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

[QUOTE="tocool340"]And here I thought other animals can't be gayLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tocool340"]And here I thought other animals can't be gaytocool340

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

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

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

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

[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?

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.

The headline is outrageously fallacious. Dailymail has no credibility as a news organization.Laihendi

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

[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

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.

[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.

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

[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

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

[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

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

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

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

worlock77

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

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

LJS9502_basic

I can't believe you cracked that one :/

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

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

worlock77

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

[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

[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

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

[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

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.

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

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

wis3boi

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

[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.

What was the source that you read?

[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

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

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

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

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.

[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.

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

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

worlock77

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

[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?

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)?

[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

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)?

[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.

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.

[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)?

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.

[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

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.

[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

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.

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

[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.

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."

[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.

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."

[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

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."

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.

[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."

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.

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

America is so classy right now.

Aljosa23

[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

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.

Did anyone point out that this is from the Daily Mail :?blue_hazy_basic

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"]Did anyone point out that this is from the Daily Mail :?dave123321

Aljosa23

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

Canada = Notgonnagetlynched/10

[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.

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.

Edit: never mind. It does seem to prefer the term bisexual. GreySeal9

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]Edit: never mind. It does seem to prefer the term bisexual. LJS9502_basic

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.