The Addicted Apes That Prove Homosexuality Is Natural

By Morris M. on Tuesday, November 12, 2013
146784870
“And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” —Rick Santorum

In A Nutshell

Bonobos are an endangered ape species found only in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where they live in small, largely peaceful tribes. Along with chimps, they’re our closest living relatives; which is why the study of their mating habits opens a political minefield. Unlike chimps, bonobos are naturally bisexual—and happily engage in homosexual acts for enjoyment, to solve conflicts, and to get ahead in the tribe.

The Whole Bushel

One of the big arguments put forward against homosexuality is that it’s unnatural, a deviation of the human mind. A deviation, that is, that just happens to also affect our closest evolutionary cousins. Meet the endangered bonobo. Sometimes referred to as “the hippie ape,” bonobos live in female-oriented tribes usually characterized by a lack of aggression and conflict. Not to mention a whole lot of sex.

As in a whole lot: Bonobos use sex as a means of greeting, a way of resolving conflicts, a method for consoling victims in distress, and something to do just for the sheer pleasure of it. According to National Geographic, around 75 percent of bonobo sex is non-reproductive—and that includes an enormous amount of homosexual couplings. Nearly every bonobo is born bisexual, and the number of same-sex pairings in their societies is so great that females actually have a specific mating cry they only use when sleeping with other females. Their whole existence seems geared towards a lifetime of guilt-free love; a far cry from the aggressive, dominant sexual behavior of chimpanzees.

Now, just because bonobos are remarkably progressive where homosexuality is concerned doesn’t mean their behavior translates to humans. After all, we’re also closely related to chimps and they only very rarely seem to deviate from heterosexual couplings. But it does put paid to the idea that homosexuality is somehow “unnatural.” If a loving God really hates all things pink, you might ask, then why the heck did he create an ape that could rival Freddie Mercury in the promiscuity stakes?

Show Me The Proof

NatGeo: Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
Female bonobos have gay sex to improve their social status
The Telegraph: Bonobos not all peace and free love

  • Jibzoiderz

    Not Real All Homosexuals should die!!!!!!

    Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

    Lev. 20:13,
    “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a
    woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely
    be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”

    1 Cor. 6:9-10,
    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
    kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
    nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
    the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall
    inherit the kingdom of God.”

    Rom. 1:26-28,
    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their
    women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
    and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the
    woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men
    committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due
    penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to
    acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to
    do those things which are not proper.”

    • Wilco

      LOL

    • flicka

      However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

      Since we are using the bible verse logic this morning thought I would take this opportunity to promote a real gem. So we are all good with this?

      • Jo Cooper

        Biblical spaves were freed and debts cancelped every seven years, unlike today’s slaves. Slavery does not equal homosexuality.

        • flicka

          My point is….you know what….see that dot on the horizon? Yeah…that’s the boat….I think you missed it.

          • Ray

            Maybe you should…you know what…see the poor use of periods in your sentence…Yeah, learn to use them.

          • flicka

            Those aren’t periods. They are ellipsis. Used to indicate a pause in quoted speech. But good try!

          • Ray

            Are you 5 years old?

          • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

            Forgive the indiscretion but are you retarded? Those are ellipses.

          • Ray

            Using one after every sentence is the retarded act.

        • Wit

          Not quite. You’re referring only to fellow Hebrews as slaves -

          ” If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)”

          Even then that did not come without strings attached as plainly stated in your own bible, The point is we are talking about the practice of buying, owning, abusing and selling another human being as PROPERTY. That IS condoned as OK throughout the bible. One of the greatest moral questions of human history and the bible gets it wrong. Or are you OK with owning slaves, under ANY circumstance? If the answer is no, then you already know the bible is bullshit on being a moral guide in regards to slavery. You know it, you just don’t want to admit it.

          Now, that said if the bible can get such a blatantly obvious moral question such as slavery wrong how much do you want to bet they can get something as complex as human sexuality wrong too.

          • Jo Cooper

            the thing is Wit, I read the whole Bible, instead of picking bits out to fit a point.

          • Wit

            Maybe you have, maybe you haven’t. Either way you haven’t answered the question.

          • Jo Cooper

            Let me know when you get to the New Testament.

          • Wit

            Sorry but I’m not going to waste my time in misdirection. I asked you a direct question which you have yet to answer. Do you or do you not have the intellectual integrity to answer my question and the points I have raised.

          • Wit

            Sorry but I’m not going to waste time in misdirection when you have not answered my question. If you have any sense of intellectual integrity you’ll address the points already raised instead of brushing me off with a non-answer.

      • g_liu

        New Testament Law supersedes Old Testament law. So your argument is invalid.

        • Wit

          Neither one of which is constitutional law which is what our republic (if you’re an American) is founded upon. Try again. Even if you were right that means Leviticus since it is Old Testament goes out the window along with your main biblical argument against homosexuality. You’re not doing too well at this, care to continue?

    • Exiled Phoenix

      Until you follow all the laws of leviticus it doesn’t count… You can’t pick and choose just because you are homophobic… or maybe you’re
      angry you might be a dainty little nancy… lol

      • Ray

        That doesn’t make sense. Are you a woman?

        • powder99

          Actually it makes perfect sense.
          You can’t say the Bible is against homosexuals and worthy of belief unless you also believe that slavery is supported and therefore it too must be worthy of belief.
          That little sexist comment did not help your cause as some will just see you as a homophobic sexist. Or would one say sexist homophobic.

          • Ray

            I was referring to the Nancy part of his comment which by the way is equally as sexist. It’s nice that you can gloss over some people’s prejudices.

    • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

      The bible is a novel and you are a bloodthirsty religious freak. It is due to people like you that it’s evident humanity will falter one day. Idiot.

      • Jimmy

        Good point. It’s not like the world’s biggest murderers were atheists or anything. Except for Hitler. And Stalin. Oh yeah, Pol Pot. Let’s not forget Lenin and Chairman Mao.
        But apart from them, only religous people have ever caused bloodshed.

        • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

          Ignorance on your part. Hitler was a Roman Catholic for a start. And your assumption here is that atheism makes people evil, and that they performed their deeds as they were evil. They just happened to be atheists – if they’d been religious they would have done the same stuff (as you can see with Hitler). And don’t try and use the “Hitler was anti-religion” nonsense – he believed in “god” alright. The fact is, you’re always going to have evil people. Only an incredibly stupid religious person would blame this on a lack of belief in an invisible sky fairy.

          One look at human history and you’ll see people are fucked up – Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, the Christian Crusades, Middle Ages led by religious Just as these were a bit longer ago. The list is endless, not to mention the endless millions who have suffered psychological trauma due to religion. This century in particular from priests; child abuse, pedophilia, sexual abuse, blackmail, corruption. Religion is a curse on humanity.

          And what about all the good atheists have done? Bill Gates has donated billions to charity, the progress science has made to help save tens of millions of people, Professor Sid Watkins improvements with the FIA in the motor vehicle industry which have helped saved tens of millions of lives. You’re not going to achieve this by having a bit of a prey.

          • Jimmy

            When you assume, you make an ass of of u and me. but in this case mainly you. I wasn’t saying atheism caused evil, just as I wasn’t saying religion prevented it. I was just pointing out your comment was flawed, as is your response to my comment. Yes, atheists have helped the world but so have religious people. Gandhi was a Hindu and Martin Luther King jr. was a baptist. William Wilberforce who helped abolish the slave trade was a devout Christian. You assume science is a completely atheist venture, clearly forgetting that both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution were developed by a Catholic and an Anglican respectively.
            You blame religion for dividing society but you are doing the exact same thing by trying to split the religious and the non-religious. People are people but you seem to think your views make you better than others.
            You’re right. There is a lot of evil in the world, but it may not be coming from where you think it is.

          • Ian Moone

            People will do bad things regardless. Religions just allows them to rationalize the evil things they do. If they didn’t have religion they would just find a new way to rationalize their actions.

      • Jibzoiderz

        With homosexuals doing anything they want they should die! THEY are an embarassment to the human society! and please dont give lame excuses

        • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

          You are a disgusting example of everything that is wrong with society. What an embarassment you are, that you put your “faith” in an invisible sky fairy which doesn’t exist. What a cretinous fool.

          • Jibzoiderz

            eewwww yoour a homosexual you should die! and be executed cause you love anal sex

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            “You’re”

            You see, this is where your vile stupidity creeps in. You just assume everyone is gay – it’s called being “open minded”. Try it some time, it’s what religion was supposed to be about – peace etc. That’s long forgotten and replaced with mindless hatred and violence. Are you racist and sexist, too? I should imagine you are. Pathetic child.

          • Wit

            John, you do realize you’re arguing with a kid whose first language is not English and most likely comes from a more backward country, right?

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Yep, but it’s been a slow day.

          • Wit

            I know. And it’s been a slow day for me here too. I’m just killing time until I have to leave fror work soon.

          • Jibzoiderz

            Your such an abomination to human society and you should be exiled, first class! Im sure right now you want this:

            (`)
            / /
            / /
            / /
            (_)_)

            MMmmmmm you want That thing on your rectum?, mmmmmMMmmm Rectum sex im sure you love it!
            im gonna bet 10$ your imagining anal sex hardcore right now!……………………GTFO cause your an abomnination

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            “You’re”, kid. Try and learn fundamental grammar before you go off on your obnoxious rants. I’d actually stop writing, kid, you’re seriously embarrassing yourself. You’re not doing anything except exposing the stupidity of bigotry.

            Why are you homophobes so obsessed with anal sex, anyway? Latent desires, I should think. You are aware lesbians don’t practice this, right? Imbecile.

          • Jibzoiderz

            Let me tell you something old man [look at picture] so get out and kill yourself because you should die……….i pity you because im sure you have hiv by giving b*** jobs to other abominants

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Okay, we get it, you’re infatuated with gay sex. Perhaps just be true to yourself, then maybe this insecure belligerence will subside. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, kid. Maybe when you grow up you’ll realise this, and in so doing you’ll became a good person. As it stands, you’re just a cunt. :o )

    • Nomsheep

      The Bible is my favourite fictional book too.

  • John Roy Kennedy

    Firstly fuck religion. Secondly, homosexuality is shown in more than a few studies conducted with animals shoes that it is a byproduct of over population to stop breeding

    • I’cia( ❤ My Falcons)

      I agree!

    • Exiled Phoenix

      Religion is humanities greatest folly and possibly its achilles heel…

      • Ray

        No, that was your birth.

        • Exiled Phoenix

          Lol, since you believe in god, your problem is with this mythical creator. Go cry to him about it.

          • Ray

            That doesn’t even make any sense. Your mother mother should have drowned you at birth.

          • Exiled Phoenix

            You really are an idiot.

          • Ray

            U mad bro?

          • Exiled Phoenix

            Not at all. I just lost interest trading insults. I prefer spirited debate.
            I will trade insults with you again another day.

          • Ray

            Does the baby need it’s diaper changed?

          • Exiled Phoenix

            You remind me of that mamas boy on the show Raymond. You Make little rude quips because you have nothing to say yourself.
            I will give you this, you are amusing when I want to feel like a kid again talking smack about each others moms.

      • jackedclown

        Religion helped us get to where we are as a people. Helped the earlier human understand what they couldny explain. I believe in social darwinism. Evolution if you must. So exiled lets wager that im more successful, more fit, and alot better looking than you. Thats evolution. ..you want to go toe to toe with someone superior?

    • arto

      That is one of the most stupid things you could have said. Firstly, humans are the only species to reach overpopulation because we invented/discovered modern medicine and hygiene.Any other species is far from reaching overpopulation. The other species’ number have been relatively constant until the humans have hunted them off or destroyed their natural habitat; bonobos may be in low numbers due to their homosexual nature(just a hypothesis). Secondly, for the other species, the more individuals there are, the better because this ensures the species will survive. Trying to lower their number through homosexuality would be against the evolution theory and against any logic.

  • charles martel

    This is complete bullshit, as cannibalism is practiced by many animal species does it make it normal?

    If i understand well the author of that article relies on animal behaviour to make an acceptance of homosexuality?

    Do i have to understand that if he wants to mate with a girlfriend but if she already has children, then he kills thems, eats them and rape that woman, just because animals like lions do the same???

    • Ghidoran

      I don’t think this person is trying to justify homosexuality with this example, he’s just countering the argument that it is an unnatural deviation.

    • Mxdem

      It doesn’t say normal, it says “natural”, there’s a big difference.

      About your Lion-related nonsense; We are far more intelligent to not do that, we have a secular moral system to tell us that’s just not right, cause, who likes getting killed, right?

      Now, here comes the hard part, so pay attention… The main argument about homosexuallity being wrong is that it’s unnatural, which is not. Nobody said it was normal, nobody said everybody should do it, the whole point is that it’s present in the natural world, that’s it. Get it now?

      • DejectedHead

        The author of the article isn’t making that distinction. He has a quote from Rick Santorum at the top that is talking about legality. Perhaps he’s just conflating the issues to his advance his opinion?

        Anyways, sure, youc an say it’s natural…i.e. that there is a compulsion to behave that way that is natural to the person. But it is an abnormal behavior, something that gay rights believers have trouble admitting.

        And Rick Santorum is right, it does open up the argument to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery too.

        That being said, no, I don’t think homosexuality should be illegal.

        • Ian Moone

          The fact that something is abnormal does not mean it’s wrong. It is abnormal for someone to have red hair. Does that mean we condemn all people with red hair?
          Homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone. Therefore it’s not wrong.

          • DejectedHead

            I didn’t say it was wrong. I’m saying supporters of homosexual behavior don’t have honest discourse about the topic.

        • Wit

          The Santorum argument, or slippery slope argument as it were, is more alarmist than actually valid. How many times has it been used in the past as a warning for dire consequences that never appeared? History is replete with this weak argument. Slavery, mixed marriage, the rights of women to vote, etc., etc., etc. The answer, quite obviously is simple and staring us in the face – weigh each argument honestly, objectively and solely on it’s own merits without bias. Is homosexuality wrong? Then prove it with valid, non biased arguments. The same goes for bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery and on down the list if you can show how they are wrong honestly, objectively and on their own merit then do so. If you can’t then accept that in some cases there may be more positives than negatives. The overriding problem though is that humans for all their intellect are irrational and emotional creatures, more fearful than logical when it comes to change and the unknown. We’ve codified it in our very worst security blanket i.e. religion. Until we change this habit it will remain our number one stumbling block to social progress and evolution.

          • DejectedHead

            It’s a totally valid argument. If people are justifying an action based on “Let consensual adults do whatever they want” (An argument I agree with). Then the natural end of that is that consensual adults should be able to do whatever they want. Including polygamy. It doesn’t serve to make a sane society to turn around and claim your argument doesn’t mean that.

            I don’t care if polygamy is legal or not personally, but it certainly has implications on the structure of a society. I don’t know where you were trying to go with your “weak argument” references to Abolishing slaver, mixed marriage, or voting rights for women. You never completed the thought, you just listed them like it advanced something.

            Homosexuality acceptance in the society is the issue. The moral arguments don’t have any basis in actual fact usually because they all assume a made up rule (like we’re not supposed to do that and we all agree).

            So when talking about homosexual behavior being illegal…you’re discussing what two people can do together in private. When talking about gay marriage, you’re talking about public recognition of the relationship…which is fine, but it does open up the possibility of polygamy, incest, etc. if you’re claiming that two consensual adults can do whatever together without interference. You’re in effect saying that the state cant regulate that because it’s a violation of a base moral guide (Thou shalt mind thine own business)

          • Wit

            I was referring to the slippery slope argument as being a weak argument – “if we OK homosexuals then we’ll have to OK polygamists, incest, beastility too yada, yada.” There has never been any evidence or proof of that happening. My point being that every time alarmist used this tired slippery slope argument as a dire consequence for social change it never happened. Society didn’t fall apart when slaves were freed or women were given the right to vote or interracial couples were allowed to marry and it won’t fall apart here, either.

            Most naysayers and doomsayers work on fear of the very words alone as if it’s they are the boogey man out to steal your children. My contention is to argue the pros and cons of each based on their own merit. No topic is taboo. If you can show where these things are a detriment to individuals or to society then bring it, if not then get out of the way of others rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An honest discussion with an open mind is the sign of a healthy society. Rigid fear of the taboo is not.

            On another note you seem hung up on the word ‘abnormal’ – what of it? It’s abnormal that some people have red hair, so what? The majority of the worlds hair color is black. In this same sense being homosexual is an abnormality but again, so what? It’s not a detriment in and of itself but the word abnormal in the minds of others IS a detriment. That’s why most gays shy away from using it. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality even if it is an abnormality, like left handedness or having red hair or grey eyes but the word abnormal leaves a bad connotation in the minds of others about homosexuals which just is not true. A sad fact of life is that we live in a world which has always been far more ignorant than enlightened.

          • DejectedHead

            I’m not saying that there is evidence of that happening in the past, but I am saying that it is a valid point to make considering the justification being made on why people should be accepting of it. There’s a lot of stuff going on today that there isn’t a historical reference for…such as availablity of birth control pills (wasn’t invented, no reference). I didn’t say that society would fall apart either with gay marriage (I think you’re fighting a straw man a little bit here). Nor do I think society would fall apart with polygamy either. Nor am I aware of what broad arguments were made, with regard to ending slavery or giving women the vote, that would have impacted other issues that were brushed off as slippery slope arguments by supporters (you haven’t presented them).
            My only contention is that supporters should be honest in their discussions about these rights. Too often they aren’t, because someone that opposes their view brings up a valid point based on what they said and they get brushed off rather than responded to.
            The issue of using the word “abnormal” is to point out that even basic truths are often denied by supporters. Yes, Red hair is abnormal, so is homosexuality. But if you walk up to a homosexual supporter and say that homosexual behavior is abnormal, they’ll argue that it’s not and may say that you are bigoted. It’s the shying away from basic words and the manipulation of those words that make these discussions so hard to have in the first place.

          • Wit

            I agree with you. People often lack the intellectual integrity to be honest without bias or an emotional impairment of judgement and clarity. I try to be open to being wrong if you (generally speaking) can show me where I am wrong in my argument, comment, point of view etc., etc. I’ve yet, however, been given as argument opposing homosexuality than cannot be shot down or shot full of holes.

            I didn’t have the time to dig up the other specific references I mentioned but I’d seen them posted before – anecdotal commentary and opinions of the day surrounding other controversies in the past that if you allow them to be then all sorts of pandemonium, damnation and disaster were sure to ensue.

            People are also quite ignorant when it comes to correctly understanding terminology so even if you’re being correct in what you speak it’s still a losing battle unless you indulge all the tangents to educate them where they have misunderstood you and therefore totally miss the point. Trying to explain the correct terminology of ‘theory’ to a christian apologist for example. ; )

          • DejectedHead

            Depends, I’m not necessarily trying to “prove” you wrong. I do believe people can be born gay, absolutely, and no, I don’t think they should be maimed and beaten. So it depends on what you want me to prove you wrong about.

            So the issue relating to the article…is homosexuality “natural” sure, it can be…but I don’t see how an example of apes really improves anyone’s opinion on the subject. Is anyone really going to say “look, an ape does it, so I should do it too.” But equally valid of a point to make is that maybe not all gay people are born that way. Some people are encouraged to try it…it’s been around for years with references to “experimenting” in college. So people that advocate against homosexuality aren’t necessarily wrong to advocate against it either. I’d also say the metrosexual culture is pretty gay too, but that’s a different subject.

            When talking about the quote from Rick Santorum (I’m not a fan of his), he absolutely has a point…based on the arguments of supporters that consensual adults should be able to do whatever they want to (an argument I agree with). Because consensual adults can do whatever they want…that allows for homosexuality to be accepted by the state…but it should also apply to bigamy, polygamy, adultery, and incest…because those are consensual adults too. Now you can say that incest could be prevented on genetic groups and carve out an exception. You could say polygamy and bigamy could be limited by saying only two people can be involved, but that’s an arbitrary limitation. Plus, again, we’re just talking about what would be deemed acceptable behavior by the state (thus not illegal, I’d argue that none of it should be illegal). With gay marriage, personally I don’t know why the state is involved in marriage anyways. It never should have been involved in the first place…I’d rather wish the discussion was about untangling that.

            Now, when you’re talking about the social implications of those subjects, it’s a little bit different because you can’t control what other people think about the subjects. Yes, people try to, but ultimately they don’t control the opinions. You can bombard people with your opinions constantly to get them to try to change their opinions…which has been going on for a while, on TV, in Movies, etc. But what has started to happen has been to use the force of government to force people to believe the same things as you. You see it through the introduction of “hate crime” laws, where the status of the victim now depends on whether they have a specific orientation as to whether it applies or not. That isn’t equality, that’s special status in the state because you couldn’t change people’s opinions the other way.

            The issue with terminology, I agree, it’s a hard topic to tackle, but specifically with gay rights supporters, they may fully well know the terminology and still refuse to admit to a technical term. The main issue with that is that a lot of people will attack someone for using a correct term…as a sign of bigotry. You see it all the time.

      • QiGongUser

        No, the problem with homosexuality is how they push for it and try to convert people. You think i care if you want to take it in the ass? No, being gay is fine for some, but the way its is forced down our throats(BPA) is downright unacceptable, just as is teaching your children to be homosexual. Im all for the rights of the people, but like its been said, if you flaunt it like an uncivilized animal then you should only accept what kind of response you get

        • Jacqueline Lee Smith Borrero

          Seriously, WTF? I will never be persuaded to give lesbianism a try because I’m not fucking gay! Why inthe world would you think acceptance of homosexuality means we’d all of sudden be chomping at the bit for gay sex? Really???

        • Ian Moone

          You’re against people “flaunting” homosexuality. That’s fine. But that means you should also be against people “flaunting” heterosexuality. You also say that you’re against people teaching their kids to be homosexual (which doesn’t happen) so you must be against people teaching their kids to be heterosexual. If you don’t then you are using a double standard and that is not being “for the rights of the people.”

        • Wit

          I have never been aware of any homosexuals trying to convert people over to homosexuality. Either you are gay or you’re not, or like some people claim they like both. How exactly is being gay forced down your throat? How are people teaching children to be homosexual? Again either you are or you aren’t. Teaching kids to be OK with who they are – gay or straight – is not the same thing as trying to convert them from one to the other. In fact the ones doing the converting are the religious fanatics that demand gay kids should be converted – sometimes by force – into being straight. Why is that? Why not simply let people be who they want to be and be who they are.

          As for ‘flaunting’ homosexuality – have you spent much time in the real world? Everywhere you go billboards, magazines, TV and movies, everywhere you look heterosexuality and heteronormative behavior is openly flaunted and celebrated. It constantly rammed down the throats of people who are not strictly heterosexual that they are different and invisible. You don’t even notice the double standard here. Heterosexuality is flaunted and plastered everywhere – sometimes in some of the most vulgar displays but you don’t even blink yet let two homosexuals share a moment of affection and they are flaunting it ‘like an uncivilized animal’ in your own words. As someone who I assume is straight you’ve never really stopped to notice that, have you? Since you’re in the majority you’ve never known what it is like to be an outsider. Put yourself in someoneelses shoes for once. It might be quite an eye opening experience for you.

          • QiGongUser

            I am refferring to the gay pride parades where people act like animals im not the only on here that speaks of it. And it IS forced down the throats of everyone who drinks from plastic containers, which contain BPA, and in case you werent aware of the effects of it, it hyperfemininizes both males and females, as well as making us more passive.

          • Wit

            I’ll meet you halfway. I’m not enamored of the way some gays choose to behave at some Pride events but you seem to want to tar gays and Pride events together with a much broader brush than necessary. Most gay people don’t act like that so don’t judge the lot of us by the actions of a few, that’s just blind stereotyping. There is also a simple solution to this – if you don’t like the way some people act at gay Pride then don’t go to one. Done.

            As for your conspiracy theory about BPA being to used to ‘turn people gay’ sorry, but that’s just plain delusional. As is your belief that anyone is trying to ‘teach kids to be gay’ – that’s not happening because that is just not reality. I respect your personal views about sex and you have some valid points about media misrepresentation but everyone is gonna live by their own standards and those standards are not always going to be the same as yours. In short, worry about yourself and let everyone else worry about themselves. We’ll all get along a lot better in the long run.

          • Spection

            Since you actually admit to practicing QiGong, it is not at all surprising that you actually believe that homosexuals “recruit” people! Ha!

        • Spection

          Your idiotic comment brings to mind the hilarious “article” in The Onion that satirizes your despicable rant: “’98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal”.

          See: www(dot)theonion(dot)com/articles/98-homosexualrecruitment-drive-nearing-goal,536/

    • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

      And your normalcy argument is utter bullshit as well. The standards of normalcy are determined by a particular society. Standards change; just like how once upon a time, it was normal and compulsory for women to wear clothes that completely covered everything but their hands, face and feet (1800′s), such an idea would be considered absurd and a violation of women’s rights by most people today. So the only reason why your cannibalism argument seems valid to you is because you live in a society where cannibalism is abnormal. If you lived in Papua New Guinea for instance, cannibalism would be expected in particular circumstances and it would seem utterly normal.

      You should really broaden your horizons and learn to READ.

      • arto

        The author states that homosexuality is normal because animals do it. charles martel says that there are other things animals do that are not considered normal, therefore homosexuality shouldn’t be considered normal because some species have homosexual members. Your comment is irrelevant to the topic.

        • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

          The author says its natural or rather not unnatural, not that it’s normal, so your comment is irrelevant and you should really learn to read. I was merely pointing out that that particular argument in by Josi is incorrect. My comment had nothing to do with the article but the comment itself.

      • HockeyFan69

        I’m all for individualism and a person’s right to marry whom they choose, but the animals argument is a stupid one. Animals also have incestual relationships, eat their babies, and shit on the carpet. Just because animals do it, doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for us. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. There are a million better arguments to make for gay rights than the animal one. It’s insulting to gay people, if anything.

        • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

          Ok granted, the animal argument may be a little insulting, but, on what planet are humans of a higher standard? Humans eat their babies too ( North Korean famine induced cannibalism for instance), humans have incestual relationships (everyone has that one cousin and well the British royal families once upon a time) and humans do worse than shit on the carpet. Like wise animals mostly eat their babies in situations where food is scarce and will have incestual relationships as a consequence of the desire to keep and discard of certain genetic traits. Your argument only confirms that humans are animals. We do what it takes to survive. Animals do what it takes to survive. It’s just the way it is.

          • HockeyFan69

            The argument isn’t over whether or not these things happen, it’s whether they should be TOLERABLE. 99.99 percent of the human population would not condone eating babies or incest or pedophilia. That is frowned upon. The argument is about whether or not being a homosexual and being able to do what you want to with another consenting adult should be frowned upon. Saying “animals do it too” does not address the human element. Human relationships and monkey relationships, gay or straight, are not comparable on an emotional level.

          • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

            Once again you are misunderstanding and still you are making assumptions under the facade of what YOUR society tells you. Where do you get this statistic that 99.9% of the human population find eating babies intolerable? And by what standards do you measure such tolerability? What exactly is this “human element?”You need to understand that human beings are animals in the first place and that you differentiate because you seem to think that we are some how better when we truly are not. Animals have complex emotional, cultural and intellectual relationships that humans are only beginning to understand. What limits us is the fact that we cannot gain access to such relationships because 1) we hardly understand our own and 2) we cannot communicate with the different species of animals for various reasons. Until we find ways to accurately measure, comprehend and define 1) our own relationships and concepts and 2) animals and whatever goes on in their relationships and concepts, then we cannot and should not differentiate. And still you need to go back and read the premise of the comment that I made. I was not insinuating anything related to the animal human concept. The argument was about what normalcy is.

          • HotKnife

            If animals do what they need to do to to survive, homosexuality obviously wouldn’t happen.

      • jackedclown

        Lol! You think youre so smart and your point was so irrelevent it was embarrassing. Keep being ugly you low class troglodyte.

        • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

          Ka Setswana ba re: “shame arme, skepsel sa batho o se tlaela yong.” Figure it out bitch

      • HotKnife

        I personally think homosexuality is akin to some other normal human varient, like blue eyes, but your arguement is weak and condesation certainly garners little sympathy.

        • rgrgregreghrtrttesa

          you obviously have no understanding of biology and genetics hotknife.

          • Ian Moone

            You obviously have no understanding of psychology or studies on sexuality.

        • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

          If you have a better argument then let’s read it. Yours certainly falls short of anything and merely represents an opinion which remains irrelevant and inconclusive to me.

          • HotKnife

            Please feel free to enlighten all of us why some are homosexual and some are not. To be sure, a cultural aspect could explain some, but in heteronormative cultures is it not fair to say some are simply born with homosexual orientation? Gee Kaydot, are you seriously saying a homosexual can be “cured” by removal from certain environmental factors?

          • Spartacross

            Homosexuality cannot be cured anymore than an inferiority complex can be cured: the behavior can be corrected but the underlying tendency will remain throughout that person’s life.

            Now, you can try to convince me that someone can actually be born with an inferiority complex but you will fail. Because, just like homosexuality, it is established early on and it will determine that person’s behavior for the rest of his life.

            It is not genetic. It is not innate. It is not “natural”.
            It is the byproduct of complex social roles and (usually) maternal mistakes in a child’s early development.

          • HotKnife

            As I have stated, certain environmental factors can play a part in homosexual activity, but epigenetics marks, i.e. hormonal influence on the utero foetus, is the biological factor. Sorry, but the science doesn’t lay all the blame on mommy.

          • Spartacross

            No.
            First, militant gays insisted that homosexuality is genetic and that there are “gay genes”. That is Evolutionary impossible yet this minority opinion managed to become so prevalent that a number of studies were actually completed. Even if they were a waste of time and effort, when they were done, it was proved, beyond any possible doubt, that homosexuality is NOT a genetic trait.

            Now that the “gay gene” has been discredited, the same gay militants claim “epigenetic effects”. This is reminiscent of those medieval cartographers who insisted that there are dragons so they kept moving them to the less charted regions of the maps.
            But, in this case, there are no waters left uncharted,

            Because these studies were twin studies. When of two identical twins, with exactly the same genes and developing in the very same womb, only one of them grows up to be homosexual, there is absolutely no way for homosexuality to be either genetic or…epigenetic.

          • Wit

            I’d love to see your degrees in biology, genetics, psychology or any other related field of science that shows you are an expert in any of these or any related fields that you can so thoroughly debunk a theory or hypothesis, just because you say so. Medieival cartographers? Seriously? C’mon.

          • HotKnife

            Are you even reading what you write? I too doubt there is a “gay gene,” but rather hormonal influence on DNA. Some twins are are indeed gay, some are not, depending on how hormones affect the soveriegn feotuses. Are you seriously equating epigenetics with medieval cartography? Beware, there be trolls.

          • Spartacross

            Can you point to a link with any kind of scientific evidence that supports these “epigenetic influences” theory? I am talking published peer-reviewed papers by scientists, not unfounded fictional stories by militant gays or ignorant journalists reproducing information they did not bother to fact-check.

            For 40 years, the gay (usually self-appointed) leaders were ready to attack anyone who would voice an opinion that opposed the “it’s in our genes” argument. Well, it turns out what evolutionary biologists knew from the beginning and most people suspected anyway: homosexual behavior is not caused by a gene or a group of genes. It is not caused by any magical and peculiarly selective “hormonal affects on only one of the twins” either.

            Either provide some actual scientific evidence to support this or, yes, you behave like medieval cartographers, trying to convince for the existence of imaginary dragons by tacking them in the corners of the map.

          • HotKnife

            Enjoy;
            http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/253971.php

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211101832.htm

            http://www.mygenes.co.nz/epigenetics.htm

            http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167#mobileBookmark

            This isn’t about militant homosexuals, it’s about science. A world in which some are born homosexual is nothing to be afraid of.

          • Spartacross

            I checked them all: only one of the four links to a scientific paper. The other three, they are news articles on claims of the discovery of epigenetic causality for homosexuality.

            Both paper and article offer no substantiated mechanism and no causal link between genetic events and behavior modification. They only claim that there are DNA markers that can be epigenetically influenced during development yet they fail to link this to homosexual behavior.

            Allow me to make it clear with an analogy:
            About 90% of people adhere to some form of religion. Because of its high prevalence we start looking for brain regions that process religious feelings and we find none (remember the LeVay fiasco?). Then we try to go with the “religious genes” idea and twin studies debunks this too.

            Finally, we claim that since there are genetic loci that can be epigenetically influenced during development, there MUST be some epigenetic effect that takes advantage of this in order to, somehow, account for religious people.

            The fact, however, remains that tall claims need solid causality evidence. Of which there is none.

          • Wit

            Boy, you really suck at analogies. Maybe you should just stick to what you actually know, but then I guess that leaves you with a lot of time on your hands then, huh? ; )

          • Spartacross

            Hate to break this to you but I am a Biologist.
            So, I am not sure about your credentials, but I do know what I am talking about.

          • Wit

            Haha you still suck at analogies though. If you’re a biologist then perhaps you can demonstrate scientifically how genetics or epigenitics do not or cannot produce homosexual orientations instead of scoffing like an impetuous child at every hypothesis or theory. Honestly, you come across as someone who is just offended by homosexuality so you nay say every argument out of hand. As hung up as you are on how impossible it is for gays to pass on gay genes or traits I kinda have my doubts how good a scientist you claim to be though. You DO realize that 99.999 of all homosexuals are offspring of heterosexual parents, right?

          • Spartacross

            And you may come across as someone who needs for homosexuality to be genetic.

            Listen, on the moral stance of homosexuality my opinion and your opinion are as valid as the next person’s. Because morality is a matter of opinion. It swifts with time and places and is as fickle as you can imagine.

            Science, on the other hand, is not a matter of either opinion, preference or intuition. And it may progress, and old theories may get replaced by better ones, but its fundamentals cannot change.

            I did not just gloss over the articles whose links you posted. I did read them. One of them went so far as to claim that homosexuality is …excluded form the Evolutionary process.

            Because here lies the problem: when some special interest minority group try to twist Science’s arm in order to extract a result that can then be used to counterbalance morality issues.

            Let’s be honest, this is the real reason for all these “homosexual animals” and “epigenetic causes of homosexuality” nonsense: the attempt to (ab)use science in order to impose a minority morality opinion on the majority.

            Do not get me wrong. I cannot know what your experience with Christians has been so far but all I can tell you is that, as an Orthodox Christian, I would willingly give my life for you and anybody else. My religion does not condone homosexuality any more that it condones heterosexual promiscuity but it is also very clear on this point: do not judge not to be judged.

          • Wit

            First of all I do not ‘need’ homosexuality to be genetic. Science has not conclusively proven yet what exactly determines most people to be heterosexual and some to be homosexual. These insane opinions of ‘morality’ certainly don’t help matters by pushing unnecessary controversies on the subject. Someday we will know what determines sexuality and based on the societal mental health of the day whole new series of questions will arise. Hopefully we will be a more enlightened society then to handle the news.

            I am also not a fan of ANY special interest group strong arming evidence to support their specific agenda. That’s a charge of intellectual dishonesty that I lodge directly at christians and other religious bigots who have fought vehemently to claim that white is black and black is white in regards to homosexuality because that’s the only way to support their biblical worldview. Forget reason, forget logic, forget common sense. Homosexuals absolutely cannot be accepted in your view because if christians accept they are wrong about homosexuality then that starts to pull on a very unsettling loose thread of what else might be wrong in their beliefs. I have found that Christians are not intellectually honest enough to follow where that rabbit hole goes.

            I can understand and empathize with homosexual activists wanting to do the same thing by jumping on bandwagons and trying to strong arm arguments with evidence that is so far not there yet. We are locked in a life long struggle against vile and ugly smears, discrimination and oppression. Namely thanks to a millenia of theocratic dogma by christians and muslims who have poisoned the western world with their barbaric nonsense. Still that doesn’t make it honest, I can understand it but it’s not honest. If a theory or hypothesis is proven wrong or debunked I am strong enough to accept it and move on but you gotta prove it wrong to me first. Ideological wanna be right answers don’t cut it with me.

            That said, to be honest with you I cannot hold your views on morality as being just as valid as mine. Your personal morality is yours and is your business alone but don’t try to impose it on everyone else. I seek to find rational and logical arguments to support my position where as you deny, deny, deny to protect and support your religions world view. You dismiss arguments as nonsense ‘just cause’ because you feel safe within a supposedly ‘moral majority.’ That’s a cheap price for such comfort. If the tables were reversed I bet you’d become everything that you rail against about ‘militant homosexual activists’ so you can promote and protect your minority view against someone else’s majority. Same sex attractions and behavior in animals have been well documented by scientists observing and studying animal behavior for decades but you dismiss it as nonsense. Epigentics maybe the answer or it may not but again, you dismiss it out of hand as nonsense without giving any clear scientific or theoretical reasons why. Why? Because you have to protect your position for the sake of your religion. That’s why religion and science don’t mix.

            Let’s cut to the chase. There are absolutely no valid moral reasons to be against homosexuality. You cannot offer ANY logical, rational argument against homosexuality other than to say ‘it’s against my religion!’ And that is simply not good enough. I can, and often have, taken religious arguments apart as simply just plain bullshit without raising a sweat and still be home in time for lunch. Throughout this thread you’ve offered no facts, no convincing argument, only your self serving opinion to support your view. You have not debunked any reasons why homosexuality cannot be a natural and innate variant of sexuality. In turn I’ve countered every one of your claims, opinions and arguments and you’ve got nothing left to stand on.

            Being gay harms no one. Gay people living out their lives as normal people, just like you harms no one. Quit trying to equate homosexuality with ‘promiscuity’ because you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t have to like it or accept and that’s fine. But I don’t give a shit about your business so quit trying to justify messing with mine. I’m done here.

          • HotKnife

            Strange, that as a “biologist,” you claim environmental/behavioural are the sole determining factors with regard to sexual orientation. What is your expertise to do so? If so, perhaps you could direct us to peer reviewed articles that suggest homosexuality can be corrected through pharmacy or behaviour modification.

            In the mean time, further reading;

            http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2000-08364-008

            http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021982

          • Spartacross

            A …meta-analysis of handeness data and an (inconclusive) correlation study? That’s the best you ‘ve got? Honestly?

            If you have any evidence that a trait can be excluded from being affected by its incidence in the next generation, please provide a link to it. Until then, Evolution is still the valid scientific theory in explaining living organisms. And unless a trait is favored by either Natural or Sexual Selection, it goes extinct.

            As to how good a Biologist I am, I shall offer you this: I knew LeVay was full of it the moment I read his 1991 paper – and I was only a freshman back then. Now, shall we see if the knife cuts both ways? What is your expertise to determine how exactly epigenetic effects during embryo-genesis morph sexual behavior? I’d wager you are not an expert because then you would know that we have only barely started to scrape the surface of epigenetics. I guess that is why they seem so convenient to hide the origin of causality of homosexuality into.

            A child born into a heteronormative paradigm may, indeed, be a homosexual. Similarly, an atheist child may also come from a religious family. What do you think this goes the prove?

            Don’t try to abuse Science to impose your morality on the majority. And, for the record , I find it equally ridiculous when people want Creationism to be taught as a scientific theory.

          • HotKnife

            You have still offered nothing more than its mommy’s fault. Indeed, you’re quite the scientist. First hand experience shouldn’t be the basis for scientific hypophysis.

          • HotKnife

            Um, religion is a particular system of faith. Systems are learned through social constructs and can be easily altered. A child born to Muslims, yet raised by Catholics will not have a need to ever pray toward Mecca. A child born into a hetronormative paradigm may very well be homosexual. You fail to address this phenomenon.

          • Wit

            Care to explain to everyone how you came to this conclusion? What scientific methods did you use? Were there control groups? Some that liked the banana and some that did not? If you can be so bold as to postulate your opinions about homosexuality as facts then surely you have a testable method and proven results to back them up, right? Please share with us how you know it is not genetic, not innante and certainly not natural but is the, as you put it, byproduct of complex social roles and maternal mistakes. Take your time. We’ll wait.

          • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

            Clearly, you’re misunderstanding because my argument has nothing to do with the homosexuality aspect of the article at all. But to answer your question, no I’m not saying that homosexuality can be cured by removal of certain environmental factors because homosexuality is not a disease. Sexual orientation is not determinable but environmental factors. Environmental factors merely influence the decision to expose or conceal sexual orientation.

    • Josi Ates

      I think you may have missed the point here. We are closely related to these animals. Which means that studying their behavior helps to decode humans. A lion isn’t anywhere near our family tree. Therefore we have very little in common behaviorally.This is also why we don’t study lions in comparison to ourselves. If an animal that is closely related to us is born bisexual, then it can open new doors as to why humans are this way.

      • DejectedHead

        I think you missed his point. Comparing animal behaviors is a total non-starter. It doesn’t advance the discussion or bring any insight to the discussion of homosexuality. We gain far more insight from other humans than we do from another species that is nearly extinct.
        Truth is, it’s a societal norm that is enforced. So by the line of thinking that the author of this article is presenting, it should be totally normal for our species to naturally be against homosexual behavior…since our closests relatives (other humans) are naturally and culturally against the behavior.

        This is not to say that people aren’t born gay. I’ve seen 5 year olds that you could tell would be gay. It is all about cultural acceptance of the behavior.

    • Errkism

      You completely misread everything the author was stating. You should analyze what was said before you criticize it. He is saying homosexuality is a natural part of life, it isn’t a choice. Just the fact that some animals are gay kinda proves that, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at. And what do you mean animal behavior? Just a heads up, humans are animals too. We can actually learn a lot about ourselves by studying other animals. Why do you think we have lab rats and test monkeys? Using nature to prove his point was only logical, since the answer is sitting right there.

    • Ms. Lee Jonghyun

      Anthropology student here.

      You seem to have misunderstood the point of the article. The argument is that homosexuality is ‘natural’. Cannibalism could be argued as natural too. The argument is not that you should accept it because it’s natural either, it simply knocks the general argument that homosexuality is wrong because it ‘isn’t natural’.

      Note that there is a difference between nature and society. Society may look down on/disapprove on something, but that doesn’t mean it’s unnatural. In fact it’s these structures in society that make such false claims that actually got me interested into this field of research.

      If you want more info, perhaps try reading Frans de Waal. He’s done some interesting studies with chimpanzee’s and bonobo’s.

    • Just

      You are using the argument opposite to the one people in your position usually use. You’re saying humans dont have to be a certain way just because animals are. People opposing homosexuality usually like appealing to nature by saying “homosexuality is against the nature”. And when the homos point out certain animals’ behavior, the likes of you come along and argue that the idea that animal behavior neatly translates into human behavior is logically inconsistent. I think it’d be more honest to say you dont like homos. :)

    • JohnnyReb

      I support Gay Marriage, but I get your point, perhaps we shouldn’t say that something is ok just because animals do it to. However, homosexuals are naturally born homosexual, and theres nothing wrong with it.

    • Guest

      The author is not “relying” on anything or trying to make you accept homosexuality. The author is saying that homosexuality is naturally occurring. The evidence to support their claim is in the behavior of the Bonobo species. If you had simply read the article’s TITLE and not jump to conclusions you would clearly see what the article was about. I get the sense that you’re one of many people who read something, jump to conclusions and get offensive. Nobody is trying to take away your sexuality. IT IS OKAY.

    • g_liu

      Was about to write this, but you’ve said it brilliantly.

  • charles martel

    plus: there’s no need of a religion to understand that homosexuality is abnormal.

    Homosexual can’t perpetuate humankind, only heterosexual can.

    Call it homophobia if you wish but hey, until today this is still nature that decides, deal with it…

    • Yossarian921

      We got 7 billion member of mankind asshat. Gay=environmentally friendly.

    • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

      That premise is completely incorrect. Advances in modern medicine have shown that men and women don’t need to fuck each other to procreate. There’s artificial insemination, sperm and eggs generated from sperm and pretty soon scientists should be able to create an artificial uterine environment so heterosexuality is not a requirement for advancement of the human kind. And your premise still doesn’t fit in with the whole infertility thing, regardless of sexual orientation. And in any event, who you fuck doesn’t determine sexual orientation, that is just about sex, hence, you’ll find gay men having children with women and straight men having sex with gay men for money.

      • Chester

        ummm if your a man and have sex with a man your gay…pretty simple bud. Science can do alot of stuff doesnt mean it should.

      • Jimmy

        But artificial insemination isn’t natural. charles martel is right. Naturally homosexuality can’t continue the human race. Besides which, this article provides no support to homosexuality being natural as those apes were bisexual, which while allowing their species to continue is a different thing entirely.

    • Pulchritude

      I’m all for homosexuality. But I also believe that homosexuality is a deviance of evolution main purpose: promoting survivability of its specy. Homosexuality in nature without help of technology is helping squat to procreation.

      In fact, us, humans developing new technologies is in fact a deviance as unnatural stuff arises from ours hands: lasers, robots, integrated circuits, special physical processes that need extremely controlled environment which lady nature can’t provide. Of all things, science at our point has become a deviancy of nature.

      Of course, if we regard the notion of natural: since everything is originally created from nature, unnatural doesn’t really exist. But that’s more semantics than concrete stuff.

    • Sam Smith

      People tend to think that logically the more individuals there are, the better because it ensures species survival and that not breeding would be illogical. However, it is more complex than that.

      If we take humans as an example, quite a few people have more than two children in their lifetime. In the past, when we would have only had smaller areas to sustain our population, having too many children would strain the resources available to us but at the same time, if you had the desire to have sex with the opposite gender, you would eventually have children and usually, too many for you to care for. If you had 1 every 2 years, that’d be 5 children, and let’s say there are twenty couples having 5 children each. That’d be 100 children but let’s say the average couple can care for 4 children at once. There would be 20 children left with no caretakers.

      That’s when evolution comes into play.

      In this next scenario, let’s say fifteen of the couples are heterosexual, three are homosexual, one is bisexual and one is asexual.

      The 15 heterosexual couples would still have 75 children. Leaving 15 uncared for. However, you now have 5 couples not having children, three because they can’t, one because they don’t have to, and one who won’t because they lack sexual attraction. If each of those 5 couples take the children that can’t be cared for by their parents and they are divided evenly then they would have three children each, and they would all still be capable of taking on at least one more child so that if one heterosexual couple dies, the children still have someone to raise them. If the extra 15 children were spread unevenly though, there would be one couple with no children that would essentially be an extra caretaker couple that would be able to assist others that need it.

      Though it seems like the first one is the most efficient due to the the quantity of children, the over all quantity of children that could be cared for in scenario A is 80 while 20 essentially end up being a waste of their parents resources and time and the loss of one couple would result in a loss of 4 children while in scenario B, it is 75, all are cared for, no time or resources are wasted and even if one pairing dies, the children will still be cared for. This means that scenario B is actually more efficient, as nothing is wasted, and it is more flexible as it takes into account that death may occur. If you decrease the number of children had to 4 then A would be at maximum capacity for caretaking which is still 80 where the death of 5 couples would result in a loss of twenty children while B would have 60 children and the death of 5 couples wouldn’t result in any loss of children as there are 5 extra ones to care for them.

      In scenario A, the only way to account for death would be for them to all have the same quantity of children to keep them all equal but, the maximum for them would be 3 to create a total of 60 because them all having 4 would leave no flexibility for death at all, and having some have four and others not would likely cause fighting over who gets more which could cause unnecessary injury/death. The optimal quantity of children though would likely be between 60 and 76 children so that at least the death of one couple would be taken into account but regardless, there would be no one spare to help with children even if it was near the lower number of 60 because everyone would have their own children to look after.

      In scenario B however, all the heterosexual couples can have up to 5 children and still have the death of at least one couple taken into account and at least 1 child of a second couple could also still be raised in this case. Anywhere between 60 and 75 children would be optimal and still leave flexibility. If it is closer to 60, the children would have more extra caretakers which would reduce stress on parents, there would be people available to help them if their parents were busy, there would be more people available to teach them necessary skills and to help them if they struggle and they might even learn skills their parents don’t know too from these extra caretakers and as long as the children are spread unevenly, even at 75, there’d be an extra caretaker couple to assist.

      Therefore, a species with homosexuals, bisexuals (which have the added bonus of not having to reproduce but being able to if it is necessary) and asexuals (and all of the slightly different variations that lie somewhere between these sexualities) is more efficient for resources and time when compared to one without them, and can actually care for children much better as there would be some people available to assist those with children at all times even if the parents are busy, and it factors in the potential death of parents quite well and it leaves people available to care for them.

      This also shows quite clearly that you don’t need everyone to be reproducing for a population to survive, even if it is small, because it is actually more efficient when they aren’t all able to and the population growth will actually still be pretty much the same regardless as long as the majority reproduces. What really matters is the efficiency and the care of the children though because wasting resources is pointless and the better care the children get, the higher their chance of survival is.

      So that’s why homosexuals, bisexuals and asexuals and everything in between are likely not only natural, but they are also beneficial for a species like ours to have, because we do happen to give a lot of care to our young, we also don’t produce many at a time and it takes a long time for us to fully develop, though they would be pretty damn useless for animals that don’t care for their young e.g fish, snakes, butterflies, those that produce many at a time e.g. fish, frogs, or those that have very short lifespans e.g. mayflies and other insects.

      These days, we’ve pretty much broken our natural system though by creating artificial insemination, IVF, and other ways that people who couldn’t have children, now can and unfortunately, it is the unwanted children/the children who can’t be cared for by their parents that suffer as a result because the people that used to take them, don’t have to any more when they can just create their own.

    • Wit

      Infertility is both a natural occurrence in nature and also abnormal – a deviation of the norm. Are you also willing to rail against people who are infertile? Deny them their basic civil rights? Deride them as less than human because they are ‘not normal?’ How, in any sense, does abnormal equal ‘wrong’ anyway? At least to the point that it must be persecuted? Do you have the intellectual integrity to answer that question?

    • Spection

      Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!

      See my reply to jackedclown, above, about how homosexuality is selected for and how it is passed down through heterosexual reproduction.

  • Ray

    Morris M. Must be ashamed of this article since his name was left off. He may secretly be a homosexual.

    • Hadeskabir

      And what’s the problem if he is?

      • Ray

        There is no problem. Just like Malcolm X and the other dead people he’s outing.

  • Hadeskabir

    Don’t be homophobic you retards. If you don’t like homosexual sex just don’t do it! Why the hell do you feel the need of stopping the ones who enjoy it? Let straight guys be straight, let homosexuals be homosexuals. It’s that simple!

    • Oli

      I really agree. I have no interest in arguments for and against, for me it really is that simple!

    • Chester

      im cool with that…stop holding parades for your sexual orientation and i wont have a problem, last time i checked theres no straight pride parade.

      • Limesy

        Last time I checked straight people hadn’t been persecuted for hundreds of years due to the general public fear of what they were doing in the privacy of their own homes. Gay people hosting parades is no different than black people having their own celebrated heritage month. The concept lies in the ability to be expressive of themselves and their culture since they had been denied those privileges for so long. Nice try though; the “parade” argument doesn’t work anymore, you bigoted pin-prick.

        • Chester

          actually it is, the civil rights marchers were clean cut, dressed in suits and sunday bests and had respect for themselves. What they wernt was naked wearing strapons on their heads pretending to be progressive and thought provoking instead of the laughing stock they really are. If they want to march respectfully, dressed well in order to promote their views ill respect that, until then gay pride is a disgrace and a shameful blight on what is a real civil rights issue. I wonder how seriously and respected Martin Luther King would have been had he dressed like a pimp with gold grilz on and marched down the street, with thousands of other racially stereotyped dressed people. You want respect earn it, respect yourselves instead of marching as blatant homosexual stereotypes.

          • Limesy

            I’m not gay. You assuming that I am is the problem, not what gay people choose to wear or conduct themselves. If that is your biggest issue with the problem you need deeper self-reflection. It must be easy for straight males, like you and I, to sit her and say what people should and should not do. But the fact is, you still jerk off in the shower even though you were told it was wrong as a child. Grow the fuck up dude; this life is not about worrying what others are doing. It is about what YOU are doing to improve yourself and those close to you. It shouldn’t matter how they present themselves; it only shows your lack of understanding or a culture and your fear of acceptance of something that you fear. You are fearful; admit it.

          • Chester

            Actually it does matter how they present themselves as they are seeking equal acceptance from society, and by acting and dressing like a TV stereotype they only ruin any credibility they have. Like i said if MLK had dressed as a pimp and walked down the streets throwing fried chicken and watermelon like some Racist Black Santa i doubt anyone would ever take black civil rights seriously.. All that pride does is reinforce that homosexuals are not the same as straights and until they decide to dress and act in a civil manner i will always have disdain for Pride. My understanding of their “culture” comes from my understanding of all cultures in that what i see, what i hear and what i read forms my understanding, and what i see hear and read is that they have no respect for themselves and are content to act inappropriately and unintelligent..Am I afraid of homosexuals, absolutely not, am i disgusted and detracted by how they act at pride, absolutely. How any professional, well mannered intelligent person who is a homosexual can condone the actions at Pride is beyond me.

          • Limesy

            It’s because I do not believe that things are right and wrong based on appearance. Plain and simple. They are different from you, just like I am different than you because I choose to protest wearing everyday clothes. I am a political (yet, amateur) expert. I have my masters in political science, yet would you not take my argument or cause seriously because I’m wearing a hoodie and not a suit? I’m different than you. Gays and different than you. Some blacks are different than you. Get over it. And get over yourself.

          • Chester

            I wouldnt take your cause seriously if you were naked blaring music and wearing fake dicks…No one would! you could be Christ resurrected and i would think your some asinine naked dude wearing fake dicks, wondering why you haven’t been arrested for public indecency, As a master in poli-sci id figure youd have the intelligence to realize that “the medium is the message”.

          • Limesy

            Please do not patronize me; political interpretation through statistical analysis is what I specialize in. I do not believe you have been to enough gay events, personally. The median* (jackass) in this case generally yields a sizable portion of individuals who dress fairly normally, not with dildos attached to their hats. Why? In a nutshell, because you are grossly misinformed.

          • jackedclown

            Are you serious? Appearance means nothing? Why not try to integrate and be a little more reserved if trying to gain sympathy from the masses? When meeting a new girls parents (who know your fucking their daughter) do you not try to act nicr instead of ‘hey your whore daughter swallows!’ Poor mathew sheppard…his cause has been so dilluted. Oh google him

          • Wit

            Pride is not – on it’s surface – about seeking acceptance from society. It’s a celebration of being who you are – gay, bi, trans, straight but gay friendly, etc, etc regardless of who approves. It’s a release from hundreds of years of very real oppressive and inhumane persecution. It’s a sometimes loud and raucous ‘FUCK YOU!’ To those who criticize us for living, loving, and expressing ourselves outside the lines society demands we all must follow. It’s political, it’s social, it’s a family day in the park, it’s anything you want it to be. In short, gay pride is many different things to many different people, both gay and straight. Sure, some stereotypes abound at some Pride events but if you look for ‘bad gay stereotypes’ for every one you find there’s a hundred other Pride goers dressed and acting just as normal as they are every other day. In short, Chester, if you stop to actually look it’s diversity and if you ask us no one there will give a shit how YOU think WE should behave. Have a nice day. :)

          • Chester

            If they had actual pride those normal well dressed individuals wouldn’t stand for a person perverting their cause the way many many pride goers do. Also dont church it up there is nothing diverse about acting like a moron, walking around naked and wearing fake dicks call it what it is, disgraceful.

          • Wit

            I’m sure having your knickers in such a super tight twist lends you the comfort of normalcy you demand in order to cope with the world. If not also giving you secret little thrills when no one’s looking. That said however I know reasoned discourse is beyond the pale with you so I’ll just reiterate my last point. No one gives a shit how YOU think WE should dress, act, or behave. Cheers.

          • Chester

            Well considering this entire thread is people trying to dissuade my logical argument your last point is moot.

          • Adam Jazzkamp

            haha. logical. Oh, Chester, sweetie. No, you’re argument isn’t logical, and it’s clear you don’t like people dressing scantily and acting like whores. That’s fine. But what about ALL the straight people who act like that ALL the time. You’re a hypocrite. k?

          • Chester

            im not saying scantily dressed Adam im saying its not appropriate to walk around naked wearing fake dicks and calling it a “parade”. The same actions would cause you to be arrested and forced to join a sex offenders registry on any other day, its not appropriate now and shouldnt be than, and until they clean that element up im against it.

          • Tarzmahal

            Not all gay people participate in parades. Just like other people they are individuals with various personalities and interests. Perhaps you’re the one stereotyping?

          • Chester

            Hence why i never said that i was against people being homosexual, i said i was against how pride parade is conducted.

          • Jimmy

            Chester wasn’t assuming you were gay. He was using you as the indefinite pronoun to refer to any individual, for which “one” was previously used but has since dropped out of common usage.

          • Chester

            Thank you for understanding.

          • Limesy

            Please kill yourself.

          • Chester

            please dont bother responding to my argument any longer as your obviously a child.

          • Limesy

            The child is one who leaves a comment that in no way relates to the topic at hand. I’ll respond as I please, as I am on a public forum.

          • Chester

            Have a nice day :) .

          • Limesy

            I’ll take that as you have run out of intelligent input. Have a shitty day.

          • Chester

            Thank you kindly :) , i fondly hope you dont kill yourself as you have suggested to another poster on here. Good luck with your life.

          • Limesy

            I don’t believe a lot in luck, much like god. I like to believe in what is tangible. You respond to an argument as well as a middle-class pre-teen girl. That was not an insult, rather a insightful (yet, opinionated) comparison.

          • Chester

            And yet i dont detract or make my argument moot by suggesting people should kill themselves…funny how that works isnt it. The tangibility of your argument is that your a poli-sci masters that has been bested by the argument of a middle-class per-teen girl (your words not mine), so perhaps you should believe in luck, because judging by the tangibility of that, your going to need alot in your life :) .

          • Ian Moone

            Okay I’ve agreed with most of what you said but that was just rude.

      • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

        The problem is, Chester, the thousands of years of persecution gay people have suffered through. In many countries gay people are executed for being gay. Straight people aren’t persecuted against. Why are you so stupid?

        Gay rights still have a long way to go, but eventually it will be bigots like you who are ostracized from society. Bring on that day. :o )

        • Chester

          Im not a bigot i just dont approve of how they conduct themselves at pride. Also if bigots are ostracized i guess were going to have a Bigot awareness day and BRPPAD (bigots,racists and prejudice persons against discrimination lobby), Bigot Pride Parade, Bigot History Month, National Archie Bunker day lol etc etc.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            That’s called the Tolerance Paradox – being tolerant of everything except intolerance. So, technically, no. Bigots will just be booted up the arse.

            As for Gay Pride Days – you’re clearly missing the point and have no idea what you’re talking about. Bigot.

          • Chester

            Actually i do because seeking acceptance and wanting equality kinda gets throw out the window when you try doing it by being naked, wearing strapon on your head or just acting like a stereotype your trying to dispel. If martin Luther King had dressed like a pimp, worn gold grilz walked around throwing fried chicken and watermelon during civil rights marches would you take him seriously…no so perhaps your just more accepting of asinine and indecent public behavior than i am. If Pride marchers wore suits, well dressed and marched down the street constructively and peacefully id have 0 problem with it, instead they choose to be a circus and have no respect for themselves or their cause.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Hitler wore a suit. I guess you’ve got no problem with the Nazis as they were well dressed.

            Your brain is far too entrenched within the confines of spurious social norms.

          • Chester

            And there goes your argument..thanks for coming out. Your argument is basically null and void once you bring hitler into any conversation, i thought you had some semi intelligent point to make but you obviously have no rebuttal to my simple yet concise grievance with Pride.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Godwin’s Law blah blah. You’re one of those vacuous folk who claims “ad hominem” and other such guff. You need to think for yourself, dear, instead of relying on your bigotry to fuel your ignorance.

          • Chester

            Thanks again :) have yourself a wonderful day perhaps one day you will understand that walking down a public street, naked blaring music, dressed with fake dicks isnt an appropriate way to express yourself or further a civil cause :) good luck with your life.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Wow, you’re pretty self-righteous. As you’d expect from a bigot.

            I’d wish you the same but, you know, I don’t tolerate bigots. Which is what you are. :o )

          • Chester

            So i guess that makes you a bigot to :) .

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            “Too”.

            Incorrect. As I explained, dear, the “Tolerance Paradox” holds the answer. You’ll need to look that up, perhaps try Wikipedia. :o )

          • Chester

            Thanks again have yourself a great day :) .

          • Limesy

            Just give up. I did too. He is too close-minded. It’s not worth the time.

          • jackedclown

            Oh noooo dont call him a bigot! Now back to your nazi argument. The nazis weren’t trying to get acceptance so why does it matter what they wore? Do you understand the argument?

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            You’ve missed the point of everything. Well done. FAIL!

          • Wit

            Re reading this thread I think Chester dreams of those plastic dicks since he appears so obsessed with them and his imagery of them at Pride to make his point.

          • Ian Moone

            Please stop talking. You aren’t helping yourself or your argument.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Oh gee, let me guess, a homophobe. What is it with you hateful wankers?

            Also, this is called “typing”, not talking.

          • Ian Moone

            Actually I am a lesbian. So yeah, I’m not homophobic. Do you fell stupid now?

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Not really. I think it’s pretty obvious you’re very confused.

          • Ian Moone

            What exactly do you think I’m confused about? Is it my sexuality because if that’s what you think then you’re a stupid asshole. Or is it the fact that you aren’t helping your argument? I’m pretty sure that everyone here would agree that you aren’t making a convincing argument.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Haha, you’re funny. Let that banal Feminist lesbian anger our, dear. Then go and have a cup of tea. :o )

          • Ian Moone

            You know you never answered my question. What do you think I’m confused about?

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            It could be a list of things: existentialism, qualia based reductionism, cheese. Who knows!?

          • jackedclown

            This made no sense

          • iamtherealgumby

            You had him on the ropes right up t’ill you fucked up by mentioning Hitler first…I hate Chester as much as the next guy but rules are rules…

          • Chester

            ya was never on the ropes was pretty even he mention hitler and took a dive, game over for him.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Godwin’s Law is just a theory and has nothing on fact. There’s nothing wrong with mentioning a pertinent issue such as intolerance, which is what Nazism was based about.

            The internet Hipsters are promoting this Godwin’s Law nonsense and it should be stopped. It isn’t a rule, it’s just one man’s theory.

          • iamtherealgumby

            Chillax Dude, my absurd comment was greatly needed at that point.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            You used “chillax”, you lose the internet. It’s called Goatbirth’s Law and, as it’s on the internet, it consequently is unquestionable truth. Hitler would have agreed. So would Kublai Khan.

          • iamtherealgumby

            Goatbirth’s Law; mainly used to prolong patently absurd internet comment threads and to propagate the controversial idea that Hitler can be in cahoots with Kublai Khan…

            :)

          • jackedclown

            This is correct. I could careless if youre gay or abort little, inferior, beast before you shit them out. I actually laugh about it. Just less people to get in my way. But dont, dont, preach to me about evolution and then tell me homosexuality is part of it. How do gays pass on traits?

          • Wit

            You obviously don’t understand much about evolution. We are ALL part of the evolutionary process both large and small. Btw, gays pass on traits the same way you do either through natural childbirth (yes, many gays have actually done this) or through artificial insemination.

          • Spartacross

            If you think that artificial insemination (a process available for less than three generations – and only very recently to homosexual individuals) can have an evolutionary impact, you, sir, have no understanding of Evolution.

            You seem eloquent enough to have had an education so I am guessing you do understand why both Natural and Sexual Selection could not allow for the imaginary “gay gene(s)” to survive for long, even if they were possible. Anyone with even a single semester of Biology under his belt can understand this.

            And please, do not reproduce the “homosexuals provide other advantages to the group” because the moment your behavior diminishes the number of offspring, your genes will disappear within a few generations. No matter how good an uncle you may be.

          • Wit

            You obviously did not understand that my answer to jackedclown was in two parts. Firstly, yes we are just as much a part of evolution as anyone else. A homosexual is not just one, big whatever it is that makes him or her gay. Homosexuals are humans with the same variety of genetic and natural gifts as our heterosexual counter parts. We can impact evolution in the same way as anyone else by passing on our traits and abilities in intellect, empathy, athleticism, leadership, musical ability, genius, the list is endless and ALL of it is totally independent of sexuality. Some of the greatest minds, athletes, conquerors, composers, artists, thinkers in history and so much more have been homosexual and are every bit as worthy as passing on our unique gifts as you. For thousands of years we’ve done it the same way you have too. We may not prefer procreation with the opposite sex but in cultures around the world we’ve ‘rose to the challenge’ so to speak. Artificial insemination today just makes the whole process so much easier.

            Secondly, you fail to comprehend that our existence does not depend on some Holy Grail of a ‘gay gene.’ Our very existence debunks the myth of needing a gay gene because homosexuals have existed since the beginning of the human race. We have survived natural selection and sexual selection for generations all the way to the here and now so there’s something more than solely genetics and a ‘gay gene’ at work here.

            Lastly, despite your slander of my worth as a person, a human being, a member of my family and an uncle to my niece and nephew I forgive you for your ignorance. You can change that you know. It’s not hard and seeking real knowledge doesn’t hurt. I promise.

          • Spection

            WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

            See my reply to jackedclown, above.

          • Spartacross

            What you got? The already old (and wrong) “gay uncle” claim?
            Only deeply uneducated and/or people feverishly enlisted to the gay world can subscribe to such infantile use of Evolutionary arguments!

            You think Evolution works in 15-20 generations? No.
            How about 150-200? Again, no. Not for altering such basic human behaviors.

            Gays are not artistic by definition either. No serious studies have been conducted on the prevalence of this, of course, all evidence is purely anecdotal but it has more to do with being marginalized (hence the need to seek imaginary realities as psychological protection), not any special innate abilities.

          • Wit

            Spection’s theories – in my opinion – are pretty much weak bullshit and totally unverifiable but his heart is in the right place.

            In any case here’s the deal – homosexual orientation is not solely, if at all, genetic. If it were then yes, it would in all likelihood be weeded out of future generations or reduced to a recessive ‘gene’ or trait. However the occurrence of homosexual orientation in humans appears to be going up, not going down. I use the word ‘appears’ because I believe that is actually not the case. The percentage of people who are gay has always been more or less the same but acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality IS increasing. Therefore more people are comfortable being open about their sexuality which lends the appearance to some that there are more and more people ‘turning’ gay. In other words we’ve always been here fully blended in with mainstream society it’s just other people are finally catching on that we really exist and are (shocker!) normal, everyday people like everyone else.

            Homosexuality has been recorded in the history of cultures around the world for over 4,000 years. If homosexual orientation was solely dependent on the reproduction of a ‘homosexual gene’ then we would not be having this discussion right now because homosexuals would no longer exist. Not to mention one very glaring overlooked fact that homosexuals are the offspring of HETEROSEXUAL parents.

            This indicates that there is another factor, or more than one, at work here other than simple genetics that cause some people to be gay and most people to be straight. As this article shows homosexuality is a natural occurrence in nature, it does not exist in a vacuum with humans as a conscious ‘choice.’ It blows a hole through the argument that homosexuality is ‘not natural’ – for some it IS very much natural. Is it abnormal? In a technical sense yes but abnormal here does not equal ‘bad’ it only means different and outside of the ‘norm.’ The exact same definition applies to people who are left handed – where are the pitchforks and vitriol over those who ‘choose’ to be left handed? Homosexuality is nothing more than a variant of sexuality in humans and many other species. But really, this tit for tat bickering is moot.

            Here’s the real question if anyone has the guts and intellectual integrity to answer it honestly. What is so wrong with homosexuality? Does it threaten our reproduction and species survival? No, it does not. Does it harm anyone in anyway that is NOT homosexual? No, it does not. Does being gay harm people who are gay? No, it does not. Not any more than risky and irresponsible actions by heterosexuals harms other heterosexuals. So, if it is shown to be a natural variant of sexuality in nature that doesn’t affect you, does not have anything to do with you then what is your problem with homosexuality?

            Does anyone have the balls to take me on?

          • Spartacross

            On what? The fact that you, like everyone else, are entitled to your opinions?

            Opinions (mine included) are a dime a dozen. Nevertheless, they eventually give shape to the prevalent morality.
            Do I think discriminating against or even hating someone just because of who he chooses to have sex with is justified? Of course not! Hate is never justified.

            On the other hand, the attempt made by a vocal gay minority to twist the arm of Science to provide psychobiological evidence that they think will help them in winning the morality argument is also wrong.

            I cannot understand how could it could help the gays to base their acceptance on lies and unfounded theories. Will they not be in danger loosing said acceptance once these lies are revealed and those theories falsified.

          • Wit

            I posit that what I believe is just plain, simple, common sense based on my knowledge of history, society, questions of morality and my own life experience. I welcome my hypotheses (theories are already proven working models that are accepted as factual explanations, and you call yourself a scientist tsk, tsk) to be tested and if they can, to be debunked.

            I challenge you to this, answer me this question – why is homosexuality a moral argument? As well, if you can debunk the theories behind what causes homosexuality then bring it. At any rate this is not about the science or theories, this is a very simple, direct challenge. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, why? This is not just a challenge to you but to anyone on this thread – do you have the courage in your convictions to answer my questions honestly?

          • Spartacross

            You only posed one question: what is so wrong with homosexuality.

            For me, as an Orthodox Christian, it is enough that goes against the Word of God (and, no, this is not based solely on Leviticus). Sure, I also have aesthetical objections – but this can also be told for Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians. Then again, their behavior is also against my personal morality. It is their choice to behave how they see fit, as it is mine to avoid such behavior.

            However, my religion and my opinion does not have to agree with anyone else’s. Hence, the ever changing morality argument I made above.

            I know everything there is to know about theories, Wit. Including the fact that proposing one, does not mean in any way that the phenomenon under study has been explained.

          • Wit

            Yeah, this is what I expected from you. “It’s against my religion!” Well, so what? Sorry, but your ‘word of god’ is a very poor moral authority. You’re right, your religion and opinion doesn’t have to agree with mine or anyone elses’ but let’s be honest here. Your opinion that homosexuality is wrong does not make it so. And yeah, I can already hear you crying “But it’s not MY words, it’s gods!” That’s just weak and cowardly. I’ll be bluntly honest with you – if you stick it to the gays because of what you think your word of god says, but you also ignore all the other stuff in the bible then you’re not just a liar you’re a hypocrite too. That leaves your opinion on morality with exactly ZERO credibility my friend.

            You also fail by equating being a homosexual solely to a being a behavior ala Miley Cyrus or the Kardashians. That’s rather judgemental don’t you think? And doesn’t your ‘word of god’ having something to say about judging people? Like A LOT more to say about that than about homosexuals?

            Homosexuality is not a behavior, it’s a sexual orientation. Behaviour in this instance is what you do in relation to your orientation. Most homosexuals are just like you and me, average and not perfect but just trying to get through our day to day lives like everyone else. We’re not ‘behaviors’ or freaks or stereotypes. We’re humans and ordinary people, good, bad or indifferent.

            Lastly, if you’re so knowledgeable about theories then you must know a hypothesis is proposed but once it’s tested and proven to be supported with evidence, data and observation then it moves on to being a theory which is the best possible model to explain the phenomena in question. Or do you have the same quibbles about gravity or Germ Theory? Either way theories on homosexuality probe the possible reasons WHY some people are gay, that’s it. They have nothing to do with the question of morality which is the apparent stick in your craw.

            But don’t feel too bad. I don’t really care for Miley Cyrus or the Kardashians either. Care to try again? ; )

          • Spartacross

            Why do you think “equating being a homosexual solely to a being a behavior ala Miley Cyrus or the Kardashians” is bad? Is it because you disapprove of their behavior as well and do not like gays being associated with such depraved behavior? Are you not passing judgment onto them on matters that do not concern you, and at the same moment, asking others not to do the same thing? Or do they concern you?

            Are you afraid that when media become saturated with such questionable moral standards you will be denied the right to both feel at home in the world and raise your children as you see fit?

            Why would you think you have the right to dictate religious beliefs to anyone but yourself?
            And, do yourself a favor, when you hear the word “Christian” try not to equate it with a cartoon figure of some ignorant, Bible-thumping bigot form the American South who would argue that Creationism is Science.

            Now, read any of my posts: where am I “sticking it to the gays”?

            And where am I imposing my religion or my morality onto others?

          • Wit

            I’m not the one who equated homosexuals with ‘depraved behaviors’ like Miley Cyrus and the Kardashians, you did. You’re the one making assumptions about gay people who you do not know and have never met with scandalous media driven personalities like those two, not me. You’re the one passing judgements on homosexuals carte blanche as a moral issue, not me. I also have news for you, just by your posts alone on this thread you’re dictating your beliefs on everyone here and in your passive-aggressive manner ‘sticking it to the gays.’ I’ve read all your posts, remember?

            I can ask you you’re very own question. Why would you think you have the right to dictate religious beliefs to anyone but yourself?

            I have news for you too, I was born and raised in the Deep South under the very buckle of the Baptist Bible Belt. I know a lot more of christians and christianity than you can quite imagine and it’s not all caricature I can assure you.

          • Spartacross

            So we are now officially off the reservation and well into “I-is-so-because-I-said-it-is-so” territory.

          • Wit

            I’m putting up a reasoned argument to show where your argument fails. I’m not sure where you’ve wandered off to now. Care to try and stay on topic?

          • Spection

            You are easily one of the most clueless simpletons concerning evolution — and apparently everything else — I’ve ever encountered!

            You ignorantly write of evolution “working(!)” only over hundreds of generations! It is to laugh! You clearly have no idea what evolution is!

            Regardless of mechanism, evolution is properly defined scientifically as changes in inheritable allele frequencies in a given species’ gene pool from one time to a later time. Such changes take place EVERY generation, not just after hundreds of them! Wow, how vapidly ignorant can you get!

            And evolution takes place at multiple levels, from species level, to individual organism level, to microscopic levels. Sure, major phenotypic changes usually take a fairly long time to appear at the macroscopic level, but evolution nevertheless progresses every generation among species that reproduce sexually.

            And it is evolutionarily IMPOSSIBLE that the kin-selection hypothesis isn’t at least a significant part of the etiology of homosexuality, despite the flawed criticism. For how would you STOP the siblings of gay family members from passing down the closely-related family genes?

            Finally, I’ve never claimed that “gays are artistic”; that was a foolish euphemism/meme that has been rapidly dwindling for years (although I have a great fondness for a barbershop quartet singing the following song on the awesomely great Bill Tush show: “I’m afraid that your son is “artistic”… “But you often will see, on the family tree, an occasional branch will bear fruit”)

            Go read a book!

          • Spection

            Hey, jackedclown, to answer your question about how “gays pass on traits”, what really happens is that –especially during our hunter-gatherer era — the homosexual members of a given family did not have to work to feed and clothe and education their own children, so they dedicated all these riches to their nieces and nephews, who, having their evolutionary success so considerably enhanced, thereby had more and healthier and stronger children of their own. Since these children inherited mostly the same genes and traits as their gay aunts and uncles who helped them, these genes continued to spread through the whole genetic tree of that family, and hence into other families’ genetic trees.

            You and your family might not have even existed without your gay ancestors!

          • Mom424

            I understand the purpose of gay pride days and parades, even understand their need. Don’t understand the need to parade around with parts hangin’ out, grabbing and groping at each other. I don’t approve of that conduct from heterosexuals; I apply the same standard to LGBT. I don’t care about the whip and chains and such, just keep the bits covered up and keep your hands to yourself.

          • Wit

            I get where you’re coming from. I’m not overjoyed with this part of our culture either but I understand it. It’s a complicated phenomenon to explain. Suffice to say we have a rather hypersexualized sub culture which many outsiders too easily identify as ‘the gay lifestyle’ when it’s really a sensationalized stereotype of that particular sub culture and not one that represents all of us. People love a good spectacle and the ones that act this way at Pride certainly give it to them. Bias in media representation doesn’t help. It’s not as exciting to show all the normal looking people at Pride as it is to show leather queens wearing only heavy boots and spike studded leather jock straps or drag queens acting like Miley Cyrus. The best brief explanation I can give is that decades upon decades of being kicked out of society to make up our own rules as we see fit has left a deep mark in the gay male psyche. Rather than accepting gays as equal members of society raised with the same rules and expectations we’ve abandoned generations of gay youth to the streets and thrust them into a culture that celebrated hedonism and a lifestyle of no rules, no consequences until the onset the of AIDS pandemic in the early ’80′s. Cast out without a strong sense of identity or self worth has done a lot of entrenched damage to our culture with unrealistic expectations of how we’re supposed to behave as homosexuals.

          • Spection

            I hope you won’t be surprised to learn that myself and pretty much all of the gays I know agree with you, Mom! What you’ve said makes obvious good sense, which is exactly why we feel embarrassed by the extreme show-offs, who are always the worst examples that show up on TV coverage of these parades.

            However, things have been growing tamer as time passes, and I expect (and hope) that trend will continue.

        • DejectedHead

          Hey, I got it, let’s make an argument that persecuting gay people is natural because our closest relatives (humans) do it all the time. [Just to blow the author's argument up]

          The main problem with “gay rights” is that they ask for rights that don’t apply to all people. They want special consideration, hate crime laws that only apply to non-gays. That I have a problem with and it technically is a sign of persecution against people for not thinking the way they want them to think.

          People pushing for ‘equality’ apparently don’t even know what the meaning of the word is.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            You’ve completely missed the point. That’s some ego you have.

            Gay people just want equality – they want to be able to have same-sex marriage and walk down a road without some Chavs yelling “fuckin’ poofters!” at them. Grow up.

          • DejectedHead

            If all they want is equality, then why do they want special laws that defend them for their orientation?

            Yeah, and as I’ve said in other posts, this entire discussion about gay rights is about cultural acceptance. Which would seem to be covered under the things you listed. The article’s premise is wrong…nature exhibiting signs of homosexual behavior’s got nothing to do with it.

            Wish you supporters could grow up for once and have a big boy discussion about the issues honestly.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            What “special” laws? Like being able to marry the person they love? That’s just a human right.

            Also, gay people tend to get offended by some of the restrictive laws across the world. You know, like the one in Iran where you’re executed for being gay, and the oppressive laws just introduced by that psychopath Putin in Russia.

            You, DejectedHead, need a reality check. Get your narcissism in order, too.

          • DejectedHead

            Special laws like “hate crime laws”…I get to see these nice videos about how a kid got killed by people…and the mom supports hate crime laws so the people wouldn’t be on the street. Which is really funny considering murder is already illegal. The issue with the laws is that they have to guess as to what you were thinking. So they have effectively made a thought crime…which I have a problem with. I’m not talking about gay marriage with regard to a special law.
            Yeah, so gay people are offended by laws in other countries? Join the club. I too am offended by laws in Iran, like the one where you get executed for blasphemy. So what’s your point with that? I’m not a supporter of Iran’s laws.

            Where do you even get the comment about narcissism? Do you even know what that word means? I’m guessing you’re just flailing insults to see what sticks. Way to work towards a more civil discussion buddy.

            Perhaps you need to wake up to the simple things I’m saying and try to start having an honest conversation about the topics you talk about.

          • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

            Jesus you’re dense. I’ll leave you to it, I’m not explaining this to you.

          • DejectedHead

            Can’t explain the unexplainable. I get it, the dense comment is a way out. Open the door and walk through it. So brave.

      • Passin’ Through

        There isn’t a white history month either (in the US and UK; maybe there is somewhere). Does that mean we shouldn’t have black history month? Or blacks at all?

        Because they have a parade, you don’t accept them?

        • Chester

          actually no, read my above comments basically stating that if your going to walk down the streets naked wearing fake dicks im against that.

      • Hadeskabir

        In my country there is homosexual marriage and adoption, I’m damn proud of it. It’s people like you that doesn’t let humanity improve itself. LGBT people go on parades to show that they are not afraid of showing who they are.

        • Chester

          Sorry but i draw a line at actions or attire that on any other day of the year would have you jailed and make you join a sex offender registry. If you wish to march peacefully and respectfully (well dressed, and behaved) i have no quarel, if you think that being naked, wearing fake dicks is a statement of your pride, you have serious issues and i do not support that.

          • Pulchritude

            I find Chester’s imagery of MLK quite amusing although a bit repetitive.

            What I see is people don’t understand about what he tends to express is: To attract sympathy amongst rivalry, you don’t push to the extreme the antipathy. If gay people are disaproved because of the culture and way of living, working up to get acceptance won’t work through reinforcing what made them hated.

            The appearance argument is simply: embrace the major part of the population sympathy while promoting equality and take down unjustice. It’s not through recrudescence of what is hated you win a point.

            You always to keep in mind to gain a cause, you put most to your side.

            Now the opposite and what I disagree with Chester is his innate and typical of everybody that certain behaviors shall be viewed as infamous, ugly, bad. The fact you see sexuality in a blatant way makes you feel they are no more better than animals as it makes you think they care only about sex. And sex is low, thus they are lowlifes. Animals. Dude, it’s immensely the typical haughty human attitude that sex is dirty. It’s the typical “ah, us, humans are so superior”. Otherwise, why those dildos on hats annoy you that much?
            Still, I tend more towards Chester’s side after a particular moment. I was strolling in a location of the cities that is reputed for higher density of gay people (Montreal) and my eyes were caught by what I saw in a workplace’s cubicle through the windows. A dildo. I’m not of those anti-sex bigots, but sometimes, those people in gay pride (in those Chester dislikes) seem overzealous about the sex part as if all they have are sex urges. Homosexuality is not about dicks to dicks, it’s about the acceptance of same gender union. A way to live its sexuality (which is important part of human life) without retaliations. It’s not promoting extreme hedonism and that is perhaps what ticks Chester off. That ticks me a little off. It most certainly may be not that, but that suggests that without being the intention.

          • Hadeskabir

            It’s a parade with a gay theme -_- they are just having fun with the stereotype people made about them.

    • Livermore

      It will destroy society if we didn’t stop it.Don’t you know what does that gangsta culture destroy our fellow black guys from decades.

      • Hadeskabir

        What? I didn’t understand anything.

      • powder99

        Well you are not stopping it and we seem to still be here.

  • Arjan Hut

    There are people who get upset about the sex life of animals? REALLY?

  • Jo Cooper

    Just wondering what the author meant by “The addicted apes”?

    • Pulchritude

      Well, they are addicted to sex as, IIRC, 75% of the sexuality is not for procreation.

  • Arjan Hut

    Once, when my tomcat jumped his own mama cat, I grabbed him and threw him out. Are you proud of me, Rick Santorum?

    • Ray

      I think you should win a prize for your stupid comment.

      • Arjan Hut

        Stupidity is its own reward.

  • Ray

    All of Morris M’s articles have been about homosexuals and bisexuals. There’s nothing wrong with those things, but maybe Morris is trying to tell us something.

    • Arjan Hut

      He’s not on team Santorum?

      • Ray

        No, that he’s homosexual or bisexual.

        • Ian Moone

          So what if he is? It’s none of our business.

          • Ray

            It’s his business to out dead people though. Right?

          • Ian Moone

            No not at all. I’m not defending his articles. They’re awful. But to just because he rights pro-gay articles doesn’t mean he is gay.

          • Ray

            I know, I was being sarcastic since the subjects of his articles may not be gay either. Basically, I only meant it would be using his own methods against him. I wouldn’t write such an article. It wouldn’t be proper.

    • powder99

      Actually that is not true. I know it is a popular sport to dis Morris’ writing but what you said is not true. He has many lists that are not sexual; perhaps it is that you only read the ones that are about sex thereby arriving at an incorrect conclusion.

      • Ray

        I meant recently, but I didn’t add that. I made a mistake.

        • powder99

          No problem, made a few myself and it is not even suppertime yet.

          • Ray

            His lists do all seem to be biased in some way. That’s his opinion and that’s fine. It’s annoying when he puts a label like bisexual or homosexual on people that are dead and never claimed to be those things. There’s nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual, but it’s bad form to force that onto people that can’t defend themselves with evidence that would amount to hearsay at best.

    • Livermore

      He is making money hundred dollars.

  • Chester

    Gonna toss this out there, that apes also…eat each other, toss their shit at each other, murder each other, rape, steal etc etc all not normal behavior. Should you persecute someone for being different ..no but they should definitely tone their rhetoric down.

    • A.ghiloni

      Humans do all of those things too.

      • Chester

        very good all behaviors that arnt normal, and get you locked up.

  • VoiD

    …in short homo are apes.

  • Kaydot Mcdiamonds

    Lets all follow our evolutionary cousins’ example and have sex! Lots and lots of crazy, homosexual sex!

  • Hellsgift2u

    How could an act be natural? If I read correctly, they are endangered. This act does nothing but encourage death in nature’s eyes in any species, for they cannot bring forth life. While now they are of nature, the acts of which they follow is clearly killing them off. But another thing, judgment doesn’t come to the lower mindset of animals. But to who ever serves themselves to desire.

    • Paul Hanson

      They’re endangered because of human encroachment on their inhabitant, not homosexuality. As far as I know, their population is healthy in protected areas.

      • Hellsgift2u

        Protection is the key to there 25% chance of reproduction. I didn’t say they drove themselves endangered, I’m saying cause of there actions it is easier for death to come to them all. They are dwindling away.

    • powder99

      I suspect you know that it is not their sexuality that is endangering them. Are you trying to convert the extremely dull to your way of thinking?

      • Hellsgift2u

        Then would a greater chance of existence be to a natural life producing sex? Read the article 75% is non-reproductive…. Yes human touch is a key factor. But not all of it.

      • Hellsgift2u

        The message is there, you twisted it and thrown it to the side. You let the world tell you how to think, when the world offers nothing that can stand to the test of time. As kingdoms comes, other kingdoms went to ruins. How can you be so sure

    • Wit

      Their numbers are low, not endangered and there is likely more than one reason for it than homosexual sex. Bonobos are pacifists therefore less competitive than their more aggressive cousins the chimpanzees. Aggression is a major survival trait in the animal kingdom, kill or be killed if you want to live. You are also incorrect to say the act does nothing but encourage death in nature’s eyes in any species. Humans are proof that you’re wrong. We are vastly over populating this planet and we aren’t slowing down with the amount of kids being popped out of the bag. If Kinsey is correct that 10% of the human race is homosexual that is in no way going to even make a dent in the rate and size at which we are procreating as a species. Care to try again?

      • Hellsgift2u

        And which point did you make that life doesn’t come the womb of a female? Repent from your false knowledge. You yourself are in danger.

        • Wit

          “And which point did you make that life doesn’t come the womb of a female? ”

          ??? And you’re telling ME to repent from false knowledge? LOL

          • Hellsgift2u

            From the womb. And yet you turn to mock cause you have no argument to stand on.

          • Wit

            “And which point did you make that life doesn’t come FROM the womb of a female?”

            Is not a valid counter argument. It’s not even a coherent sentence, therefore I retain full mockage rights. Sorry. Care to go again?

          • Hellsgift2u

            As I missed one word, you choose to mock, is it because you have no argument to stand against mine?

  • Meems

    “Natural” doesn’t mean good or right. Nice try.

    • Casey Henderson

      morality is subjective. evolution trumps feelings, sorry.

    • Wit

      By the same token natural does not have to mean bad or wrong. Care to elaborate?

  • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

    A worrying amount of homophobic bigots on this page. What a shame some people are such Grade A Cunts. Grow up, you vacuous prats.

    • Livermore

      You hate homophobes, we hate homosexuals.Who were correct.

      • http://www.cheese.com/ John Goatbirth

        I hate intolerance, as any morally sound individual should.

        You hate gay people because; a) you’re a religious weirdo, b) you’re actually a latent homosexual and are terrified about the feelings you get, c) you’re a hateful moron and are just like that anyway etc. Why are you should a horrible person?

  • Sweet-Sativa

    I have two gay friends and they are right good people. I don’t judge people for sexual orientation, race, religion or otherwise. The same as I do not want to be judged for smoking pot. Just like everything similar its my lifes choice and doesn’t hurt anyone.

    • g_liu

      But you have to consider, just because it doesn’t hurt anybody (maybe except yourself) doesn’t mean it’s good. Example: smoking. Even if you smoke in the middle of nowhere and don’t pass around that secondhand, it’ll still turn your lungs to pulp.

      • Sweet-Sativa

        While I agree fully with your statement, I just don’t feel it (smoking pot) should be interfered with by the government or otherwise as long as I don’t cause harm to anyone with my habit. But yes I do see your point.

      • Wit

        The actual act of smoking – ingesting smoke into your lungs may be questionable but I’ll take the 100% natural i.e. nature made product of pot over the man made toxins and addictive carcinogens in cigarettes any fucking day.

      • Spection

        You are making the regrettably all-too-common “Is-Ought” logical fallacy, sometimes (if inaccurately) known as the “naturalistic fallacy”. Morality/should/shouldn’t/right/wrong all have NO meaning in nature! If you find homosexuality morally wrong or harmful, it is only because you have allowed bigotry to rule your mind.

  • Edward22

    so because two species in the animal kingdom deviate from God’s plan that makes homosexuality natural?

    • Limesy

      If they are a part of god’s plan than how did they deviate away? Do you even think about what you write?

      • Limesy

        Then*

      • Edward22

        You don’t have to take God literally. The fact of the matter is that the purpose of life is to reproduce. Homosexual love cannot create offspring. Therefore if everyone was gay…no more humanity

    • Casey Henderson

      you realize this is just the most specific example, there are dozens of bisexual SPECIES on the planet. These are just the most specific. You notice the word SPECIES, not societies, sub cultures, minor pockets of a species….

      • Edward22

        Right. But the fact of the matter is that these animals practice these bisexual acts in playful manners. When the time for reproduction comes around they know they have to mingle with the opposite sex.

    • Ian Moone

      Actually there are over 1500 species that practice homosexuality. That’s a bit more than two.

      • Edward22

        Yeah. Sure. But the vast majority of animals are straight. Just because a few are homosexual doesn’t mean it is in their nature

        • Wit

          Is this really that difficult for you to understand? I honestly don’t mean to be insulting but you’re just being an incredible simpleton here. Heterosexuality is natural to heterosexuals. Homosexuality is natural to homosexuals. It really is that simple. Homosexuality is unnatural as an orientation to heterosexuals because they are not homosexual and vice verse for homosexuals to follow a heterosexual orientation. In more simple terms, for people who are right handed it is natural to write with their right hand. For left handed people it is natural to write with their left hand. The only difference here is the division and discord imposed on homosexuals today, just like the left handed of the past, by the heavy handed and self serving moralizing of religious beliefs of the zealots and simpletons like you.

          • Edward22

            Hey, I’m not afraid of sex haha I don’t know where that came from but can you apologize for calling me a simpleton. I never attacked you personally, just the argument.

          • Wit

            You’re replying to the wrong comment. Scroll up to the other one. That’s where my point was made in the proper context about your probable fear of sex (at least any kind other than straight, vanilla heterosex) came from. And no, I don’t feel the need to apologize for calling you a simpleton because I believe it’s an apt description to use. I called you a simpleton because you simply refuse to think. Valid arguments have been laid out to you why your argument against homosexuality is faulty reasoning at best and yet it just doesn’t sink in with you. This is rudimentary common sense but you won’t get it because you don’t allow yourself to think outside that little god box your mind is stuck in. You can attack me personally or not, I don’t care. You haven’t addressed the points I’ve raised in any sort of good faith of intellectual discourse so crying foul because I chided you as a simpleton simply doesn’t impress me.

          • Edward22

            Alright I see your logic. So if a man is attracted to a horse or an object that is natural too?

          • Wit

            You’re an idiot. Have fun going through life running into blank walls.

          • Edward22

            So you can’t argue my logic?

          • Wit

            No, I won’t argue the willfull ignorance that you try to pass off as logic. It’s not worth my time explaining over and over what you choose to not understand.

          • Edward22

            Alright. We’ll call it a ceasefire.

          • Edward22

            Alright. If you are gay that is fine I don’t care. I just disagree with this article. I’m done arguing. This is stupid

        • Ian Moone

          Actually it does. Some of these animals aren’t intelligent enough to go against their nature. So it would have to be natural for the few that aren’t straight to be that way.

      • Spection

        With respect, Ian, the estimate of 1500 is now known to be far lower than more recent research has found. Increase that by an order of magnitude or two and you’ll be in the right ballpark. As Bruce Bagemihl, author of the book “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity”, explained, few observers of animal behavior have been brave and honest enough to report all the numerous cases of animal homosexuality they’ve seen with their own eyes due to the social pressure from gay-loathing institutions and older researchers.

    • Hellsgift2u

      How else would one cope with an argument when they can’t face the moral truth?

      • Edward22

        Exactly

    • Wit

      If there is no god and therefore no god’s ‘plan’ than how can they deviate from it? You have to prove a claim (i.e. that there is a god and he has a plan) before you can state your claim as fact and therefore pertinent or relevant to the topic at hand.

      • Edward22

        The overall plan in life is to reproduce. Therefore, animals that practice homosexuality are clearly doing it for their own twisted pleasure and not to produce offspring

        • Wit

          Who said the overall plan in life is to reproduce? You? God? Whose god? Yours? By what authority do you make such a claim? Reproduction is necessary for a species survival but higher order species such as animals, primates, mammals and humans are the most dominant species on this planet therefore reproduction is no longer solely the ‘overall plan in life’ as it were. Among humans especially sex for sexual pleasure has been with us as long as we have been a species. Most heterosexuals reproduce offspring just as much as they indulge in sexual pleasure. Homosexuals have also reproduced in the same manner but we are so few in number compared to heterosexuals that we in no way threaten the survival of our species. But I digress, your comment of homosexual species “clearly doing it for their own twisted pleasure” says everything anyone needs to know about you. You fear sex and any sexuality other than your own and probably think all sex is just plain icky. In any case I stand by my comment – if homosexuality is against your gods plan then you have prove there’s even a god in the first place before any reasoning, thinking person will take you seriously.

  • Spartacross

    “Natural” means “what usually happens”. It what possible sense can homosexuality ever be “natural” when even the most militant gay activists do not dare go above the (already arbitrarily inflated several times over)…10%? Dare to check what the incidence of pedophilia is?

    I am sick and tired of cowards wanting the freedom to make choices but then shrinking away from the consequences of those choices. I am heterosexual so I am attracted to women. Yet I do not copulate with every willing woman that crosses my path. So do not tell me that “there is no choice involved” just because someone is a homosexual.

    Even being attracted to members of the same sex may not behavior learned very early on (after the twin studies, there is absolutely no way to call it genetic, epigenetic or any other kind of pseudoscientific BS), choosing to have sexual relationships with members of the same sex clearly is a choice.

    And every choice has consequences. Deal with it.

    Do not try to spread your guilt onto a society that “does not accept me for what I am”.
    Do not try to appease your consciousness by forcing the Church to change the Bible.
    Do not try to force your minority opinion onto the government to give you the right to get married.

    Until the homosexual community decides to really come out and speak the truth, trying to find lame excuses the likes of “animals do it too, so now take away the consequences of our choices” are only ridiculing their cause.
    Because animals also eat their babies. Who here thinks this is also moral behavior?

    • Arjan Hut

      A lot of things which we currently regarded as normative, started out as
      minority ideas. Worth a list on Listverse.

      & Natural means a lot of things:

      1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
      2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
      3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
      4. a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
      b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
      c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
      5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions.

      6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural colouring; natural produce.
      7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
      8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie’s mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
      9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
      10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
      11.
      a. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
      b. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
      12. Mathematics Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
      13. Music
      a. Not sharped or flatted.
      b. Having no sharps or flats.
      noun:
      1.
      a. One having all the qualifications necessary for success: You are a natural for this job.
      b. One suited by nature for a certain purpose or function: She is a natural at mathematics.
      2. Music
      a. The sign () placed before a note to cancel a preceding sharp or flat.
      b. A note so affected.
      3. A yellowish gray to pale orange yellow.
      4. Games A combination in certain card and dice games that wins immediately.
      5. An Afro hairstyle.

    • Paul Hanson

      You may choose to act on your urges, but you never actually decided to have those aforementioned urges towards women. Sexuality, at least a good deal of what goes behind it, is innate at birth. That much has been determined. As for these “consequences”, what are they even? What is the homosexual community lying about? They want to be treated as equals and not be ostracized for who they are, which doesn’t seem nefarious in the slightest.

      As for the eating babies comment, really? We’re comparing consenting relationships with infanticide now? The “is natural so is moral argument” is no less flawed than this one.

    • Wit

      Wow, you’re just not very… smart, are you? That was I must say breath breathtakingly ignorant.

      • Spartacross

        I am smart enough to understand that when someone has no arguments left (and yet wants to remain unconvinced for other reasons) he will then resort to attacking the person and stay away from the facts.

        • Wit

          Wow, there is so much here that you simply fail to understand, where can one begin? Let’s just jump right in with a review, shall we?

          Facts? What facts? You’ve posited no facts in this diatribe, only opinions. Let’s take a look -

          ” It what possible sense can homosexuality ever be “natural” when even the most militant gay activists do not dare go above the (already arbitrarily inflated several times over)…10%?” This is an opinion, not a fact. It is in fact though one of the most convoluted as well as over inflated opinions on population statistics of homosexuality I’ve ever read. Let’s skip this one for now and I’ll come back to it later.

          “I am sick and tired of cowards wanting the freedom to make choices but then shrinking away from the consequences of those choices.” Again, this is an opinion, not a fact. Care to name examples that indicate a common trend and not isolated incidences? I’ll wait.

          “So do not tell me that “there is no choice involved” just because someone is a homosexual.” This is not only an opinion and not a fact but it is an egregious example of not knowing what the hell you’re talking about yet trying to pass it off as fact. There is absolutely no independent, conscious choice involved in ones sexual orientation. What a person DOES with their orientation is something quite different however. I am a homosexual male therefore I am sexually, romantically and emotionally attracted only to other males. I have no choice in who I am attracted too but I certainly can, and do, choose who I would sleep with or fall in love with. I don’t ‘copulate’ with ever willing male that crosses my path. I choose who I might have sex with if I am attracted to this person and the attraction is mutual. However I have zero attraction for women in any way. That is not a conscious choice, that’s just who I am just as you are who you are as a heterosexual only attracted to women and not to men. You’ve never made a conscious choice to NOT be attracted to men, have you? Think about it. So you’re half right but you’re still ignorant for screwing it up so badly.

          “Even if being attracted to members of the same sex may be a behavior learned very early on (after the twin studies, there is absolutely no way to call it genetic, epigenetic or any other kind of pseudoscientific BS),” Again, opinion – not fact. Care to share with the class how you thoroughly debunked these theories? Peer reviewed science papers will do just fine.

          “choosing to have sexual relationships with members of the same sex clearly is a choice.” Again, you’re half right. Liking other dudes is not a choice (for me) but deciding whether or not to get it on with that hunky number in the locker room would definitely be a hot choice.

          “And every choice has consequences. Deal with it.” This one I agree with. In your case the consequence must be painful to be so ignorant, but I digress. ; )

          “Do not try to spread your guilt onto a society that “does not accept me for what I am”.” Opinion. I don’t give a royal fuck if society accepts me or not. All I require and demand is to be treated equally and fairly before the law with the same rights and priviledges as you, nothing more, nothing less.

          “Do not try to appease your consciousness by forcing the Church to change the Bible.” Opinion. Trust me my conscious is not bothered by your church or your bible. I do not care to change your religion just keep your religion and your bible to yourself and out of our system of laws. Everything will be just fine, for everyone.

          “Do not try to force your minority opinion onto the government to give you the right to get married.” Opinion. Besides, you’re late to the party now. The tide has turned and more and more people see this discrimination bullshit for what it is. Our ‘minority’ opinion is fast becoming the majority opinion in favor of marriage equality. At this point you can either get in or get left behind. The choice is up to you.

          Back to your first mess of an attempt at coherent argument. Let’s take a look in Websters, shall we?

          nat·u·ral
          adjective
          : existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

          The point of this article is this; homosexuality does not exist in a vacuum. The Bonobo monkeys are only one of hundreds of animal species – same as humans – that have homosexual members and exhibit a wide variety of same sex attraction. As this is found in numerous species in nature this indicates that same sex attraction, while not as common, is just as natural a behavior as heterosexuality is with the one exception of reproduction. To be more precise, homosexuality is not natural for YOU because you are attracted to women. However I can assure you it is 100% natural to ME, every other human who is homosexual and with several hundred other species not the least of which includes a healthy, happy and horny chunk of the Bonobo monkey clan.

          That is the point that you so clearly fail to grasp. To put it another way being left handed is unnatural to me as I am right handed but it is completely natural to my niece who is left handed. Same difference. We don’t know for certain what causes some people to be gay just as we don’t fully understand why some people are left handed. It just is. There are numerous hypotheses and theories and personally I think there may be more than one working together but I’m not a scientist. Neither, I suspect are you.

          In any case no matter how it is that homosexuals come to be the fact is we are here and have been here as part of the human race since the beginning of the history of the human race. From Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum to David and Jonathan to Alexander the Great to the Sacred Band of Thebes (since you seem so enamored of Sparta.) From Leonardo Da Vinci to Walt Whitman to Elton John to me. Homosexuals just keep popping up everywhere, despite the cruelty and misguided ignorance of ‘good christian folk’ like you. Whether it’s part of evolution, the human genome or something else in between gay people have always been around and always will be so you might as well get used to it.

          Finally, on a personal note – the just plain stupid can be forgiven out of pity but the ignorant can be cured with knowledge and a willingness to learn. Therefore, as ignorant and uninformed as you are I believe there is still hope for you yet. Cheers.

  • rgrgregreghrtrttesa

    BUT OP! RAPE IS ALSO Natural!

    AND CONSENT IS UNNATURAL!

  • JRWoOo

    This site has become nothing more than a hot bed for individuals to air out their political beliefs…

  • Jum1801

    So is sickle cell anemia “natural”. But it’s not “normal”. Because it is a genetic defect, which, were it the norm, would result in the eventual extinction of the species. The same can be said about homosexuality. It is becoming more and more apparent that there is a genetic and/or utero-chemical aspect to homosexuality. People are indeed born that way. It’s not their “fault” and indeed there is no fault involved.

    If evolution has shown us anything it is that the entire point of life is in fact more life, or reproduction. Homosexuality is an obvious, physical, chemo-genetic distinction from the much more numerous normal heterosexual population. In that sense homosexuality is a “mutation”, in that it evades and defeats the entire purpose of life: reproduction. There is no morality or immorality to this mutation: no one is responsible for the chemical and genetic makeup of their person. But the mere fact that a mutation is common enough that it affects 2-3% of the population does not change the fact that it is literally “abnormal”, and in a sense a mutation. Nor does the fact that this knowledge is unpopular and therefore censored and rejected in some circles, change its obvious truth.

    • Spection

      You are wrong in every possible way! First, homosexuality is NOT a mutation and in fact it selected for in the ratio it appears, because it has hugely valuable positive consequences in animals -and- humans. There is good reason to hold that humans would not have become civilized without homosexuality. Why? In our early, hunter-gatherer era, since gay people usually did not have children, gay individuals would work, hunt and gather much more than they would have needed for themselves alone, and so they would give all that excess to their nieces and nephews. This would greatly improve these children’s physical and mental health, resulting in a much greater presence of their genes in the gene pool than if these individuals had to feed their own children! The bottom line is that the evolutionary success of the offspring/genes of those with gay siblings and their sibling’s children would prevail much more strongly than those families which did NOT have the benefits of having gay members!

      Furthermore, given the reduced need for gay persons to perform the many hours of grunt work required for food production, these people were free to spend the time needed to educate and civilize the other members of their tribe. In any culture, homosexuality is enormously beneficial!

  • Pulchritude

    First time I see a KnowledgeNuts article geting such a vivid discuss…nah altercation. Of course, when it comes to what people like or dislike, big rageous quarrels arise like the normalcy definition.

  • WhiteExodus

    Wow an article about homosexuality in nature and this results in the biggest argument I’ve ever seen in Knowledge nuts, time to pull out the popcorn.

    • Nomsheep

      There’s only about five topics that will kick off a shitstorm and this is one of them.

      • Ian Moone

        What are the other four?

        • Nomsheep

          Abortion, Israel, any kind of -ism (racism, sexism) and religion in general. there are others, but they are the main ones.

  • Brad James

    I hate the equivocation of normal and natural…in humans homosexuality is natural and thats the word this author should have used. It not normal as normal is only applied to stats. That being said I am pro gay we just need to use more precise language

  • Jon Adamson

    Polio and fratricide are also natural. That doesn’t make them good ideas.

  • inconspicuous detective

    who wrote this article?

    • Livermore

      A smart guy called Morris who make his daily income writing this gay stuff.Hope Jamie will fire this guy from his job.

  • bldsgrsxmgk

    Too many of you seem to have forgotten where you came from. Be humble enough to remember that we are not so far above and removed from our cousins and neighbours, especially our closest relatives. Kinship is in the DNA, not the mind’s ego. Subsequently, the comparison is steadfast.

  • Livermore

    If homosexuality is natural then homophobia is natural too.Morris use these poor homosexuals to gain views for his article.Well done Morris well done.If something is natural that doesn’t mean it is perfect.Morris is New Jesus for homosexuals.Hope your children will become gay then you write about them Morris.Morris make money from homosexuality.It’s the New business model and it’s a trend too.What next…..

    • Wit

      Nope. Homosexuality is shown to be a natural occurrence in nature. Homophobia however is a distinctly cultural, societal or religiously influenced LEARNED behavior. True, if something is natural it doesn’t mean it is ‘perfect’ or even has a distinct purpose but if it does not have a natural detriment then seriously, what is the problem with it other than your own learned behavior of fear or bigotry? The rest of your mini rant is just sheer bullshit and nonsense that you should be embarrassed you even let loose from your lips. Seriously.

  • Livermore

    Guys just don’t read his articles then he eventually fade out.

  • Jibzoiderz

    All homosexuals should die they are an abomination!

  • Jibzoiderz

    Remember folks homosexuals are an embarrasment to the human society and should be executed….. all they do is anal sex and watch homosexual p0rn0!!!!

  • sisi

    I haven’t read all the comments, some might be right some might be wrong in my particular view, but I feel I need to put my 5 cents in. I’m a Catholic woman, almost 60 years old, I’ve seen a lot of good and bad in this world, some from (so called) religious people, some from atheists. But when I see the hatred in the world about one subject or another, I try to remember Jesus, He never judged anyone, no matter what their sin had been or how many sins they had committed, and even at least once he said to someone who called Him “good master”: “Why are you calling me good? There is only One that is good, our Father who is in heaven” Also people remember the words: “The one who has not sin, let him throw the first stone.”
    Whoever wants can throw stones at me after reading this, but I will not bother answering. Instead put your energy in reading the new testament, several times while praying to God to give you understanding of Jesus’ real sayings and meanings. May God bless you all.
    P.S: Sorry about my english, is not my first language.

  • shmabai

    I’ve noticed a lot of people mentioning sex. If sex is purely about procreation, then gay people should not have sex. Neither, then, should infertile couples, old women who have hit menopause or anyone else incapable of producing children.

  • Pingback: ceavbjhnmkjnhbgefsdf

  • Pingback: sdhfdjscnrgsbrnfgssgsxgc