification and propagation of the species and has been shown to be beneficial. Homosexuality is natures way to control population. Simple.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Bombeni
 





If the male animals who try to have sex with anothe male animal had the mental power and reasoning to understand that said sex will not produce an offspring, they would immediately lose interest.


Not if they like doing it they won't, that has to be one of the --

ah why bother.


If you put 10 male animals in an enclosure with one female in heat, I can double garrontee all 10 males are going to go after the female. But since it's only one at a time possible, the other males, in their frenzied worked up state may try it with each other. If they see their chance though to get to the female they're going to take it. Doesn't take rocket science to know this; my mom raised registered poodles and my dad raised registered blueticks and black and tans during my childhood, so I know oa little about it. Animals are reacting to a instinct to reproduce, period. They don't look at another male and think oh yeah, gotta get me some of that.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 




They don't look at another male and think oh yeah, gotta get me some of that.


well - that's just not true at all

:-)

I can double guarantee it

or, maybe in the scenario you've just described - but this absolutely doesn't apply to all situations all of the time

so, correct - but only specifically



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


You're talking animals here? You believe male animals look at another male and knowing it is a male and the fact it is a male makes it want to have sex with it? No, not in a million years. Animals have a much lower reasoning power, along with a strong blueprint to reproduce their species. They are not having psuedo sex for the pleasure, they are reacting to a dna blueprint that propels them to reproduce.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
According to a new study:
Heterosexual behavior found in nature.

Heterosexual behaviour ensures species diversification and propagation of the species and has been shown to be beneficial. Homosexuality is natures way to control population. Simple.



Nothing is ever that simple in nature.

There are so many complex forces acting with and against each other... and to top it all off, the entire process is unconscious... There are no "purposes" for anything, there are only results from certain conditions...





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join