What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
238 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+85@CapNCash
"If homosexuality were genetic, it would have been driven out of the gene pool millions of years ago. Due to the fact that homosexuals rarely reproduce this trait would have long since dissappeared."
Not quite, Darwinian natural selection would indicate that since homosexuals do not reporoduce, they will not become the dominant iteration of a species. Using your logic, one could argue that since blindness makes someone less likely to survive, there shouldn't be any blind people.
Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon across (almost) all species of animal. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -22/+94I love it when anti-homosexual Evangelical Christians use Natural Selection and Darwinian Evolution as an argument against homosexuality and refuses to believe that it exist in reality.
Do I believe it's genetic? I don't have enough information on it and am willing to keep an open mind. Even if it was a choice and not genetic, who cares? It doesn't affect me, leave the gay folk alone. - nandes, on 10/12/2007, -9/+57 CapNCash:
Genetics for homosexuality could easily be passed on if homosexual behaviour (not strict homosexuality) aided in group bonding and thus made the offspring of that group more likely to survive.
- oskite, on 10/12/2007, -14/+62I bet they were sperm whales.
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41@theundone
"Oh are we animals? I don't know about you, but I'm a human."
News flash! Humans are a type of animal! More specifically:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: *****
Species: Sapiens
Subspecies: Sapiens - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40@ capncash
You assuming that for homosexuality to be genetic in origin it would have to be something specifically coded for, as if there were a gene for each potential type of sexuality. A more likely genetic cause, for purely practical reasons, is that there is a gene for sex preference (ie, genes that make you like guys, or that make you like girls). If this were the case, it would be harder to breed it out of the genepool, because both genes are required for the species to reproduce at all. With only one, either all guys would be gay or all women would be lesbians. It's also easy to see how this could result in not just polarization of sexualities but in bisexuality of varying degrees. After all, there's no real reason why both genes couldn't be present. This might account for Kinsey's results that suggest that most people are infact bisexual, with only a small portion being strictly heterosexual or strictly homosexual. Most random combinations of male-preference and female-preference genes would result in both, in varying amounts, and far fewer would be strictly one type.
Ofcourse this is pure speculation about a possible genetic mechanism. There are indicators that testosterone levels in-utero correlated with homosexuality (in males atleast). There is also evidence that identical twins tend to have the same sexual oriented more frequently than fraternal twins, which could be explained both genetically and hormonally.
However the whole question on how and why is truly irrelevant. It doesn't matter why people are gay or why people are straight, any more than it matters why people are blonde or brunette, or why they're anything else. It's not a justification for discrimination and prejudice. - Raian, on 10/12/2007, -10/+42neither homosexuality or heterosexuality are genetic-- because neither exist, they are human conceptions to separate and describe certain types of sexual behavior. Most people are capable or both behaviors, but some people are easily led by their culture into one direction, the other, or both. There was a time before Augustine pushed his theory of the providential history of salvation to the church where both behaviors were accepted... But if you remember the Monty Python sketch Augustine was the one who came up with the idea that "Every Sperm is Sacred"...
So for those who don't know, Augustine argued that Time moved on a continuum which was based on people giving birth-- every birth brought us closer to the city of god (salvation), while at times we reverted back to the city of man (the devil)-- basically time became much like a stock chart moving between the two paradigms... this is why the Church promotes that people do not use condoms, and why they are against homosexual behavior.
For those interested here is some additional reading material: http://personal.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/docs/city.htm - Absinthminded64, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@Raian "Most people are capable of both behaviors,"
This can be observed when a six pack or a bottle of rum is introduced into the species' environment. - starvo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32Now now, Republicans have been doing that for years, and they still seems to be hanging around...
- CandidateZero, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Noooooooooo! My self-righteousness! Destroyed! Unless... those animals are going to hell! Ah, there we go.
- Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Yes, we're animals, moron.
- psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I could've sworn that humans love to ***** each other too.. Hmm..
- YouWinILose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Much like monkeys are monkeys, but they're still animals?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Because we decimated their habitats and hunted them to near extinction?
- BlueScreenOD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@ CapNCash:
No to say that I necessarily agree or disagree with the theory that people are born homosexuals, but by your logic nobody would ever be born infertile and we know that's simply not true. - scuzzman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I logged in just to digg you down. Just thought you should know that.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14There's nothing to argue. It is natural, as they are doing it.
I think instead of 'natural' you mean to say 'does it fit in into my moral set of standards' - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20There was once a great episode of Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher where Maher had a religious windbag on the show, along with Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society), and a few other guests.
The religious nut was explaining how "unnatural" homosexuality was. At the very end of the show, while the credits were rolling, Maher quoted a magazine article stating that virtually every mammalian species that has been studied exhibits homosexual behavior. The religious nut shouted "what is that, some gay magazine?".
Maher calmly replied, "No, it's called 'Nature'."
It was an absolutely classic moment of a great show, and one that many people missed because they didn't watch the credits. :) - rarkai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15The problem i have with this is that this just shows that animals are just wanting to ***** something, i don't see this as showing that animals have a desire to have sex with same sex partners.
I am not against homosexuality though. People have the right to screw whomever they want as long as it is consensual and of age in that country. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16"I believe humans have a wonderful gift that animals do not: the ability to choose one's actions."
Are dolphins predisposed to rescue drowning humans in the ocean? Are dogs genetically locked-in to roll over on command? Does a smaller lion not choose to challenge the leader of the pride for his position? Perhaps you believe that small mammals choose to run barely slow enough to be caught by birds of prey?
Don't give humans so much credit. Frito-Lay taught me long ago that mankind doesn't have any more free will than our animal brethren - I can't eat just one chip. I just can't! - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15@ cadillaccactus
In some species of desert lizards, it's not only common, it's the only form of "sex" they have, as there are no males in the species. Not only that, but they don't even require "sex" to reproduce, as they self fertilize, but they still engage in archaic sexual behavior where one lizard takes on the characteristics of what you would typically call a male. So not only is homosexuality quite common in nature, for some species, it's all there is! - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"If homosexuality were genetic, it would have been driven out of the gene pool millions of years ago. Due to the fact that homosexuals rarely reproduce this trait would have long since dissappeared."
The only people who make this argument are those who lack even a basic understanding of genetics.
Genetic traits are not a binary operator. A genetic condition can be expressed in an offspring of two parents who do not express that condition; the trait may be recessive, or it may require the presence of multiple genes in the organism where the parents each posessed some quantity, but individually they did not have the full genetic makeup required for expression of the condition.
There is also the matter of phenotypes; traits that are genetic in origin but whose expression is dependent upon environmental conditions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15We are animals though :/ We just happen to have a special gene that lets our brains have higher thinking, a lot of animals also have SOMETHING like this, but not to the extent we do
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@psygnisfive
Awesome.
@AJH16
I think it's important to realize that homosexual animals CAN reproduce (thier physical ability isn't compromised), they are simply much less likely to do so. - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Don't you remember the gay penguins that refused to be separated, and ended up trying to hatch, what was it, either a penguin egg or a rock or something like that? And this was at a zoo. It was in the news. Hell, it was on The Daily Show!
And while I'm sure you won't believe that, nor what I'm about to say, let me assure you, there is no gay Illuminati going around trying to turn the world gay with their evil gay plans. You can take your tinfoil hat off now. - Lemuel, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22Well if animals do it, it must be ok...
- oxigen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Homosexuality in ancient Greece was accepted as natural and quite common. Ironic for such a warrior culture I suppose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Homosexuality is a psychological condition.
Sexuality in general is very complex. Some people are extremely aroused by images of S&M, others are not. Some people like experiencing pain during sex to enhance their pleasure, others do not. It's a very personal thing. Some people enjoy one sexual position, others enjoy a completely different one.
Similarly, some (most) people are highly attracted to the opposite sex. Others are attracted to the same sex. And whether this occurs in the animal world or not is irrelevant -- human psychology is MUCH more complex than animal psychology, especially when it comes to sexual practices.
And, by the way, there is no choice. Just like you don't choose what turns you on, neither do the homosexuals choose to be attracted to certain individuals of a particular sex. Anyone who claims that anything related to sexuality or sexual attraction is a choice is a silly person. - rarkai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"Ironic for such a warrior culture I suppose."
Not really. In many cultures it wasn't proper to take women with them to military campaigns, so they took young boys as lovers instead. - spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8.. and some of those animals will try spending the rest of their lives in a symbiotic bond with that partner.
- nandes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Ironic for such a warrior culture I suppose."
No, it was encouraged as a form of bonding between soldiers. - Absinthminded64, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@tokyo "Animals also kill each other.. Therefore it must be OK to murder."
You must be right Tokyo, as humans I believe we kill more animals than any other species on the face of the earth so Yes, it MUST be OK. - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@PotatoSalad
"I've always found the argument that homosexual activities are entirely acceptable for humans because it is a natural occurance in the Animal World to be ridiculous. I believe humans have a wonderful gift that animals do not: the ability to choose one's actions."
That's not a very common argument (that I'm aware of, anyway). Usually it's the person arguing *against* homosexuality -- often a fundamentalist whackjob -- who starts spewing stuff like, "homosexuality is wrong because it isn't natural!" Information like that presented is more useful as a counterargument to such a claim than it is as an argument unto itself. - justthisguyyano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@tokyoturnip
There is a difference between "killing" and "murder". Your analogy does not hold water. - Leviathan777, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11How hard is it for you tards to understand?
Claim: Homosexuality is unnatural.
Refutation: Homosexual behavior and relationships are rampant in nature. Evolutionary reasons are easy to theorize: social bonding, group behavior increasing resources available to offspring, comparisons to ants (most individuals are non-reproductive). Etc.
Stupid counter-response: so animals kill, does that mean we should do it?
No one advanced the idea that we should imitate natural behavior. It's simple: you can't claim homosexuality is unnatural. End of sentence. - chicbicyclist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Reproduction is important but so are the complex societal developments we humans acquired during the last few million years or so. After all, there is no point in reproducing when you can't ensure that your offspring lives on to pass his own genes to the next generation.
Where does homosexuality fit into this? Simple, humans who do not produce any children are free to pursue non-reproductive stuff. They can specialize into farmers, herders, scientists, priests and leaders. Somebody who is not distracted by the burdens of caring for the young will be more successful and productive in their chosen field. This is demonstrated today by successful professionals(especially in the first world) who most often delay marriage and child rearing.
These kinds of behavior is especially valuable to slow producing megafaunas like the ***** sapiens because we cannot afford to lose the offspring we invested in so much in the past year. More hand in child care is always appreciated in early tribal life. - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Having some sexual identity issues, CapnCash? You seem terribly frightened by the concept of tolerance and diversity. Generally, people become this defensive when they are insecure and consumed by self-loathing; witness all the vocal, furious anti-gay preachers and politicians who turn out to be hiring gay prostitutes or having secret gay affairs.
Another way of putting it is, "methinks thou doth protest too much".
Just relax, you'll sort it all out eventually - and, whatever you decide, it's all good. - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8FTA: "Three years ago the Government told the country’s museums and libraries that they should do more to contribute to social debates and dare to tackle taboo subjects."
Norway's government is the best on the planet. Wow. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Though many believe in monogamy. (And many don't).
- spyrochaete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Animals don't kill their own kind, usually."
Common house cats are not monogamous - they seek multiple partners with which to have children. Cats are one of few species able to birth children from several male partners in a single litter. When one of these fathers sees and smells kittens of another litter he promptly takes it from its mother and murders it. This is a cat's natural means of ensuring the longevity of its bloodline.
Animals kill their own kind all the time. It's a jungle out there. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It also says 'judge not lest ye be judged'. It says a lot of things, mostly inconsistent. This is what happens when you write a religion by committee.
- jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6pics or it didn't happen.
oh, wait... - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"using nature as a justification for homosexuality"
Why does someone else's sexual preference require a justification? - Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"You cannot go against nature
Because when you do go against nature
It's part of nature too"
--"No New Tale to Tell" by Love and Rockets - Arahka, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Did you catch the part about a fifth of swans (who mate for life) are homosexual pairs. They have "fallen in love" with their own sex. Homosexuality is not just about sex, it's about being in love.
- hopesfall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12So is eating one's own young.
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"If an animal were to be strictly homosexual (as in it does not seek out the opposite sex for mating ever) then it is a genetic dead end. Not really a beneficial trait in the animal world I would say."
Your conclusion is a result of ignorance of social animals. It is possible for a trait that precludes reproduction to be ultimately beneficial for the species as a whole. The nature of population genetics means that such traits can be preserved within the species even if the individuals with that trait are less likely to reproduce. - undeRliRcs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8You're obviously too stupid to correctly spell 'kangaroo'. If you're going to try to insult people, at least do it right...moron!
- stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I totally understand what you are saying, but it's not liek they are trying to tell humans to be gay just because animals are. This is the result of a backlash against all the religious conservatives who act like homosexuality is some IMMORAL CHOICE that homosexuals make. The point is to show that homosexuality HAPPENS to people, not that a straight person goes "I'm gonna give a big ***** you to God and have sex with my man friend"
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Does anybody *read* the article?
If you read the article you wouldn't have posted what you just posted. -
Show 51 - 100 of 238 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is