Dog sentenced to death in Tennessee because he is 'g@y'

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by tocool340 (20658 posts) -
[QUOTE="tocool340"]And here I thought other animals can't be gayLJS9502_basic
The article says it's for dominance not sex.....

So I've just read...
#52 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tocool340"]And here I thought other animals can't be gaytocool340
The article says it's for dominance not sex.....

So I've just read...

But on a related note, many species of animals can be gay.

#53 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The article says it's for dominance not sex.....tenaka2

So I've just read...

But on a related note, many species of animals can be gay.

I think bisexual is the better word.
#54 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="tocool340"] So I've just read...LJS9502_basic

But on a related note, many species of animals can be gay.

I think bisexual is the better word.

Well some animals have been observed to be exclusivly gay are you saying that they are actually bisexual? Also how do you know this?

#55 Posted by Ring_of_fire (15672 posts) -
Meh, Tennessee has much worse real anti-gay laws
#56 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

But on a related note, many species of animals can be gay.

tenaka2

I think bisexual is the better word.

Well some animals have been observed to be exclusivly gay are you saying that they are actually bisexual? Also how do you know this?

Because that is what I read on the subject stated.
#57 Posted by JohnF111 (14107 posts) -

That owner is like those who toss their pets out because "it doesn't go with the theme of my kitchen".

#58 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I think bisexual is the better word.LJS9502_basic

Well some animals have been observed to be exclusivly gay are you saying that they are actually bisexual? Also how do you know this?

Because that is what I read on the subject stated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7735232/Can-animals-be-gay.html

According to Darwin, the sexual impulses of animals are designed to cause reproduction, and are therefore necessarily heterosexual.

But new research suggests homosexual animals often dismissed by biologists as the exceptions that prove the rule may be more common than previously thought.

A study of an albatross colony at the University of Hawaii revealed that one third of the 'couples', who commit to each other for life, consist of two females.

After mating with males, the pairs of females nest with their 'wives' and incubate their eggs together .

The exceptional trend had previously gone unnoticed because male and female albatrosses are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Behaviour that appears to be gay has been observed in giraffes, butterflies, koalas, dolphins, octopuses and sheep, to name but a few.

Some biologists claim gay animal behaviour has been spotted in 1,500 different species, and reliably recorded in a third of these cases.

According to research, about a fifth of captive king penguins are gay while it is common for male black swans to raise cygnets as a couple possibly to provide better protection.


#59 Posted by dave123321 (34363 posts) -
The headline is outrageously fallacious. Dailymail has no credibility as a news organization.Laihendi
It's OT. Whatever works to push an agenda
#60 Posted by Flubbbs (3531 posts) -

gayness is a disease without a cure.. sometimes death is the only option

#61 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well some animals have been observed to be exclusivly gay are you saying that they are actually bisexual? Also how do you know this?

tenaka2

Because that is what I read on the subject stated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7735232/Can-animals-be-gay.html

According to Darwin, the sexual impulses of animals are designed to cause reproduction, and are therefore necessarily heterosexual.

But new research suggests homosexual animals often dismissed by biologists as the exceptions that prove the rule may be more common than previously thought.

A study of an albatross colony at the University of Hawaii revealed that one third of the 'couples', who commit to each other for life, consist of two females.

After mating with males, the pairs of females nest with their 'wives' and incubate their eggs together .

The exceptional trend had previously gone unnoticed because male and female albatrosses are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Behaviour that appears to be gay has been observed in giraffes, butterflies, koalas, dolphins, octopuses and sheep, to name but a few.

Some biologists claim gay animal behaviour has been spotted in 1,500 different species, and reliably recorded in a third of these cases.

According to research, about a fifth of captive king penguins are gay while it is common for male black swans to raise cygnets as a couple possibly to provide better protection.


I think we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day.....

#62 Posted by wis3boi (31954 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Because that is what I read on the subject stated.LJS9502_basic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7735232/Can-animals-be-gay.html

According to Darwin, the sexual impulses of animals are designed to cause reproduction, and are therefore necessarily heterosexual.

But new research suggests homosexual animals often dismissed by biologists as the exceptions that prove the rule may be more common than previously thought.

A study of an albatross colony at the University of Hawaii revealed that one third of the 'couples', who commit to each other for life, consist of two females.

After mating with males, the pairs of females nest with their 'wives' and incubate their eggs together .

The exceptional trend had previously gone unnoticed because male and female albatrosses are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Behaviour that appears to be gay has been observed in giraffes, butterflies, koalas, dolphins, octopuses and sheep, to name but a few.

Some biologists claim gay animal behaviour has been spotted in 1,500 different species, and reliably recorded in a third of these cases.

According to research, about a fifth of captive king penguins are gay while it is common for male black swans to raise cygnets as a couple possibly to provide better protection.


I think we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day.....

So you read the first line and stopped reading....what a genius

#63 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7735232/Can-animals-be-gay.html

According to Darwin, the sexual impulses of animals are designed to cause reproduction, and are therefore necessarily heterosexual.

But new research suggests homosexual animals often dismissed by biologists as the exceptions that prove the rule may be more common than previously thought.

A study of an albatross colony at the University of Hawaii revealed that one third of the 'couples', who commit to each other for life, consist of two females.

After mating with males, the pairs of females nest with their 'wives' and incubate their eggs together .

The exceptional trend had previously gone unnoticed because male and female albatrosses are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Behaviour that appears to be gay has been observed in giraffes, butterflies, koalas, dolphins, octopuses and sheep, to name but a few.

Some biologists claim gay animal behaviour has been spotted in 1,500 different species, and reliably recorded in a third of these cases.

According to research, about a fifth of captive king penguins are gay while it is common for male black swans to raise cygnets as a couple possibly to provide better protection.


wis3boi

I think we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day.....

So you read the first line and stopped reading....what a genius

No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.
#64 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day.....

LJS9502_basic

So you read the first line and stopped reading....what a genius

No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

#65 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

So you read the first line and stopped reading....what a genius

worlock77

No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

Because I commented on Darwin? He's read is sources....I've read mine...which tend to say some animals are more bisexual than gay I didn't feel the need to comment on what he read. Making assumptions.....brilliant.

#66 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

I think we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day.....

LJS9502_basic

I can't believe you cracked that one :/

#67 Posted by dave123321 (34363 posts) -
And the dog is not being put to death because it may be gay. The owner just abandon him for an idiotic reason. Which is sad and terrible in itself.
#68 Posted by wis3boi (31954 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

So you read the first line and stopped reading....what a genius

worlock77

No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

What else is new.  Rustling jimmies for the sake of rustling

#69 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.wis3boi

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

What else is new.  Rustling jimmies for the sake of rustling

For someone who went out of his way to tell everyone he ad blocked my posts....you do go to extremes to comment on them.:lol:
#70 Posted by wis3boi (31954 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

LJS9502_basic

What else is new.  Rustling jimmies for the sake of rustling

For someone who went out of his way to tell everyone he ad blocked my posts....you do go to extremes to comment on them.:lol:

I'm not at home right now, but thanks for your concern

#71 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day.....

LJS9502_basic

So you read the first line and stopped reading....what a genius

No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.

But the article's mention of Darwin (tenaka didn't bring Darwin up, the article did) was not to imply that Darwin somehow lends credibility to the stance that animals can be homosexual. Darwin was actually arguing that animals, are by neccesity, heterosexual. So Darwin wasn't used to support the point that animals can be homosexual. The article, and by extension, Tenaka, is saying that new evidence has trumped Darwin's original thought.

#72 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

What else is new.  Rustling jimmies for the sake of rustling

wis3boi

For someone who went out of his way to tell everyone he ad blocked my posts....you do go to extremes to comment on them.:lol:

I'm not at home right now, but thanks for your concern

Doesn't matter....you could still ignore the posts....but you can't seem to do that.:lol:
#73 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.LJS9502_basic

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

Because I commented on Darwin? He's read is sources....I've read mine...which tend to say some animals are more bisexual than gay I didn't feel the need to comment on what he read. Making assumptions.....brilliant.

What was the source that you read?

#74 Posted by dave123321 (34363 posts) -
Stop acting silly everyone. Grow up
#75 Posted by wis3boi (31954 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]For someone who went out of his way to tell everyone he ad blocked my posts....you do go to extremes to comment on them.:lol:LJS9502_basic

I'm not at home right now, but thanks for your concern

Doesn't matter....you could still ignore the posts....but you can't seem to do that.:lol:

Hard to ignore the 800lb gorrila in the room waiving his hands around knocking things over while I read

#76 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

So you read the first line and stopped reading....what a genius

GreySeal9

No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.

But the article's mention of Darwin (tenaka didn't bring Darwin up, the article did) was not to imply that Darwin somehow lends credibility to the stance that animals can be homosexual. Darwin was actually arguing that animals, are by neccesity, heterosexual. So Darwin wasn't used to support the point that animals can be homosexual. The article, and by extension, Tenaka is saying that new evidence has trumped Darwin's original thought.

And? He still is taking a study he read vs one that I read stating that many animals thought to be gay are in fact bisexual. Is bisexuality somehow considered less important than homosexuality? I don't get why all the gnashing of teeth over that word. I thought OT was enlightened on sexual orientation. I guess...just the one orientation then?
#77 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.LJS9502_basic

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

Because I commented on Darwin? He's read is sources....I've read mine...which tend to say some animals are more bisexual than gay I didn't feel the need to comment on what he read. Making assumptions.....brilliant.

If you're not going to bother reading the rather short article he posted then why presume to comment on it?

#78 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

So you jumped at one word while ignoring the rest of the article? Brilliant.

worlock77

Because I commented on Darwin? He's read is sources....I've read mine...which tend to say some animals are more bisexual than gay I didn't feel the need to comment on what he read. Making assumptions.....brilliant.

If you're not going to bother reading the rather short article he posted then why presume to comment on it?

I read his post. Stop assuming.
#79 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Because I commented on Darwin? He's read is sources....I've read mine...which tend to say some animals are more bisexual than gay I didn't feel the need to comment on what he read. Making assumptions.....brilliant.

LJS9502_basic

If you're not going to bother reading the rather short article he posted then why presume to comment on it?

I read his post. Stop assuming.

Then why not comment on the article rather than knee-jerk reacting at one word (which wasn't even his word like you assumed, but perhaps you'd realize that if you read the article)?

#80 Posted by Legend002 (7631 posts) -
That is not even funny.
#81 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

If you're not going to bother reading the rather short article he posted then why presume to comment on it?

worlock77

I read his post. Stop assuming.

Then why not comment on the article rather than knee-jerk reacting at one word (which wasn't even his word like you assumed, but perhaps you'd realize that if you read the article)?

I explained that already...and to you. :| As I said what I've read said something different than what he read. I'm not going to get involved in arguing what the U of Hawaii states over other sources I've read. It just wasn't that important to me. Must be to you though....
#82 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No genius I commented on his bringing up of Darwin.....go back under the bridge.LJS9502_basic

But the article's mention of Darwin (tenaka didn't bring Darwin up, the article did) was not to imply that Darwin somehow lends credibility to the stance that animals can be homosexual. Darwin was actually arguing that animals, are by neccesity, heterosexual. So Darwin wasn't used to support the point that animals can be homosexual. The article, and by extension, Tenaka is saying that new evidence has trumped Darwin's original thought.

And? He still is taking a study he read vs one that I read stating that many animals thought to be gay are in fact bisexual. Is bisexuality somehow considered less important than homosexuality? I don't get why all the gnashing of teeth over that word. I thought OT was enlightened on sexual orientation. I guess...just the one orientation then?

He is not taking on a study that you read because you haven't actually posted a study.

Saying that "we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day" seems to imply that tenaka was somehow using Darwin as a way to bolster his arguments. In fact, the article he cited makes that very point. :?

Who said that bisexuality was less important than homosexuality? That claim was not made.

#83 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I read his post. Stop assuming.LJS9502_basic

Then why not comment on the article rather than knee-jerk reacting at one word (which wasn't even his word like you assumed, but perhaps you'd realize that if you read the article)?

I explained that already...and to you. :| As I said what I've read said something different than what he read. I'm not going to get involved in arguing what the U of Hawaii states over other sources I've read. It just wasn't that important to me. Must be to you though....

It's not particularly important to me, but we're on a public forum, the purpose of which is the exchange of comments and ideas. Thus I'm commenting on your post. Surely you can grasp that much at least.

#84 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

But the article's mention of Darwin (tenaka didn't bring Darwin up, the article did) was not to imply that Darwin somehow lends credibility to the stance that animals can be homosexual. Darwin was actually arguing that animals, are by neccesity, heterosexual. So Darwin wasn't used to support the point that animals can be homosexual. The article, and by extension, Tenaka is saying that new evidence has trumped Darwin's original thought.

GreySeal9

And? He still is taking a study he read vs one that I read stating that many animals thought to be gay are in fact bisexual. Is bisexuality somehow considered less important than homosexuality? I don't get why all the gnashing of teeth over that word. I thought OT was enlightened on sexual orientation. I guess...just the one orientation then?

He is not taking on a study that you read because you haven't actually posted a study.

Saying that "we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day" seems to imply that tenaka was somehow using Darwin as a way to bolster his arguments. In fact, the article he cited makes that very point. :?

Who said that bisexuality was less important than homosexuality? That claim was not made.

Then why argue over animals being homosexual rather than bisexual? There are some animals yes that seem to stick with a same sex partner. But many animals observed engaging in homosexual...if that word fits with animals....also engage in heterosexual behavior....which would make them bisexual or equal opportunity I guess. As for what I've read.....I didn't exactly bookmark it and don't think it's worth hunting right now. It was a mere observation to his comment about gay animals. I just said bisexual could be a better word. I did reread his initial post and I have another complaint with it...he said many species of gay animals which would mean the species was gay...rather than many species have gay animals. Anyway.....my point stands. I still think that bisexual is a better word with some exceptions.
#85 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Then why not comment on the article rather than knee-jerk reacting at one word (which wasn't even his word like you assumed, but perhaps you'd realize that if you read the article)?

worlock77

I explained that already...and to you. :| As I said what I've read said something different than what he read. I'm not going to get involved in arguing what the U of Hawaii states over other sources I've read. It just wasn't that important to me. Must be to you though....

It's not particularly important to me, but we're on a public forum, the purpose of which is the exchange of comments and ideas. Thus I'm commenting on your post. Surely you can grasp that much at least.

Yes but you can't seem to grasp what I tell you when I tell you it. And as such...it's not a very entertaining conversation. I dismissed the majority of his post because I don't necessarily disagree with it. He read what he read. Bravo. Why should I have to argue with that? I still think the bisexuality is a better fit for much of the behavior in animals with as I said some exceptions.
#86 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

Here is one such study that prefers the term bisexual....

#87 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And? He still is taking a study he read vs one that I read stating that many animals thought to be gay are in fact bisexual. Is bisexuality somehow considered less important than homosexuality? I don't get why all the gnashing of teeth over that word. I thought OT was enlightened on sexual orientation. I guess...just the one orientation then?LJS9502_basic

He is not taking on a study that you read because you haven't actually posted a study.

Saying that "we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day" seems to imply that tenaka was somehow using Darwin as a way to bolster his arguments. In fact, the article he cited makes that very point. :?

Who said that bisexuality was less important than homosexuality? That claim was not made.

Then why argue over animals being homosexual rather than bisexual? There are some animals yes that seem to stick with a same sex partner. But many animals observed engaging in homosexual...if that word fits with animals....also engage in heterosexual behavior....which would make them bisexual or equal opportunity I guess. As for what I've read.....I didn't exactly bookmark it and don't think it's worth hunting right now. It was a mere observation to his comment about gay animals. I just said bisexual could be a better word. I did reread his initial post and I have another complaint with it...he said many species of gay animals which would mean the species was gay...rather than many species have gay animals. Anyway.....my point stands. I still think that bisexual is a better word with some exceptions.

Well, if you're not going to link the study, then there's not really any reason to believe bisexual is a better word.

The bolded problem seems like a semantics squibble and the article does not actually refer to many species of gay animals. It's pretty clear that the article was talking about gay members of a species, which is evidenced by its use of measurements such as "one fifth" and "one third."

#88 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And? He still is taking a study he read vs one that I read stating that many animals thought to be gay are in fact bisexual. Is bisexuality somehow considered less important than homosexuality? I don't get why all the gnashing of teeth over that word. I thought OT was enlightened on sexual orientation. I guess...just the one orientation then?LJS9502_basic

He is not taking on a study that you read because you haven't actually posted a study.

Saying that "we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day" seems to imply that tenaka was somehow using Darwin as a way to bolster his arguments. In fact, the article he cited makes that very point. :?

Who said that bisexuality was less important than homosexuality? That claim was not made.

Then why argue over animals being homosexual rather than bisexual? There are some animals yes that seem to stick with a same sex partner. But many animals observed engaging in homosexual...if that word fits with animals....also engage in heterosexual behavior....which would make them bisexual or equal opportunity I guess. As for what I've read.....I didn't exactly bookmark it and don't think it's worth hunting right now. It was a mere observation to his comment about gay animals. I just said bisexual could be a better word. I did reread his initial post and I have another complaint with it...he said many species of gay animals which would mean the species was gay...rather than many species have gay animals. Anyway.....my point stands. I still think that bisexual is a better word with some exceptions.

Well, if you're not going to link the study, then there's not really any reason to believe bisexual is a better word.

The bolded problem seems like a semantics squibble and the article does not actually refer to many species of gay animals. It's pretty clear that the article was talking about gay members of a species, which is evidenced by its use of measurements such as "one fifth" and "one third."

#89 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

He is not taking on a study that you read because you haven't actually posted a study.

Saying that "we've evolved a bit since Darwin's day" seems to imply that tenaka was somehow using Darwin as a way to bolster his arguments. In fact, the article he cited makes that very point. :?

Who said that bisexuality was less important than homosexuality? That claim was not made.

GreySeal9

Then why argue over animals being homosexual rather than bisexual? There are some animals yes that seem to stick with a same sex partner. But many animals observed engaging in homosexual...if that word fits with animals....also engage in heterosexual behavior....which would make them bisexual or equal opportunity I guess. As for what I've read.....I didn't exactly bookmark it and don't think it's worth hunting right now. It was a mere observation to his comment about gay animals. I just said bisexual could be a better word. I did reread his initial post and I have another complaint with it...he said many species of gay animals which would mean the species was gay...rather than many species have gay animals. Anyway.....my point stands. I still think that bisexual is a better word with some exceptions.

Well, if you're not going to link the study, then there's not really any reason to believe bisexual is a better word.

The bolded problem seems like a semantics squibble and the article does not actually refer to many species of gay animals. It's pretty clear that the article was talking about gay members of a species, which is evidenced by its use of measurements such as "one fifth" and "one third."

Double post?:P I linked a study above....
#90 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

Stop acting silly everyone. Grow updave123321

mhm, I doubt most people in OT actually read the article before posting.

This isn't as bad as people make it to seem; the owner thought the dog was gay and abandoned him. It's being put down because the shelter can't afford to keep the dog around, and unless someone adopts the dog he's being put to sleep.

#91 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (28501 posts) -
Did anyone point out that this is from the Daily Mail :?
#92 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Then why argue over animals being homosexual rather than bisexual? There are some animals yes that seem to stick with a same sex partner. But many animals observed engaging in homosexual...if that word fits with animals....also engage in heterosexual behavior....which would make them bisexual or equal opportunity I guess. As for what I've read.....I didn't exactly bookmark it and don't think it's worth hunting right now. It was a mere observation to his comment about gay animals. I just said bisexual could be a better word. I did reread his initial post and I have another complaint with it...he said many species of gay animals which would mean the species was gay...rather than many species have gay animals. Anyway.....my point stands. I still think that bisexual is a better word with some exceptions.LJS9502_basic

Well, if you're not going to link the study, then there's not really any reason to believe bisexual is a better word.

The bolded problem seems like a semantics squibble and the article does not actually refer to many species of gay animals. It's pretty clear that the article was talking about gay members of a species, which is evidenced by its use of measurements such as "one fifth" and "one third."

Double post?:P I linked a study above....

I see the article now.

I'm scanning it and it seems to me that the article doesn't so much support the position that bisexuality is a better term so much as it acknowledges both bisexuality and homosexuality in animals species.

Edit: never mind. It does seem to prefer the term bisexual.

#93 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Novotine"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

America is so classy right now.

Aljosa23

I just don't consider certain states to be American.

385850585_ed71a5d716_z.jpg

The funny part of that graphic is all the blue states have the highest murder rates.
#94 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Well, if you're not going to link the study, then there's not really any reason to believe bisexual is a better word.

The bolded problem seems like a semantics squibble and the article does not actually refer to many species of gay animals. It's pretty clear that the article was talking about gay members of a species, which is evidenced by its use of measurements such as "one fifth" and "one third."

GreySeal9

Double post?:P I linked a study above....

I see the article now.

I'm scanning it and it seems to me that the article doesn't so much support the position that bisexuality is a better term so much as it acknowledges both bisexuality and homosexuality in animals species.

Not quite. Read the entire article. Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight: an animal that engages in a same-sex flirtation or partnership does not necessarily shun heterosexual encounters. Rather many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. "Animals don't do sexual identity. They just do sex," says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England. This isn't one of the initial articles I read by the way so it's not an isolated idea.
#95 Posted by dave123321 (34363 posts) -
Did anyone point out that this is from the Daily Mail :?blue_hazy_basic
you can be assured that a source will be attacked or reasonably questioned in any OT thread
#96 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (28501 posts) -
[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Did anyone point out that this is from the Daily Mail :?dave123321
you can be assured that a source will be attacked in any OT thread

good, didn't see that mentioned on the first page!
#97 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

385850585_ed71a5d716_z.jpg

Aljosa23

Looks about right. Would rather be in Canada than Dumbf*ckinstan. :P Especially since I'm a minority. 

Canada = Notgonnagetlynched/10

 

 

 

 

#98 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Double post?:P I linked a study above....LJS9502_basic

I see the article now.

I'm scanning it and it seems to me that the article doesn't so much support the position that bisexuality is a better term so much as it acknowledges both bisexuality and homosexuality in animals species.

Not quite. Read the entire article. Unlike most humans, however, individual animals generally cannot be classified as gay or straight: an animal that engages in a same-sex flirtation or partnership does not necessarily shun heterosexual encounters. Rather many species seem to have ingrained homosexual tendencies that are a regular part of their society. That is, there are probably no strictly gay critters, just bisexual ones. "Animals don't do sexual identity. They just do sex," says sociologist Eric Anderson of the University of Bath in England. This isn't one of the initial articles I read by the way so it's not an isolated idea.

I saw that paragraph shortly after I had posted, so I edited my post. You're right. It does prefer the term bisexual. 

I can't read the article in very much detail right now because I'm getting ready to take the GRE exam.

#99 Posted by LJS9502_basic (152304 posts) -
Edit: never mind. It does seem to prefer the term bisexual. GreySeal9
Saw this after my post.:P
#100 Posted by GreySeal9 (25049 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]Edit: never mind. It does seem to prefer the term bisexual. LJS9502_basic
Saw this after my post.:P

I definitely should have read the article from top to bottom.

I kind of just scanned it since I'm about to head out to take the GRE exam.