My Homophobic Dog Hates My Gay Peacock

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


blame religion for that one

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I think your point has been well taken sir. This type of discussion I think has worn on alot of peoples' nerves though because it rather silly. People who try to make the claim that humans are the only homophobic animals around are insulting everyone elses' intelligence by assuming that we believe they know what they're talking about when they preceed that claim by the fact that there are hundreds of other species that exhibit homosexual behavior.

The bottom line is.......who cares? Maybe the people who are termed homophobic are actually just asserting their dominant traits againt gay people because their instincts tell them that homosexual behavior is not condicive to the human race in terms of keeping the planet populated. Maybe all this is just a deeply buried defense mechanism of sorts to try and weed out what some people see as a weak trait. Homosexuality. I'll admit that I used to fall into that category of hating gays specifically for that reason. That, and the mental image of two men getting it on repulsed me. I'll be the frst to admit that it still does, but I'm not going to use that as a reason for hating them. I just don't understand them. I guess I don't understand how a man can be so emotionally sensitive that he will be so effeminate and like men better sexually than women. With women, I can understand the sensitivity issue more. I guess I'm just old fashioned that way.

I think all the gay bashers just need to grow up and realize that we're all essentially the same. Complex. You can't pigeonhole a persons behavior by saying that THIS is the reason they're gay or THAT is the reason they're gay. I used to think that gay people were that way simply because they wanted to experiment and they liked the results. That they were gay simply for the sexual satisfaction. Back in the early "90's I lived with 2 lesbians in a roomshare type situation to help save money. I worked with them so I knew them on that level. But when you live with someone you're going to get to know them better in time. One of them I could never really get a line on because she really knew how to keep herself shut off from other people.

The other one though opened up enough to where I got to know her quite well. A tit for tat type of thing. Show me your scars and I'll show you mine. These "talks" happened when the other was at work. I can understand the other womans point of view that she just wanted to protect her partner from more pain, which is where she was coming from, but I guess the one who opened up to me just wanted another friend. She wanted to be protected, not smothered. So when i pushed, she pulled. I guess she just wanted a little proof that not ALL men are bad. Long story short is that she was a very sensitive girl and she had gotten burned really bad by guys in her past. So much so that she finally threw her hands in the air and said "F**% it, I'm batting for the other team." Her partner offered her a level of comfort and love that men just couldn't give her. Myself included. Sometimes there's no amount of understanding that a man can give to a woman that can make up for all the pain that they experienced by other men. When you see that kind of pain in a womans eyes...........

It was then that I learned that all this hatred for homosexuals is misplaced. I learned quite a bit from her actually. She turned into one hell of a friend. If people would just take the time to try and understand other people we might not have all the problems that we have. Some people are born gay while others make it their choice. Most of them don't hurt anyone else so I really don't see a problem. It's the one's who go out of their way to make themselves seen and heard by flaming it up and running their mouths who can take 13 steps off a 12 step pier. That minority makes the majority look bad because they get all the press.

All in all Jean Paul.....great post. As usual. I always look forward to what you have to say because you're intelligent and articulate about it all.

reply to post by Raivan31


I couldn't agree with you more. it helps to understand though that not every gay person is born that way. Some people make it their choice. My opinion is that if they stay in the VAST minority of the human population, then no harm no foul. We do have to continue on with our species after all.

I personally dont give 2 craps who or what a person wants to have sexual relations with, just don't force me to agree with it. If someone wants to be a Gardengnomesexual and ride their favorite garden gnome like a worn out dirt bike every night then more power to them. Just do not attempt to force me to accept it, they have their right to do it and I have my right to dissaprove of it.

By trying to infringe on my right to disapprove and force me to think it is okay and accept it, TPTB are in effect creating a state on inequality by saying they have more right to force me to approve than I have to disapprove.

Perhaps if people wouldn't put their sexuality out in plain view for the world to see then they would not have to deal with the consequences of it. But instead of keeping it a personal matter most seem to make it a social matter and that is where the problem lies.

I have a cousin that is gay and several friends that I have met through him and all of them dispise the mentality that everyone has to accept it. They have also said many times, and I agree that the majority that are pushing for "acceptance" don't want equal rights but rather special rights and all the benefits that come along with it. They also feel that gay marriage is wrong since it is originally and purely a religious matter and an oath taken between a man and a woman.

I think there is nothing wrong with civil unions that provide all of the benefits of marriage, just don't call it marriage because it does not fit under the traditional definition of such. It is no different than me trying to join the NAACP, or get a scholorship from the UNCF. There are certain things that are provided for certain people according to many various reasons, it is not "discrimination" it is supporting indiviuality.

Originally posted by schuyler
So your dog FEARS your peacock? Or does he hate your peacock for homosexual behavior? Who controls the narrative controls the issue. We are now in a situation where anyone who objects to homosexual behavior is labeled a "homophobe," which, as I'm sure we all know, a "fear" of homosexual behavior.

So hatred is now "fear" Disgust is now "fear" Objecting on moral grounds is now "fear" Thinking homosexuality is sinful is now "fear." As long as every objection is deemed a "phobia" no one is allowed to really address the issues.

the whole thing is being crammed down our throats (no pun intended.).

Anger/hatred is not a primary emotion, it usually has fear or sadness behind it, in the case of those that hate homosexuals it is indeed fear. Of course those that object to homosexuality from a religious/moral standpoint aren't automatically homophobic.

And I find it incredibly strange that you felt you needed to put "no pun intended" at the end? Seriously? Is this a middle school classroom? Why would anyone make a connection between cramming down your throats and homosexuality? I find that very queer (no pun intended) There are millions more straight couples who cram things down their throats than there are homosexuals in existence.

Homophobia is a fear of Homosexuals.
Fear is a sense that warns us to proceed with caution
Fear itself is mostly unfounded being based on one's known experience in relation to that which is not known.
I see no reason why an individual animal would not fear something it has no prior experience of.
Dogs bark at shadows.
However if that sense of fear is dissipated because the object of fear is seen as non threatening then curiosity may well arise and from curiosity an animal can learn to better understand the object of their fear.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


the obvious question is : has homophobia been observed in other species ?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

the obvious question is : has homophobia been observed in other species ?

My second post was removed being too harsh…I guess.

But to go along with this, what would homophobia look like in the animal world? In my other post I suggested that many of these same animals also do many other disgusting things, like sniff each other’s butts in greeting, so do we add these as phobias too since we do not like to do it too?

I have yet to see a male dog mounted, for real, and show any suggestion that it wants it. I may be wrong, but I guess if the male dog pulls away that could mean it has a phobia to it. I have seen a dog hump a a table leg or a man’s leg...is this homosexual tendencies too?

Lastly, when people are labeled homophobia do they demostrate physical traits of a phobia, like

The prime characteristic of any phobia is intense anxiety. The associated physical symptoms include rapid heart rate, sweating, trembling, fast breathing, muscular tension and weaknesses, butterflies in stomach, nausea and breathlessness.

I think not....well maybe if they found themselves naked in a bath house in San Fran...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I came into this thread with the full intention of defending your dog as he most probably would love your tasty albeit gay peacock, rather than hate it.
But after reading the OP I see.
I agree I have no place for the politics of what is religious or not.
If a person is gay, then I'm cool with it, if a dog is, I'm cool with it too.
Just as long as they are not bad people or dogs, who cares.
I'm a peopleaphobe, as I know folks to be incline to follow the bad or easy path.
But my dogs always pull their weight and do their work, even when they are sick.
I do believe that the humans are the only ones who shun homosexuality though, I'm not for but I'm not against.

The OP put this thread in the "deconstructing disinformation" forum, which I think is where it belongs.

How I have understood this post is that it is a critique of how scientists sometimes use flimsy data to argue points which cannot be backed up with solid data and it gets pumped out into the mainstream and taken as fact.

In this case that data was about homophobic and homosexual behaviors in animals being applied to humans.

The reason why it is so absurd is because we really have no way of knowing why animals exhibit certain behaviors.

It is hard to tell because we can assume a lot about animals based on behavior, but until we get a dr. Doolittle up in here, we will not have "solid" scientific "proof".

Perhaps there are homophobic animals......maybe not.

But to try to apply "soft" science in animals and use it as "solid" proof, and then on top of that to try to connect it with humans is simply messed up.

I do not know if the OP ever intended this to be a serious discussion on the nature of the material in question, I was under the impression the OP was more concerned about the borderline scientifically unethical way the material was being presented. Maybe I misunderstood?

As far as the nature of the actual material goes, I do not think we will ever know if homophobia exists in the animal kingdom, perhaps there are solid scientific studies out there that prove it exists or not exists, but somehow I doubt it.

I think homophobia is most likely a human hang up. I am guessing we are the only creatures with brains complex enough to process "perceived threats" in our environment. Most animals do not waste their time on "perceived threats" cause they are too busy running from "real threats".

Humans, however "perceive" homosexuality as a "threat" for any number of reasons which in my mind are all illogical.

I am not really on the thread to discuss the nature of the material, I am more interested in how the material was gathered and used to create a idea that in my opinion is scientifically very shaky and borderline disinformation.....hence the thread in the "disinformation" forum.

But again.....just what I got out of it. And the fact the he shares my love for existential literature was cool

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

the obvious question is : has homophobia been observed in other species ?

This is the question, and once asked, it is a question that only invites even more question. As Xtrozero appropriately asked; what would this homophobia look like? How are we defining homophobia, as several members have posed the question. What is homophobia? Should the observed homophobia of the Guiana leaffish imitate that of a human in some anthropomorphized way? While we are asking these questions there is also the question of inference.

When I first read that scientists were observing homosexual behavior in a number of species, this made sense to me. It was not illogical to think that of the species on the planet, there are a number of very successful species that have evolved to a point where they function in very complex systems. Of the many biological imperatives a species has, to propagate is most assuredly one of them. It makes sense that evolution would stumble upon sexual arousal functions that would help encourage a species to propagate. From an engineering point of view - of which I am not - I am tempted to call homosexuality emergent behavior as a result of a highly specialized complex system. It is arguable that the spectacular success in the population growth of humanity is due largely to the fact that humans are profoundly affected by their own sexual arousal. The more complex this arousal system gets, the more likely there is emergent behavior.

The problem with labeling homosexuality as emergent behavior is that we would then be claiming that this behavior is the result of unintended consequences. I don't think it is a politically incorrect, nor is it politically correct to posit that homosexuality in a highly specialized complex system that has shown spectacular success has its benefits to the longevity of a species. It is certainly possible, perhaps even probable that homosexuality is the intended consequence of a spectacularly successful aspect of evolution. People today fret over humanities unabashed success in propagation and argue that 7 billion is too many people. If this is true and if a species such as humanity must learn to keep their success at propagation in check, then homosexuality would seem to be a beneficial natural way to do so.

Here is the thing though, either way it is inference. From an intelligent design view point it can be inferred that homosexuality is the unintended consequence of a highly developed sexual arousal system, or they can also argue that it is intended consequences because the "designer" created "free will" and then created "evil" so that humanity could choose, allowing for their hypothesis to remain in harmony with biblical teachings. Conversely, from a Darwinist approach we can infer in the same way - either or - but for different reasons. We could argue it is unintended consequences because we can discern no observable benefit and even as a check on population, if our bias is that 7 billion is too many people, then it is arguable that homosexuality has not functioned as any check on that population explosion. Or we could argue from a Darwinist point of view that it is all unintended consequences except that nothing breeds success like success and if the consequences leads to success then in the larger scheme it was intended.

My meandering point here is that the deeper we dig the more we are forced to confront our own understandings of what all of this means. Many ask; Who cares? What I am asking everyone to care about is the sharp distinction between the two assertions made when stated: "There are more than 1500 species who practice homosexuality but only one (humans) who practice homophobia." What I would ask all of us is if we can agree to stipulate that the first part of the assertion is grounded in hard scientific data from "hard" scientists such as biologists. I would ask that we all agree to stipulate that homosexuality is a natural occurrence among species.

The latter part of the assertion, however, is what is suspect. "Homophobia" is a term coined by a "soft" scientist in that it was a psychologist who invented the word to describe observable behavior among people. That any clear definition of the term "homophobia" remains illusive seems fairly obvious. That any clear discipline in psychology remains illusive is equally obvious. Returning to your question, which leads to the question of how we would observe such behavior in other species, wouldn't we, in essence, be functioning as some hyphenated "hard" "soft" scientist, like a entomologist/psychologist who deals specifically with the psychology of insects? Observing many psychological patterns among dragonflies to infer both homosexuality and "homophobia" as only a mere few of the many.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What I would ask all of us is if we can agree to stipulate that the first part of the assertion is grounded in hard scientific data from "hard" scientists such as biologists. I would ask that we all agree to stipulate that homosexuality is a natural occurrence among species.

I think there is a huge difference between observing acts in nature that we label homosexual by comparing it to our very humanistic understanding of it and what would be true homosexual animals. Are there cases where animals only try to copulate or form bonds with same sex partners their whole lives. As example with geese who form life long bonds, are there cases of lifelong pairs being the same sex?

Most people view homosexual behavior as only one aspect that is different than what we might call the norm, but when we actually look at the gay society there are many differences in their behaviors and not just with their sexual nature. So the question is what is it? Is it an abnormal behavior, is it different wiring in their brains? Psychopaths actually show different brain patterns than what a normal brain shows and this difference creates a physical inability to feel empathy, and so they act the way they do. If I disagree with how psychopaths act does this mean I'm wrong or have a phobia? Homosexual behavior was removed from DSM list of mental disorders mainly due to two reasons. The first was political in nature with huge pressure from the gay community to do it, and second "mental disorders" was redefined as something that causes negative results in a person. Being gay in the general sense does not cause negative results, and so it was removed as a mental disorder, but does this also mean it is not abnormal or a mental deformity of the brain?

I think there is a difference between accepting and agreeing. One can accept how a person is without agreeing to what they do as OK. One can also disagree with a behavior while still understanding it could very well be a physical condition of the brain that happens in the womb. The word homophobic is used way to often to describe anyone not 100% accepting AND 100% agreeing with the gay lifestyle. I think in the end we can't even define what is homophobic in humans much less even trying to figure out if it is also in animals too, or even if animals can be truly homosexual in nature, and not just acts we deem homosexual by comparing those acts to what humans may do.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I've never understood how a Homosexual animal can procreate to pass on their genes? They can't.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Depending upon who is perpetuating the meme, the assertion is that anywhere from 450 to 1500 species exhibit homosexual behavior, but only one (humans) exhibits homophobia. This is a bold claim - as bold as the title to this thread. (Full disclosure: At the moment I do not have a dog and I have never had a peacock) The title of this thread is as absurdly non-scientific as the claim that x-amount of species within the animal kingdom have homosexuality but only humans exhibit homophobic behavior.

In 1999 a Canadian biologist and linguist, Bruce Bagemihl, authored a book titled: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.[ In this book, Bagemihl cites more than 300 studies to support his contention that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is quite common. To the best of my knowledge, none of the studies cited, nor Bagemihl's book go as far as to assert that only humans exhibit homophobia. These assertions have been made by the self righteous knee jerker's who seemingly could care less about the accuracy of their remarks, only that they sound good, or read well.

What studies have been done on homosexual whiptail lizards and their heterosexual peers? What studies have been done on the inferred homosexuality of dragonflies and their heterosexual peers? How many studies have been done on the homosexual Guiana leaffish and their heterosexual peers? I can't seem to find any, but I have no problem finding thousands of sites willing to cite the assertion that only humans exhibit homophobia.

If homosexuality is ever going to be accepted as a natural biological fact of life, it seems to me that all those gay whiptail lizards, dragonflies, Guiana leaffish and people should understand that no one can eat their cake and have it too. If the gay community and their supporters want credibility and equally want to be taken seriously for discrediting religious attitudes towards them, it is not at all in their best interest to take scientific studies and turn them into just another religious doctrine.

Well it's quite simple...Animals don't have the capability to engage in the abstract ideological hatred that is homophobia. It's the same reason that animals don't fight over religious differences, or other such nonsense. Where as humans often turn their feelings of sexual guilt into hatred, animals feel no abstract feelings of guilt related to their biological urges....I'd honestly look at yourself. Why do you feel it necessary to condemn the idea that animals are not homophobic suggesting one would have to study every single animal to prove this....No, you wouldn't...it's simply common sense to conclude that they don't....If you could prove otherwise it would mean that animals brains are capable of abstract hatred, and would probably get you a Nobel Prize. What is it within your own nature, that makes you feel driven to attack such a study? Its been my experience that those that think about homosexuality the most.....are usually homosexuals. Often the ones in denial are the most vocal against homosexuality....Just a thought

What about my query?

With people they can engage in sex with people they are not attracted to, adopt or have artificial insemination. With animals though, they would have no reason to do that or even care. They could not produce any offspring, so how do the genes get passed on?

It must be assumed they are actually bisexual and do breed. A homosexual animal simply would not breed or it's not homosexual.

I know, I know, go away.

Not to worry I don't care what Homosexuals do as long as it's legal and not with me. I'm a bit miffed at the male Transvestites though here in Anchorage, who want to use women's bathrooms and I guess have urinals put in so they can pee side by side with women. They are demanding it in fact. If they win, then where would the 99% of women uncomfortable with that pee? They could start carrying a bucket and go to closets I suppose and let the Transvestites have the bathrooms.

What we need now are lots of bathrooms.

-Transvestites Bathroom
-Transsexuals Bathroom
-Bisexuals Bathroom
-Gay Bathroom
-Lesbian Bathroom
-Male Hetero Bathroom
-Female Hetero Bathroom
...........and?????????????????

I just had a thought here? What if a Gay Dog Rapes a male Heterosexual Dog? Is that crime? Even worse what if it rapes a Cat or a Chicken? I've seen them go after both. I think Dogs are Omnisexual.

Oh, lifes little drama's.

I know my harperite conservative dispensational fundimental xian work buddy was raving about how the Alberta government majority was intending to pass a law that makes it illegal for homeschoolers to denegrate gays..

he was livid about this

his ( * ) darn near popped off when I pointed out it was the progressive conservative majority he is so rabidly enamored with that was sponsering and about to pass this bill

Ps seagulls turn gayish when faced with over population or shortage of breeding females
The alpha lady wrasses will sex change automatically if ther male harem master dies
Alpha male dogs will rape smaller male dogs for domination (teritory or pack)

small * raped male dogs are very homophobic

Certain labor drugs have been known to produce a higher percentage of gay children (when they reach adulthood I guess)

Oh yeah,homophobic tendancies are often construed as being an indicater of "Latent homosexual tendancies"!

I have no idea why you care about the subject and frankly, I just don't care myself that you do. I just wanted to say that I love the title of this thread.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What about my query?

With people they can engage in sex with people they are not attracted to, adopt or have artificial insemination. With animals though, they would have no reason to do that or even care. They could not produce any offspring, so how do the genes get passed on?

It must be assumed they are actually bisexual and do breed. A homosexual animal simply would not breed or it's not homosexual.
I know, I know, go away.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense...You could just as easily use the same argument and say people must be bisexual else they wouldn't be able to breed!

OK...Not sure why you're so obsessed with this subject (though I have an idea why...see my first reply) But it's quite simple. There are gay animals....but not ALL animals are gay. There are gay humans....but not ALL humans are gay. Does that explain things for you?

As for your other statement about transvestites using women's restroom...That is another thing entirely, and I don't really have much of an opinion on that...Seems to me though, You'd be complaining just as much if you had to pee next to Transvestite. I imagine that what would be going through your mind would be something along the effect of: "This is wrong! I should be able to pee without becoming sexually aroused...er I mean confused...er I mean offended...Yeah Offended!"

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

My meandering point here is that the deeper we dig the more we are forced to confront our own understandings of what all of this means. Many ask; Who cares?... I would ask that we all agree to stipulate that homosexuality is a natural occurrence among species.

Maybe this site is starting to get to me...but I never seem to be able to take what I'm reading at face value anymore. But - that's not an accusation - it's just exhaustion. Hidden agendas really mess up some perfectly amazing threads

I'd like to not derail this thread - I love this - the entire topic

this is what got me hooked:

If homosexuality is ever going to be accepted as a natural biological fact of life, it seems to me that all those gay whiptail lizards, dragonflies, Guiana leaffish and people should understand that no one can eat their cake and have it too. If the gay community and their supporters want credibility and equally want to be taken seriously for discrediting religious attitudes towards them, it is not at all in their best interest to take scientific studies and turn them into just another religious doctrine.

I couldn't agree more. And, maybe homophobia is natural. Maybe not. Here's the thing - the argument against homosexuality is now being countered with science. It feels so good to at last be able to defend people with facts and not just personal philosophy and belief

What I'm wondering is - while I understand how important it is to make this argument with real world facts - should civil rights depend on them? In other words - does it even matter whether or not it's natural?

I recently read a quote from the actress Cynthia Nixon:

“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me.”

articles.latimes.com...

Well, you can imagine what all followed that. And I have to admit - my first gut reaction was: oh, no you didn't...

But then, I thought about it. In any situation where our personal choices don't harm anybody else - they are nothing more than our personal choices. Does science really need to intervene when it comes to defending our civil rights?

And don't think I don't understand what I just said - but I don't see it as enabling religion - I see it as simply accepting that to be human is good enough. Period

I should add - I absolutely see homosexuality as a natural part of our natural world. I'm just not sure about whether or not it's even useful to go down that road. Why are we always looking for reasons why we should treat each other humanely? Why should people not be expected to justify why they don't?

I understand that proving that homophobia is natural would be doing just exactly that...

So, Jean Paul - having proved it or disproved it - what then?

reply to post by Blaine91555

I'm a bit miffed at the male Transvestites though here in Anchorage, who want to use women's bathrooms and I guess have urinals put in so they can pee side by side with women.

you've never been in the ladies-room - have you?

:-)