Eh, it occurs in other species as well. It's not a distinctly human trait.

It's more bisexual than homosexual in the animal kingdom.

I like that you think that means something.

Um, it does. Bisexual activity is not uncommon in the animal kingdom. Pure homosexuality on the other hand, is...

So, animals can fall somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale, as most humans. Shocking.

My statement wasn't an argument, it was that a delineation between "pure" homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality between animals is fairly pointless.

Homsexual acts occur in nature.

I think you need to look up the definitions of those two words (bisexual v. homosexual). They are not the same thing, mate.

I never said they were, I said that homosexual acts occur in the animal kingdom.

Bisexual acts occur in the animal kingdom, not homosexual. There is a huge difference.

Bisexuality is attraction to both genders, homosexual activity is sexual activity involving two or more of one gender. Got it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Feel free to edit the wiki entry in order to replace every instance of "homosexuality" with "bisexuality" if you wish, but it won't really withstand scrutiny.

Bisexual is not just the attraction to both genders, it's also the sexual interaction. Which could be male-female, male-male. Got it?

Male-Male sexual activity is homosexual activity, one or both of these males may also be bisexual.

See how this works?

...

I'll take that as "you're right but I'm stubborn"

You're incorrect, sorry. In humans, you are correct, but we are talking about the animal kingdom. Because homosexuality is a human thing, not present in the animal kingdom. Bisexuality exists in the animal kingdom.

Are you saying that no animal is ever attracted exclusively to members of the same gender? Because if so, I'd point you in the direction of the Black Swan.

Like other swans, the black swan is largely monogamous, pairing for life (about 6% divorce rate).

An estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.

EDIT: Also the prefix homo in homosexuality has nothing to do with the homo in Homo sapiens. It comes from the Greek word for "same." Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan#Diet_and_feeding

An estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males.[citation needed]

Clearly says [citation needed], therefore, there is no proof/evidence. It's just a claim.

[citation needed]

Here you go:

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are of homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[42][43]

1. Braithwaite, L. W., 'Ecological studies of the Black Swan III – Behaviour and social organization', Australian Wildlife Research 8, 1981: 134-146

2. Braithwaite, L. W., 'The Black Swan', Australian Natural History 16, 1970: 375-379

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

...ummm

An estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males.[citation needed] They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[17][18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan#Diet_and_feeding

A full 25% of swan couples, however, are homosexual.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/15-examples-of-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/?view=all

Both papers cited on wikipedia are behind pay walls so I was unable to access them, but this claim can be found in numerous articles online.

If that isn't enough for you, I'm sorry, but I'd like to point out the fact that you have no sources at all for the claim that homosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom. I think you just really don't want to admit that you're wrong.

You provided me a claim that isn't even backed up by a source, hence [citation needed]. Then you continue, with no other source and say I'm wrong and I don't want to admit it. lol, very scientific of you.

At about the 0:50 mark are some lizards fucking

The entire species is female. Pretty hard to be any more gay than that.

EDIT: Still waiting on your source by the way.

Source for what? Bisexuality in the animal kingdom? But here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#Homosexual_behavior. Read it all very carefully. It's more bisexual, than homosexual (in humans).

Source for what? Bisexuality in the animal kingdom?

That was never the claim I was disputing.

Because homosexuality is a human thing, not present in the animal kingdom.

You stated that homosexuality was not present in the animal kingdom. This is demonstrably false, as I've already shown you. Just be mature and admit you were wrong.

The source I provided proves otherwise. It's a speculation of homosexuality. Bisexuality is not uncommon in the animal kingdom, however homosexuality is only a speculation. One could say, confirmation bias research.

This is demonstrably false, as I've already shown you.

You haven't shown me anything.

Just be mature and admit you were wrong.

You sound like you a projecting. Maybe, you should heed your own words?

Bisexuality is not uncommon in the animal kingdom

I never said it was uncommon.

however homosexuality is only a speculation.

No it isn't. Lesbian lizard porn.

You haven't shown me anything.

Lesbian lizard porn.

How can you say homosexuality does not exist in animals when there is a species of all female individuals that engage in sexual activities.

How can you say homosexuality does not exist in animals when there is a species of all female individuals that engage in sexual activities.

Sexual activity? There is no intercourse in that video. Did you even watch it? They clone their eggs. Yeah, they may have to be "stimulated", but there is no intercourse or partnerships. Is it homosexual to have a male masturbate another male, who then penetrates a female, to impregnate her? Your video/source/links are asinine. Back to the drawing board for you.

There is no intercourse in that video.

By that logic, lesbians aren't homosexuals as they do not have intercourse.

They clone their eggs.

That has no bearing as homosexuality is never about reproduction, in lizards or humans.

partnerships

You don't need to have a partnership to be gay.

Is it homosexual to have a male masturbate another male, who then penetrates a female, to impregnate her?

This analogy makes no sense (and that scenario sounds pretty gay to me). There is no male equivalent in this species and the sexual activity being performed by the lizards is not autoerotic in nature as both lizards are stimulating each other.

So, you're saying that every study and reference to homosexual behavior in the animal should replace the term with bisexual?

Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting—even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5CbRGV8AAIQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18951655

Yes, that would be more intellectually honest/factual.

Somehow I'm going to side with the scientists and zoologists studying homosexuality in animal pair bonding and coparenting over some dude from /r/conspiracy. Try not to take it personally.

Just like how we should take NIST's word/analysis for 9/11 over, say, AE911 Truth. Sounds about right.

Yes, Einstein, animal sexuality is like 9/11. Clearly it's a Mossad plot.

The point is bad science/research and possible agendas. Einstein.

Feel free to take issue with something specific and tangible.

Kinsey was a fucking lunatic. His scale doesn’t exist.

So, essentially you're claiming that bisexuality doesn't exist.

...ok.

No, I’ve stated nothing about it at all, but I will now. Bisexuality is also a mental illness.

I see, so is bisexuality in animals also a mental illness?

What do you imagine?

That non-heterosexual activity is natural, observable animal behavior.

That non-heterosexual activity is natural

Not even remotely close.

What makes something natural or unnatural, in your mind?

The exact same thing that makes it natural or unnatural in reality. This isn’t about subjectivity.

You know the old “Bonobos, our closest living relative species, have intercourse with members of their own gender. That means it occurs in nature and it’s perfectly acceptable to do it!” mantra slung around by amateur biologists and gays in the course of a debate on homosexuality?

Did you know that bonobos lynch their own kind and go out of their way to not only expel wrongdoers from their pecking order, but to kill them in packs?

Did you know that bonobos sling their feces at other during fights?

Did you know that bonobos eat the flesh of their own kind after killing them in territorial disputes and then proceed to rape the other pack’s females?

People tend to forget the fact that despite bonobos being our closest living relative, they are FUCKING ANIMALS. I, AS A MEMBER OF HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS, DIDN’T SCRATCH AND CLAW MY WAY TO THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN, CREATE FIRE, SURVIVE THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION DURING THE ICE AGE, DOMESTICATE AND ARTIFICIALLY SELECT ANIMALS AND PLANTS FOR AGRICULTURE, CREATE CULTURES, LANGUAGES, AND RELIGIONS, WAGE WARS, MAKE EMPIRES, CREATE THE WRITTEN WORD AND NUMERICAL SYSTEMS, WRITE EPICS, CREATE ARTISTIC WONDERS, DEVISE BANKING AND CURRENCY, MAKE EXPONENTIAL TECHNOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC LEAPS IN JUST THE PAST 2000 YEARS, LAND ON THE MOON, AND CREATE AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY-LINKED GLOBAL ECONOMY TO BE COMPARED TO A FUCKING LICE-EATING, SHIT-THROWING, CANNIBALISTIC BEAST WHO STILL LIVES IN THE TREES AND IS CONSIDERED ENDANGERED BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE IS, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, TO GO EXTINCT WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION. Do you now understand that what applies to the animal kingdom does not translate to human society?

“But humans do the exact same things!” you say, crying out feebly. Yes, I reply. And we have a word for humans that exist closely to a state of nature and who act like animals.

UNCIVILIZED.

“But who are you to espouse cultural superiority? All humans are created equally!” You are confusing the ‘human condition’ for that of civilization and culture. The human condition remains relatively unchanged due to common experiences shared by all individuals. Civilization, however, is ever-changing. Civilization allowed us to move from an agrarian and primitivist society, barbarous in nature, to creating social institutions that advance law, science, philosophy, common morality, and cultural values seen in successful modern civilizations.

The exact same thing that makes it natural or unnatural in reality

Which is?

Did you know that bonobos lynch their own kind and go out of their way to not only expel wrongdoers from their pecking order, but to kill them in packs?

Neat. But are you trying to say bonobos are the same as humans because humans also participate in lynching? Because humans spit, bite, rape, hang, execute, gas, detonate and and all kinds of crazy stuff. Although i'm not quite getting your point just yet.

TO BE COMPARED TO A FUCKING LICE-EATING, SHIT-THROWING, CANNIBALISTIC BEAST WHO STILL LIVES IN THE TREES

You did none of those things. But you're the one saying humans are similar to bonobos with your above points.

And after all that hooting and hollering, you didn't answer my question.

And after all that hooting and hollering, you didn’t answer my question.

Did. You comprehended neither the answer nor what was said subsequent to it. Get some foundational knowledge on the topic before replying again.

I asked - What makes something natural to you?

You responded - The exact same thing that makes it natural in reality.

That's not answering the question. So what makes it natural in reality?

And then I replied to THAT question preemptively.

Still avoiding the question...

Literally already fucking answered it. Learn how to read already.

You have not answered it yet.

You merely dodged.

It’s right fucking there. You don’t get to choose whether you like the answer or not, and you don’t get to choose whether it was answered or not. It was answered. Shut the fuck up already.

I don't get to choose if I don't like an answer or not if you haven't actually given one.

Gave one. Fucking deal with it.

Rockran, I do believe you broke his brain.

Unless you plan on making arguments with something resembling evidence I'm going to stop replying to you.

I don’t like the evidence you presented

therefore it’s not evidence

Again, just stop replying entirely, please. I don’t care about your lies.

You never cited anything and barely have barely strung together a sentiment other than "Gays are icky so it isn't real"

So, yeah, not really taking you seriously. Have a nice night.

Enjoy your mental illness. Either educate yourself on a topic before entering into discussion about it or don’t be surprised when you’re ignored.

http://pastebin.com/huapZ8NE

Quite an impressive mountain of Gish Gallop you've got there. Care to pick one and discuss it, or express some thoughts of your own?

WAAAAA HE GAVE TOO MUCH INFORMATION IN FAVOR OF HIS ARGUMENT THAT MEANS HE’S WRONG WAAAAA”

Reported for using nothing but personal attacks and logical fallacies.

There's actual information as applied to a relevant argument, and then there's the typical tactic of spamming URLs. That isn't citation, that's vomit. You have links in there blaming the Jews for homosexual lifestyles.

You say you report a lot of people, I'm sure mods and admins must love you.

That is, if you actually do it. I suspect you're a bit of a bullshitter.

I suspect you’re a bit of a bullshitter.

Oh, the irony.

The mental illness of homosexuality is distinctly human, as there are no animals that have gay relationships.

See, now you're just wrong

So prove it. Except I’m not. Educate yourself on a topic before commenting on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Yeah, and none of that refutes what I said.

See, the thing is, they do

Nowhere did I say that animals did not display homosexual behavior, so try fucking reading before replying.

there are no animals that have gay relationships.

That's what you said, and you are wrong.

That’s what you said

Yes.

and you are wrong.

So prove it.

I gave you many examples of homosexuality in nature upthread, in this very conversation.

Yes, and that’s not what I’m talking about.

Please attempt to be clear, or I'm going to stop replying to you.

I’m clear as crystal. You either cannot or simply refuse to understand me.

Please just stop replying anyway. I don’t care to see lies.

Nobody is lying to you. Homosexuality occurs in nature. End of story.

Except that’s not what we’re discussing, for fuck’s sake.

Holy fuck, you are thick.

Great job not having an argument. What is with you people? Are you literate? Are you cognizant? If you don’t understand, ASK, for fuck’s sake. Don’t pretend you know.

He just fucking did

Learn how to fucking read, for the love of fuck.

LOL ok buddy.

Great argument. Learn what words mean before replying to them. Pretty simple to comprehend.

I guess he was just trying to speak to you on your level. I'll have a go. UH ANIMAL SEX PENIS + PENIS IS HAPPEN.

Either have an argument or don’t reply.

Here's how an argument works: Both sides have conflicting positions and use evidence to support themselves. They then critique the evidence.

The mental illness of homosexuality is distinctly human, as there are no animals that have gay relationships.

Sorry, no. Homosexuality is found in much of the animal kingdom, and in fact some animals do have "gay relationships" of a sort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BaKOluofCA

of a sort.

So… I’m right, then.

What exactly are you asking for here, a YouTube of a gay bonobo wedding?

Just for you to comprehend what a relationship is.

What does it mean to you? Humans barely mate for life.

Same sex relationships that include sexual gratification - if that's not a "gay relationship" what is?

The concept of exclusively homosexual behaviors, purposefully and permanently removing yourself from the gene pool.

The concept of exclusively homosexual behaviors, purposefully and permanently removing yourself from the gene pool.

You're just shifting goalposts now. You said:

The mental illness of homosexuality is distinctly human, as there are no animals that have gay relationships.

and that is clearly and obviously not the case.

and that is clearly and obviously not the case.

Except it is. There aren’t animals that engage in homosexual relationships.

Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Bruce Bagemihl shows that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting—even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5CbRGV8AAIQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18951655

Sorry, I’m going to call bullshit on that one. It’s statistically impossible and we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Oh, ok, well if Thrice_Baked_Ham on Reddit says so...

Genetic fallacy. Try again.

I'm sorry, you may need to elaborate. Maybe offer something in the way of some research by people who actually study stuff for a living.

If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.

If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.

If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?

If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others’ sphincters?

If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?

If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?

If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?

Degenerates and liberals will take you on a wild chase through fallacious logic and appeals to emotion, but at the end of the day, the truth has always been our very first thought as children when we saw gays.

ERROR.

Errors occur in nature all the time, and homosexuality is a perfect example of error. Somewhere in the brain of every homosexual a critical error has occurred. In what other situation is an error encouraged or rewarded as it is in homosexuality in today’s media? You may ask yourself how this error affects you. The answer is simple. Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?

Nature disallows them reproduction because it wants to reduce overpopulation.

“Nature” is not an entity. “Nature” has no control of anything. “Nature” is an abstract concept without form or function. “Nature” has shown no interest in or capacity to manage overpopulation.

In this case, fertility would gradually be taken away to protect the human race

There are no instances of this happening as a matter of natural processes anywhere at any time in history.

as homosexuality grows

Shrinking, in fact. Has been for decades.

Homosexuality is growing

Every single statistic ever recorded says otherwise.

the creation of more and laws/establishment adhering to them is only proof of it.

No, the exact opposite. Faggotry getting public “acceptance” (it’s not accepted by the vast majority of people) is its death knell. And good for that.

What’s that? Leftist media tells people that faggotry isn’t mental illness and is being accepted despite every single actual vote saying the opposite?

How about that. We’re on CONSPIRACY and you don’t even recognize this?

My arguments are founded in proven scientific fact, though. But you’re correct in stating that a misstep in presentation or a false widespread claim is not proof of the alternative.

A conservative social politics rant is not evidence.

Considering that we are talking about sexual behavior in animals, your argument makes about as much sense as trying to make a dog read the Bible.

1) What does a failed theory have to do with what I said?

2) What does your statement have to do with what I said?

What "failed theory" are you even talking about?

On what medical papers? who has proven homosexuality to be a mental illness?

Why not do some research on the topic before trying to comment on it? You obviously know exactly what you’re doing.

You said homosexuality is a mental illness, im just asking what papers have said that?

It isn't well understood, but it appears that the more children a woman has born, and the more stressed out she is at the same time, the more likely she is to produce homosexual children. It's probably better to look at it as a population stabilizing adaptation, if it is one at all, rather than strictly population limiting, as the children in question would be helpers increasing the survival rate of their siblings and their children, in addition to being less likely to breed. Of course, all that can fly right out the window when the wild card of culture enters the equation; plenty of societies require their members to breed regardless of how they feel about it, and reject them when they do not.

Their productive capacity is more likely to be re-invested into their larger family, rather than used to create and service the additional liability of their own nuclear family. Our society calls it higher discretionary income.

That would be the discredited Lamarckian model of evolution.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I wanted to add: Lamarckian evolution may turn out to be true. Epigenetic inheritance has been discovered, and that is a Lamarckian mechanism.

But I still don't think less-fit reproductive traits evolve. I guess that's my main doubt with your theory. You'd have to suppose that homosexuality makes other people more fit, and is induced somehow via epigenetics. Maybe that's true, and maybe it goes so far as deliberate, calculated, exposure to chemicals by people who want to be more fit to reproduce.

I don't think homosexuality would naturally evolve, though. It's a less-fit trait in terms of passing on the genetic programming, so it doesn't seem like it would be selected for in the population through breeding.

I think there is a connection between over fertility of a woman and the likely hood that she Will have 1 or more gay children. In a sense it could be to keep populations in check not just human populations. Hormones/chemicals control everything.

Given that homosexuality is not genetic, no, there is no connection at all.

Thanks for your two cents dr. Ham /s

When you feel like proving wrong every medical study ever done, feel free.

[removed]

Removed, personal attack.

If we don't want to approach this from a genetics stand point you can still point to chemicals and hormones.

Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

The first step is admitting we know nothing for sure

Except that’s bullshit. We know plenty of things for sure.

Admitting what? I never said anything about genes in my first comment... Can we pool some money together and get you a reading comprehension class?

I never said anything about genes in my first comment...

Sure thing.

I think there is a connection between over fertility of a woman and the likely hood that she Will have 1 or more gay children.

Don’t fucking play games.

That would be hormones captain not genes.

And it’s wrong in the first place.

that might have some truth to it.

but we aren't really overpopulated.

i would tend towards environmental/chemical reasons.

in modern times we have trillions of different petrochemical exposure. and historically Lead was poisoning our ancestors.

This suggests cultural influence plays a major role in homosexuality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro_people

Overpopulation? Ever been to Kansas?

it requires only one sexual act to make a baby.

if there really was something thinking by itself (called nature, or the weirdly generally accepted idea of evolution), which was as super intelligent as to modify dna on purpose to make life follow a given path...

it would have killed the exact percentage of people it needed, or turned off fertility for 50 years or a super virus (the kind that turns you internal organs into liquid shit) or something like that. It wouldn't have generated a slight tendency to same sex relation (which, if you really look at it, is just a way to stimulate sperm production and keep the testicles active even if the male has no capacity to get a female in a given period of time...)

evolution doesn't dictate decisions like that - it's not how it works

I think he meant to say natural selection, as people often do.

If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.

If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.

If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?

If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others’ sphincters?

If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?

If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?

If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?

Degenerates and liberals will take you on a wild chase through fallacious logic and appeals to emotion, but at the end of the day, the truth has always been our very first thought as children when we saw gays.

ERROR.

Errors occur in nature all the time, and homosexuality is a perfect example of error. Somewhere in the brain of every homosexual a critical error has occurred. In what other situation is an error encouraged or rewarded as it is in homosexuality in today’s media? You may ask yourself how this error affects you. The answer is simple. Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?

A conservative social politics rant is not evidence.

Considering that we are talking about sexual behavior in animals, your argument makes about as much sense as trying to make a dog read the Bible.

What "failed theory" are you even talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan#Diet_and_feeding

An estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males.[citation needed]

Clearly says [citation needed], therefore, there is no proof/evidence. It's just a claim.

I’m clear as crystal. You either cannot or simply refuse to understand me.

Please just stop replying anyway. I don’t care to see lies.

Except that’s not what we’re discussing, for fuck’s sake.