jump to navigation

Do Gay Animals Make Homosexuality “Natural”? November 17, 2006

Posted by Michael in Philosophy, Religion, Science.
trackback

Gay Giraffes 

 

By Sara Goudarzi

LiveScience staff writer

Updated: 3:46 p.m. ET Nov 16, 2006

From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles.

A first-ever museum display, “Against Nature?,”  which opened last month at the University of Oslo’s Natural History Museum in Norway, presents 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality.

“Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them,” said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.

The agenda here, of course, is to debunk the notion that homosexuality is “unnatural.” 

The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the “laws of nature” can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. “A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past.”

The logical fallacy behind this is the assumption that anything occurring in nature amongst a minority of a species is “natural,” which makes about as much sense as the assertion that anything occuring amongst a minority of humans (e.g., murder, rape, mayhem) is “humane.”   Animals engage in senseless killings, i.e., killings that are apparently just murderous and not intended to obtain food.  Does that make it “natural” for humans to do likewise?  Is it even “natural” for animals to do it?

More fundamentally, the argument simply begs the question as to what we mean by “nature.”  It is an elusive concept, not an intuitively obvious or scientifically ascertainable environment.  For example, Christianity teaches that the entire planet is fallen and corrupt, not just humankind.  The Bible presents the violence of the food chain as a consequence of sin, not “nature” as God intended it.  According to scripture, flesh-eating did not occur in Eden, and will not occur at the end of time when “the lion will lay down with the lamb.”  In short, the nature that we see is not necessarily understood as nature as it ought to be

The occurrence of gay animals in nature does nothing to advance the arguments regarding how we should consider homosexuality as a moral or public policy issue.  The exhibit in Norway is, in my view, more politics than science.

Gay animals out of the closet? – LiveScience – MSNBC.com

About these ads

Comments»

1. Retired Geezer - November 17, 2006

The Bible presents the violence of the food chain as a consequence of sin, not “nature” as God intended it.
Nature as we see is not necessarily nature as it ought to be.

Preach it Brother.

2. onehorsephoto - November 17, 2006

Tab A into Slot B produces Offspring C. This is how Nature reproduces. Anything that deviates from that is unnatural and counterproductive.

People who engage in unnatural behavior always try to explain it away with complex, nuanced arguments. It’s so much easier than admitting that they are engaging in unnatural behavior.

The question remains: if ‘gay’ is natural or normal, supposedly having been selected as such by evolutionary processes, then why aren’t more people gay- say, in numbers approaching 50% or more?

If we were all gay, humankind’s days would be numbered.

3. Wickedpinto - November 17, 2006

I rub my genitals on male penguins all the time!!!!

That doesn’t make me GAY!

WTF!

4. Lipstick - November 17, 2006

Pinto, time to go watch that porn you were talking about. The “non-gay” kind…..so you say….

5. Slublog - November 18, 2006

Did anyone ask those animals whether they wanted to be outed?

6. the Animals - November 18, 2006

We’re not gay.

We are open minded about these things.

But stop calling us gay. Nothing happened.

7. S . . . - December 4, 2006

Um . . . I don’t understand what parallel you are trying to draw in your argument. Anything occurring in nature among a minority of species is natural among those species. Therefore anything occurring among a minority of one species, humans, is also natural for that one species. ‘Humane’ is an ethical term, not a biological one. So yes, I agree that murder and mayhem are certainly not humane, but unfortunately they are natural behaviors that should be controlled in order to have a stable society.

If you really must argue against homosexual behavior in humans, why don’t you show that like murder and mayhem, this behavior is actually detrimental to the persistence of human society (ie. perhaps lowered birth rates).

To onehorse: Natural reproduction is so much more amazingly complex and diverse than inserting Tab A into Slot B and popping out offspring. You’ve got to consider the big picture – social behaviors leading up to the reproductive act, the rearing of the young, etc. Yes, there would be a problem if no reproduction was occurring due to 100% of the population being homosexual, but what does whether something is selected for or against have to do with it being natural? Siamese twins are clearly selected against, and yet they undoubtedly occur in nature. I’m not sure that you can outlaw being a Siamese twin.

I’m not trying to explain anything away with a “complex, nuanced argument,” nor am I gay. I just really want to understand what your understanding of “natural behavior” is.

8. Michael - December 4, 2006

I’m totally perplexed by your logic, S.

Anything occurring in nature among a minority of species is natural among those species.

OK, let’s take that as a given.

Therefore anything occurring among a minority of one species, humans, is also natural for that one species.

Huh? I don’t see how that follows from the premise. You seem to be saying that any unusual behavior among humans is natural just because it occurs.

9. compos mentis - December 4, 2006

You first have to believe that homosexuality is inherent and not learned, which I believe can be the case.

So, if someone is born gay, is that gayness naturally occurring? Down’s Syndrome is “naturally occurring” in this same way, no? In both cases, neither person has a choice, though you could argue that the former can choose how to live. But I do not see how either could be an argument for natural selection.

Disclaimer – I shun/dislike no one based upon mental capacity or sexual preference because we are all of God. Except for Dave in Texas, whom I’m fairly certain was developed in a lab somewhere in the Arizona desert.

10. The Lab Tech - December 4, 2006

Except for Dave in Texas, whom I’m fairly certain was developed in a lab somewhere in the Arizona desert

Yep.
It was a dark and stormy night.

11. Dave in Texas - December 4, 2006

The secret labs at Fort Huachuca bub and don’t you forget it.

12. Michael - December 4, 2006

Compos, let’s suppose that some individuals have an “inherent” predisposition towards homosexuality. So what? You can say this means that homosexuality is “natural,” or you can say it means that homosexuality is the result of a genetic disease. Neither statement is science.

The point of the post was that the museum’s display regarding homosexual behaviors among animals doesn’t really answer any questions, but rather simply begs the question of what is natural. It is politics posing as science.

13. sandy burger - December 4, 2006

The word “natural” doesn’t have a precise definition. But since it has a positive connotation, some will want it defined so as to include what they approve of and exclude what they disapprove of. So we have a semantics debate becoming a proxy for a values debate.

14. Michael - December 4, 2006

You got it, sandy. That’s exactly the point I was trying to make in the post.

15. sandy burger - December 4, 2006

This cartoon seems appropriate to this thread. (I think I heard about this comic strip from Amish.)

16. Retired Geezer - December 4, 2006

The secret labs at Fort Huachuca

I’m one of only 3 people in the IB clan who can properly pronounce that word.
I’m thinkin’ Skinbad is the other one.

17. BrewFan - December 4, 2006

Add me to your list, RG. I was an Arizona resident for a few college years (Go Sun Devils!)
:)

18. Feisty - December 5, 2006

As my good dyke math-genius friend said, “I am comfortable being a lesbian, but I’d have chosen to be heterosexual if I could’ve.”

19. Michael - December 5, 2006

I’ve never really been comfortable with my sexuality. I’ve always felt like a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

20. Rightwingsparkle - December 5, 2006

My brother is an alcoholic. They tell me this is a disease. They tell me that it is genetic. It can run in families. So my brother drank like a fish for 20 yrs. Then he saw how screwed up his life had become. He no longer drinks. He is still an alcoholic.

I figure the same with gays. It’s a part of you. The desire for those of the same sex is not a choice, just like my brother’s desire for large amounts of alcohol is not a choice.

The choice is in the activity.

21. Muslihoon - December 5, 2006

Some of this reminds me of statements made regarding smoking pot: if it’s natural, how can it be bad? To which others respond: poison ivy is natural, but you don’t see anyone smoking that. The same, I would think, would go for “herbal” treatments: just because it’s natural doesn’t make it any healthier or better. (My arrogant perspective: I prefer chemicals (that is, pharmaceuticals) because someone has extracted the very chemicals or whatever that are effective and I would be taking only those thingamajigs and nothing else, whereas with herbal therapies one is also getting a whole lot of other stuff besides the effective or beneficial thingamajig, some of which other stuff can conflict with other chemicals or even be harmful.)

“Natural” inasmuch as it means “occurring in nature” ought not to have any connotation, whether positive or negative, because it is descriptive of where or how something occurs and, as such, tells us nothing regarding its qualities regarding good or bad. Tobacco is natural; pot is natural; apples are natural; hemlock is natural. Heck, rain is natural as are hurricanes (contrary to theories regarding Rove’s or Bush’s or the GOP’s weather-generating machine(s)). Demonstrating that homosexuality or alcoholism or mathematical genius may be or is natural tells us nothing except where and how something may or does arise.

Similarly, the ethical value of or judgment on something ought to be done without attention to its origin. Something good is good no matter how or where it came about. That the something is natural, per se, does not make it any gooder, so to speak. As an example: consider two people who play the violin. One instinctively knows how to play it, and the other has learned through grueling practice and effort. The quality of one’s music would not depend on whether one natural or learned talent: the quality of the music is in the music itself, regardless of method or place of origin.

Regarding behaviors, behaviors are good or bad by themselves, whether the desire to do them is natural, artificial, or the result of anal probing while abducted by aliens. The controversy or argument or debate should be confined to determining the ethical quality of behaviors rather than appealing to the origin or place of the desire to do said behaviors. It makes no difference.

22. Feisty - December 5, 2006

The act of drinking alcohol on a daily basis really isn’t a disease in and of itself,.but the syndromes associated with alcoholism are….Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, what eventually did ‘ol grandpa Feisty in, or liver failure, for example. People just started calling alcoholism a disease to encourage people to seek treatment for it…to eliminate the stigma.

Who one finds sexually attractive just really isn’t “similar” to anything else like alcoholism. I’m sick of being comparing teh Gheys to alcoholics who just have a compulsion to drink. The physiological response known as “attraction” isn’t a compulsion or an addiction, physiological or psychological. There are no withdrawal seizures if a gay person goes without sex for 2 days.

Some people are attracted to the same sex…what is the big freakin’ controversy here? I don’t know what to say about the animal kingdom since mating rituals in animals aren’t really the same as in people. Animals’ mating rituals are rather automated by genes, controlled by seasons, age, etc. If something is on autopilot, it’s not out of the question to think sometimes the autopilot isn’t quite right in animals. That they like the brown-feathered birds instead of the bright red feathered birds like they’re supposed to.

Your brother’s desire for alcohol is a choice, by the way. That’s the big problem with AA; it tells people they are “powerless” against alcohol. Your brother’s “alcoholism” is just a dangerous coping skill or something to do. Crack addiction isn’t a “disease”, it’s a coping skill or something to do. To beat addiction, you don’t pray to Jesus like in AA, you learn different ways to cope with your problems that don’t include suppressing the brain function.

23. Rightwingsparkle - December 5, 2006

The physiological response known as “attraction” isn’t a compulsion or an addiction, physiological or psychological.

Those in AA would disagree.

I think that those who feel they have to have gay sex to the point that they go to public restrooms to do so are involved in compulsion. I don’t know how you could say different. Not all gays are like that of course, just like all alcohlolics handle their compulsion the same way either.

Your brother’s desire for alcohol is a choice, by the way.

Gee, that’s what I hear about gays all the time too. Don’t agree with that either.

24. Rightwingsparkle - December 5, 2006

Oh, and they don’t pray to Jesus in AA, Just a “higher power” which could be a chair. Whatever you choose.

25. Michael - December 5, 2006

I thought that the genetic component of alcolism had been established beyond dispute. Some populations are much more at risk than others. Here in the U.S., Native Americans are the most obvious example. Similarly, the risks change with age, because brain chemistry changes as you age. So teenagers are much more at risk than older adults. I’ve read that it’s possible for an American Indian teenager to be addicted after a couple of six packs.

26. Feisty - December 5, 2006

AA is as effective at preventing a “relapse” as no treatment or cold turkey treatment. It’s been studied. So what they say in AA really doesn’t concern me. There are more effective programs out there that address the real cause of alcoholism…depression, poor coping skills. I don’t just talk out of my ass RWS.

Summary.

27. Rightwingsparkle - December 5, 2006

Nor do I Feisty.

28. Feisty - December 5, 2006

Addiction= Physiological and psychological. It’s impossible to be physiologically addicted to beer after 2 six packs. Physiological addiction refers to the presence of withdrawal symptoms if the thing you’re addicted to is taken away. Alcohol withdrawal used to be a big killer, and still is. It can cause tremors, seizures, high blood pressure, psychosis, etc.

It usually takes 30 days in a row of heavy alcohol use to have withdrawal symptoms or moderate alcohol use over a much longer period of time.

29. Feisty - December 5, 2006

AA was a program developed in 1939 to combat alcoholism and get people into church. It hasn’t been modified since its inception, and doesn’t base its treatments on current research. Imagine if other medical practices hadn’t been studied or modified since 1939; it would be an outrage. Since everyone in my family is an alcoholic, the ones who are still alive anyway, I find it troubling that people encourage participation in a program not proven to be effective and is not-so-covertly trying to get people to go to church as its main method to combat alcoholism. I don’t really care what they say about anything because what they say isn’t based on research; it’s based on absolutely nothing.

30. Michael - December 5, 2006

Interesting article at that link, Feisty. I’m thinking my assumptions about the universally accepted science on alcoholism may be out of date.

31. Rightwingsparkle - December 5, 2006

Church? I don’t know anyone that is encouraged to go to church in AA. Not proven to be effective?

The medical profession disagees:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=52661

Here is the history of the founding of AA. No where is church, God, or any religious aspect mentioned.

Even buddhist are saved by AA:

http://www.hazymoon.com/zen-and-alcholoics-anonymous.aspx

http://alcoholism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.recovery.org/aa/misc/flowcht.html

For example this is just ONE website of personal stories where AA saved thier lives.

You can dismiss it if you wish Fiesty, but it has saved more lives than we can count. It may not have worked for your family, but has worked for so many others.

32. Lance Bass - December 5, 2006

There are no withdrawal seizures if a gay person goes without sex for 2 days.

Speak for yourself, Sista.

33. Rightwingsparkle - December 5, 2006

I messed up the links. Sorry.

Here is the personal story one:

http://recoverylife.com/personalstories.html

34. BrewFan - December 5, 2006

I find it troubling that people encourage participation in a program not proven to be effective and is not-so-covertly trying to get people to go to church as its main method to combat alcoholism.

Darn Christianists! Trying to get drunks to come to church. The nerve of those people trying to fish people out of the gutter and help them have a better life. Will those people stop at nothing to help people. Sheesh.

35. BrewFan - December 5, 2006

Also, on a more serious note, if AA is not effective how has it survived for almost 70 years? If it doesn’t work why do people attend the meetings for many, many years? Oh wait. I know. They really healed themselves and just don’t know it.

36. skinbad - December 5, 2006

I can’t find a link to a free version of this. It suggests AA is effective for some:

Harvard Mental Health Letter; Dec2003, Vol. 20 Issue 6, p7-7, 1p

Alcoholics Anonymous is more popular with alcohol abusers than all forms of professional treatment combined, and it does seem to be effective. People who keep up an AA connection are more likely to recover from their addiction. But since they are not assigned to the self-help program at random, it’s not clear whether AA is the cause of their success. Maybe a person who starts to drink less becomes, for that reason, more likely to keep attending AA meetings. Or maybe people with the best prospects of recovery — stronger motivation, better mental health –also have the best chance of staying in AA.

One clue to cause and effect is timing. Which comes first, AA participation or reduced drinking? The answer is AA, according to an analysis based on a study of more than 2,300 veterans who sought alcoholism treatment at VA hospitals. These seriously ill men -mostly single and unemployed, consuming at least four drinks a day (and usually much more), with many alcohol-related legal, health, and personal problems — were followed for two years after leaving the hospital and interviewed at the end of the first and second years.
. . . .

In fact, although it may seem paradoxical, men who indicated strong motivation for change at the start were less likely to remain in AA and more likely to have continuing alcohol problems after a year. The authors suggest that expressed intentions, especially in substance abusers, are not a reliable test of commitment to change behavior. Men may have become more involved in AA because, whatever their earlier feelings, 12-step meetings help create that commitment — which is proof of true motivation.

McKellar J, et al. “Alcoholics Anonymous Involvement and Positive Alcohol-Related Outcomes: Cause, Consequence, or Just a Correlate? A Prospective 2-Year Study of 2,319 Alcohol-Dependent Men,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (April 2003): Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 302-08.

37. Dave in Texas - December 5, 2006

Gosh, this is one of those topics I care deeply about,

and I’m not going to participate in.

You will all miss mine humourous anecdotes and reparte. I will pray to a higher power for peace and comfort in that distress.

as I’ve often said, I’m not trying to be an asshole, it just worked out that way.

38. Muslihoon - December 5, 2006

How does one pronounce “Huachuca”? “wah-choo-kah”? (Knowing my luck, it’s probably “Melvin”.) (And “wah-choo-kah” sounds like “want you (a) car?”)

39. Rightwingsparkle - December 5, 2006

Just say “bless you.” It’s obvious they just sneezed.

40. BrewFan - December 5, 2006

You got it, Musli. The accent is on the second syllable.

41. Michael - December 5, 2006

Sparkle, your No. 31 got held for approval. Multiple links will do that every time.

42. Michael - December 5, 2006

and I’m not going to participate in.

I noticed your restraint when it comes to controversial topics, Dave, and I envy you. Somehow I just can’t resist shooting my mouth off and getting people pissed at me.

43. Dave in Texas - December 5, 2006

It’s like the religious discussions Michael. We agree on far more than we disagree on. I just don’t see the point.

That and I’ve learned there are limits to my persuasive skills. At least in certain contexts, others are quite compelling, ladies, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIthinkyoudo!

I can understand why a barrister would struggle with this. If I don’t give a shit what you think, I walk away. You get paid to win.

Diffrnt strokes.

44. Muslihoon - December 5, 2006

Somehow I just can’t resist shooting my mouth off and getting people pissed at me.

Resisting urge to make lawyer joke…

45. BrewFan - December 5, 2006

I’m in the Michael camp. I just can’t let it pass sometimes. On the other hand I learn a lot from these discussions and I’m always grateful for that.

46. Bart - December 5, 2006

You can dismiss it if you wish Fiesty…

Hmmph. All this time I was spelling his/her name F-I-S-T-E-Y.
Oh well, I think I pronounce it correctly.

47. Hugh Jackman - December 5, 2006

CANNONBALLLLLLL!

48. sandy burger - December 5, 2006

Like Festy, I’m not too keen on AA.

But unlike Festy, I think that people with addictions would probably do well to get their asses to church.

49. sandy burger - December 5, 2006

Some of this reminds me of statements made regarding smoking pot: if it’s natural, how can it be bad?

This is a pet peeve of mine too, Muslihoon.

But I don’t smoke the sweet sweet cheeba because it’s natural. I smoke it despite that.

50. Michael - December 5, 2006

I just can’t let it pass sometimes. On the other hand I learn a lot from these discussions and I’m always grateful for that.

Yeah, it’s not that I gotta win, or that I’m stressed about what imaginary friends think. It’s kinda like Geoff can’t resist the trolls. That’s entertaining for him. For me, I think trolls are usually boring. I’d rather debate an issue with someone who is smart and has an informed point of view. It’s entertaining, and you can usually learn something.

51. Feisty - December 5, 2006

If a group wants to corral alcoholics and send ‘em to church, that’s fine. The problem I have is court ordering people to go to AA as part of their sentence for DUI or whatever when it hasn’t ever been proven to be more effective than cold turkey or quitting by oneself. RWS linked to an article that talked about a statistical correlation between increased membership in AA and fewer homicides. That doesn’t mean anything. It’s just linking various things together that probably aren’t directly related. It would be like saying membership in AA caused real estate prices to rise. HARDLY convincing evidence of anything.

What I care about is helping people. I know lots of drunks, and if someone agrees to get treatment, you may as well send them to a treatment that is proven scientifically to benefit them.

52. Male Peacock - December 5, 2006

Do these tail feathers make me look gay?

53. Bill Wilson - December 5, 2006

THAT’S IT BEEEYOTCH

you and me, right here, right now!

oh wait I’m dead.

nevermind

54. Dave in Texas - December 5, 2006

I’d rather debate an issue with someone who is smart and has an informed point of view. It’s entertaining, and you can usually learn something.

And yet you waste your time with me.

Sad.

55. Michael - December 5, 2006

And yet you waste your time with me.

Sad.

You’re the only dang Baptist around that I know about. If a smart Baptist showed up, I would ignore you.

Of course, if they were smart they wouldn’t be Baptist, so I’m not holding my breath.
:)

56. Dave in Texas - December 5, 2006

If you were as smart as all that, you’d ignore me too.

57. Feisty - December 5, 2006

Michael, corporate bigwig, is getting info from a hooker and a Baptist. I think his company’s stocks just plummeted.

58. geoff - December 5, 2006

It’s kinda like Geoff can’t resist the trolls.

Hey, I’m down to one a day. Welllll, one a day per site. Ummm….welllll…. it’s one a day per post per site.

Unless there’s more than one of them.

59. Michael - December 5, 2006

Geoff, Geoff, Geoff.

*sigh*

You’re bitch-slapping Jason tonight. Dude, have you no pride?

60. Michael - December 5, 2006

Michael, corporate bigwig, is getting info from a hooker and a Baptist.

Actually, Feisty, I’m trying to give you credit here. It has been a while since I actually paid attention to the current research on alcoholism, and you’ve got me thinking I should probably shut up about it unless I’m willing to get some more learnin’.

On the other hand, I don’t know how you figure I’ve learned anything from Curly.

61. geoff - December 6, 2006

There’s a group at morerevealed.com that is strongly anti-AA. I don’t thing their website is up at the moment (at least for FireFox), though you may be able to access a cached copy like I did.

I bought their book years ago (more than 10), and it said pretty much what Feisty said: there’s no real scientific basis for 12-step programs, and (this is completely from memory) there’s something like a 3% long-term success rate. I read it out of curiosity and then gave it away, so I can’t do any better than that in terms of substantiating their arguments.

But when the site comes back up (it loads as a code file for me), you can entertain yourselves.

62. geoff - December 6, 2006

You’re bitch-slapping Jason tonight. Dude, have you no pride?

Hey, at least I stuck almost entirely to his trollness, and didn’t address his feeble and dishonest arguments.

Which I was sorely tempted to do, of course.

63. Bart - December 6, 2006

geoff, we used to make a pretty good team. You may not realize this but I used to spot the troll, get up in it’s stuff with my Bartness and draw out lots of info for you to work with.

It was a good cop/bad cop routine. I was the bad cop who would wound the perp with a few combinations to the head and the body. The perp would lose his composure and reveal it’s true nature. Then you, the good cop, would use that info and beat the troll with it, slowly and painfully.

Wait.

Maybe this was a dream I had. It’s so hard to tell the difference between my dreams and my internet life.

Nevermind.

64. Bart - December 6, 2006

I’ll finish the dream anyway.

Okay, so we used to make a good team…

…that was before you stopped acting like you and started to act like me. Now you just a big meanie to the trolls with very little patience.

65. geoff - December 6, 2006

Now you just a big meanie to the trolls with very little patience.

It’s true. I took the Larry the U betrayal very badly. Now I’m too heavy-handed, but OTOH – they’re trolls, looking for trouble and attention.

And I’ll buy your argument that we were a pretty good team.

66. Wickedpinto - December 6, 2006

Geezer has gay hens.

67. Wickedpinto - December 6, 2006

I mean really his chickens are gay, they prolly got lessons from the ferral cat.

THATS RIGHT CAT!

OOOoooooh, I so want a piece of that cat!

ummm, not a “piece” as in sexual, but a Piece as in I would tear it out of that cats ass, and by “out of that cats ass” I mean I will be the victor.

DON’T YOU JUDGE ME!?

meanwhile I will go into a sort of social fugue as I analyse my opinions about the ferral cat.

68. Retired Geezer - December 6, 2006

I took the Larry the U betrayal very badly.

Uh, could I get the Thumbnail on that episode?
Larry and the other trolls were the reason I stopped reading every single comment ever posted at Ace

69. geoff - December 6, 2006

Well, in my view, Larry the U presented himself as a not-especially bright or informed, but halfway reasonable and sincere liberal commenter. Then Ace found this comment (links to the comment thread at SWeasel’s where I last referenced it), which showed both that Larry was a first class turd, and that he had been trolling all along.

70. Dave in Texas - December 6, 2006

I had seen him comment on another lefty blog somewhere prior to that, and he outed himself there too. Wish to hell I could have found it after that. He was a dishonest piece of shit trying to sound charming and reasonable so you’d look like the unreasonable moron.

I wouldn’t waste my time with him at all, except for the occasional mocking or FU.

71. Retired Geezer - December 6, 2006

Geezer has gay hens.

Not gay… I’m thinking they are just… Old.
The Summer, one of the hens wanted to sit on some eggs so Mrs. G decided to let her. She accumulated about a dozen over a week. By that I mean that we stopped gathering them to take indoors to eat. The other hens would lay egges in *her* nest.
“Awww that’s cute, she wants to be a mother hen again”.
She stayed on that nest for over a month, she would get off briefly to drink and eat but mostly she was on the eggs. She had so many eggs that she couldn’t really cover them all with her feathers.
Finally we decided to check the eggs and see what was going on inside.
“How do you do that?”, I hear you city slickers ask.
Just like in the Olden Tymes, you “Candle” them. You go into a dark room and hold each egg up to a candle. You can pretty much see that there’s something inside. By Candle, I mean my Surefire ™ zillion candlepower Stagehand flashlight. If there *are* any chicks inside, it will be the equivilent of a Flashbang grenade. Anyway after careful inspection we declared none of the eggs were fertile.
On a sidenote, in the past we have found clutches of eggs, hidden in various parts of the yard. We let our chickens “free range”. They wander all over the yard, eating bugs and weeds (and flowers). They tend to stay on our property because I have fitted them with little tiny shock collars that give them mild Tingles(tm) if they try to go over to Bud The Neighbor’s house. When I say Tingles I mean that they drop on the ground and do Grand Mal Breakdancing.
OK, I made the collar thing up.
But seriously, if they are outside with the flock and feel the urge to lay an egg, they won’t run a hundred yards back to the chicken coop and lay it there so *we* can find it. Oh no, that’s too much trouble. They have established hidden emergency nests at various strategic places around the yard. Sort of the same rationale as Porta Potties at a soccer game. When you gotta go, you gotta go.
The trouble with their hidden nest plan is that *We*, the fools that provide Food, Water, Shelter and Clothing, have to hunt for the eggs. It’s like a perpetual Easter Egg Hunt, with expert egg stashers.
One time we couldn’t find the stash for over a week. When we finally found it, there were about 26 eggs in it. You’re thinking, “What’s the big deal? Take them inside and put them in the fridge.”
Imagine two dozen eggs. Sitting in the Summer Heat. For 10 days.
If you accidentaly break one, it smells like, well, rotten eggs. One time I dropped one accidentaly. When I examined it I could see a chick embryo inside. Looking closer I could see it’s little heart beat… beat… beat. and then it stopped.
I don’t mind telling you, that made me sad.

Where was I? Oh yeah, not-gay chickens.
After ‘candling’ all the eggs and determining that our rooster was shooting blanks, we put them all in a ziploc bag and carefully put them in the garbage. Then we told Bonnie, the hen, to quit sitting around and go party with the rest of the flock. The trouble was, she had been sitting on those sterile eggs for so long that it messed up one of her legs. You know how if you sit on your leg too long and it goes to sleep? You try to get up and you can hardly walk. That’s what happened to that hen, only it looks like it’s permanent. She hops around like Mrs. Peel at Homecoming a Pirate extra in a Johnny Depp movie.
So I don’t think the hens are gay, just old.
I’m not too sure about the Rooster though.

72. Bart - December 6, 2006

^
Is wickedpinto contagious?

73. composmentis - December 6, 2006

Retired Geezer bought a new rooster and put it in his chicken coop. The rooster strutted proudly around, eyeballing all the hen-nookie he was going to get.

As he was showing off, a much older rooster walked up to him and said, “Hey there young fella! I don’t mind sharin’. What say we split these hens 50/50? I get half, you get half.

The young rooster scoffed, “No way old timer! You couldn’t service half these hens in your wildest dreams!”

The old rooster replied, “Well then, how’s about letting me have just ten of ‘em then? You can have all the rest.”

The young rooster said, “Not gonna happen pops. You’re on your way out. I”M cock of the walk around here now.”

“How’s about letting me have just ONE hen then? Surely you can let me have one.”

“Nope! I’m keeping them all for myself! Now beat it!”

The old rooster said, “Hmmm.” He thought for a moment then said, “Tell you what. I challenge you to a race. Three laps around the hen house. If you win, I’ll leave and you get all the hens to yourself. If I win, you give me half the hens in the coop. What d’ya say to that?”

The young rooster laughed in the old one’s face. “Ha! Your old bones and tired legs are no match for my strength and youth! Look at you! But I’m not one to back down from a challenge. I’ll take your bet! Hell, I’ll even give you a head start grandpa!”

With that, the old rooster took off running around the hen house. Just as he rounded the second corner, the young rooster took off in a full out sprint after him. They ran around once. They ran around twice. The young rooster had gained a lot of ground and was just about to catch the old one when BLAM!! A shot was fired and the young rooster lay dead.

As feathers settled into the dust, Retired Geezer lowered his shotgun and said, “Dammit! That’s the third gay rooster I’ve bought this month!”

74. Retired Geezer - December 6, 2006

“Dammit! That’s the third gay rooster I’ve bought this month!”

I’m going to stop buying them from “Lance’s Feed Store”.

75. Bart - December 6, 2006

ha!

Geez, do you name all your animals?

76. Retired Geezer - December 6, 2006

Geez, do you name all your animals?

No but Mrs. Geezer does.
The 3 gold hens are: Goldie Hawn, Golda Meir and Goldfeather along with Bonnie and Lisa who were named after her girlfriends in Vegas.

I name my guns.

Hey even Dave in Texas names his gonads, (Lefty and Righty).

77. Bart - December 6, 2006

If I had hens, I’d call them Lipstick and Michael.

78. BK - February 28, 2007

I guess there is nothing wrong in being gay, no one choose to be gay in the first day. I always adopt an open mind. As for animal, man is animal too right?

79. Psychologist dude - April 9, 2008

its all good and well to say that a+b produces c but if a+a or b+b = fun and feels right who are we to say no….
its not up to society what the psyche of people become…

80. Sobek - April 9, 2008

“but if a+a or b+b = fun and feels right who are we to say no….”

Ah, hedonism unfettered by social responsibility.

“its not up to society what the psyche of people become…”

That’s an odd assertion. Muslim societies tend to be extremely misogynistic. Boys from Muslim societies grow up as misogynists. Are you saying that’s just a coincidence? That society has no role in shaping social attitudes and values? Because that seems a little dim for someone who calls himself “psychologist dude.”

81. Tom Cruise(not gay) - April 9, 2008

Now do you see what im talking about?

82. Ellen DeGeneres - June 23, 2008

Wow, this article is so gay. LOL

Really, this is a stupid thing to argue about (no offense). Straight people are straight, and Tom Cruise, I mean gay people are gay. That’s all.

MY DOG, MY DOG!!!!!

83. Bessy - March 12, 2010

what an uninsightful piece. the bible? you site the bible as a credible source of how nature is supposed to function? wow.

84. geoff - March 12, 2010

What a disuninsightful comment. You completely misinterpret the point of the biblical reference? Wow.

And “site” should be “cite,” dear.

85. Retired Geezer - March 12, 2010

Thanks to Bessy and geoff, I re-read one of my mildly humorous comments on Ghey Chickens, at #71.

It even made me chuckle again.

86. Altar Boy Says: Don't Hit The Priest on TOP of His Head!!! - March 19, 2010

OMG

Gay animals???

WHATS NEXT???

Moral Catholicism????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

87. rabzy - May 13, 2010

As part of the animal kingdom, these are some behaviors we can still learn from our our older kins.
While still in their mother’s uterus, sand tiger shark embryos develop teeth–and an appetite. The largest of the babies in each of the sharks’ two uteruses attacks and eats its smaller siblings, leaving just two pups to be born.
Like sib-eating sand tiger sharks, birds such as the bearded vulture and the northern goshawk have been observed eating their nest-mates. Other species, especially fish, eat their own young .
Far more common is a practice known as sexual cannibalism, in which a female eats her mate during or immediately after having sex. The behavior has been observed among female green anacondas, who will mate with a number of males in a “breeding ball,” then eat one of her suitors, perhaps beefing up to survive a long pregnancy.

Yeah, lets go all the way down….incest, rape etc.

88. ՊԱՅԾԱՌաՏԵՍ - December 8, 2010

Still, if it is in nature, it is natural: even rape, incest…
Of course, we shall not copy all those behaviors automatically.
Yet, we are a part of a nature, so we shall not keep us away from it; if there is no nature, how one may survive??? No air, no food, no shelter…???
Even with a scripture (for christies [no offence:)] – bible, for muslims – koran, etc) and without nature – we all are doomed.

Therefore, one may represent its’ own image of nature, as the author of the stuff did, yet we just can’t ignore (if we’re smart enough) that this is the nature we have, and without it, we wouldn’t exist.

BTW, if all men are gone, homosexuality and bisexuality, along with heterosexuality, will stay in the nature, as it was, as it is, as it will be. So, it doesn’t make real sense to combat it; clearly, it was and it will be as a natural and social phenomenon.

Now, we are men, and we create civilizations…
In those civilizations, men make their own laws and norms. Homosexuality is a phenomenon that was praised in various societies and in some religions. It is up to men either accept or reject it.

The fact is, gays are the part of human community, and they are not worse. Moreover, many famous and important figures were gay, and they served greatly to the whole humanity. Michaelangelo…Tchaikovsky…Alan Turing… Dolce & Gabbana… just few names. Many gays serve greatly to the humanity as artists, as politicians (like Bertrand Delanoe, Claus Woveraight, etc, etc, etc), etc, etc, etc. Neither higher, nor lower, just equally.

Bear children; there is one natural way, yep! Anyway, gays & lesbians sometimes make it together (to bear children. Not obligatory directly. Also, surrogate mother is another option)… therefore, it’s not like gays & lesbians are incapable. And adoption is another real thing to consider.

As it was said, we are human beings, and we, being fools, consider ourselves higher than the rest of the nature… therefore, we create our own laws, sometimes marching against the nature that bears and nurtures us.
Interestingly, the same fact can be used against bigotry: as humans, we recreate not only our own kind as humans, but also as ethnic & social groups. THEREFORE, if someone is gay and he speaks the same language you do, has the same religion you do, then, he helps you out in recreating your own kind. So, as conscious animals, as a society that creates and destroys civilizations, we, if we are smart enough, will accept the plain fact that gays are as good as str8s.
GAY – Good As You; neither higher, nor lower; neither better, nor worse; neither saint, nor sinner.
Love

89. Retired Geezer - December 8, 2010

many famous and important figures were gay, and they served greatly to the whole humanity. Michaelangelo…Tchaikovsky… Rosetta…

FIFY

90. Fancy Schmancy People » Blog Archive » Gay Gay Gay Animals - March 4, 2011

[…] Do Gay Animals Make michaelscomments.wordpress.com […]

91. Ryan - June 13, 2012

Awesome. I just learned something about myself. This made me just as sick as human homosexuality does. Is it ok to be revolted by gay animal behaviour? I just realised that if I had a gay dog it would be going back. Is that a hate crime?

Should I go into the closet? I’m ok so long as all the gays come out.

92. The Clown - June 13, 2012

Should I go into the closet?

That’s a Clown Question, Bro


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 205 other followers

%d bloggers like this: