Skip to comments.Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say
Posted on 05/19/2008 5:14:35 PM PDT by Pizonce11
click here to read article
I like that idea even though I refuse to be an observer of their deviant behavior.
Maybe, but in the wild they are not allowed to adopt so they pass on their lifestyle to the young of the species.
Homosexuality can’t be all that common or there wouldn’t be any continuation of the species.
Any Darwinians want to explain “natural homosexuality”?
This is really a dumbass argument for the homosexuals to use in their attempts to find some sort of legitimacy in their lifestyle.
Nurturing an egg or whatever is not the same as sexual gratification.
Homosexuality should involve sexual gratification, shouldn’t it? Or am I missing something.
The homosexuality gene is random and has something to do with softball.
Omg....there goes my dinner!
Depends on what she looks like
More likely they live in either San Francisco or Los Angeles.
Hmmm, didn’t think of that but you’re right ....
Animals will drink anywhere they find water, does that mean we should?
Animals stalk their prey and kill and eat it raw, does that mean we should?
Animals clean themselves, and defecate wherever they happen to be, does that mean we should?
We are humans, with conscience and cognitive thought ability. At least most of us are. I for one, do not believe any of the “zoo” stories, but even if they were true, hello...........they are animals, are we?
[FWAP!] Upside the head with a nerf bat...
Yep. Same goes for the New York Yankees and anyone who attended Colegio San Ignacio.
Fat cartoon Homers need love too.
Any Darwinians want to explain natural homosexuality?There's no definitive explanation that I know of. But if you look at the role of self-negating behaviors, like sacrificing yourself to save your group(i.e. sheep bellwethers, prairie dogs), in the evolution of social animals, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that homos are beneficial in a social hierarchy, ensuring the propagation of people that are related to them(thereby increasing the spread of homosexual genes).
The results of the twins studies also applies to mental illnesses such as schizoprenia, which could hardly be said to be an adaptive outcome of genetics. I'd hazard to guess that even those cases where genetics plays a large part the outcome is still an anomalyThere's a school of thought these days that schizophrenia is a byproduct of the evolution of human intelligence. So yes, schizophrenia could be an adaptive outcome.
Funny, I’ve never seen a picture of two male penguins having sex.
The “Odd Couple” lived together for years, but were not homosexuals.
At least where AIDS is concerned, not true at all. There is a Feline AIDS Virus.
There is a Simian AIDS Virus as well.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
Sounds like these Fox gals and guys have come down here on the border to view in person the Senorita Madam, My Friend Flicka, Rin Tin Tin and Mr. Ed A Horse Is A Horse Of Course doing the dirty on stage.
Does anyone know if the Reverend Wright has finished his latest hate book for Dummies “Pickin Up White Chicks In A Mosque”?
Ya, dogs eat cat $hit too!
What do these reprobates think they’re proving by this comparison?
What separates humans from animals? The ability to reason at a very high level...thinking and making moral choices.
Actually, schizophrenia is maladaptive, not adaptive. Adaptive outcomes have benefits.
Actually, schizophrenia is maladaptive, not adaptive. Adaptive outcomes have benefits.I was unclear, *intelligence* is the adaptive benefit for the majority of people with the genes. For a few people that get an unfortunate combination of recessive traits, they become schizophrenic. On the whole the increased intelligence is a greater overall benefit, meaning that the genes for schizophrenia hang around in population.
Okay, that makes more sense.
Lol! Shame on you, Pissy! Seat sniffer! :P
Every time Ive looked into one of these claims I find a homosexual who is trying to pretend his behavior is natural. Not once have I found that any animals that have a common behavior of attempting to form a mating pair bond (reproductive behavior) with a member of their own sex. I CALL BS.
Bingo. Me three calling BS on this. The homosexual activists are very clever about this. Their first trick is to define "animal homosexuality" very broadly. Male wolves mounting other male wolves for instance. And the penguin thing.
But to what degree does the animal kingdom see "homosexuality" the way homosexuals claim to define it? They claim to not be interested in male/female sexual relations at all. They claim to be just a same-sex equivalent of marriage. It's not just a matter of occasional genital contact or hanging out together.
To find an animal equivalent, we'd have to find an animal that did not mate with a member of the opposite sex, mated repeatedly with its own sex, and formed the same kinds of pair bonds or exhibited behaviors just like male/female pairs.
I haven't reviewed the literature exhaustively, but I haven't seen that in the animal kingdom either.
There are no imaginable behaviors that cannot have some outlandish, unprovable evolutionary justification attached to them. Just checking to see if I was still correct.
The word "feasible" makes all evolutionary theories possible.
e.g. Mass murderers of children are likely a natural and desirable evolutionary development, as it is feasible that their actions instill a deeper sense of protection among those not affected, with the end result being a higher proportion of children surviving to adulthood. This would be especially true in highly communicative species such as humans.
See anyone can do it. You don't need to be a scientist, just imaginative.
By far the most intelligent response that I got.
“It’s always been an obligation, intended to be undertaken by a male and a female prior to engaging in behavior which might be reasonably expected to produce children.”
Actually, the history of marriage was more of a business deal to secure fortunes or raise status.
Even in the Bible, many of the Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives and concubines.
And if producing children is what defines marriage, then anyone too old to bear children should be prohibited from getting married and if a couple does not produce children within, say 2 years of getting married, they must divorce.
99.9% of all the people who ever lived have generally been dirt-poor, with no fortune or status to be improved by a business marriage.
Old Testament patriarchs had multiple wives and concubines of the female persuasion.
"Producing children" is not what defines marriage. Creating an environment most likely to lead to healthy, competent adults is what defines marriage.
Welcome to FR. Your short posting history shows your sole interest to be the promotion of "homosexual marriage". Do you have any other interests?
There are no imaginable behaviors that cannot have some outlandish, unprovable evolutionary justification attached to them. Just checking to see if I was still correct.If we actually cared about the nature of homosexuality, opposed to proving a political point, we'd check the incidence of homosexuality in social versus solitary animals. It's already known that pack animals are disproportionately homosexual(10% of male rams for example). If solitary animals contained fewer homosexuals it would go a long way towards proving the "beneficial to society" argument.
Ah, so men and women didn't fall in love in, say, 3000 B.C. They had a fundamentally different nature than us enlightened folk in 2008 who mystically evolved the ability to fall in love with each other in the time since then. Nah, back then marriage was all about contracts and cattle and land ownership...and that's why slaves never got married, doncha know.
This isn't the "history" of marriage...it is some modern theorists' silly projection on the history of marriage. And judging by the argument, a person who a) didn't like the institution very much and b) believed this Marxist twaddle that everything's about money.
Or anything else that you wanted it to "prove", such as that an abundance of hormones in males makes them hyper-sexual, and that other hyper-sexual males are more receptive than the females.
In any event, your premise would provide no proof of societal benefit. For that you would actually have to observe a something called a benefit that could not be explained by other variables.
Actually, I have many interests and look at a few blog sites daily.
I like rational discussions, not accusations. Looking at facts, not just reacting to our internal beliefs. Therefore, I feel its important to bring in an alternative view so we can all think about our positions.
I never said people didn’t fall in love but there is a HUGH difference between “falling in love” and marriage. Hopefully, the two go together but not always.
And if its all about “falling in love”, then you should have no problem with two men or two women falling in love with each other.
And throwing such buzz words as “Marxist” does nothing to support an intelligent, rational discussion.
We’ll release them into federal park lands instead... taking care to dig moats around all the public lavatories first.
I may just take up hunting again if that works out to be how it happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.