ArmEngine Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 Researchers find gay penguins in Japanese aquariums: report Sat Dec 25, 1:31 AM ET Top Stories - AFP TOKYO (AFP) - Researchers have found a number of same-sex pairs of penguins at aquariums in Japan, with an imbalance between the numbers of male and female birds suspected to be the cause, a report said. A research group led by Keisuke Ueda, professor of behavioral ecology at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, found about 20 same-sex pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos, Kyodo news agency said. Penguins in captivity "may be more likely to form same-sex pairs" due to the difficulty of finding partners of the opposite sex because breeding facilities in Japan only have an average of 20 birds, the agency quoted Ueda as saying. It is not known if the frequency of homosexuality is higher than in the wild, where telling the sexes apart is tough, he said. Many of the gay male pairs and two of the female pairs were seen performing mounting behavior, it said. Ueda was not available for comment on the report http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...imalspenguingay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 this is very interesting.. i also had the displeasure of seeing my pup hump my older male dog. Then they were holding hands and walking together... i sw the older dog pinch the pups but.. freecking pervert.. this animal homosexuality is geting around to quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 by the way, this is a great effort at showing that homosexuality is a genetic disorder... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Actually, one dog mounting another indicates that he's attempting to exert his 'dominance' over the other dog. Most dominant breeds/dogs simply won't tolerate this behaviour, however some gentle or more submissive dogs will put up with puppies as the pups have not yet 'established' themselves. It has nothing to do with homosexuality - in dogs at least... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 Actually, one dog mounting another indicates that he's attempting to exert his 'dominance' over the other dog. Most dominant breeds/dogs simply won't tolerate this behaviour, however some gentle or more submissive dogs will put up with puppies as the pups have not yet 'established' themselves. It has nothing to do with homosexuality - in dogs at least... style_images/master/snapback.png hahaha.. i cant beleive you actually explained all that.. we need a better "sarcastic" smiley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wh00t Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 (edited) Actually, one dog mounting another indicates that he's attempting to exert his 'dominance' over the other dog. Most dominant breeds/dogs simply won't tolerate this behaviour, however some gentle or more submissive dogs will put up with puppies as the pups have not yet 'established' themselves. It has nothing to do with homosexuality - in dogs at least... style_images/master/snapback.png vava, this is true in some species but not all. Check this out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20..._gayanimal.html http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html Over 450 kinds of animals naturally exhibit homosexual tendencies. This is the type of thing that makes conservative homophobes squirm. Edited January 7, 2005 by wh00t Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 by the way, this is a great effort at showing that homosexuality is a genetic disorder... style_images/master/snapback.png How is this effort showing anything about genetics? If nothing else, they have shown how sexual behavior is influenced by environments and sheer numbers. Just throw a bunch of guys in prison and they'll start mouting each other. I think this is a great effort at showing homosexuality is not a human only trait and therefor it's probably not influenced by the devil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wh00t Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I think this is a great effort at showing homosexuality is not a human only trait and therefor it's probably not influenced by the devil. style_images/master/snapback.png How wrong you are Sip, just watch, when Canada allows nationwide gay marriage in a month or two, our society will crumble and there will be blood running in the streets. MARK MY WORDS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 I think this is a great effort at showing homosexuality is not a human only trait and therefor it's probably not influenced by the devil. style_images/master/snapback.png So whatever you find animals doing is true for the humans. Perfect. Well then ... wars are OK because we kill for more food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 How wrong you are Sip, just watch, when Canada allows nationwide gay marriage in a month or two, our society will crumble and there will be blood running in the streets. MARK MY WORDS style_images/master/snapback.png If I didn't know you better, I would say you are serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 5, 2005 Report Share Posted January 5, 2005 So whatever you find animals doing is true for the humans. Perfect. Well then ... wars are OK because we kill for more food. style_images/master/snapback.png I don't see how your first point support the second. It doesn't mean that just because it is true for human that it means something is OK. The only problems I have with homosexuality is to claim it is the same as heterosexuality(and all that this imply)... homosexuality exist as a behavour in the animal kingdom(and we are part of it), but this is one thing, and showing that homosexuals do exist in other species beside humans is another. It isn't because some in a specy display homosexual behavour that it means that they actually are homosexual... I think homosexuality is more than just a simple behavour, it is social, cultural etc. just like heterosexuality... because we humans are evolved, and very social. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wh00t Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 So whatever you find animals doing is true for the humans. Perfect. Well then ... wars are OK because we kill for more food. style_images/master/snapback.png The fact that you find homosexuality abundantly in the animal kingdom trounces any notion that it is "unnatural," which is a main argument for opponents. The fact that homosexuality can be "induced" in proper environmental conditions (eg. cramped living quarters, certain temperature ranges, etc.) is interesting at the very least in that it the behavior is observable outside the human species. For voluntary homosexual sex to occur in normal circumstance, contrarily, is a devastating fact supporting the hypothesis of a genetic component to such behavior, as these animals simply do not have the cortical capacity to "choose" to engage as such. Wars, and murder in general, is specific to humans only. Animals kill for prey and for ecological balance which usually does not apply to us. Humans are the only species that kill for fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 The fact that you find homosexuality abundantly in the animal kingdom trounces any notion that it is "unnatural," which is a main argument for opponents. The fact that homosexuality can be "induced" in proper environmental conditions (eg. cramped living quarters, certain temperature ranges, etc.) is interesting at the very least in that it the behavior is observable outside the human species. For voluntary homosexual sex to occur in normal circumstance, contrarily, is a devastating fact supporting the hypothesis of a genetic component to such behavior, as these animals simply do not have the cortical capacity to "choose" to engage as such. Wars, and murder in general, is specific to humans only. Animals kill for prey and for ecological balance which usually does not apply to us. Humans are the only species that kill for fun. style_images/master/snapback.png It depend with what do you mean by opponment. Homosexual behavour is not unnatural... actualy, nothing can really be unnatural, we're alll part of nature. I do have some issues with homosexual marriages, but my arguments have nothing to do with homosexual behavours, but more to do with optimal environment for child raising, procreation, and the goal of marriages and for what tax breaks were meant for, when I saw meant for, this includes for me hetero couples that get married and do not intend to have children. I don't see why such people should pay less tax than me, when one of the goals for tax beaks is to creat the optimal environment to raise children. But of coutse probably all of this has nothing to do with homosexual behavours. For us to try to find homosecuals in other species we have to first try to find heterosexuals among other species. I don't believe that this is only about sex, or "sexual" couple, a lot has to do with "social/Cultural" ellements. Oh, about only humans killing for fun, some behavours were observed among chimps that kills for other reasons than for what the rest in the animal Kingdom kill for. I know that of course I should not use this example, afterall, chimps are our cousins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wh00t Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Oh, about only humans killing for fun, some behavours were observed among chimps that kills for other reasons than for what the rest in the animal Kingdom kill for. I know that of course I should not use this example, afterall, chimps are our cousins. style_images/master/snapback.png Wow! Talk about a dilemma for conservatives! Perhaps a slight argument against homosexuality in one context, but an even better argument favoring evolution Closest genetics cousins after all. Do you have a link for this, I would be curious to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I don't see how your first point support the second. It doesn't mean that just because it is true for human that it means something is OK. That was implied in the post I quoted. The only problems I have with homosexuality is to claim it is the same as heterosexuality(and all that this imply)... homosexuality exist as a behavour in the animal kingdom (and we are part of it), but this is one thing, and showing that homosexuals do exist in other species beside humans is another. It isn't because some in a specy display homosexual behavour that it means that they actually are homosexual... I think homosexuality is more than just a simple behavour, it is social, cultural etc. just like heterosexuality... because we humans are evolved, and very social. style_images/master/snapback.png I don't view myself as part of animal kingdom. As I have said before, I think humans have more than just body, instincts and soul. We also have Ego and spirit. At least having an Ego effectively sets us apart from the animal kingdom. I can't speak for eveyone but my heterosexuality is not a behavour, it is neither social nor cultural. It is a call that involves ever aspect of my essence except for the spirit, which does not have sexual nature. I believe that spirit is the source that feeds our instincts. And depending on that our instincts acquire different settings. As we have always disgreed on the existence of spirit, I'll stop here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Wow! Talk about a dilemma for conservatives! Perhaps a slight argument against homosexuality in one context, but an even better argument favoring evolution Closest genetics cousins after all. Do you have a link for this, I would be curious to read it. style_images/master/snapback.png I will try to find any web links. It's from Jane Goodalls observations. Like beating others to death because of jealousy, vengence etc. many human like characteristics, other time, just beating without reasons. Jane had papers covering those behavoural similarities between chimps and humans. Have you seen some of her recorded tapes on chimps... some of them you look at, and it's like taping humans. Their social constructs are so much similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 (edited) That was implied in the post I quoted. I don't view myself as part of animal kingdom. As I have said before, I think humans have more than just body, instincts and soul. We also have Ego and spirit. At least having an Ego effectively sets us apart from the animal kingdom. I can't speak for eveyone but my heterosexuality is not a behavour, it is neither social nor cultural. It is a call that involves ever aspect of my essence except for the spirit, which does not have sexual nature. I believe that spirit is the source that feeds our instincts. And depending on that our instincts acquire different settings. As we have always disgreed on the existence of spirit, I'll stop here. style_images/master/snapback.png Armen, come on... don't tell me that love between man and woman can be independent from sex? Show me any hetero man that while being attracted to a woman will fall in love for a man. How come sexual preferences and attractions makes a 100% prediction over the gender that you could fall in love with. Oh and, just tell me Armen, did the Neandartilis had souls and egos as well? If you believe that other animals don't have egos, watch one of Goodalls tapes, it will entirly change your view believe me. Edited January 6, 2005 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 The fact that you find homosexuality abundantly in the animal kingdom trounces any notion that it is "unnatural," which is a main argument for opponents. The fact that homosexuality can be "induced" in proper environmental conditions (eg. cramped living quarters, certain temperature ranges, etc.) is interesting at the very least in that it the behavior is observable outside the human species. For voluntary homosexual sex to occur in normal circumstance, contrarily, is a devastating fact supporting the hypothesis of a genetic component to such behavior, as these animals simply do not have the cortical capacity to "choose" to engage as such. I never thought that it is a genetic disorder so this doesn't change anything for me. I think it comes from the spiritual degradation of society. Wars, and murder in general, is specific to humans only. Animals kill for prey and for ecological balance which usually does not apply to us. Humans are the only species that kill for fun. style_images/master/snapback.png Humans never kill for fun. Humans kill for much more complex reasons but mainly to get something they don't have and they desire to have be it a tangiable or intangiable asset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Humans never kill for fun. Humans kill for much more complex reasons but mainly to get something they don't have and they desire to have be it a tangiable or intangiable asset. style_images/master/snapback.png Fun in this cases, is the sentiment of pleasure to beat, harm people to death. Wanting to kill only to kill(which Goodall considers as murder), is proper to humans and chimps, maybe other animals as well, but still hasn't been observed. wh00t, I've found a link for what you have asked. "1431/ Humans are not the only species to murder. Jane Goodall, an acclaimed primatologist, studied chimpanzees in the Gombe National Park in Tanzania starting in the mid 1960s. At first the chimps were in one large group, and seemed content and happy. Over time however she noticed them splitting into two seperate groups; and shortly thereafter the battered and beaten body of an adult female chimp was found. A short time after there was another killing, with one of Goodalls field assistants actually witnessing eight chimps surround an isolated male from the other group; and then proceed to beat him to death with their fists, and one even used a stone. Subsequent murders of chimps were also witnessed and described; and by 1977, just a few years later, all the members of the second breakaway group had either been killed or were forced to rejoin the first. More here about Chimpanzee Social Structure. " http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/factfile/...le1421_1440.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Armen, come on... don't tell me that love between man and woman can be independent from sex? Why would I say that? Sex is an essential part of love. But the impulse of love comes from a different world. From your universes if you want. That's why those who feel love can't realy explain it in words. Show me any hetero man that while being attracted to a woman will fall in love for a man. How come sexual preferences and attractions makes a 100% prediction over the gender that you could fall in love with. I didn't understand what you argued here. Explain please. Oh and, just tell me Armen, did the Neandartilis had souls and egos as well? If you believe that other animals don't have egos, watch one of Goodalls tapes, it will entirly change your view believe me. style_images/master/snapback.png Yes they did. But their spirit was degradating. They were a descending specy not assending. If animals had Ego they would try to make their life easier my inventing tools. I will try to find those tapes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wh00t Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 I never thought that it is a genetic disorder so this doesn't change anything for me. I think it comes from the spiritual degradation of society. Humans never kill for fun. Humans kill for much more complex reasons but mainly to get something they don't have and they desire to have be it a tangiable or intangiable asset. style_images/master/snapback.png The fact that it occurs in typical environmental settings does nothing for you? How could there be no genetic component if there is no societal abnormality to justify it? If by "complex reasons" you are including the pleasure of the killing or with the fascination with observing the death, then yes. "I once killed a man in Reno, just to watch him die." There can be these mental motivations which have no underlying ecological bearing, but again such motivations are only observed in humans and therefore not very relevant to this discussion, in my opinion. Domino, thank you for the link you provided, but I'm not sure it adequately deals with the reason for the killing. Is there any support to suggest that there was murder without a practical motivation? Maybe they were dealing with a threat which was not perceived by the researchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 Fun in this cases, is the sentiment of pleasure to beat, harm people to death. Wanting to kill only to kill (which Goodall considers as murder), is proper to humans and chimps, maybe other animals as well, but still hasn't been observed. style_images/master/snapback.png It has never been to kill only to kill. Even if it is an emotional satisfaction, it has a reason. Actually, this proves again that humans have Ego and animals don't. Meaning humans have one more thing to satisfy and develop. How they do that? How an Ego that requres killing evolves is a different issue. Actually, the development of the Ego of serial killer has a very good description in Suskind's "Parfume", which I always mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 The fact that you find homosexuality abundantly in the animal kingdom trounces any notion that it is "unnatural," which is a main argument for opponents. The fact that homosexuality can be "induced" in proper environmental conditions (eg. cramped living quarters, certain temperature ranges, etc.) is interesting at the very least in that it the behavior is observable outside the human species. For voluntary homosexual sex to occur in normal circumstance, contrarily, is a devastating fact supporting the hypothesis of a genetic component to such behavior, as these animals simply do not have the cortical capacity to "choose" to engage as such. style_images/master/snapback.png What exactly is homosexuality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wh00t Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 What exactly is homosexuality? style_images/master/snapback.png I would think, sexual activity with the members of one's own sex, by most definitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 6, 2005 Report Share Posted January 6, 2005 It has never been to kill only to kill. Even if it is an emotional satisfaction, it has a reason. Actually, this proves again that humans have Ego and animals don't. Meaning humans have one more thing to satisfy and develop. How they do that? How an Ego that requres killing evolves is a different issue. Actually, the development of the Ego of serial killer has a very good description in Suskind's "Parfume", which I always mention. style_images/master/snapback.png I think wh00t Reno example pretty much sommed it. When I said killing to kill, I eamnt for no practical reasons. Your previous post, I won't answer, I don't want to have a spiritual war again. Wh00t, I am trying to search on the web, but it's kind of hard to find texts of the tapes I have viewed... pictures worth thousand of words... in one of the tapes, chimps were taking baby babouns, and devoring them as to decapitate them, when they were even not hungry... the impression I got was kind of a sadistic murder, and they looked as if they were happy, you could see pleasure in their eyes doing that. There was no apparant reason why they will actualy take those babouns babies, it is not their nutrition, and neither they had any food shortage, to the contrary. They were happy with the dispars of the babouns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.