Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say
Fox News ^

Posted on 05/19/2008 5:14:35 PM PDT by Pizonce11

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last
To: derllak

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1906799/I-did-sniff-colleague’s-chair,-admits-politician.html


51 posted on 05/19/2008 6:10:23 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: dr_who

I like that idea even though I refuse to be an observer of their deviant behavior.


52 posted on 05/19/2008 6:10:33 PM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11
Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say.

Maybe, but in the wild they are not allowed to adopt so they pass on their lifestyle to the young of the species.

53 posted on 05/19/2008 6:15:16 PM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11

Homosexuality can’t be all that common or there wouldn’t be any continuation of the species.


54 posted on 05/19/2008 6:15:25 PM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11

Any Darwinians want to explain “natural homosexuality”?


55 posted on 05/19/2008 6:15:53 PM PDT by SampleMan (We are a free and industrious people, socialist nannies do not become us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11
One has to ask after the viability of a culture which seeks to justify the acceptibility of aberrant and empirically deviant behavior, on the grounds that its performance has been observed among wild beasts.
56 posted on 05/19/2008 6:18:45 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11

This is really a dumbass argument for the homosexuals to use in their attempts to find some sort of legitimacy in their lifestyle.


57 posted on 05/19/2008 6:19:14 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (De-Globalize yourself !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11

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.


58 posted on 05/19/2008 6:30:20 PM PDT by Marie2 (I used to be disgusted. . .now I try to be amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

The homosexuality gene is random and has something to do with softball.


59 posted on 05/19/2008 6:32:19 PM PDT by Yogafist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Any Darwinians want to explain “natural homosexuality”?

When a significant portion of your ability to reproduce is determined by your position and function within a complex social order, really weird social and physical characteristics can be selected for.

A simple example is the peacock - sexual selection favors longer, brighter tails, while predation selects against longer, brighter tails.

This is consistent with seeing homosexual behaviors primarily in highly social animals. It will change between every species and social order... but I recall a primate study where they documented homosexual relationships in males. What would happen is that two males would engage in homosexual activity, including courtship and sex, and become very strong protectors of one another. In some cases, one of the males would challenge the leadership of the group and it was almost always necessary for him to be backed up by his partner. The leadership position then yields him and his #2 the best and choice access to all the females of the tribe. Hence, it's feasible this kind of behavior could have a selective advantage in that social structure.

You can find alot more case studies and references here.

Given the prevalence of homosexuality in other ape species, its suggestive that it may be more genetic than a lot of people here would like to admit. I took a look at a bunch of twin studies and kept seeing data that looked like:

General Population: 1-3%
Concordance of Siblings: 10%
Concordance of Fraternal Twins: 10-20%
Concordance of Identical Twins: 30-50%

which means you're 20 times more likely to gay if your identical twin is. This translates into homosexuality being something like 45-65% genetic. How or why is an entirely different question which is undoubtedly some very subtle aspect of our ancestral social structure... not unlike the other ape case studies.
60 posted on 05/19/2008 6:52:17 PM PDT by UndauntedR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Omg....there goes my dinner!


61 posted on 05/19/2008 6:53:14 PM PDT by derllak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: derllak

Depends on what she looks like


62 posted on 05/19/2008 6:54:17 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

More likely they live in either San Francisco or Los Angeles.


63 posted on 05/19/2008 7:17:10 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Hmmm, didn’t think of that but you’re right ....


64 posted on 05/19/2008 7:20:30 PM PDT by SkyDancer ("I Believe In The Law Until It Interferes With Justice")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11
Animals eat their young too, does that mean humans should?

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?

65 posted on 05/19/2008 7:23:46 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

[FWAP!] Upside the head with a nerf bat...

;-)


66 posted on 05/19/2008 7:25:28 PM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Soccer Mom and proud Rush Conservative with no dog in the presidential race now *sigh*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
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 anomaly
67 posted on 05/19/2008 7:28:28 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dr_who

ROFL!!


68 posted on 05/19/2008 7:30:17 PM PDT by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SilvieWaldorfMD
Well, everyone knows penguins are gay!

Yep. Same goes for the New York Yankees and anyone who attended Colegio San Ignacio.

69 posted on 05/19/2008 7:33:01 PM PDT by Clemenza (I Live in New Jersey for the Same Reason People Slow Down to Look at Car Crashes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Fat cartoon Homers need love too.


70 posted on 05/19/2008 7:33:13 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Voting CONSERVATIVE in memory of 5 children killed by illegals 2/17/08 and 2/19/ 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Any Darwinians want to explain “natural homosexuality”? Yes,I can.It's riding bareback while wearing a sheep skin condom.
71 posted on 05/19/2008 7:33:41 PM PDT by xero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
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).
72 posted on 05/19/2008 7:39:01 PM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
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 anomaly
There'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.
73 posted on 05/19/2008 7:44:14 PM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11

Funny, I’ve never seen a picture of two male penguins having sex.

The “Odd Couple” lived together for years, but were not homosexuals.


74 posted on 05/19/2008 7:45:37 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (Green, but not gullible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
aids, gay bowel syndrome, and chronic vaginitis, are unheard of in the “gay” animal world.. not to mention sapience.

At least where AIDS is concerned, not true at all. There is a Feline AIDS Virus.

http://cats.about.com/cs/healthissues/a/fiv_in_cats.htm

There is a Simian AIDS Virus as well.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102255246.html

75 posted on 05/19/2008 7:52:50 PM PDT by mountainbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11; All
Romans 1:25-27 tells us that human same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love the jealous God with all your being.

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.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

76 posted on 05/19/2008 7:58:50 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11
Where does it say in the bible that man is supposed to have the morals of a liberal goat?

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”?

77 posted on 05/19/2008 7:59:18 PM PDT by OKIEDOC (Kalifornia, a red state wannabe. I don't take Ex Lax I just read the New York Times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11

Ya, dogs eat cat $hit too!

What do these reprobates think they’re proving by this comparison?


78 posted on 05/19/2008 8:01:23 PM PDT by G Larry (HILLARY CARE = DYING IN LINE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11

What separates humans from animals? The ability to reason at a very high level...thinking and making moral choices.


79 posted on 05/19/2008 8:08:24 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

Actually, schizophrenia is maladaptive, not adaptive. Adaptive outcomes have benefits.


80 posted on 05/19/2008 8:19:29 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
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.
81 posted on 05/19/2008 8:23:18 PM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

Okay, that makes more sense.


82 posted on 05/19/2008 8:25:50 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Dad of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier home after 15 months in the Triangle of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Lol! Shame on you, Pissy! Seat sniffer! :P


83 posted on 05/19/2008 10:52:37 PM PDT by derllak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JustaDumbBlonde; Varda
I call BS on this. It is not common for animals of the same sex to ‘pair up’. They might hang out together, but that is not the same thing and bonding with a mate and actually ‘mating’. I have watched literally hundreds of hours of nature documentaries and never has this been mentioned. Species don’t get very far by being homosexual.

Every time I’ve 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.

84 posted on 05/20/2008 3:41:33 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
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).

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.

85 posted on 05/20/2008 4:12:11 AM PDT by SampleMan (We are a free and industrious people, socialist nannies do not become us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: UndauntedR
Hence, it's feasible this kind of behavior could have a selective advantage in that social structure.

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.

86 posted on 05/20/2008 4:19:48 AM PDT by SampleMan (We are a free and industrious people, socialist nannies do not become us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Yogafist
The homosexuality gene is random and has something to do with softball.

By far the most intelligent response that I got.

87 posted on 05/20/2008 4:20:43 AM PDT by SampleMan (We are a free and industrious people, socialist nannies do not become us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

“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.


88 posted on 05/20/2008 8:05:34 AM PDT by MarkAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MarkAmerican
Actually, the history of marriage was more of a business deal to secure fortunes or raise status.

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?

89 posted on 05/20/2008 8:19:54 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11
Animals aren't homosexual in the wild, this is just crap. The only time they exhibit this behaviour is under stress and wouldn't you know, most of the examples are in zoos. You might also get some of the "apparent" activity as manifested by dominance behavior, but in a nutshell it being "common in the wild" and "genetically based" is bogus activism based pseudo-science. It just isn't possible that it would survive selection over time.
90 posted on 05/20/2008 8:21:45 AM PDT by Axenolith (Brother, Can you spare a tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
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.
91 posted on 05/20/2008 8:33:47 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11
"Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo, were a couple for about six years, during which they nurtured a fertilized egg together (given to them by a zookeeper) and raised the young chick that hatched."

How is it that two male penguins can be considered homosexual just because they cooperated in the raising of a baby penguin?

That makes no sense to me at all.

Were the two penguins engaging in any kind of sexual behavior together? My guess: No.
92 posted on 05/20/2008 8:33:47 AM PDT by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkAmerican
Actually, the history of marriage was more of a business deal to secure fortunes or raise status.

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.

93 posted on 05/20/2008 8:50:25 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
If solitary animals contained fewer homosexuals it would go a long way towards proving the "beneficial to society" argument.

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.

94 posted on 05/20/2008 8:51:50 AM PDT by SampleMan (We are a free and industrious people, socialist nannies do not become us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

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.


95 posted on 05/20/2008 10:11:17 AM PDT by MarkAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Claud

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.


96 posted on 05/20/2008 10:11:19 AM PDT by MarkAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

We’ll release them into federal park lands instead... taking care to dig moats around all the public lavatories first.


97 posted on 05/20/2008 5:16:01 PM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: dr_who

I may just take up hunting again if that works out to be how it happens.


98 posted on 05/20/2008 7:05:39 PM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Pizonce11
Well a dog humping someone leg is common too... but I don't want to marry it
99 posted on 06/01/2008 11:04:29 AM PDT by tophat9000 (:[....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-99 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson