Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one.

[Corso312]

i would have to see the said behavior ...if a lion is licking his brothers ass he may have a cut from a water buffalo and the saliva acts as a healing agent..if you get an infection in the wild ..you could die..if the brother dies than younger male rogue lions attempt to take the pride over and kill their young to force the lioness into estrus for breeding..see you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.

 

[patlpp]

In many cases it is fear. I've known people who have no problem with gays, but fear they could be mistaken as gay if they show tolerance. There are guys who feel threatened by homosexuality for fear of being tempted into it. Also some people fear it will erode the moral conviction of society. Even hate is born of fear, and in all these cases, fear can be dispelled by understanding. Some people just find it gross and distasteful, but I don't consider those people homophobic, especially since most of them are guys who do not have a problem with girl on girl stuff. If I find chocolate ice cream distasteful I shouldn't be labeled as chocolaphobic.

My take and why I think PHOBIC should be excluded as a catch-all phrase is to take these 2 examples:

1) Man gets blowjob from gay but swears he himself is not gay - That is phobic: the fear to confront ones true sexuality. I think the recipient is just as gay as the giver.

2) Man is comfortable with his sexuality but finds homosexuality as aberrant. WHy is that phobic?

 

[mindphuk]

you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.

Except for that little fact that humans are animals.

 

[Corso312]

Except for that little fact that humans are animals.

we are mammals not sure if we are animals..never heard that..is that a fact?

 

[Heisenberg]

i would have to see the said behavior ...if a lion is licking his brothers ass he may have a cut from a water buffalo and the saliva acts as a healing agent..if you get an infection in the wild ..you could die..if the brother dies than younger male rogue lions attempt to take the pride over and kill their young to force the lioness into estrus for breeding..see you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.

You seem to be moving the goalpost. Scientific study is nothing if not careful. The idea that scientific research would mistake wound licking as gay sex is silly and does not reflect the standards science is held to. How do you suppose a pair bonded couple who engage in exclusive sex and attempt to rear children together could just be a case of mistaken behavior?

The idea is not to compare humans to animals for the sake of showing similarity, the idea is to see if this behavior is particular to humans, which clearly it is not. No one is saying if an animal does it, it must be okay. We are saying animals are doing it, so it must not be exclusive.

 

[filtereye]

i would have to see the said behavior ...if a lion is licking his brothers ass he may have a cut from a water buffalo and the saliva acts as a healing agent..if you get an infection in the wild ..you could die..if the brother dies than younger male rogue lions attempt to take the pride over and kill their young to force the lioness into estrus for breeding..see you can not compare animals and humans..we have very little in common.

[video=youtube;ggl5ZGaJFFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggl5ZGaJFFM[/video]

 

[Corso312]

it may happen..i have never seen it or heard of it

 

[filtereye]

You seem to be moving the goalpost. Scientific study is nothing if not careful. The idea that scientific research would mistake wound licking as gay sex is silly and does not reflect the standards science is held to. How do you suppose a pair bonded couple who engage in exclusive sex and attempt to rear children together could just be a case of mistaken behavior?

The idea is not to compare humans to animals for the sake of showing similarity, the idea is to see if this behavior is particular to humans, which clearly it is not. No one is saying if an animal does it, it must be okay. We are saying animals are doing it, so it must not be exclusive.

well said.

 

[Heisenberg]

it may happen..i have never seen it or heard of it

That is fair enough, but now you have seen it and heard of it. Maybe not personally, but if you go to a doctor and he tells you that a medication can help you, and it has been shown to be effective through research and scientific study, would you reject it until you have seen the effects personally? Doubt is a useful tool, baseless distrust is not.

 

[Corso312]

i see why you make the best blue meth around

 

[charlesdarwin]

Heres an interesting experiment on homophobia:
http://youtu.be/Ei0xsEXleGU

 

[Carne Seca]

They'll just claim it's part of the "Gay Agenda".

 

[Carne Seca]

we are mammals not sure if we are animals..never heard that..is that a fact?

"Yes, humans are animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is mammalia. It's order is primate (the same as apes). It's family is Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is Homininae. It's tribe is Hominini. It's genus is Homo and it's specie is scientifically named Homo Sapiens."

​

 

[mindphuk]

we are mammals not sure if we are animals..never heard that..is that a fact?

Well we aren't plants fungus or bacteria.

Maybe you better lay off discussion things related to science. Mammals are just a class of vertebrate animals. Curious what exactly you thought we were?

 

[Hepheastus420]

was looking at my facebook and i see this - "Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one." and then at the bottom "Which one seems unnatural now?"

makes sense to me

RIP Jamie Rodemeyer

Where's this proof that only one species is homophobic? Like my example with the bucks, we don't k ow what the hell animals are thinking. And corso is right, animals can hump the same sex but to establish dominance (lol imagine if we did that, eww), so it's not being gay at all. Maybe we are the smartest species yet, so maybe we know better than to go hump the same sex, therefore we have the homophobic people and the people that just think it's gross.

 

[Corso312]

"Yes, humans are animals. The human's phylum is Chordata (vertebrate). The human's class is mammalia. It's order is primate (the same as apes). It's family is Hominidae (apes that have no tail and can gather food with their hands.) The Human's sub-family is Homininae. It's tribe is Hominini. It's genus is Homo and it's specie is scientifically named Homo Sapiens."

​

interesting, i never even knew what homo sapien meant

 

[Corso312]

Well we aren't plants fungus or bacteria.

Maybe you better lay off discussion things related to science. Mammals are just a class of vertebrate animals. Curious what exactly you thought we were?

i will not lay off discussing anything that i find interesting, i never really gave it much thought about humans and how we are classified

 

[Carne Seca]

Where's this proof that only one species is homophobic? Like my example with the bucks, we don't k ow what the hell animals are thinking. And corso is right, animals can hump the same sex but to establish dominance (lol imagine if we did that, eww), so it's not being gay at all. Maybe we are the smartest species yet, so maybe we know better than to go hump the same sex, therefore we have the homophobic people and the people that just think it's gross.

You're forgetting species that form life long bonds. Also, you didn't address the habit of bonobos and chimps using sex in social bonding. Heterosexual and homosexual alike.

 

[cannabineer]

They'll just claim it's part of the "Gay Agenda".

Oh dear ... are they trying to sneak something in through the back door again? cn

 

[cannabineer]

On this thread I have seen my fellow RIUnians use two arguments whose validity I question:
1) The anus was designed for excretion, not for sex.
2) The purpose of sex is reproduction.
I'd like to address these quasi-utilitarian premises with a quote from Stephen Jay Gould, "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes".

"Any feature, regardless of how or why it first evolved, becomes available for co-optation to other roles, often strikingly different. Complex features are bursting with potentialities; their conceivable use is not confined to their original function."

So imo to saddle same-sex sex with "shouldas" about the anatomy andor physiology of the affected features of the relevant humans is difficult to defend from a natural philosopher's perspective. What i see in such statements is the camouflage of morality as biology. cn
cn