The implication of her “argument” is still rather strange, if not disgusting.
Well if you think the rates of homosexualism in the animal kingdom is high, you should look at the rates of beastiality in the animal kingdom–Damn near 100% !!!
Freakin’ perverts!!!
Ok, newbie here posting, ready to get flamed!
As for the Religious-Right condemning homosexuality, and the defense by gaeila that it occurs naturally and when provoked by experiments, the question remains: why would animals be homosexual?
What is the value added/stronger species argument?
If the two strongest male cheetahs are gay, wouldn’t that let #3 mate with all the females, and thus propagate third rate cheetahs?
I think many people confuse homosexual BEHAVIOR (ie humping one of the same sex) with homsexuality in humans, which is different. The animal is simply trying to propagate the species. The human is trying to have fun (as are heterosexuals, except for that one 2-month period when the wife pulls the goalie and is trying to get knocked up). The motivations are different, and cannot be classified together. Thus Rosie’s generalization is not true (big surprise there - sorry to keep you all in suspense.)
pilot141, what makes you think animals don’t just have sex because it feels good? I believe humans are much more able to make the connection between sex and babies.
I expect most animals only have sex with each other because they deeply care about one another. I expect that they form loving, sensitive and meaningful relationships with partners of either or both genders, and make adult and considered decisions on whether to breed or not.
Nothing to do with any animal instinct to shag, shag, shag, spawn, spawn, spawn and stick it wherever they find a hole…
Please take away the disturbing mental image of a man trying to have sex with his wife, but being thwarted by the fact that David Seaman* is crouching between her legs like some vile ponytailed** femidom.
- Or Fabien Barthez, if you insist on supporting Manchester United
** substitute “bald”
On topic: I think that DDG is dead right about the origins of Ms O’Donnell’s curious assertion. Come come, Rosie, let’s not go spreading ignorance. There are homosexual pair bonds in animals, and there are gay people. No need to throw these silly “well known facts” into the mix.
Given the usual meaning of “pullinbg the goalie” I would guess pilot141 was thinking more along the lines of Patrick Roy or Dominik Hasek.
It’s still a disturbing image.
I did nothing of the kind. :rolleyes:
That’s strange, most altar boys learn a lot of homo.
And her point is…?
While the latin lesson is still in session, let me introduce a new phrase: Argumentum ad numeram. Her statement contains not one, but two appeal to numbers and therefore does her argument no favours whatsoever. Not only does she falsely declare it ‘well-known’, but also inflates and extrapolates percentages without any supporting evidence.
She’s making it up, though at its root is the much debunked “10% of men are gay” figure. Rather than giving the ‘primary message’ of “homosexuality, it happens, it’s normal, get used to it” she’s overreached and screwed it up.
It’s a well known fact that 99.98% of all good arguments are ruined when embelished with inaccurate and dubious statistics.
Never ever did I think I’d see Rosie O’Donnell compared to a cheetah.
Who says that it does improve the species? Maybe homosexuality has no positive effect on the gene pool, or even a negative effect. Yet it still happens, just like many other things happen despite a negative effect on the gene pool. Maybe it’s the “gay uncle” effect, where a non-mating individual can nonetheless propogate its genes by helping its close kin to thrive. Maybe genes for homosexuality are closely linked to genes for some other trait which is clearly advantageous. Maybe, like sickle-cell, it’s a recessive gene which is a disadvantage for those who express the trait, but an advantage for those with mixed genes. Or maybe it’s an evolutionary disadvantage, which just happens to arise frequently enough, or recently enough, that it hasn’t yet been weeded out of the gene pool. The data just isn’t there, yet.
Maybe I don’t pay close enough attention to this issue, but I wasn’t aware that there was a gay gene, or any genetic origin for homosexuality. I realize that there isn’t a definitive answer, but I thought it was considered to be some confluence of events in utero, primarily. I guess Cecil has addressed this - I’ll check later when I have a little more time.
True, there is no solid evidence, as of right now, for a “gay gene”. I was just addressing the evolutionary question posed by pilot141, which would seem to posit some genetic basis for homosexuality. Should homosexuality be entirely non-genetic, then there’s no reason at all for it to be selected against.
I would honestly think that no animal would begin to mate with his/her own sex. It’s been proven that the only other known animal to mate for fun (other than us) is dolphins.
Most animals only mate to ensure the survival of their species.
It’s not all about watching a male dog humping another male dog. Cows have very poor eyesight; go to a farm that seperates the cows and the bulls and just watch those lesbian (or poor visioned) cows goin at it (then tip them and run away ;))
I don’t know, I think I’d rather like Patrick Roy between my legs.
Oh come on! It was just sitting there…begging for a punch line!
Cite?
What a great line! I had a vision of a whole product line of diaphrams with Roy, Hasek, etc. on them. Hey, it would make me feel more secure, knowing that Roy’s on the job.
But unfortunately I don’t think there’d be that big of a female market, which are probably the main consumer choice makers in this area (except mayebe Sue? Well, what do you say?)
I remember watching a television program many years ago that talked about an experiment with laboratory mice. The mice were placed inside an “apartment”, with controlled lighting and climate, and allowed to breed and feed and live in whatever way they wanted.
Initially, when the apartment had lots of room, the mice were decidedly heterosexual, and bred as expected. However, as the environment got more crowded (from subsequent generations), the scientists noted that more and more mice were becoming homosexual – they preferred being with others of their own gender, and tried to mate with their peers as a result. The report ended by theorizing that homosexuality might be related to fetal development in overpopulated environments.
Dunno how valid this idea is today, but IMO Rosie’s claim might not be far off the mark…