Yeah I feel like I used to give the nature argument to support being gay, but in reality, being natural shouldn’t just mean that it’s good. There’s rape, murder, cannibalism, danger, poison, etc. in nature. Nature =/= good.
I’m not saying this because I’m anti-gay. Actually I feel like I’m on a bisexual-asexual spectrum. It’s just not an argument that we should be using I guess unless there’s a better way to spin that particular argument.
MeatPilot@lemmy.world
on 01 Jul 17:28
nextcollapse
I agree with this. One day I was cursed with seeing a video of a monkey masturbating with a dead frog’s mouth.
Animals are unfiltered horny. Humans are way more complex. It is 100% ok to be gay, just animal comparisons are thin. They are typically not banging for love or adding complex thinking emotions to their actions.
P.S. Don’t look up the monkey thing, I regretted having eyes to watch it.
Snowclone@lemmy.world
on 01 Jul 18:35
nextcollapse
It indicates sexuality isn’t a choice of behavior, it’s inborn
If God made everything, he made a lot of gay stuff.
.
Morality of nature isn’t the question. This whole issue really clearly demonstrates that morality comes from people, and religions struggle to keep up by decades and centuries. The Catholic Church recently solidified is moral objection to IVF pregnancies. Wrap your head around how absolutely stunted you need to be to think this is a MORAL issue you must oppose. It’s absurd.
I think the whole nature angle is stupid to begin with. Everything is natural because everything comes from nature. Fire is natural, being gay is natural, plastic is natural.
Binding anything to natural and then saying it is good because of that or it is bad because of that is a complete waste of time and just shows the bias of the person categorizing.
As I often find the right answer to the question is “mu” which means the question is wrong.
Is ist natural? Yes, everything is so fuck that question. The better question would be “does it hurt people?” or something else like that.
Snowclone@lemmy.world
on 01 Jul 18:14
nextcollapse
It does indicate people are born with their sexuality from the start and it isn’t a personal choice to engage in criminal or degenerate behavior as Western culture and Christianity has claimed for centuries, and ignorant bigots still claim today.
BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz
on 01 Jul 18:53
collapse
It merely serves to illustrate that traditionalist conservative chudscum will say anything to excuse their disgusting barbaric inhumanity without actually believing it. They will make both of these arguments in the same breath. Then they’ll say their “god” works in “mysterious ways”. Arguing with them is a waste of time except in so far as being able to publicly embarrass them and get them so angry that they discredit themselves in their own irrationally because at least THEN you can convince some bystanders to not be like the waste of skin you just dunked on.
Akshualy those are lesbians, because birds have XX for male and XY for female. 😅
threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
on 01 Jul 16:49
collapse
Don’t birds have W and Z or something instead of X and Y?
BakerBagel@midwest.social
on 01 Jul 17:02
collapse
What you call them iis arbitrary. Genetics is a disgustingly unstandardized field when it comes to naming things.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
on 01 Jul 22:21
collapse
It isn’t arbitrary when you’re comparing it to another specific chromosome.
lightnsfw@reddthat.com
on 01 Jul 14:19
nextcollapse
Are we sure that penguins can actually tell each other apart by gender and it’s not just pairing up with whoever’s most convenient and some of them get lucky?
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jul 16:03
nextcollapse
Penguins form life long relationships and don’t even rebound if their partner dies. Pretty sure they can tell genders apart
It’s no definite proof, it is just very unlikely that they can remember their former partner but can’t differentiate between sexes. They look all the same to us but not to them.
Someone else debunked my comment but they still more likely go to their old partner so they seem to remember them
I think this means that they only choose last years partner 15% of the time. Still higher than random chance, but in no way dependant on their partner.
Was looking up something else on Wikipedia and stumbled onto this fact. I know this is not exactly related to the point you wanted to make, but I might as well share it.
We humans are very well adapted to tell humans apart, penguins are very well adapted to tell penguins apart. They have gender specific mating calls for example.
Maybe not sexual, but animals get outcasted/exiled from their groups for all sorts of reasons!
Stolen from AI google response for wolf exile, as an example.
Aggression: If a wolf displays aggressive behavior towards other pack members, especially the alpha pair or other dominant wolves, it may be exiled to maintain harmony within the pack.
Injury or illness: Wolves that are injured or sick may be seen as a liability to the pack as they may not be able to keep up with the group or contribute to hunting effectively. In such cases, the pack may exile the weaker individual to ensure the survival of the rest of the group.
Reproductive competition: In some cases, subordinate wolves may challenge the alpha pair for dominance or breeding rights within the pack. If a wolf is unsuccessful in its attempts to challenge the alpha pair, it may be forced out of the pack.
Old age: Older wolves that are no longer able to keep up with the pack or contribute to hunting effectively may be pushed out of the group to ensure the pack’s survival.
Genetic diversity: In some cases, wolves may be exiled to prevent inbreeding within the pack. Maintaining genetic diversity is important for the long-term health and survival of the pack.
Resource scarcity: If resources such as food become scarce, the pack may not be able to support all its members. In such situations, weaker or less dominant wolves may be forced out to reduce competition for resources.
Behavioral issues: Wolves that consistently display disruptive or antisocial behavior within the pack may be exiled to maintain social cohesion and hierarchy.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jul 16:04
nextcollapse
Some people claim homosexuality is as old as humanity. This is clearly wrong. Homosexuality is much older
fossilesque@mander.xyz
on 01 Jul 16:06
nextcollapse
Likely as old as sexuality itself.
Snowclone@lemmy.world
on 01 Jul 18:00
nextcollapse
So as old as multicellular life. Which I completely agree with.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Jul 08:06
nextcollapse
Single cell life doesn’t have sexuality, not even all multicellular organisms do. And there are lifeforms like plants that throw around their pollen and hope that pollen of the opposite sex meet or make insects or alike distribute their pollen to other plants. That’s sexuality in the biological sense, too
Bacteria don’t have sexuality. They copy themselves if you will and exchange small bits of DNA rings with each other but they don’t have sexes individuals belong to
Not only are you correct, we will never have any real sense of scale of just how correct you are, since we’ve only been exposed to about less than 0.01% of life that’s ever existed on Earth in the last several billion years.
For all we know there were clans of synapsids that were exclusively homosexual for terms of child-rearing and had complicated social systems with language and structured hierarchy, etc.
The idea that we can even remotely determine what this world’s natural systems have been like from looking at a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the total picture is once again peak human hubris and self importance.
This planet has been a thriving source of life in the universe, maybe the only one like it for far, far longer than any human alive can comprehend. In the last several billion years nothing complained about homosexuality. Humans will be here for a brief blip on the larger picture, and there will be no record nor impact from anyone’s hate or fear of sex acts. Earth will keep spinning through the void, life will keep evolving. Protest signs and hateful messages will dissolve back to the systems that created them.
All you people screaming and crying about “woke” this and that, and who get confused by terms like LGBTQ+, it doesn’t matter. You will be dust for far, far longer than you will be a human screaming about what’s “natural.”
tamagotchicowboy@hexbear.net
on 01 Jul 16:15
nextcollapse
It takes two penguins working together to care for an egg, if one penguin dies the remaining penguin can’t hold the egg and feed itself, so either a couple steps up or a lone penguin joins the remaining penguin, having several homosexual couples who are on standby to take care of orphan eggs is a clear evolutionary advantage.
I’d be cautious with saying evolutionary advantage here.
I don’t believe the “Gay Uncle hypothesis” any more than the somewhat debunked “Grandmother Hypothesis”, which aimed to explain menopause with biological altruism. Just because we could think of a way in that it might be advantageous for a species doesn’t mean it’s advantageous for an individuals fitness.
Of course, it can be still an advantage, but we’d only know with more free, uncensored research.
Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
on 01 Jul 18:16
nextcollapse
I have always loved ther verbiage about Giraffes on the Wikipedia page below.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/92f8f1cb-6e3d-488e-9ef0-4614e64901e8.png">
At first this caption made me think that Kenyan giraffes are especially gay, as if Kenya was some kind of Washington D.C. of giraffe world. In other news, I am now aware of grey whale orgies.
Right whales too - with a metric tonne of balls to bring to the party - they are made for lovin’ not fightin’:
Right whales form large mating aggregations, which can include several males seeking access to a female. However, unlike humpback whale competitive groups, male right whales do not engage in aggressive displays. One female may successively mate with several males, and it is believed that males compete to pass their genes to the next generation through quantity of sperm they deliver when they mate, rather than fighting for access to females. This theory is supported by the fact that male right whales have the largest testes of any animal on earth (up to 500 kg each), as well as extremely large penises.
Disclaimer: Pepe Julian Onziema is an absolute legend and hero and is based in Kenya’s neighbor Uganda, not actually Kenya, but THAT interview is a source of joy for me and jumped to my head.
CableMonster@lemmy.ml
on 01 Jul 19:01
nextcollapse
Are we pretending that humans and animals do the same things? You can be fine with homosexuality, but what animals do have nothing to do with what humans do.
Yes. Everything else is only because we perceive it differently, notably culturally. And that depends on the individual, time and culture that percieves it. And our perceptions aren’t always good but are built from other things including misconceptions.
It’s something that happens naturally, yes. I’m not picking and choosing nature. We can decide what we want to be, including the ability to chose to not be a bigot.
Animals frequently murder those other than themselves, so then is what could be considered bigotry also natural? If this is all natural then what is the whole point of calling things natural?
This is not a meme of everything natural being allowed but a meme countering bigots claiming homosexuality is unnatural which they take as the reason to not want it allowed (because they’ve already lost on the angle of it being ethically wrong). Just because something is natural, doesn’t mean it’s good. It just means it’s not unnatural and you’re somehow confusing the two. What’s good is an ethical and altogether different question.
Or in simpler terms: Bigots be bigots (homosexuality is evil) > we prove them wrong > they still be bigots and move goal posts (homosexuality is unnatural) > we for some reason indulge them and prove them wrong on the moved goal post > they move goal posts again claiming to have already forgotten that we’ve already long established that homosexuality isn’t ethically wrong, looking insane in the process > I wonder why i even talk to you and block you because every single time i see a comment of yours it’s some negative bigoted shit and I’m tired of engaging with you. You manage to make yourself look insane all on your own anyways
If someone says “homosexuality is unnatural” it would be in reference to what they see as the natural state of humanity and not at all related to animals. Relating animals to the conversation is just dumb, it has nothing to do with anything. You can disagree with them, but animal behavior proves nothing.
Homosexuality is natural. I don’t know about you but this is very soothing sentence in my mind after years of all sorts of morality figures saying the opposite. I want to like repeat it and savour it
fossilesque@mander.xyz
on 01 Jul 19:20
nextcollapse
Always was.
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
on 02 Jul 05:25
collapse
And about 200 other species, but only one has exhibited homophobia.
rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee
on 01 Jul 21:01
nextcollapse
Penguins aren’t natural. They’re cybernetic sentinels made by the Illuminati to defend the Antarctic Wall and stop people from discovering the edge of the flat Earth.
fossilesque@mander.xyz
on 01 Jul 21:05
nextcollapse
Finally, the truth!!!
humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Jul 22:20
nextcollapse
What a nonsense. Penguins are birds and birds are governmental drones aimed to spy on people, not to defend anything. Polar bears are!
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
on 02 Jul 05:24
collapse
I take offense to that
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
on 01 Jul 21:24
nextcollapse
I’m not saying this fact about penguins isn’t true, I don’t know, but this isn’t a real wikipedia screenshot like it acts like it is. In fact, searching for “homosexuality is common in penguins” only returns results for transcriptions of this meme.
fossilesque@mander.xyz
on 01 Jul 21:27
nextcollapse
Check the article history.
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
on 01 Jul 21:37
nextcollapse
Haha I’m committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won’t stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn’t written professionally, “love to cuddle” is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.
Not a case anymore, unfortunately. There are leftist meme articles that only cite tweets and buzzfeed reposting said tweets, but if you try to do anything about it, your edits will be instantly reverted and your account will get banned.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website
on 02 Jul 05:17
collapse
Without examples it’s hard to say anything at all beyond guesses really.
But if the article is about a xitter meme, tweets are the original source, and therefore perfectly relevant citations.
The most obvious example I know of is this one. Not a thing, never was a thing, and the entire page is just folk from 196 and blahaj dunking on wikipedia. And check out the talk page where they try to pretend that the skeleton image is the best representation of said “phenomenon”, while simultaneously removing any messages doubting it’s existence.
FiskFisk33@startrek.website
on 03 Jul 05:14
collapse
I dunno, it doesn’t seem to overstate its case
While not all films, television shows, photographs, and music videos that use this lighting intend to portray bisexuality, many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
I wouldn’t call it a high quality article, like at all, but I also wouldn’t call it factually incorrect.
many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette
[Citation needed]
There were definitely none that did before the wiki article was created.
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
The article from BBC is fluff written by a rando and is based completely off twitter circlejerk. VICE is not a reliable source as anyone can register as an author and make articles there.
I thought huddling together for warmth in cold weather was a survival technique: a method for staying alive, rather than counting as a sex act.
And two males bringing up an orphaned child seems like a jolly nice thing to do for the child and the community. If an orphanage is staffed by one sex, does that make the whole place a massive L/G orgy even if nobody is having sex with anyone else?
The gesture almost can’t mean the same thing to a creature that doesn’t have a pair of soft appendages with some of the densest nerve clusters on its entire body in that specific location. But yeah raising a child together is pretty darn gay. I guess they could be platonically coparenting but tbh that seems like an even bigger anthropomorphization. “They’re gay, Karen” is honestly just occam’s razor for this situation.
I’ve seen birds kissing, and I can’t come up with any nonromantic explanation for it. Also they only do it when they think I’m not watching.
Apytele@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Jul 09:58
nextcollapse
Humans cuddle platonically/familially. I also wonder if it’s maybe not more like holding hands which isn’t always romantic among humans depending on culture. Again, arguing 0% on the gayness, my only beef is with the anthropomorphization, and the whole point of acknowledging in the first place is that no human has any real way of knowing what’s going on in an animal’s head.
Pretty sure they get up to all sorts of rape and paedophilia and incest too. This might be a nice fact, but penguins are dirty bitches and certainly no behavioural gold standard.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
on 02 Jul 13:07
collapse
I don’t think anyone but you has even remotely implied there’s some overall gold standard presented by penguin behavior that needs to be compared to humans. Simply the fact that other species have homosexuals, and those pairs can raise a “family” successfully. Compared to your mentioned standard humans don’t do so great sometimes either.
threaded - newest
Christians be like: those penguins are going to hell
ZOMG! Hell has frozen over!
They be like: They’re just copying humans.
Just a couple of bros snuggling while rasing a family together.
No homo tho
They were roommates.
Life long bachelors
They lived in a one bedroom cottage and kept Jack Russell terriers and were buried next to each other.
Otherwise it was an older billionaire that took in the younger when he was in college and they donned masks and fought crime together.
No homo sapiens
oH YeAh WeLL yOu kNoW wHaT eLsE iS NaTuRaL, RaPe aNd cAnNiBaLiSm!!!11!!!1!1one!11!1!!1eleven!!!1
Great argument against the “bUt iTT”s nAtcHurAAL !!!11!!” for anything really. Natural does not mean good
Alabamans : InC-
Yeah I feel like I used to give the nature argument to support being gay, but in reality, being natural shouldn’t just mean that it’s good. There’s rape, murder, cannibalism, danger, poison, etc. in nature. Nature =/= good.
I’m not saying this because I’m anti-gay. Actually I feel like I’m on a bisexual-asexual spectrum. It’s just not an argument that we should be using I guess unless there’s a better way to spin that particular argument.
I agree with this. One day I was cursed with seeing a video of a monkey masturbating with a dead frog’s mouth.
Animals are unfiltered horny. Humans are way more complex. It is 100% ok to be gay, just animal comparisons are thin. They are typically not banging for love or adding complex thinking emotions to their actions.
P.S. Don’t look up the monkey thing, I regretted having eyes to watch it.
thx… just spent the last hr watching monkeys fuck and masturbate
<img alt="" src="https://i.imgur.com/BZCNK1v.gif">
It indicates sexuality isn’t a choice of behavior, it’s inborn
If God made everything, he made a lot of gay stuff.
.
Morality of nature isn’t the question. This whole issue really clearly demonstrates that morality comes from people, and religions struggle to keep up by decades and centuries. The Catholic Church recently solidified is moral objection to IVF pregnancies. Wrap your head around how absolutely stunted you need to be to think this is a MORAL issue you must oppose. It’s absurd.
I think the whole nature angle is stupid to begin with. Everything is natural because everything comes from nature. Fire is natural, being gay is natural, plastic is natural.
Binding anything to natural and then saying it is good because of that or it is bad because of that is a complete waste of time and just shows the bias of the person categorizing.
As I often find the right answer to the question is “mu” which means the question is wrong.
Is ist natural? Yes, everything is so fuck that question. The better question would be “does it hurt people?” or something else like that.
It does indicate people are born with their sexuality from the start and it isn’t a personal choice to engage in criminal or degenerate behavior as Western culture and Christianity has claimed for centuries, and ignorant bigots still claim today.
What ?
It merely serves to illustrate that traditionalist conservative chudscum will say anything to excuse their disgusting barbaric inhumanity without actually believing it. They will make both of these arguments in the same breath. Then they’ll say their “god” works in “mysterious ways”. Arguing with them is a waste of time except in so far as being able to publicly embarrass them and get them so angry that they discredit themselves in their own irrationally because at least THEN you can convince some bystanders to not be like the waste of skin you just dunked on.
This must be the famous Linux-to-queer pipeline I’ve heard so much about.
Careful when programming near long, colorful socks.
Giraffes are shockingly gay too, something like 80% of giraffe sex had is gay.
Those are rookie numbers.
You should see Uncle Paul on the weekends. No man escapes that grizzly!
I’m 20% better than giraffes 😎
Eh, not enough for me to choose you over a giraffe. Sorry bro
Akshualy those are lesbians, because birds have XX for male and XY for female. 😅
Don’t birds have W and Z or something instead of X and Y?
What you call them iis arbitrary. Genetics is a disgustingly unstandardized field when it comes to naming things.
It isn’t arbitrary when you’re comparing it to another specific chromosome.
Are we sure that penguins can actually tell each other apart by gender and it’s not just pairing up with whoever’s most convenient and some of them get lucky?
Penguins form life long relationships and don’t even rebound if their partner dies. Pretty sure they can tell genders apart
I dont see how the former links to the latter.
I’d imagine being able to differentiate sex (I doubt they have a concept of gender as we understand it) is an evolutionary necessity, though.
It’s no definite proof, it is just very unlikely that they can remember their former partner but can’t differentiate between sexes. They look all the same to us but not to them.
Someone else debunked my comment but they still more likely go to their old partner so they seem to remember them
Contrary to popular belief, Emperor Penguins do not mate for life. They are serially monogamous, only having 1 mate per year, but between years fidelity is at around 15%.
I think this means that they only choose last years partner 15% of the time. Still higher than random chance, but in no way dependant on their partner.
Was looking up something else on Wikipedia and stumbled onto this fact. I know this is not exactly related to the point you wanted to make, but I might as well share it.
So my Spanish teacher was wrong. I hope she didn’t make up the language, too
Yes.
We humans are very well adapted to tell humans apart, penguins are very well adapted to tell penguins apart. They have gender specific mating calls for example.
Bromance!
Since “no discrimination” was mentioned, I wonder if there’s actual discrimination in the animal kingdom, except us humans?
Maybe not sexual, but animals get outcasted/exiled from their groups for all sorts of reasons!
Stolen from AI google response for wolf exile, as an example.
Aggression: If a wolf displays aggressive behavior towards other pack members, especially the alpha pair or other dominant wolves, it may be exiled to maintain harmony within the pack.
Injury or illness: Wolves that are injured or sick may be seen as a liability to the pack as they may not be able to keep up with the group or contribute to hunting effectively. In such cases, the pack may exile the weaker individual to ensure the survival of the rest of the group.
Reproductive competition: In some cases, subordinate wolves may challenge the alpha pair for dominance or breeding rights within the pack. If a wolf is unsuccessful in its attempts to challenge the alpha pair, it may be forced out of the pack.
Old age: Older wolves that are no longer able to keep up with the pack or contribute to hunting effectively may be pushed out of the group to ensure the pack’s survival.
Genetic diversity: In some cases, wolves may be exiled to prevent inbreeding within the pack. Maintaining genetic diversity is important for the long-term health and survival of the pack.
Resource scarcity: If resources such as food become scarce, the pack may not be able to support all its members. In such situations, weaker or less dominant wolves may be forced out to reduce competition for resources.
Behavioral issues: Wolves that consistently display disruptive or antisocial behavior within the pack may be exiled to maintain social cohesion and hierarchy.
Some people claim homosexuality is as old as humanity. This is clearly wrong. Homosexuality is much older
Likely as old as sexuality itself.
So as old as multicellular life. Which I completely agree with.
Single cell life doesn’t have sexuality, not even all multicellular organisms do. And there are lifeforms like plants that throw around their pollen and hope that pollen of the opposite sex meet or make insects or alike distribute their pollen to other plants. That’s sexuality in the biological sense, too
Probably not quite that old. Sexuality probably developed in the Proterozoic as a means of diversifying reproductive burden and offsetting parasites.
Multicellular life predates this by quite a bit.
So homosexuality likely dates back to the Proterozoic Era when the sexes where largely dimorphic and prone to shift as needed. Life … uh, finds a way.
Gay bacteria
Bacteria don’t have sexuality. They copy themselves if you will and exchange small bits of DNA rings with each other but they don’t have sexes individuals belong to
Sorry, I said GAY BACTERIA
Not only are you correct, we will never have any real sense of scale of just how correct you are, since we’ve only been exposed to about less than 0.01% of life that’s ever existed on Earth in the last several billion years.
For all we know there were clans of synapsids that were exclusively homosexual for terms of child-rearing and had complicated social systems with language and structured hierarchy, etc.
The idea that we can even remotely determine what this world’s natural systems have been like from looking at a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the total picture is once again peak human hubris and self importance.
This planet has been a thriving source of life in the universe, maybe the only one like it for far, far longer than any human alive can comprehend. In the last several billion years nothing complained about homosexuality. Humans will be here for a brief blip on the larger picture, and there will be no record nor impact from anyone’s hate or fear of sex acts. Earth will keep spinning through the void, life will keep evolving. Protest signs and hateful messages will dissolve back to the systems that created them.
All you people screaming and crying about “woke” this and that, and who get confused by terms like LGBTQ+, it doesn’t matter. You will be dust for far, far longer than you will be a human screaming about what’s “natural.”
The snuggle all day business sounds legit
From the penguin documentaries I watched as a kid, I feel like the “leaving eggs behind” might involve relentless bullying.
That or the parents starved to death or got eaten by a seal
It takes two penguins working together to care for an egg, if one penguin dies the remaining penguin can’t hold the egg and feed itself, so either a couple steps up or a lone penguin joins the remaining penguin, having several homosexual couples who are on standby to take care of orphan eggs is a clear evolutionary advantage.
I’d be cautious with saying evolutionary advantage here.
I don’t believe the “Gay Uncle hypothesis” any more than the somewhat debunked “Grandmother Hypothesis”, which aimed to explain menopause with biological altruism. Just because we could think of a way in that it might be advantageous for a species doesn’t mean it’s advantageous for an individuals fitness.
Of course, it can be still an advantage, but we’d only know with more free, uncensored research.
I have always loved ther verbiage about Giraffes on the Wikipedia page below. <img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/92f8f1cb-6e3d-488e-9ef0-4614e64901e8.png">
…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_mammals_displaying_homos…
At first this caption made me think that Kenyan giraffes are especially gay, as if Kenya was some kind of Washington D.C. of giraffe world. In other news, I am now aware of grey whale orgies.
Right whales too - with a metric tonne of balls to bring to the party - they are made for lovin’ not fightin’:
https://iwc.int/about-whales/whale-species/right-whale
Giraffe, why are you gay?
Disclaimer: Pepe Julian Onziema is an absolute legend and hero and is based in Kenya’s neighbor Uganda, not actually Kenya, but THAT interview is a source of joy for me and jumped to my head.
Are we pretending that humans and animals do the same things? You can be fine with homosexuality, but what animals do have nothing to do with what humans do.
Humans are literally a categorical subset within the taxonomical kingdom of “animals”.
“People” who argue that humans aren’t animals are clearly vegetables :p /s
So then if animals do it then its the same as humans doing it?
Yes. Everything else is only because we perceive it differently, notably culturally. And that depends on the individual, time and culture that percieves it. And our perceptions aren’t always good but are built from other things including misconceptions.
So when a human rapes or murders and eats another human that is natural becuase animals do this?
Or maybe animals and humans are not the same and we dont get to pick and chose for memes…
It’s something that happens naturally, yes. I’m not picking and choosing nature. We can decide what we want to be, including the ability to chose to not be a bigot.
Animals frequently murder those other than themselves, so then is what could be considered bigotry also natural? If this is all natural then what is the whole point of calling things natural?
This is not a meme of everything natural being allowed but a meme countering bigots claiming homosexuality is unnatural which they take as the reason to not want it allowed (because they’ve already lost on the angle of it being ethically wrong). Just because something is natural, doesn’t mean it’s good. It just means it’s not unnatural and you’re somehow confusing the two. What’s good is an ethical and altogether different question.
Or in simpler terms: Bigots be bigots (homosexuality is evil) > we prove them wrong > they still be bigots and move goal posts (homosexuality is unnatural) > we for some reason indulge them and prove them wrong on the moved goal post > they move goal posts again claiming to have already forgotten that we’ve already long established that homosexuality isn’t ethically wrong, looking insane in the process > I wonder why i even talk to you and block you because every single time i see a comment of yours it’s some negative bigoted shit and I’m tired of engaging with you. You manage to make yourself look insane all on your own anyways
If someone says “homosexuality is unnatural” it would be in reference to what they see as the natural state of humanity and not at all related to animals. Relating animals to the conversation is just dumb, it has nothing to do with anything. You can disagree with them, but animal behavior proves nothing.
I regret to inform you that you are also an animal.
So if I do anything and animal does then its totally cool?
Slime molds aren’t part of the animal kingdom
I mean yeah, dolphins often rape the weaker males around. Are they saying we should also do that?
I dunno… they also hump dead fish. and get high on pufferfish toxin
They dont know what they are saying.
Homosexuality is natural. I don’t know about you but this is very soothing sentence in my mind after years of all sorts of morality figures saying the opposite. I want to like repeat it and savour it
Always was.
There are also many, many gay and bi sheep
Look it up
And about 200 other species, but only one has exhibited homophobia.
Penguins aren’t natural. They’re cybernetic sentinels made by the Illuminati to defend the Antarctic Wall and stop people from discovering the edge of the flat Earth.
Finally, the truth!!!
What a nonsense. Penguins are birds and birds are governmental drones aimed to spy on people, not to defend anything. Polar bears are!
I take offense to that
I’m not saying this fact about penguins isn’t true, I don’t know, but this isn’t a real wikipedia screenshot like it acts like it is. In fact, searching for “homosexuality is common in penguins” only returns results for transcriptions of this meme.
Check the article history.
Haha I’m committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won’t stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn’t written professionally, “love to cuddle” is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.
Not a case anymore, unfortunately. There are leftist meme articles that only cite tweets and buzzfeed reposting said tweets, but if you try to do anything about it, your edits will be instantly reverted and your account will get banned.
Without examples it’s hard to say anything at all beyond guesses really.
But if the article is about a xitter meme, tweets are the original source, and therefore perfectly relevant citations.
The most obvious example I know of is this one. Not a thing, never was a thing, and the entire page is just folk from 196 and blahaj dunking on wikipedia. And check out the talk page where they try to pretend that the skeleton image is the best representation of said “phenomenon”, while simultaneously removing any messages doubting it’s existence.
I dunno, it doesn’t seem to overstate its case
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
I wouldn’t call it a high quality article, like at all, but I also wouldn’t call it factually incorrect.
[Citation needed]
There were definitely none that did before the wiki article was created.
The article from BBC is fluff written by a rando and is based completely off twitter circlejerk. VICE is not a reliable source as anyone can register as an author and make articles there.
Was it instareverted?
Love that you saw this and was like “this can’t be true. Gotta fact check bullshit”. Like why do you need to go out of your way for that?
Do you typically believe everything you read in meme form?
Some people just dislike misinformation, regardless of whether it aligns with their world view.
There are plenty of real reasons homosexuality is natural, why invent fake ones?
As a penguin, I can say with 100% certainty that there are gay penguins.
We also like to do giant penguin orgies, but we don’t let the researchers see that
I thought I was in linuxmemes
Has homosexuality been redefined?
I thought huddling together for warmth in cold weather was a survival technique: a method for staying alive, rather than counting as a sex act.
And two males bringing up an orphaned child seems like a jolly nice thing to do for the child and the community. If an orphanage is staffed by one sex, does that make the whole place a massive L/G orgy even if nobody is having sex with anyone else?
The picture is literally of two penguins kissing.
Damn straight they are!
Low hanging fruit and all, but
Damn gay they are!
The gesture almost can’t mean the same thing to a creature that doesn’t have a pair of soft appendages with some of the densest nerve clusters on its entire body in that specific location. But yeah raising a child together is pretty darn gay. I guess they could be platonically coparenting but tbh that seems like an even bigger anthropomorphization. “They’re gay, Karen” is honestly just occam’s razor for this situation.
I’ve seen birds kissing, and I can’t come up with any nonromantic explanation for it. Also they only do it when they think I’m not watching.
Humans cuddle platonically/familially. I also wonder if it’s maybe not more like holding hands which isn’t always romantic among humans depending on culture. Again, arguing 0% on the gayness, my only beef is with the anthropomorphization, and the whole point of acknowledging in the first place is that no human has any real way of knowing what’s going on in an animal’s head.
You should start streaming some old Animal Planet shows. Grooming each other is a big part of social bonding among many different animals.
Also, the second part is because they’ve seen what you do when you’re alone and know you’re a perv.
Pretty sure they get up to all sorts of rape and paedophilia and incest too. This might be a nice fact, but penguins are dirty bitches and certainly no behavioural gold standard.
I don’t think anyone but you has even remotely implied there’s some overall gold standard presented by penguin behavior that needs to be compared to humans. Simply the fact that other species have homosexuals, and those pairs can raise a “family” successfully. Compared to your mentioned standard humans don’t do so great sometimes either.
I didn’t imply they were a gold standard. I just remarked that they certainly weren’t, which is very different.
If I hug my male friend, have I become the gay?