My Homophobic Dog Hates My Gay Peacock

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The tale of the two star crossed lover penguins also brings up a compelling question. The article makes the point that two other male penguin "couples" presumed to be homosexual - Roy and Silo and Harry and Popper - each "split up" after one of the males took up with a female penguin. What if these "break-ups" of "gay couples" was - in part - due to the adverse reaction the female couples had over their new mate having a "gay" lover? If the female penguin showed adverse reaction to the idea of an "extramarital gay" relationship with another penguin would this make her "homophobic"?

If ONLY animals could speak my friend................



It seems females in the animal kingdom are playing the "male" role also...........

At a juncture in history during which women are seeking equality with men, science arrives with a belated gift to the feminist movement. Male-biased evolutionary scenarios-- Man the Hunter, Man the Toolmaker and so on--are being challenged by the discovery that females play a central, perhaps even dominant, role in the social life of one of our nearest relatives. In the past few years many strands of knowledge have come together concerning a relatively unknown ape with an unorthodox repertoire of behavior: the bonobo.

The behavior of a close relative challenges assumptions about male supremacy in human evolution

My Homophobic Dog Hates My Gay Peacock

I absolutely enjoy every single post that you make here on ATS.

Keep up the good work

Very informative.

I am being serious, no sarcasm.

Flag from junkie

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Very true. But, what was the motivation of the writer? To instill guilt in the "homophobic"? To incite anger against the "homophobic"? Or, just a manifestation of the writer's egoism?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Look I am trying to help a brother out and all, but I think we both know me finding a boulder to push at this time of night might get a little tricky.

Besides, that kind of effort is better left to those who can handle the weight and right now I'm way too tired and need sleep. But I really liked this thread, it was refreshing to find someone who isnt afraid to rock the boat in order to ask the hard questions, S&F

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Very true. But, what was the motivation of the writer? To instill guilt in the "homophobic"? To incite anger against the "homophobic"? Or, just a manifestation of the writer's egoism?

Sorry to interject,but it reminded me of this quote.......


"Writers must fortify themselves with pride and egotism as best they can. The process is analogous to using sandbags and loose timbers to protect a house against flood. Writers are vulnerable creatures like anyone else. For what do they have in reality? Not sandbags, not timbers. Just a flimsy reputation and a name." ~Brian Aldiss.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Very true. But, what was the motivation of the writer? To instill guilt in the "homophobic"? To incite anger against the "homophobic"? Or, just a manifestation of the writer's egoism?

A writer has only words to rely upon, and in one sense words can be just merely so, and yet in another sense words are the end all and be all of any writers craft. Words, for the writer, have importance. No matter how fast and loose a writer may get with language, if it doesn't begin with the simplicity of A is A then all that fast and looseness with language is nothing more than style over substance.

Even further, any writer, whether it be fictional or non, should have concern with the truth. Even in fiction, where suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite, the inherent logic of the story must be obeyed. Indeed, especially in fiction, if the author presents a fact and then follows with an outlandish fact that requires a leap of faith by the audience for no better reason than the author couldn't be bothered to provide the necessary information to support the assertion that too quickly followed a certain fact, this jump in logic will agitate an audience or reader and many will criticize the illogic of it. Ironically, it appears as if illogical leaps of faith have more credibility in the "real" world.

What I am saying is this; it is one thing to point to more than 300 studies that show the animal kingdom is rife with homosexuality and use this fact to argue that homosexuality is natural. It is another thing entirely to disingenuously anthropomorphize other species and use that same data to present a dubious hypothesis that "homophobia" is singularly a human behavior. This is a leap of faith presented as a fact, not a theory, not a hypothesis, just smug reification that demands we eschew all logic and reason and simply just accept it as true because it was written with authority.

Saving for later. I'll be back later this morning.

I have a male heterosexual, yet unique, perspective on this that might help everyone see this in a different light.

I'll keep you posted

I'm completely missing the point here.

In the animal kingdom it is also common that the strong predator kills the weak prey without remorse.

Are you saying that humans should do the same because it is only natural behaviour ?

Humans are the only animals who can morally evaluate and decide their next action, that's what makes them different from animals. If you behave like an animal you are an animal and shall be treated as such.

My Homophobic Dog Hates My Gay Peacock

I had three beta fish. Two females and one male. The male just luv'd this one girl betta. That girl beta just luved both the male and the other female. The other female just luv'd the one female. I had one lesbian fish, one bisexual female fish, and one (probably) straight male fish. They were in a 20 gallon tank together (which is a daring thing to do with Beta fish). They were a VERY amorous trio.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


How can we interpret the behavior of animals. How would you know what constitutes homophobic behavior for an animal?

Maybe we haven't found any homophobic animals because we haven't been looking for them? It could be that the homosexual animal spotters have been too excited at their initial discoveries to look for that too.

Or, (and I prefer this explanation) maybe animals don't care whether their neighbours are gay or straight because it really doesn't matter.

For as long as homosexuality is a taboo within our culture, homophobia will exist. Simply because closet homosexuals resist their homosexual urges by trying to prove to themselves, and others, that they are not gay. Ironically, if a person isn't gay, he or she feels no need to prove it; if a person is secure with his or her sexuality, he/she feels no need to bash gays. On the other hand, if a person is insecure with his/her sexuality, he/she will likely try to convince him/herself and others otherwise, and one great way of doing so is to develop an irrational hatred of gays, so to speak.

Homophobia is more of a contemporary defense mechanism than it is an actual trait that humans harbor.

Of course, there is also something to be said for religion and how it has effected society's perception of homosexuality. This also stokes the fire of homophobia.

reply to post by Mijamija


True, animal homosexual behavior is well known, just ask anyone who watch's Penguins, but hey the lady is gone feeding for 3 to 6 months, its f****** cold, dark and they don't even have cable! But I would find it very odd if your dog was "afraid" of a gay Peacock. Maybe he's just a run of the mill bigot, or just hates ALL Peacocks. Anyway the dog could turn him into a snack in no short order if "the Bird" made the moves on him.

Give Fido a milk bone and tell him "did the big nasty showy bird scare you honey"? Perhaps its because of the exhibitionism, thats what male Peacocks do, by fluffing up and spreading out their feathers. When an animal "makes itself look bigger" that usually means I'm scared or ready to eat you, no pun intended. Ask any cat.

The orange cat danced on the moon before flying to Saturn.

Did I get the code right? Give me that intel.

My dog is not homophobic but he is flame retardant. He likes all peacocks homosexual or not, as a matter of fact he tells me they taste just like chicken. I'm not homophobic either, in the same way that I'm not arachnaphobic. I don't have an irrational fear of homosexuals or spiders. But if I were to walk in and find one in my bed, I'd be a little worried.

It has been proven that animals only show homosexual behaviour because they are lonely.

of course homosexuality is natural, in the same way that any divergance from what is accepted as normal is natural.
Homosexuality is a ... well there is no way to put this that won't seem like an insult but in my opinion homosexuality is no different then a condition like autisim, it may not be desirable and it is basically harmless but it doesn't fit with the most basic levels of biological interaction, No desire to couple with a member of the opposite sex in a mammal is something that will result in no reproduction. Perhaps there is a perfectly sound biological explaination for this, i don't know, but strickly speaking it doesn't really seem to have any kind of crucial role in the continued existance of a species, an evolutionary dead end of a kind.

Now i'm guessing i'm gonna be called all kinds of names for saying this but i'm basing what i have written here on completely un-emotional logic, devoid of anything other then logic.

Hell, whatever floats your boat people, i don't care, it's none of my business.

I'm just saying it doesn't seem to have any kind of biological purpose is all, like nipples on men.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Originally posted by wigit
Maybe we haven't found any homophobic animals because we haven't been looking for them?

And communication back and forth between human and animal isn't exactly free flowing.

How would we know if an animal was showing homophobic traits, and not just dominant traits? I mean, it's not like we can ask them, or reason with them, as we can't communicate with animals to that extent. But how would we know the difference, between a stick insect flicking Vs at its gay stick instect foe, or if it's just in a terratorial battle for that juicy leaf it wants to own/eat. Simplified, but I hope my point is hidden in this post somewhere....

I only read the first paragraph.Im not interested if you don't actully have a gay Peacock.