Homosexual Animals Are Real!

[AcetheSuperVillain]

So I stumbled across this fascinating post: 10 Animals that Practice Homosexuality and I really wanted to share. I was especially surprised to see so many well known animals, like lions, dolphins and giraffes on this list. You will encounter:

Gay Rams
Lesbian Albatrosses
LGB Dolphins
Bonobos
Gay Cock of the Rock
Mane-on-Mane Lions
MMF Swans and Gay Penguins
Lesbian Seagulls
Bicurious Giraffes

And Gay Animal #1 is a secret! Also cute pictures of cuddling animals.

When shitheads try to tell you that homosexuality is bad, one of the straws they'll grasp at is that animals in nature don't do it. Well fuck those guys! Animals in nature are gay as fuck! In some cases, bisexual behavior even seems to lead to evolutionary advantages. Equip yourself with knowledge and don't let the haters win.

[Radaketor]

Dogs also do it, by the way.

At 12/9/14 11:00 AM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: Gay Cock of the Rock

The name should've given it away.

[GRIMthaREAPER]

They will just say we are not animals god has higher standards for us probably point out that animals kill within the species and say does that mean murder is ok? That would be my first argument from that pov.

[CorpseGrinderClock]

I'm just going to put this out there that animals have sex with pretty much everything.

[Ragnarokia]

Many animal species practice homosexuality, but only a single species practices homophobia, and that is humans.

[Piper]

First and foremost I will say that I believe as animals we all have a right to enter into consensual relationships with anyone we please, and I do find that post quite entertaining. I thank you for sharing that with me, and I appreciate this thread.

However, I'd like to say this: Most humans hold themselves to higher standards, pointing out how they are above the rest and more morally inclined. Yet when it doesn't serve our interests we turn right around and say "Buh-but THEY do it, too! I am basically one with nature!" And I find this very silly.

[Khifa]

The way you write your post seems kinda fishy

Are you promoting your own article

[Mel-Gibson]

Whenever I walk past debauched and sinful places like gay clubs,
I think of giraffes and know that everything is ok.

[Remiel]

Anyone seen that one scene in Samurai Champloo? So funny.

Samurai: [Enters bath and interrupts greetings to observe fireflies] Beautiful, aren't they? Do you know why fireflies glow like that? It's a form of communication. Signals sent by the males and females to attract one another. However, they say that every once in a while, a male will try to attract another male.

[beat]

Jin: Time to go.

[CresIsis]

wow next you're gonna say the US has a black president

[tox]

Creatures been crawling over each other for millions of years

How you get your lay is up to yo... Not society

[AcetheSuperVillain]

At 12/9/14 12:16 PM, Thor wrote: But are those animals intelligent enough to grasp what they're doing or will they fuck anything like come on, dogs fuck people's legs and stuffed animals

I would think that even animals grasp the fundamental difference between a committed relation and jacking off.

A lot of the animals in the article, especially the birds, practice long term relationships and choose same-sex partners for those relationships. For example, the lesbian seagulls would go for a quick swing to fertilize their eggs, and then raise their hatchlings with their lesbian partners, or the MMF swans stay together and raise their young as a family with both dads chasing away predators.

Not to say that this is always the case. Bonobos just fuck instead of shaking hands. There was even a bonobo that made a pass at one of Oprah's human cameramen (both male). Dolphins probably also just engage in casual sex as they swim around in their big groups (sound like anyone you know?)

[5ERGEI]

Homosexuality in nature is basically just nature's masturbation.

Animals are just using it to get off, or lack the mental capacity to distinguish male from female and/or are following instinct to mate.

most animals don't even get pleasure from sexual reproduction, but do it as instinct. There are, however, many exceptions and many animals that do also gain pleasure from sexual reproduction (mammals such as dolphins)

Animals have also been observed masturbating, as well as copulating with inanimate objects (and animate animals of other species).

If you want to use homosexuality in nature to support homosexuality in humans, you need to accept the fact that it relates to perversion only, and the animals are not choosing to be homosexual at all. If anything, in animals it is pansexuality.

Since humans are essentially animals with a greater mental capacity, it would make sense that we still have some animal urges... but to act upon them is nothing more than perverse stupidity.

We are able to distinguish from the male and female members of our species.

A human being copulating without any intention of reproduction is doing so solely for the purpose of pleasure.

A glorified form of masturbation, where two individuals mutually masturbate.

Identifying with homosexuality is basically announcing to everyone that you enjoy mutual masturbation, and to be honest nobody gives a fuck. Everyone on this planet has a sexual preference from which we derive sexual pleasure. Keeping it to yourself and not wearing it on your sleeve is part of being a human being.

Discussions about your sexual preferences belong behind closed doors and not shoved in the faces of others.
Please keep it to yourself.

[Piper]

At 12/9/14 03:00 PM, Raab wrote: Discussions about your sexual preferences belong behind closed doors and not shoved in the faces of others.
Please keep it to yourself.

What if I wanna shove it in your face, behind closed doors?

[stafffighter]

At 12/9/14 03:57 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/9/14 03:00 PM, Raab wrote: Discussions about your sexual preferences belong behind closed doors

why

Because flamebait. If all discussion was behind closed doors you'd never meet anyone to close the door with. Don't feed the trolls. While I'm here.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPTXVqETBM4

[Sense-Offender]

Homophobes could argue its unnatural, hear about all the animals having gay sex, then point out hamsters eating their babies. People tend to find a way of having things both ways. Also, apparently seals rape penguins. I shit you not. They pin down and force their dicks into penguins, not only a different unrelated animal, but an animal with a cloaka. Sometimes they eat them afterwards. So yeah, comparing ourselves to wild animals doesn't really work out. But it should be obvious that homosexuality is normal and shouldn't be stigmatized. I mean what fucking year is it?

[5ERGEI]

At 12/9/14 03:57 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/9/14 03:00 PM, Raab wrote: Discussions about your sexual preferences belong behind closed doors

why

I can only refer to this in ways which members of society can relate.

There are just some things that are inappropriate to discuss in public.

How you like to wipe/clean your ass for example.

Everyone cleans their asses after they shit.

If there was a sudden movement of people who wiped their asses back to front instead of front to back, based on nothing but preference... and started putting it up on signs everywhere and talking about it every single day, demanding that back-to-fronters be recognized, showing up in the news, etc. people would tell you to shut the fuck up.

It's the same reaction to the homosexuality discussion.

No-one wants to hear about the different ways copulation can occur between human beings, because everyone does it differently, it doesn't fucking matter, and how you like to get off is not an appropriate topic to be discussed in public.

[5ERGEI]

At 12/9/14 04:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/9/14 04:12 PM, stafffighter wrote: Because flamebait. If all discussion was behind closed doors you'd never meet anyone to close the door with.

well yeah obv
but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought he might be able to come up with an answer that wasn't just a blatant strawman fallacy
once again I've overestimated raab

There isn't even any flamebait.... or strawman happening here... its always homosexuals attacking heterosexuals, and when heterosexuals step up, explain things logically (while maintaining equality) the arguments are always dismissed, people get labeled as a homophobe, or ignorant, etc.

Heterosexuals are people just as much as homosexuals, and dismissing logical and coherent arguments against throwing your personal sexual preference in everyone's faces, simply because you have no counter argument shows how weak your argument truly is.

Thus far, nothing I've said is insulting to homosexuals moreso than it is to a member of any sexual preference... in any way shape or form, and yet you have already resorted to becoming insulting.

[5ERGEI]

At 12/9/14 05:11 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: This is a textbook strawman fallacy.
I am sorry that basic terms which are new to you are being shoved in your face.

Simply because an analogy is used, does not automatically make it strawman.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

[Profanity]

At 12/9/14 05:11 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: This is a textbook strawman fallacy.

No it isn't. It's an equivalency argument.

I am sorry that basic terms which are new to you are being shoved in your face.

Pointing out that someone used a fallacy in order to ignore their underlying argument is in itself a textbook logical fallacy. Is that the sum of your own competency in this discussion.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

At 12/9/14 04:44 PM, Raab wrote:
Everyone cleans their asses after they shit.

If there was a sudden movement of people who wiped their asses back to front instead of front to back, based on nothing but preference... and started putting it up on signs everywhere and talking about it every single day, demanding that back-to-fronters be recognized, showing up in the news, etc. people would tell you to shut the fuck up.

It's the same reaction to the homosexuality discussion.

I get how you feel and I know you think you're well-meaning, but people don't just jump into copulation. You make friends, you go on dates, you smooch, and all of that is out in the open. It's more like saying everybody has to eat, everybody is eating out in public, but you people have to go eat in a corner where we can't see you, you sick assholes. And all I got to say is fuck that shit.

And if I can't get on the NewGrounds and talk about dude-giraffes blowing other dude-giraffes, then the internet isn't worth living in anymore.

[5ERGEI]

At 12/9/14 05:32 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/9/14 05:22 PM, Profanity wrote: No it isn't. It's an equivalency argument.

Fundamentally the same logical fallacy as the strawman. It is an attempt to misrepresent a position.

Pointing out that someone used a fallacy in order to ignore their underlying argument

His "underlying argument" amounts to nothing more than that he thinks gays are icky.
This is why he hasn't been able to come up with a reason for why the discussion of sexual preferences should be kept private, without resorting to his "ass wiping" nonsense.

...except that you are using an association fallacy.

The reason the ass wiping scenario is not a strawman is because I never intended anyone to attack people wiping their asses in the stead of the original topic at hand, or even misinterpret the situation, and I instead used it solely for explanation.

...and while it may be humorous or silly, I find that keeping conversations humorous and casual is an excellent way of explaining things while simultaneously keeping readers entertained and interested, and it keeps the conversation open to others willing to participate.

But at any rate.... are we going to discuss fallacies now or can we go back to the original discussion here?

[Silverlee]

I remember once hearing, "Homosexuality exists in many species, but homophobia only exists in one."

I don't remember who said that though.

[Piper]

At 12/9/14 05:30 PM, MMHM wrote: It's being used for one specific example. It's a response to the people who say "homosexuality isn't natural" well, here's some examples of it accruing in nature.

Yep. <_<

Uhm. Is there some kind of misunderstanding going on here? I don't get it.

[AcetheSuperVillain]

At 12/9/14 05:52 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Why would anybody choose to be attracted to animals in the first place? It's a nature over nurture thing, I think.

Did you not see the picture of the giraffes in that article? they are fuckable as fuck itself. http://i0.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/giraffe_couple.jpg

[5ERGEI]

At 12/9/14 05:45 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/9/14 05:42 PM, Raab wrote: The reason the ass wiping scenario is not a strawman ... and I instead used it solely for explanation.

It didn't work, though.
You explained nothing.

If I do continue to elaborate, we will actually turn my analogy into a strawman.

....but since you asked....

I made parallels between actions that homosexual rights activists and the butt wipers, because the underlying cause of the activism, and the reaction is the same.

The entire situation self-perpetuates without end.

Topic x is a controversial activity that everyone participates in, which may or may not be appropriate for general audiences depending how far into detail people are willing to go.

Activists want to be accepted for participating in topic x in a different way (that is not accepted by the majority) ----->
Supporters begin to spread the word about the different way to participate in topic x and do so adamantly ----->
Non-supporters, while originally indifferent, begin to get annoyed over the discussion of topic x ----->
Non-supporters begin to dislike activists (as well as the different way to participate in topic x) solely due to publicity ---->

cycle repeats

If activists would just stop fucking talking about topic x, the world would be a better place.

[CGA-999]

At 12/9/14 05:25 PM, sxycatwomanvampire21 wrote: no one gives a rats ass about anything or anyone homosexual. gross

Actually, that isn't true.

[stafffighter]

At 12/9/14 06:01 PM, Raab wrote:

At 12/9/14 05:45 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

Activists want to be accepted for participating in topic x in a different way (that is not accepted by the majority) ----->
Supporters begin to spread the word about the different way to participate in topic x and do so adamantly ----->
Non-supporters, while originally indifferent, begin to get annoyed over the discussion of topic x ----->
Non-supporters begin to dislike activists (as well as the different way to participate in topic x) solely due to publicity ---->

No one is arguing about the right to wipe your ass in differing styles. The strawman argument is obvious and further thread derailment FROM EITHER SIDE will be met accordingly.

[TessaWuff]

At 12/9/14 12:33 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: Many animal species practice homosexuality, but only a single species practices homophobia, and that is humans.

Clever boy.

[Sense-Offender]

I don't get this behind closed doors thing as if any discussion about it has to involve explicit accounts of buttfucking and strapons rather than relationships, romance, raising adopted children etc. Also, saying activists should stop talking about their cause is retarded because how are they going to get the change they want then? DOMA and DADT wouldn't have gotten overturned if everybody decided to "keep it to themselves". Real classy comparing them to people wiping shit on their balls/vag btw. Nice.