On Wiki, they expect sourcing, and in fact there is sources listed after each reptile on the list. A quick check shows they come from this book: Biological exuberance: animal ... - Google Books
You can find out more about this "random person" on his wiki page: Bruce Bagemihl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turns out his book used as a source is rather famous and well respected. Damn those "random people" on Wiki and their damn habit of sourcing things so any person can actually check and see who the random person is.
So one book buy one guy? OK that proves everyone else wrong.
So one book buy one guy? OK that proves everyone else wrong.
You are now grasping at straws and again you are not actually following links. His book draws material from over 300 studies on the subject. The reason people include links is so you can actually go and verify. Just dismissing without actually looking at a source never works well.
No. We've debated this lot of times... and I am not talking about anyone but myself. I have consistently stated that we do not know, precisely, how sexual orientation is formed, but the best assumptions from researchers is that it is created by genetics, biology, body chemistry/hormones, and environmental factors... or some combination. This has always been my position.
Uh who is everyone else?
The majority who all agree your assessment of what is homosexuality in animals is dead wrong.
You just did it right there....you glossed over the "may be".
I emphasized best assumptions as it's the closest thing you've said to it may be.
Seems to me that the majority thinks if a female has sex with a female it is gay. Now what majority is this you speak of?
So? I have no idea what you are trying to point out.
You are being misleading....at least mildly. Most, though, are far more blatantly misleading about it.
Nah. You implied that animal homosexuality is based in something other than genetics. I clarified.Then your comment has nothing to do with the context in which I responded to Kal, as it was indeed about the animal human comparison.
No.You are however trying to imply because it happens in the animal kingdom it is more than choice.
No **** - unless you take people's word for it.In the animal kingdom this may be true. In humans however, no evidence to support this one way or the other exists.
This?Then you need to read what I responded too.
Still nothing there.Edit 2: Oh as for the "realm of Abnormal Psychology"....black people were once thought of as animals at one point in history also...it took strong lobbying to get them elevated to human also.
Not so much. Most, if not all, of that was true in certain parts of Africa, certainly not on the whole continent. It looked inferior and "animalistic" to them when it was really just the product of a different environment.Only problem with that is, it is a lie...
The only thing they did not have was the wheel. So no I am correct.
It proves people see what they want to see contrary to facts.
You seem to be perpetually confused as I literally just said that in the comment your responding to.:shrug:And it does not apply to humans. Unless you have evidence the rest of the world does not? :mrgreen:
They are ALL female, what part of that are you NOT understanding? Many animals of different types can either change gender or are the same gender and breed.
The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.[11] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[12] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term "homosexual" is preferred over "gay", "lesbian" and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to the human condition.
Even you should now understand.
Not at all. I am stating something as a researcher would. It seems like how I am stating it doesn't fit into your position.
Nah. You implied that animal homosexuality is based in something other than genetics. I clarified.
No **** - unless you take people's word for it.
This?
Still nothing there.
Not so much. Most, if not all, of that was true in certain parts of Africa, certainly not on the whole continent. It looked inferior and "animalistic" to them when it was really just the product of a different environment.
You seem to be perpetually confused as I literally just said that in the comment your responding to.:shrug:
Hey you are the that brought up alligators in the first place. I simply showed you examples of homosexual behavior in the reptilian world.
In your first response to Kal. I may have misread it.No I did not. That is blatantly untrue. Please feel free to point out where I said this?
Didn't try to imply.Yes you did imply it, or the way you worded it it seemed that way.
Take most gay people's word for it.Take who's word for it?
I'm not seeing it.That is part of it. And yes something IS there.
Well yeah. They took things from certain parts of Africa and applied it to every African. They generalized and that was my point. Their generalization/racism came partially from behavior and was not simply skin color based. I agree that they made snap judgments on skin color, but behavior and cultural difference also played a significant role.They are speaking of the race as a whole, not "certain parts of Africa." Yes if it is wrong in even just one village let alone large parts of Africa, it is not true. It has less to do with black culture and more to do with white racism as I said.
Not so much.Then why did you even respond? I think you are confused and assume I said something I did not.
I already showed examples, all you did was make a lame attempt to set some juvenile trap that backfired.
You are trying to apply something human to animals. A bad example as I said before you jumped in.
Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?
No...you are glossing it over. The studies clearly state the "may be" in all cases. You, do not.
I don't dispute that, I never have. I entertain that it is possible that being homosexual is not a choice, but know that there is no proof of it. The problem I have with this argument is that there are an aweful lot of people out there that think there is conclusive proof that homosexuality has been proven to be a result of genetic and other factors and that "born gay" has been proven conclusivley. You yourself have indicated that by glossing over the "may be" in the summaries of all these studies.
You said
I called you on your ill informed BS.
I notice you cut out my comment in context...
Higher animals most certainly do make decisions. They also understand loneliness etc that is not instinctual: they can be taught. This line does bring another question to the table though. Why is it animals lower on the scale like alligators who have a brain the size of a marble do not show homosexual behavior?
Now their are a few that exhibit this behavior due mostly to pheromones and an attraction to others that have just finished feeding as in the case of bed bugs. It is exceedingly rare in lower level organisms in general, why? - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/97929-gay-people-abnormal-94.html#post1059475778
Try again. :lol:
If true, that is a very interesting point. It makes me wonder what causes the behavior in other animals, and if those same reasons apply to humans.
Obviously, for a person the reasons are much more complex than instinctive behaviors in many cases. But there has to be some sort of genetic component or it wouldn't be as common.
So far no evidence points to this at all, but it does not rule it out completely as we discover new things every day.
Animals are not a good example for human behavior.
Again no evidence of it being genetic in humans exists so far. What most studies I have seen recently do say is they think (still a theory without much proof either way) it is a combination of environment, nature and nurture. I also have seen something about brain shape??? Capitan correct me if I am wrong. The male and female brain is slightly different and it appears that in some cases they are reversed in gay or trans gendered males and females.
So nothing conclusive on either front as we are still learning.
Why not? We are animals, and our behavior is really not that different from the rest of the animal kingdom.
The fact that there is rape, murder, incest, and horrible violence should be proof of that.
Nature (genetics) is one aspect. Nurture (environment) is mostly how a person is raised by family. To me, the nature aspect seems more convincing in most cases.
The male brain is actually shaped by estrogen during its development (odd, I know) while the female brain when developing is protected from the estrogen by a certain chemical which I can't remember. I can find some links for this if you're interested. But the point is, people are mostly born homosexual or become so because of factors beyond their own control.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?