Cause of Homosexuality and Bisexuality

[Individuality-ness]

Let me ask this first before I draw conclusions: Do animals also exhibit homosexuality, and if so which ones?

Bonobos. *nod*

[Oneracon]

Source? And don't give "the Bible", because I've already shown how it doesn't condemn homosexuality (and, by extension, bisexuality).

After doing that, then show me where your God's opinion shoudl be forced onto everybody else.

As in the New Testament.... that Christians should follow.... that doesn't condemn homosexuality right?

While the Old (which Christians should not be following in the first place) does.

No, it's somewhere in Romans too. But that's a the "letter" written by Paul, who may have just been a raging homophobe.

Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality to my knowledge.

[Esternial]

Let me ask this first before I draw conclusions: Do animals also exhibit homosexuality, and if so which ones?

Bonobos. *nod*

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Bonobos. *nod*

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Clicky. Also, Bonobos.

[Individuality-ness]

Bonobos. *nod*

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Um, I believe that other primates have shown some homosexual tendencies. Then we get the hermaphodites, but that doesn't count.

Then again, I'm going off the top of my head.

[Menassa]

As in the New Testament.... that Christians should follow.... that doesn't condemn homosexuality right?

While the Old (which Christians should not be following in the first place) does.

No, it's somewhere in Romans too. But that's a the "letter" written by Paul, who may have just been a raging homophobe.

Jesus himself never said anything about homosexuality to my knowledge.

So that's what I'm saying, I believe (and my Greek is not anywhere near my Hebrew or Aramaic) that the word he uses is feminine... meaning homosexual prostitution..... hmm, at least this is what I've been told.... again not a New Testament scholar.

[Xathranaar]

Bonobos. *nod*

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Oh hell no. I mean Hyenas have been known to engage in lesbianism since before Christ. Lots of animals do it, mammals, reptiles, birds... Then you get into animals where sexuality is a bit more poorly defined and it gets hard to tell.

[Individuality-ness]

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Um, I believe that other primates have shown some homosexual tendencies. Then we get the hermaphodites, but that doesn't count.

Then again, I'm going off the top of my head.

Oh, also to add on: there's a species of lizard that's all females. In order to reproduce, they have to engage in sexual activity.

[Oneracon]

Let me ask this first before I draw conclusions: Do animals also exhibit homosexuality, and if so which ones?

Some of the more well documented species (culled from Wiki):

• Birds
  • Black swans
  • Gulls
  • Ibises
  • Mallards
  • Penguins (the Toronto Zoo had a pair of gay penguins that had to be forced apart for breeding)
  • Vultures
  • Pigeons
• Mammals
  • Amazon river dolphin
  • Bison
  • Bonobo
  • Bottlenose dolphin
  • Elephants
  • Giraffe (homosexual couplings are actually more frequent than hetero)
  • Monkeys
  • Macaque
  • Lions
  • Polecats
  • Sheep
  • Spotted hyena

Article here

[Menassa]

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Oh hell no. I mean Hyenas have been known to engage in lesbianism since before Christ. Lots of animals do it, mostly mammals... though there are a few lizards.

I'm all for Homosexual rights, but I dislike this use.... I mean, if you are saying it's not a problem to be homosexual because animals do it, if you're just listing then Shakoiach.

[Olthar]

Let me ask this first before I draw conclusions: Do animals also exhibit homosexuality, and if so which ones?

Yes, and most of them, at least the mammals. Though, there are some birds, too.

[Xathranaar]

Oh hell no. I mean Hyenas have been known to engage in lesbianism since before Christ. Lots of animals do it, mostly mammals... though there are a few lizards.

I'm all for Homosexual rights, but I dislike this use.... I mean, if you are saying it's not a problem to be homosexual because animals do it, if you're just listing then Shakoiach.

There are people, who actually exist, who say that homosexuality is wrong because it is "unnatural." A lot of them in fact.

These people are clearly morons, but as it happens they're factually incorrect morons as well. And I like to point this out to them.

[Arcturus Novus]

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Clicky. Also, Bonobos.

Dolphins, some species of dragonfly, giraffes, penguins, foxes, goats. Just to name a few.

[Menassa]

I'm all for Homosexual rights, but I dislike this use.... I mean, if you are saying it's not a problem to be homosexual because animals do it, if you're just listing then Shakoiach.

There are people, who actually exist, who say that homosexuality is wrong because it is "unnatural." A lot of them in fact.

These people are clearly morons, but as it happens they're factually incorrect morons as well. And I like to point this out to them.

I am in no way saying those people are right, I am saying that the premise that some (potentially moronic) people make is: "Because animals do it, therefore it implies it's okay."

Eating pig is natural, people eat certain foods to survive, yet half of the bible forbids it..... the bible Clearly doesn't forbid things because they are: "Unnatural."

[Individuality-ness]

There are people, who actually exist, who say that homosexuality is wrong because it is "unnatural." A lot of them in fact.

These people are clearly morons, but as it happens they're factually incorrect morons as well. And I like to point this out to them.

I am in no way saying those people are right, I am saying that the premise that some (potentially moronic) people make is: "Because animals do it, therefore it implies it's okay."

Eating pig is natural, people eat certain foods to survive, yet half of the bible forbids it..... the bible Clearly doesn't forbid things because they are: "Unnatural."

To be fair, the writers of the Bible might have been more concerned in ensuring that there would BE a next generation to pass down their traditions to, so their emphasis on all things sexual in the Old Testament makes sense.

[Oneracon]

I am in no way saying those people are right, I am saying that the premise that some (potentially moronic) people make is: "Because animals do it, therefore it implies it's okay."

Eating pig is natural, people eat certain foods to survive, yet half of the bible forbids it..... the bible Clearly doesn't forbid things because they are: "Unnatural."

To be fair, the writers of the Bible might have been more concerned in ensuring that there would BE a next generation to pass down their traditions to, so their emphasis on all things sexual in the Old Testament makes sense.

The clothes made of two different threads things... not so much.

[Menassa]

I am in no way saying those people are right, I am saying that the premise that some (potentially moronic) people make is: "Because animals do it, therefore it implies it's okay."

Eating pig is natural, people eat certain foods to survive, yet half of the bible forbids it..... the bible Clearly doesn't forbid things because they are: "Unnatural."

To be fair, the writers of the Bible might have been more concerned in ensuring that there would BE a next generation to pass down their traditions to, so their emphasis on all things sexual in the Old Testament makes sense.

I highly doubt that because the culture around these 'writers' were people who were Homosexual... and there was no shortage of people.

[Laerod]

Bonobos. *nod*

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Geese, ducks...

[Esternial]

I'm being serious Indi.

Are bonobos the only ones?

Clicky. Also, Bonobos.

Well, this is just a theory, mind you.

There might be different forms of homosexuality. One is functional homosexuality, one is accidental homosexuality and the other is societal homosexuality.

Functional homosexuality occurs when two creatures partake in same-sex intercourse to serve some kind of primitive end. Considering many animals run mainly on their instincts, functional homosexual behaviour is primarily for a creature's own gain. Whatever that may be, I dunno, but I ripped an example of wikipedia where insects do it to rid themselves of old sperm.

Accidental homosexuality isn't "surprise buttsex" but also occurs for different reasons. The most obvious I could think of was hormones, chemicals or other substances that lead a male to believe another male is in fact a female. The confused male tries to engage in intercourse and may or may not fail while doing so. There may be other cases based on different principles in higher organisms, but I haven't gotten far with my hypothesis yet.

Societal homosexuality is unique to higher organisms. These tend to have mechanisms to 'reward' the creature for having intercourse, which may cause some animals to engage in homosexual behaviour -- because of an absence of a female at that time. It gets more complex as the organism becomes more complex as well. Bonobo's are an obvious example.

Now I've reading humans. Ourselves. I believe that, because we have developed a society where one is in function of the many (ignore this seemingly communist subtext), as well the development of our brains towards functioning in a society with many of our own kind, that we have suppressed our basic instinct to reproduce to a point where we no longer feel as obliged to pass on our genes, instead now paying attention to a personal advantage in our partner. An emotional advantage. A sound mind in a sound body results in a productive member of society, so if that sound mind finds a member of the same sex attractive, it will.

That's my hypothesis. I know it's pretty crude, but I hope you guys can follow my line of thinking.

[Menassa]

To be fair, the writers of the Bible might have been more concerned in ensuring that there would BE a next generation to pass down their traditions to, so their emphasis on all things sexual in the Old Testament makes sense.

The clothes made of two different threads things... not so much.

Funny, that law (among a few others) are called a Choke (ch like in Chanukah) and they are not based off logic, merely a test of faith.... I shouldn't really say merely.

[Individuality-ness]

To be fair, the writers of the Bible might have been more concerned in ensuring that there would BE a next generation to pass down their traditions to, so their emphasis on all things sexual in the Old Testament makes sense.

I highly doubt that because the culture around these 'writers' were people who were Homosexual... and there was no shortage of people.

No, but they did want to differentiate their society from others. Why not make it so that there's only one right way to have sex?

[Laerod]

There are people, who actually exist, who say that homosexuality is wrong because it is "unnatural." A lot of them in fact.

These people are clearly morons, but as it happens they're factually incorrect morons as well. And I like to point this out to them.

I am in no way saying those people are right, I am saying that the premise that some (potentially moronic) people make is: "Because animals do it, therefore it implies it's okay."

Eating pig is natural, people eat certain foods to survive, yet half of the bible forbids it..... the bible Clearly doesn't forbid things because they are: "Unnatural."

Quite honestly, only the anti-gay crowd really makes that argument (albeit from an opposite standpoint). When proven wrong, they ask whether rape should be ok because animals do that too.

[Arcturus Novus]

Clicky. Also, Bonobos.

Well, this is just a theory, mind you.

There might be different forms of homosexuality. One is functional homosexuality, one is accidental homosexuality and the other is societal homosexuality.

Functional homosexuality occurs when two creatures partake in same-sex intercourse to serve some kind of primitive end. Considering many animals run mainly on their instincts, functional homosexual behaviour is primarily for a creature's own gain. Whatever that may be, I dunno, but I ripped an example of wikipedia where insects do it to rid themselves of old sperm.

Accidental homosexuality isn't "surprise buttsex" but also occurs for different reasons. The most obvious I could think of was hormones, chemicals or other substances that lead a male to believe another male is in fact a female. The confused male tries to engage in intercourse and may or may not fail while doing so. There may be other cases based on different principles in higher organisms, but I haven't gotten far with my hypothesis yet.

Societal homosexuality is unique to higher organisms. These tend to have mechanisms to 'reward' the creature for having intercourse, which may cause some animals to engage in homosexual behaviour -- because of an absence of a female at that time. It gets more complex as the organism becomes more complex as well. Bonobo's are an obvious example.

Now I've reading humans. Ourselves. I believe that, because we have developed a society where one is in function of the many (ignore this seemingly communist subtext), as well the development of our brains towards functioning in a society with many of our own kind, that we have suppressed our basic instinct to reproduce to a point where we no longer feel as obliged to pass on our genes, instead now paying attention to a personal advantage in our partner. An emotional advantage. A sound mind in a sound body results in a productive member of society, so if that sound mind finds a member of the same sex attractive, it will.

That's my hypothesis. I know it's pretty crude, but I hope you guys can follow my line of thinking.

Very intriguing. You could extend that further and have a really nice paper on your hands.

[Menassa]

I am in no way saying those people are right, I am saying that the premise that some (potentially moronic) people make is: "Because animals do it, therefore it implies it's okay."

Eating pig is natural, people eat certain foods to survive, yet half of the bible forbids it..... the bible Clearly doesn't forbid things because they are: "Unnatural."

Quite honestly, only the anti-gay crowd really makes that argument (albeit from an opposite standpoint). When proven wrong, they ask whether rape should be ok because animals do that too.

What?

I highly doubt that because the culture around these 'writers' were people who were Homosexual... and there was no shortage of people.

No, but they did want to differentiate their society from others. Why not make it so that there's only one right way to have sex?

It's a possibility that theory... again starting off the standpoint that the Bible.... Old Testament was written by man.

[Individuality-ness]

No, but they did want to differentiate their society from others. Why not make it so that there's only one right way to have sex?

It's a possibility that theory... again starting off the standpoint that the Bible.... Old Testament was written by man.

Which would again make sense.