https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jun/20/animal-homosexual-behaviour-under-reported-by-scientists-survey-shows
Study finds same-sex sexual behaviour in primates and other mammals widely observed but seldom published
Almost there! Just one more step left on the Gay Agenda:
✔️ look cute
✔️ be gay
✔️ hang out with friends
✔️ make memes
✔️ trick wise protectors of heterosexuality into accepting gay animals
◻️ be treated with decency by society
The Brunch Amendment of 2008 lists all the people welcome to brunch and explicitly states that allies are allowed.
I've heard of the Gay Agenda for years now, and yet I still am a slob and totally lack any fabulousness. Who do I write to in order to complain?
Probably because a lot of it is real fucked up, and makes people uncomfortable.
Like female bedbugs not having vaginas and so males have a sharp penis and literally stab the females with it often resulting in death of the female, because it's literally just an open wound.
Further, male angler fish only exist to find the female, touch her, get stuck to her, and get absorbed by her body until all that's left is the testes, now absorbed by and part of the female. The female can hold multiple testes of multiple males inside of her and choose to self-impregnate whenever she chooses.
Don't even get me started on felines and spiny penises so the female can't escape once the male has entered.
Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
Yeah I don't spend my time reporting it because all it does is remind me how lucky I am to be human and be able to have a consensual, loving relationship with another human.
I think the point is, human discomfort shouldn't play a role in scientific reporting. Humans have projected a lot of human social elements (sex and gender roles, etc) onto animals and called it science, but it's not objective. If we are self censoring, we can't effectively share knowledge with others and we might miss important things down the line.
Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
Pretty much all duck sex. Sometimes males will gang rape a female to death.
Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
The documentary on koalas I watched 2-3 decades ago was kind of traumatizing.
Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
Female garter snakes at the Narcisse Snake Dens in Manitoba would agree.
Like female bedbugs not having vaginas and so males have a sharp penis and literally stab the females with it often resulting in death of the female, because it’s literally just an open wound.
Is it bad that part of me is like "GOOD!" because, "fuck bed bugs!"?
You just say that to distract yourself from the fact you indirectly fuck multiple bedbugs every time you mess around in bed.
I'm pretty sure female bedbugs do have vaginas and it's just that the males don't care. Also it's somehow better if they stab them.
The very idea of sexuality being divisible into distinct types is a uniquely human construct.
Animals don't think "I'm gonna go find another dude to have gay sex with," they just get the urge and act on it with whoever looks good nearby.
Animals don't think "I'm gonna go find another dude to have gay sex with," they just get the urge and act on it with whoever looks good nearby.
Several animal species are famously monogamous, penguns for example.
That doesn't explain why the same couples keep coming back to each other season after season.
In the case of emperors, they don't. They find a new partner each season.
I haven't looked into other subspecies.
Nature FACT: Some birds just have a more advanced capacity to love. Sorry, humans, you just wouldn't get it.
Maybe not to the same degree of specificity, but "do you want to have sex with me" is one of those things that's really high on the informed consent priority list.
A lot of species have complex biological adaptations, and social instincts and behaviors specifically for convincing someone to willfully have sex with them. That's informed consent.
A simple example is elaborate bird plumage and mating dances.
People who publish scientific articles should be forced to declare their religious views at the top of the article so that if anything is listed other than "none" then it can just be automatically discarded unless it's replicated by a non-religious scientist. Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows.
I don't consider myself as religious, but this is just such a bad take.
I too dislike religion, but judging people based on their beliefs and discrediting their views because of it is exactly the problem.
I think understanding one's own biases is not a problem. Ethics in science is currently a problem. Political lobbying affiliations and funding sources for studies should really be prominently displayed as well.
I disagree. For hundreds of years, illogical religious beliefs have biased science. People should have a right to know if scientists have religious beliefs so they can be weary of their agendas affecting the results. Many religious beliefs are obviously illogical and make no sense and if a scientist believes them, it does illuminate the likelihood of the accuracy of their results.
For many years "scientists" said homosexuality was caused by "mental illness" and then suddenly they decided it's not. There were entire scientific programs devoted to racist beliefs that were psuedoscientific and often impacted by religious views justifying racism. Of course religion biases science and is a problem in having unbiased research!
I don't think we should outlaw religious people from practicing science, but their views should at least be known so people can scrutinize their work more closely.
Question… do you realize how fascist this sounds?
You might mean well, but all you’re doing is changing who’s being discriminated against.
Not cool.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition defines fascist as an advocate or adherent of fascism, A reactionary or dictatorial person, An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.
I'm not saying right now we need to put all religious people to death, I am just tired of their lies infecting science. The idea that the delusional morons who believe their deities float on clouds and their virgins give birth are capable of objective science is preposterous. If such "miracles" exist, then the universe doesn't follow laws of math. Yes, if we are living in a simulated reality that can be hacked then such miracles could happen, but unless a religious scientist is practicing Kali, I don't want their religion polluting data with bullshit.
No. You’re just saying we need to label religious professionals.
The yellow badge was part of a racist ideology based on eugenics pseudoscience.
This is not race or ethnicity based or part of a political movement. However, if you are a conservative Christian who believes that a virgin gave birth, that Sunday bread has supernatural properties, and listen to the Pope and religious sermons on a regular basis, then YES, IT DOES AFFECT YOUR FETAL PAIN STUDY when you clearly are trying to outlaw abortion because your religion wants that.
My wanting to know the religious bias of someone believing in illogical fairy tale bullshit is not the equivalent of Nazism, who would have put someone like me to death many times over. I don't want bullshit to taint science. It's an understandable request. The atheists of the world have been dealing with religious bullshit for so long, it's fair to want real data.
If we had the religious bias of scientists clearly known, it would be illuminating in many ways, including scientific equivalency which has become the new moral equivalency.
Right now you have "one the one hand, these 90 scientists believe we are all going to die from global warming but these 10 scientists think this is a normal trend"
I would MUCH rather have "on the one hand, these 90 scientists who believe the world is governed by math think we are all going to die from global warming, and these 10 catholic scientists who think a virgin got pregnant and gave birth without sexual fertilization and that jesus will always protect the planet think this is a normal trend"
this is not a ridiculous or fascist position and religious bullshit has infected climate science, and studying psychology, and led to justifications for racism and homophobia and OFTEN results in scientific conclusions that conveniently seem to at first line up with religion... until more and more data eventually proves it to be bullshit. This is not about discrimination. I want bullshit out of the data set.
I understand your position and I get what you are going for, but...
I submit to you Ayn Rand.
Atheists can be giant pieces of shit, too.
She used her atheism to argue for the benefit of selfishness and promoted dumbass "great men" theories of humanity. She was not Christian but ascribed to similar belief in the need for bullshit heirarchies with lazy fucking losers stealing the value created by labor sitting at the top.
Like her daddy before communism. Waaah so sad for daddy's violently fascist supporting little girl.
So I don't think it would solve as much as you think.
Humans are not rational creatures. We are rationalizing creatures and we can rationalize and justify almost anything to ourselves for any reason, religion isn't needed for it. Rand and many others are fine examples of it. She rationalized it because she was a rich kid who had her riches taken back by workers and she didn't like that.
Humans are bullshitters, removing religion won't change that.
Like does anyone think Donald Trump is seriously, actually religious? Anyone? A guy like him would exist with or without religion.
And, do you think, that a scientist who happens to be LGBTQ, doing a study on monkey sexuality, is able to be not biased by their worldview?
That because they seem to agree with you they’re immune from bias and are therefore totally trustworthy?
How pedantic do you want to get?
Either the science is good or it’s not. Either the study was conducted to minimize bias, the data is clean, and the conclusions come from verified evidence, or it’s not. We don’t need to know what particular flavor of human someone is- everyone is biased. Most studies are funded by private interest, and opening people up to rampant discrimination isn’t going to change that.
Some people can be religious and understand metaphor: some people can be atheist and understand metaphor. Some prime can be religious and interpret religion literally: as can some atheists (eg ” those people believe all the species on earth fit on a boat" when obviously, many religious don't). I'm reading statements that make good points, either way. Maybe peer review being more stringent would address a lot?
i'm sorry that you have to live with such anger in your heart, G*D bless your poor soul 🫰🫰
Not advocating for the other person, but there's a big difference in what you're comparing it to. People choose their religion, and they choose their profession. If those 2 things are in direct conflict, like a religious scientist, the audience of their work should be made aware of that conflict.
Most people are born into their religion, as a matter of culture. Frequently, religion is integral to their culture, and even if they do choose to leave that religion, it likely will leave an indelible mark- good or bad-
Their purpose is to other-ize religious scientists, exactly like what the yellow star was used to do to Jews by Nazis, (and at other times and places.) I think we all know what Nazis did to those they otherized.
The rhetoric is absolutely the same kind of justification for forcing it is also the same. When non-Jewish Germans started sympathies with Jews, do you think they admitted it was to encourage discrimination and bigotry, or do you think they said things like “we know it’s difficult, but they do shoddy work and you should know that you need to keep an eye on them.”
Couching it in the rhetoric of atheist enlightenment doesn’t make it okay. It’s still bigotry, and while the OC might not realize that, meaning to or not, it’s still advancing bigotry.
What field would be the cut off? Is religion going to influence how a metallurgist analyzes microstructure? How about how a chemist developing new polymers? Who gets to decide? If a scientist allows their religion, or any external influence, to influence their work they are a bad scientist. Which is why we have peer review and reproducible results. There is no need to label anyone. If their work is shit there is mechanisms to correct it, which we are seeing in the article.
People's relationship with religion is not up to you, just how the opinions of the religious shouldn't get to dictate the lives LGBT+. They might be in it for community and don't belive the "fantasy". If an individual is spouting hate that is one thing, but judging individuals by their religion is the same persecution the religious zelots dish out.
Edit: some wording
As someone who absolutely hates religions and the effects it had on science and animal welfare on the european continent. I 100% agree with you.
I don't care for the cut off statement, because who cares about metallury if a faith doesn't affect it?
The labelling and lack of privacy is always a bad development. Always. It is the first step needed to prosecute any group. The holocaust museum's wall paper are chronological steps that the nazi's took to gain power and strip away human rights. And the wallpaper goes on and on, floor to floor.
People should be free to believe, but they should be taught not to obfuscate or ignore observations just because of religion. Especially in the fields of medicine and biology. Especially in women's health.
The cutoff statement was a question for the previous commenter to show that only some science is relevant to religious beliefs and therefore their thinking is flawed.
I disagree here. It isn't a flaw in logic to think it should apply when religion interferes with the research. Just because the person didn't make a distinction, doesn't mean it was flawed thinking.
The flaw is intolerance and breech of privacy. Which we shouldn't tolerate intolerance and protect every member of society.
It's not about religion, haters will be haters, religion is just a tool haters use to prop up their views
There's a mutualism there. Assholes promote religion as a way to get status and impunity. Religion promotes assholes because they're useful in manipulating populations raised to be asshole-like.
I don't think most people would consider their religion a conflict of interest. I would agree that it is for scientific research, and probably a whole lot of other things...
Back when I went to church, my viewpoint was that God created all the rules of nature and is pretty hands off after that. I also thought that dressing up for church was stupid. If god was real, he wouldn't give a rats ass what people wore to church. And I thought all the rituals were quite silly. What's the point of going to church when you check your mind out for an our. Were you really there? And that was before cell phones and ear buds. They don't change anything but sure would have made it more tolerable.
Yeah, I got over feeling like I was supposed to go church and be atheist.
You have an ideological viewpoint that says that all people with a certain identity are wrong. And you present yourself as moral.
You sound like a fundamentalist, to me.
I interpreted it as "You hold beliefs that directly contradict the work you're performing, therefore, you have a bias that needs to be shown wasn't a factor in your research by having your research successfully replicated by those who do not share your bias."
A Crusade was never launched on behalf of science, people were never burned at the stake because of science, babies are not still being mutilated at birth against their will (circumcision or genital mutilation of young girls) because of science, and AIDs was not spread unchecked across the world due to government's lack of science.
It's religion, it ruins literally everything, especially science.
I'm a strong atheist, but you're kinda pick and choosing the facts. Skepticism isn't about replacing one dogma with another.
China had a whole thing with persecuting those with religious beliefs. It's certainly the minority, but state enforced atheism has created great horrors. Anything can be warped and disfigured into a horrific belief system used to justify anything.
Those who are religious should be held to the same level of scientific scrutiny as everyone else. There's no evidence to show that Andrew Wakefield was Christian, and look at the shit show that caused
I don't read it as saying they're wrong. I read it as saying it's unreliable. If someone has a cacaine addiction, I'm not going to trust them to hold on to some crack and not use it. If they can prove themselves reliable then they may be trusted.
I don't think I agree with this person's opinion, but it's not what you said it was.
I think a better way to phrase that might be: I'm not going to trust a cocaine addict who tells me that cocaine is a safe and healthy alternative to my morning cup of coffee. I would like to see those findings peer reviewed and replicated by people that don't have a vested interest in making access to cocaine easier.
I'm as atheist as atheist gets, and I completely disagree with this, and it honestly smacks of edgy teen r/atheism. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you'd engage in that kind of dishonesty. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history were made by religious people.
Also:
"Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows." "@secretlyaddictedtolinux"
Username absolutely does NOT check out, lol
The only people with no religion are solipsists. Believing in consensus reality is a religious view. What's it like being a solipsist?
If you have a scientific argument for realism, I'd love to hear it, and so would every scientist ever, because it's never been proven.
You think I consider realism a different option than religion? I'm afraid you've misunderstood the point of my comment very fundamentally. Realism IS a religion. It's the largest and most harmful religion. And every fake atheist who believes in reality while espousing the dangers of religion is a hypocrite. I'm not an atheist, but I wish we had more of them, and less realists.
Seems like I did. I don't think I'd call realism a religion, though I don't know much about the viewpoint. In what way is realism more harmful than other religions?
http://soulism.net is the best source on this
Realism is capable of serving as a justification for colonialism, supremacy, and genocide even in the absence of apparent religious belief. For example in Australia, some of the cultural genocide against indigenous people took the form of taking Aboriginal kids away from their parents and putting them in white families. There is a Christian justification for this, which is that the kids need to be taught religion. But first off, you can do that by building a church in their community, no kidnapping required. And second, the realist justification, which is that the children must be taught reality, strikes a more fundamental chord in people and appeals even to fake atheists. The idea was that if you taught them maths and English and science in a white school, and European culture and manners and worldview in a white family, you'd "civilise" them. This happened all the way into the 1970s. There's a lot of people, Christians included, who think that kidnapping a child to teach them Jesus is wrong. But if you instead say you're going to teach them consensus reality, and use words like "education" and "lifting out of poverty" and "they're being deprived with their biological parents", you'll convince more people that kidnapping is morally right.
And this trend that realism is more complete and more broadly appealing than Christianity or any other religion holds true across many demographics. Realism is a better excuse for bigots to abuse trans people, otherkin, people with schizophrenia, indigenous people, other neurodivergent people, etc. Some Nazis were Christian and some were "atheist", but all of them were realists.
I had a dog that would hump stuffed animals, didn't matter what kind of stuffed animal. Humans live by our culture, which is highly symbolic learned behaviour.
I'm guessing most animal behaviorists have priorities other than watching who is fucking whom. Unless we're talking long-term bonding pairs, which are much easier to observe, but those are not the norm in the animal kingdom.
No, the world and by extension science are just full of homophobia and strict, phantastical, expectations of what sexuality should look like.
I don't know that I would say that normalizing heterosexual behavior when it shouldn't be normalized is homophobia. Misguided, bad science, poor bias, I would say any of that. But I don't think you can credibly say that all of those scientists who just aren't noticing homosexual mating practices are bigots.
I remember going to the zoo, they had some endangered wild horses from Asia, iirc, as breeding program.
The zookeeper was explaining to some parents that they males were rocking back and forth to masturbate. Also, that they had given them things to make them horny as fuck.
Nobody asked about the giant piles of jizz everywhere.
The issue with finding homosexual behaviour in animals is that it's never exclusive. Homosexual animals tend to be bisexual at best, and can often be chalked up to erroneous mating.
A lot of these studies are used to validate human homosexuality and harm the "it's unnatural!" argument touted by conservatives. However using a Call to Nature is fallacious, and could be used to validate all number of animal behaviour.
Never is a strong word when that's just not true
An animal model of spontaneous exclusive homosexuality has however been described in sheep. About 8% of the males in a population studied in the western United States were shown to mate exclusively with other males, even when the choice was given between a male or female partner (Perkins and Roselli, 2007; Roselli et al., 2011b).
Huh, wasn't aware of that. Well, after a bit more research, excluding that one species in that one study, there are no exclusively homosexual animals.
You see how a lack of scientific reporting on the subject makes it less likely that you find more examples, right?
Penguins are monogamous and that applies to gay penguins as well.
Here's two that built a nest together https://mashable.com/article/same-sex-penguin-couple
But there definitely have been observed instances of long-term same-sex bonding pairs in nature and in zoo settings.
Most famously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo
Silo appeared to be bisexual, but Roy was only interested in two males, one being Silo.
You do have a point though. For example, make cane toads will literally mate with anything they think they can mate with. Like soda cans. They don't even see, to consider whether what they are humping has something for them to stick their cane toad penis in. Honestly, it's amazing they breed so prolifically in Australia despite the lack of predators because they're clearly very stupid.
Zoos shouldn’t be used for study though. As I don’t see bears walking back and forth all day in the wild. Lots of animals also do. It have long term partners the screw and move on.
Animals have no idea of sexuality, they are only seeking pleasure and release. They have no idea they are boys or girls or that sex leads to pregnancy
Okay the idea that animals are somehow just mindless automatons that have zero idea of what is happening... that's a take all right.
A take that would send people who study animal cognition into a binge drinking session.
The animal and human dichotomy seems mostly religious in nature.
Agreed, and interestingly, it can be interpreted in one of two ways:
I guess both are true.
They're not mindless, they have feelings and instincts, they can remember things.
But they don't have language, so they can't organize their thoughts. They're like humans who were born blind and deaf before Helen Keller.
How does an animal know sex leads to pregnancy? They don't, they're just horny or they aren't.
But they don't have language
Ant.. pheromones? Whale song? Whatever crows do to remember peoples faces they haven't seen.
Not every animal is as sophisticated as we are, but communication in general is pretty integral to herd survival strategy.
How does an animal know sex leads to pregnancy?
We're not.. different. We have schools and parents and movies we aren't supposed to see yet that tell us it does.
We're not.. different. We have schools and parents and movies we aren't supposed to see yet that tell us it does.
Exactly, humans are animals. They're just really good with language.
I'm not disrespecting animals, I love animals. I'm just pointing out that a bear in the woods isn't thinking "Since I am a heterosexual bear, I am not going to rub my penis on that other bears ass because I see it's a boy bear and that would be gay. I am only interested in sex if it means babies will be made!'
Oh, for sure. I don't imagine bears have the same cultural understanding of sex, however complex that may be, that people do.
bear in the woods isn't thinking "Since I am a heterosexual bear, I am not going to rub my penis on that other bears ass because I see it's a boy bear and that would be gay. [...]"
I do think this might be overly simplistic, though. The tendency for a bear to "be gay" by our standards might manifest differently, but it would still be an observable behavior, no?
Sure but they are thinking of surviving. It’s lie us why do we have these conversations because we have the luxury to. If we where fighting for survival these discussions wouldn’t be happening.
I mean that's cool and all but that's not really a debunking of biblical creation or sexual order if you take it at what it says and not what traditional religion tells you it says. There wasn't supposed to be death, so animals shouldn't have eaten each other. It also describes something like an asexual heaven. So even if homosexuality isn't in the eternal perfection, everything now is imperfect so it's just like everything else.
Where does the Bible describe an asexual heaven? Do you mean because Revelation says the only people who get to go to heaven are a small number of men?
I was stretching it a bit but this is from Jesus:
Matthew 22:30 (NIV Bible)
“At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”