hatersinmyward wrote: yes darin.
why casting the gays out is not considered a valid point when they cry about not being considered equal. according to the gay in nature website the "gay animals" are always cast out of the group. point being straight people are just acting by their primal instincts when they shun the queers.
none of you "fags" had anything to say about because i'm obviously right.
OK. Let me see if understand you correctly. You’re point is that because some animal species show intolerance towards (or ‘reject’) members of their own species that engage in same-sex behavior, that such rejection is “natural” and therefore justified by humans who also follow suit by following their ‘natural’ instinct to “reject” gay or lesbian humans…. Am I understanding your point correctly?
If I’ve understood your point, here’s my answer: While we may find some behaviors to admire within the animal kingdom, I don’t know anyone who views animals as the perfect exemples of behavior morality to emulate how a humans should treat one another or lead a moral life. For example, here are several behaviors that are very, very common in the animal kingdom that most humans agree are abhorrent and would certainly avoid emulating (though there are even examples of many of the below points in human behavior, at times)… For example (and this isn't an exhaustive list, by any means) many animals :
Eat their own young
Eat their own mate after intercourse
Eat their own feces
Roll in other dead animals or their own feces
Mark their territory by urinating or defecting in it
Kill other’s offspring as a sign of dominance
Fight to the death over territory/potential mates
Practice Polyandrous sexual relationships (one male mates with many females)
Abandon physically or mentally handicapped or elderly members of the group
More often than not, show little sign of helping other wounded or hunted members of their species
They have no sense of equality or fairness or human law… it is eat or be eaten, kill or be killed. It is survival of the fittest—Darwin’s law in it’s most practical and applicable.
I assume (or hope), haters, that you'd agree that most of the behaviors above, while natural, are NOT justifiable, for humans, merely because "animals do it."
Now, is homosexuality “natural”? As in, does it exist in the animal kingdom? Yes, of course it xdoes. According to Wikipedia:
Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same sex animals. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4] Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[6] Homosexuality is best known from social species.
However, just because something (such as homosexuality—OR shunning homosexuals) appears in nature, that is not automatic license that such behavior is or should be condoned so far as human morality is concerned. Observance of any of the above behavior certainly doesn’t grant automatic license to “do whatever the animals do.” The same article in Wikipedia continues:
The observation of homosexual behavior in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans, and has been used especially against the claim that it is a peccatum contra naturam ('sin against nature').[1] For instance, homosexuality in animals was cited in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states.[7] Whether animal sexuality has logical, ethical, or moral implications in human sexuality is also a source of debate (see appeal to nature).[8][9][10]
Let me know if I missed any of your points, hatersinmyward, and I’ll attempt to continue the conversation.
Best,
Darin