Are neuters allowed in the ladies' room?

[martinuzz]

Does those animals are homosexuals all their lifes? They refuse to make children?

In most cases, no. (There are exceptions, most well know, male sheep. About 10% of rams will only mate with other rams, their entire life.)

That is not in contradiction with homosexuality in humans though; the biological drive to reproduce can be just as strong for a gay couple.
You will see that in countries with gay marriage, there is a strong wish for gay couples to raise children, either by adoption, or with help from a surrogate biological mother / father.
Here in the Netherlands it is pretty much socially accepted for a gay couple to raise kids. A recent law change even recognizes both of them as official parents. A kid can have a mom and mom, or dad and dad here instead of mom and dad.

If yes then from a biological point of view it is very wrong, because their species will die?

If you were to look at it purely from the individual level of the homosexual animal, yes.

However, if you take a population of animals, where a certain percentage is exclusively homosexual, as in, it will never reproduce..
It is no more than an additional means of population control. There's many forms of population control in biology. It prevents species that have the capacity to procreate faster than their ecosystem niche can regenerate sustenance, from going extinct. A well known example of another method of population control would be lemmings throwing themselves off cliffs. If they wouldn't periodically do that, their species would have become extinct due to overcrowding.

Intolerance comes from lack of knowledge not from religion beliefs sir.

While I am not saying that religious beliefs, per se, are intolerant, it is my opinion that most, if not all institutionalized forms of religion's sole purpose is to gain power over the masses, often using intolerance as it's main tool to combat all that thinks differently. To quote Noam Chomsky: "The Bible is probably the most genocidal book in our western literary canon."

Let turn that around and imagine religious people running and screaming about their religion being only right choice and putting crosses on every wall they find, how intolerant they are, right?

But... They do. Maybe not as apparent anymore where you live, but just look at the Central African Republic for a recent example.

[Potjeh]

A well known example of another method of population control would be lemmings throwing themselves off cliffs. If they wouldn't periodically do that, their species would have become extinct due to overcrowding.

FYI they don't actually do this.

[Cheena]

As for religions in most of them what you do and with whom in your bed is only your private matter.
So you are calling people intolerant because they don't want to hear and see who is your partner?

You mean, because they don't want to hear and see who is your partner except if that partner is considered normal ? No because, you know, marriage is just a big huge way to yell "LOOK WHO IM GONNA ***** FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE HAHAHAHA" at the face of the world. And you invite every ***** people you know on the world to let them know. Uh.

It is as if to say that "I don't want to see you naked", so I am intolerant person with middle ages views?

Nobody cares about who is sleeping with whom, problem is that homosexuals are acting like intolerant fanatics with some ego problems.
If someone criticize them about that they scream "you such a intolerant religious idiot, I have right to say I am gay".

Let turn that around and imagine religious people running and screaming about their religion being only right choice and putting crosses on every wall they find, how intolerant they are, right?

...but that's what religion are doing ? Some religious fanatics despise the people who are not thinking their way and I assure you that they let us know ? Same for extreme political people ? And same for some extremely stupid gays. Same for Tribe... Same for... every ***** thing in communities, there is always ONE group that will yell louder than the rest of the community, and tadaaaaaaaaa ! Everyone is categorized as being as moron as that group. Aw yes, gays are sooo gross.

[martinuzz]

Well, they don't deliberately jump off cliffs with the sole purpose of dying, as suggested in some old Disney 'documentary'.
However, overpopulation triggers such a strong migratory response, that it will drive herds away from the overcrowded area, without any regard of dangerousness of the terrain crossed while migrating. Causing them to fall off cliffs, drown in rapids, and similar deaths that could be seen as suicidal.
Such self destructive behaviour would normally be weeded out by evolution. However, if it serves a purpose, in this case, allowing species to not drive itself extinct in an area of limited food, and limited migratory options, it will have a good chance to be retained throughout evolution.

And then there's rats. They revert to genocide, infanticide and cannibalism when overcrowded.


What's funny is, that christianity, islam and other religions condemning homosexuality are probably the main contributant to spreading homosexuality globally. That is, if you assume it is indeed genetic.
For centuries, homosexual men have married women, and had children, just because if they didn't, they would strongly be suspected of homosexuality. And thus, spreading the gene.

[Inotdead]

They're not celebrating their sexuality, they're celebrating their rights to openly say that they are gay...

What exactly do you mean by "disturbing people"?...

and what do they "do", exactly? In all cases what they do doesn't affect you in any way...

You can't say "I hate blacks" but you can say " I hate black thug culture"...

Well, allow me to rephrase, what I've been trying to tell for the last 10 ***** pages.
I don't hate gays, but I hate pro gay activists who are overly vocal and make too much of a big deal of their sexual preferences, I tolerate public displays of affection, but I hate overly sexualized public meetings which go far beyond the line of what should be morally acceptable, I don't hate other sexualities or ethnics, but I hate the parts of minorities, who purposely draw attention to their difference just for the sake of it and demand to be treated specially because of it.

[Tamasin]

stuff

I cringe every time i see someone saying homosexuality isn't natural etc. I thought people understood this **** nowadays but apparently there are people like darnok or whoever. Thankyou for addressing that.

I'd like to elaborate.

homosexual behaviour actually can benefit species in various ways. let me point out some examples.

male-male pairs of black swans are very common (5-20% of pairs) and acquire eggs by either driving off heterosexual couples or having a 3some with a female swan then chasing her away after she lays some eggs. Poor mama swan, but she can just go lay a new clutch of eggs lol. So more eggs. And then, the gay swans actually do a better job of raising the offspring, probably because 2 males are able to defend more/better land/resources than one male. This sort of thing is pretty common in ducks and geese etc. so having gay swans in the population increases reproduction, and you can see from this example that being gay isn't necessarily a barrier to an animal passing on its genes, even if it totally prefers the same sex.

there is a species of lizard composed entirely of females. therefore all reproduction is asexual, but they like to have lesbian sex and doing so increases their fertility.

various social animals like lions, dolphins, whales, elephants, various primates etc tend to be heaps gay. homosexual sex can provide various benefits such aiding in bonding and maintaining alliances (eg coalitions of male lions), acting as a social lubricant, reduced injuries due to aggression when opposing forces decide to make love not war etc. the other smart animals don't tend to have any problem with a bit of gay sex happening so why should we? it would be more unnatural if an intelligent, social mammal species like ours didn't have any homosex.


Also stupid claeyt keeps saying **** like 'its genetic so it isn't a mental illness'. That is retarded.

The way claeyt spouts this **** it sounds like if you have some gay gene you're definitely going to be gay which is just totally not the case. Current evidence shows there is a genetic component, but it's just like with pretty much everything else; phenotype is a result of genotype + environment, not one or the other. It's not a thing like hair colour etc which is totally defined by your genes.
And the point here really is that having a genetic factor in no way excludes the possibility of something being a mental illness. eg Schizophrenia has a strong genetic component. I don't think being gay is a mental illness, but bringing up a genetic factor just isn't a valid point.

This brings us to how having homosexuals in the population can be adaptive for us humans. One study showed that female relatives of gay males tended to have more children- makes sense if their gay relatives are being sweet and helping out babysitting, providing resources like cute outfits etc. gay males and females often sexually reproduce even though it's not their first preference, or adopt children that need someone to raise them etc. Nice. Also you can have high fitness even without reproducing yourself- family members share much genes and if you contribute enough to your family members reproducing you can have just as much of your genetic material passed on to future generations as if you'd had kids yourself. This is a common strategy among other animals too.

[darnokpl]

Does those animals are homosexuals all their lifes? They refuse to make children?

In most cases, no. (There are exceptions, most well know, male sheep. About 10% of rams will only mate with other rams, their entire life.)

Here in the Netherlands it is pretty much socially accepted for a gay couple to raise kids. A recent law change even recognizes both of them as official parents. A kid can have a mom and mom, or dad and dad here instead of mom and dad.

And that is what makes most people say no to gays.
There is no way without assumptions to say what would be impact on children minds, unless some country will make that law and after that we wait 50 years or more to see results of that decision. But that is live experiment on families and adopted children!

It is no more than an additional means of population control. There's many forms of population control in biology. It prevents species that have the capacity to procreate faster than their ecosystem niche can regenerate sustenance, from going extinct. A well known example of another method of population control would be lemmings throwing themselves off cliffs. If they wouldn't periodically do that, their species would have become extinct due to overcrowding.

What's funny is, that christianity, islam and other religions condemning homosexuality are probably the main contributant to spreading homosexuality globally. That is, if you assume it is indeed genetic.
For centuries, homosexual men have married women, and had children, just because if they didn't, they would strongly be suspected of homosexuality. And thus, spreading the gene.

Ok, so if both of that are true and homosexualism is natural way to reduce population then why so many homosexuals in Europe and USA?
While in areas where people doesn't have anything to eat like in Africa there is none?
China super overcrowded?
India both super overcrowded and over 6000 years old religion and we don't hear much or anything about gays?
Islamic countries also are having much higher birth/death ratio than Europe and yet no gays?

Are they all scared?
If that would be natural genetic issue then it should be spread equally on entire globe or in all those overcrowded regions should be 30-50% gay population by now?
Meanwhile we have most gays in well educated and not overcrowded countries how is that in anyway natural?

Intolerance comes from lack of knowledge not from religion beliefs sir.

While I am not saying that religious beliefs, per se, are intolerant, it is my opinion that most, if not all institutionalized forms of religion's sole purpose is to gain power over the masses, often using intolerance as it's main tool to combat all that thinks differently. To quote Noam Chomsky: "The Bible is probably the most genocidal book in our western literary canon."

...but that's what religion are doing ? Some religious fanatics despise the people who are not thinking their way and I assure you that they let us know ? Same for extreme political people ? And same for some extremely stupid gays.

Ok, I do agree with both of you on that, if you give too much power to single organisation, no matter how holly and pure ideas its founder had, it will turn terrible over time.
And that is why I am against promoting homosexualism so much in media (I didn't said they should shut up and stay hidden)!
If you promote so strong only part of society then those people are starting to think they are better than the other part, because they are smarter and more tolerant while heteros are half-inteligent idiots.

You mean, because they don't want to hear and see who is your partner except if that partner is considered normal ? No because, you know, marriage is just a big huge way to yell "LOOK WHO IM GONNA ***** FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE HAHAHAHA" at the face of the world. And you invite every ***** people you know on the world to let them know. Uh.

Except the fact that weddings are made to unite two families, so they are inviting family members and close friends! NOT half of Europe for party in center of city and talk few weeks on TV about that?

animals

Sorry we are not lizards, we can have children only in couples male-female.

Ok, so animals do have some kind of "diplomacy" in and between groups. The one on top is leader and he is ***** whatever he wants to.
It is an act that is showing his position not a lifestyle if I understand that right. But how that makes gays in our species more natural?

This brings us to how having homosexuals in the population can be adaptive for us humans. One study showed that female relatives of gay males tended to have more children- makes sense if their gay relatives are being sweet and helping out babysitting, providing resources like cute outfits etc. gay males and females often sexually reproduce even though it's not their first preference, or adopt children that need someone to raise them etc. Nice. Also you can have high fitness even without reproducing yourself- family members share much genes and if you contribute enough to your family members reproducing you can have just as much of your genetic material passed on to future generations as if you'd had kids yourself. This is a common strategy among other animals too.

Soon in Europe more people will die than is born, so whos children are you going to adopt and babysit?

[Tamasin]

Sorry we are not lizards, we can have children only in couples male-female.

Ok, so animals do have some kind of "diplomacy" in and between groups. The one on top is leader and he is ***** whatever he wants to.
It is an act that is showing his position not a lifestyle if I understand that right. But how that makes gays in our species more natural?

This brings us to how having homosexuals in the population can be adaptive for us humans. One study showed that female relatives of gay males tended to have more children- makes sense if their gay relatives are being sweet and helping out babysitting, providing resources like cute outfits etc. gay males and females often sexually reproduce even though it's not their first preference, or adopt children that need someone to raise them etc. Nice. Also you can have high fitness even without reproducing yourself- family members share much genes and if you contribute enough to your family members reproducing you can have just as much of your genetic material passed on to future generations as if you'd had kids yourself. This is a common strategy among other animals too.

Soon in Europe more people will die than is born, so whos children are you going to adopt and babysit?

there are many many sorts of social structures among animals. I have no idea what you're trying to say there sorry.

and me? i'm not gay and intend to have my own children lol. ***** babysitting. but in this world, i think there will always be kids that need parents.

[Kaios]

Ok, so if both of that are true and homosexualism is natural way to reduce population then why so many homosexuals in Europe and USA?
While in areas where people doesn't have anything to eat like in Africa there is none?
China super overcrowded?
India both super overcrowded and over 6000 years old religion and we don't hear much or anything about gays?
Islamic countries also are having much higher birth/death ratio than Europe and yet no gays?

Are they all scared?
If that would be natural genetic issue then it should be spread equally on entire globe or in all those overcrowded regions should be 30-50% gay population by now?
Meanwhile we have most gays in well educated and not overcrowded countries how is that in anyway natural?

Flawed argument. You're forgetting that in many of these places they still perform such acts as stoning people to death or of similar cruelty for such unforgivable sins. Intolerance of homosexuality may be high in Western countries, but I guarantee you in places like China, India and Islamic countries their intolerance and ignorance towards it is at a much higher rate. They are just less vocal and more action-oriented.

[Mereni]

A well known example of another method of population control would be lemmings throwing themselves off cliffs. If they wouldn't periodically do that, their species would have become extinct due to overcrowding.

FYI they don't actually do this.

Well, they don't deliberately jump off cliffs with the sole purpose of dying, as suggested in some old Disney 'documentary'.
However, overpopulation triggers such a strong migratory response, that it will drive herds away from the overcrowded area, without any regard of dangerousness of the terrain crossed while migrating. Causing them to fall off cliffs, drown in rapids, and similar deaths that could be seen as suicidal.

I feel like you believed what you said the first time, and then looked up 'Lemmings' on Snopes when you found out you were wrong. You claimed to be a biologist to give your words in this thread weight, but you actually barely scraped through high school biology with a D, didn't you?