There is no 100% STRAIGHT in Nature.

[Mem]

What line do you take...
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]There are no straight lines in nature[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Commentary by DICK DORWORTH[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]As has been pointed out by (Carl Gustav Jung) who studied the human mind more than most, large areas of that mind are shrouded in darkness.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Dr. Carl Gustav Jung held the view that consciousness is "a very recent acquisition of nature." He described consciousness as "frail, menaced by specific dangers and easily injured." Jung studied and treated the vulnerabilities of the human psyche, which he saw as encompassing far more than human consciousness and its contents, with the humility and reverence of a man who realized that no man ever "perceives anything fully or comprehends anything completely." Though many scientists and philosophers deny the existence of what is termed the "unconscious," Jung considered them naïve, doing nothing more (or less) than expressing "an age-old ‘misoneism’—a fear of the new and the unknown[/FONT]​

 

[frizzle]

Yes, but most animals that engage in homosexual behaviour are usually warped or damaged in some form, as they don't have the mentality or phsyce, to become homosexual, as they are ruled by their instincts, which are to reproduce and carry on their gene pool.

Also, did you know that the animal that engages in homosexuality the most, is the fruit bat?

 

[Mem]

Yes,
Also, did you know that the animal that engages in homosexuality the most, is the fruit bat?

Me thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much.

As far as the fruit bats..THAT'S HOT. vampires are sexy too.

 

[fortiesfun]

Yes, but most animals that engage in homosexual behaviour are usually warped or damaged in some form, as they don't have the mentality or phsyce, to become homosexual, as they are ruled by their instincts, which are to reproduce and carry on their gene pool.

Also, did you know that the animal that engages in homosexuality the most, is the fruit bat?

Do you know that you don't know what your talking about?

Homosexuality has been documented in over 300 mammalian species. It is neither rare nor relegated to the "warped or damaged." It is, in fact, more common than heterosexual behavior in our closest genetic relatives, Chimpanzees and Bonoboes. (It is true that bats engage in extensive homosexuality, but it is not just fruit bats. It is actually better documented in vampire bats.)

The idea that sex in animals is only for reproduction, and is entirely ruled by genetic drive, has not been current for 40 years. As renowned biologist Joan Roughgarten has noted, even in nature, less than one in one hundred sexual acts among animals is about "sperm transfer." Most sex has a social, not sexual, purpose.

Your homophobia is simply not backed up by any kind of real scientific data.

 

[frizzle]

Oh bullshit, you back up your mindless rubbish with any kind of source. You just said that the majority of sexual experiences in mammals is homosexual.

 

[mindseye]

Yes, but most animals that engage in homosexual behaviour are usually warped or damaged in some form, as they don't have the mentality or phsyce, to become homosexual, as they are ruled by their instincts, which are to reproduce and carry on their gene pool.

Do you have a verifiable source for this? I was just reading an article on damselfly mating -- most male damselflies are bisexual, using sex as a means for reproduction and for asserting dominance. This suggests that they have additional instincts going on besides the reproductive instinct.

And mem0101, you're making a huge and unwarranted leap as well. How do you go from not being able to "perceive . . . or comprehend completely" to "no 100% straight in nature"? Sexual orientation is a lot more complex than mere perception and comprehension -- not to mention the fact that quoting a single psychiatrist isn't exactly a rhetorical slam-dunk.

 

[whatireallywant]

If space and time is curved, where do straight people come from? :biggrin1:

Actually, I do say that I'm 100% straight, although I have been bi-curious in the past. I have just come to realize that I like the physical mechanics of sex with men, and would not get anything out of the physical mechanics of sex with other women. Emotionally though, I still think it's more about the person than the gender.

 

[fortiesfun]

Oh bullshit, you back up your mindless rubbish with any kind of source. You just said that the majority of sexual experiences in mammals is homosexual.

The most comprehensive source is

B. Bagemihl, 1999, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press.

Perhaps you should read what I said a little more closely, by the way. I said, and I repeat, that homosexual behavior is actually more common than heterosexual behavior in our closest relatives, Chimps and Bonoboes, not in all mammals.

I decided to source that, also, since your 30 post trail of homophobic cynicism is already clear:

F. de Waal, 1995, Bonobo sex and society, Scientific American (March), 82-88.

 

[Mem]

And mem0101, you're making a huge and unwarranted leap as well. How do you go from not being able to "perceive . . . or comprehend completely" to "no 100% straight in nature"? Sexual orientation is a lot more complex than mere perception and comprehension -- not to mention the fact that quoting a single psychiatrist isn't exactly a rhetorical slam-dunk.

I was just trying to start a dialogue based on the fact that there are no straight lines found in nature.

also, if there is no 100% str8 there is no 100% gay, but these are just lables anyway.

 

[Matthew]

Oh bullshit, you back up your mindless rubbish with any kind of source.

Oh, the irony.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I agree that there's no 100% straight in nature, but there's also no 100% gay and some of the gay men on here will question that someone will say they're 100% straight while happily asserting they're 100% gay and failing to see any contradiction in that.

 

[faceking]

Crazy/pointless thread... just like I've seen plenty of armchair science "prove" that homosexuality is an inferior trait... like a giraffe with a short neck, or a whale that can't find it's way south in the winter, a la that trait is said to die off.

Guess it creates views/readers, regardless. I'm reading after all.

I'm sure somewhere in us, there is cannabilism still shrouded, and beastiality, and EVERY person has a "war/anger" trait in them... NOONE is EVER 100% for peace.

Ugh.Duh.Dur

 

[fortiesfun]

Oh, the irony.

I'm just grateful that he has tottered off to read all 780 pages of Biological Exuberance. I just know that is what he is doing, 'cause now that I have pointed out a source I am sure he will want to master it.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I was just trying to start a dialogue based on the fact that there are no straight lines found in nature.

also, if there is no 100% str8 there is no 100% gay, but these are just lables anyway.

I wasn't really sure what your intent was, with the title and the original post.

The last bastion of the desperate - anthropomorphize animal sexual behavior, or the opposite (I couldn't find the correct word). (Edit: mem0101, this phrase was not directed at you...)

It's ridiculous to say "homosexuality is not natural, because other animals don't do it." It's just as ridiculous to say "other animals do it that way, so that's what is natural for humans." It's ridiculous to assume/assert that the only purpose of sex is procreation.

If we use an "animals-in-the-wild" model for what humans should do, then perhaps once a year, all men and women should go back to the place where they were born, all the men should shoot a load in the swimming pool, then the women all get in the pool and get pregnant. It happens in nature with the salmon when they spawn, so that's what is natural for humans, right? Oh, by the way, the men all die after they shoot a load, and the women all die after they give birth.

Not the right analogy? Well, maybe women should bite the man's head off and eat him after they fuck. It works for spiders and mantids. Maybe they could walk around in the yard, locked together for an hour or so, like dogs do. Or men could kill any babies they find, like cats do. It's the natural model, right?

 

[CPearl]

...perhaps once a year, all men and women should go back to the place where they were born, all the men should shoot a load in the swimming pool, then the women all get in the pool and get pregnant.

Party!

 

[DC_DEEP]

Party!

:tongue: Not if I have to die after orgasm! That's one party I'll avoid, thanks.

 

[chico8]

Crazy/pointless thread... just like I've seen plenty of armchair science "prove" that homosexuality is an inferior trait... like a giraffe with a short neck, or a whale that can't find it's way south in the winter, a la that trait is said to die off.

Yep, it's totally pointless. Sexuality isn't something that can be defined through absolutist statements like mem's. He's just trying to stir up some anger.

 

[Mem]

Yep, it's totally pointless. Sexuality isn't something that can be defined through absolutist statements like mem's. He's just trying to stir up some anger.

Not anger, just debate.

P.S. you are not 100% gay.

 

[chico8]

Not anger, just debate.

P.S. you are not 100% gay.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I'm self identified as 100% gay. I've had sex with women but that's meaningless in how I view myself. Gayness is not the same as homosexuality. Gayness is a socio-political label, not a label about sexuality.

So, yes, I am 100% gay.

 

[fortiesfun]

It's ridiculous to say "homosexuality is not natural, because other animals don't do it." It's just as ridiculous to say "other animals do it that way, so that's what is natural for humans." It's ridiculous to assume/assert that the only purpose of sex is procreation.

Absolutely right. Reminds me of that great blast-from-the-past, Anita Bryant, who asserted on national television that homosexuality was wrong because it was unnatural. When the interviewer told her that, in fact, homosexuality is well-known in nature she replied, "That doesn't make it right." Those who have already made their minds up can be on any side of the evidence that serves their conclusion.

I'm rather sure your point was not aimed at me, either, but while agreeing whole-heartedly with your point that animal behavior neither positively nor negatively defines human behavior, there is a reason to study animal sexuality. If sex serves evolutionary purposes beyond procreation, that is an important finding. We cannot directly tell that by looking at human behavior, but we can see how sexuality is displayed in the current array of species and understand something more about it purposes (which I have already asserted are more social than procreative) by observing that the higher up the chain of complexity you go, the more social it becomes.

That is not a moral argument, but a biological one. Nonetheless, it undercuts the fundamental logic of about two-thirds of the moral arguments out there, a la fizzle. For that reason alone animal study is a very good idea.