Did you know that 450 animals in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexuality/bisexuality? Would you like examples? I can provide. How come these animals exhibit homosexuality?Originally Posted by dhussdawg
|
|
|
|
|
Did you know that 450 animals in the animal kingdom exhibit homosexuality/bisexuality? Would you like examples? I can provide. How come these animals exhibit homosexuality?
"Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate."
Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.
Here just read it yourself.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/200...al_kingdom.php
Dawgbitten how did you get so much green?
Interesting article, Dawgbitten. She will definitely get a lot of critisizm, but that is the way things are discovered. There are a lot of discoveries that had major detractors in their time.
Of course, most humans don't see sex as a way of maintaining the social contract. Our lust doesn't seem logical, especially when that logic involves the abstruse calculations of game theory. Furthermore, it's strange for most people to think of themselves as naturally bisexual. Being gay or straight seems to be an intrinsic and implacable part of our identity. Roughgarden disagrees. "In our culture, we assume that there is a straight-gay binary, and that you are either one or the other. But if you look at vertebrates, that just isn't the case. You will almost never find animals or primates that are exclusively gay. Other human cultures show the same thing." Since Roughgarden believes that the hetero/homo distinction is a purely cultural creation, and not a fact of biology, she thinks it is only a matter of time before we return to the standard primate model. "I'm convinced that in 50 years, the gay-straight dichotomy will dissolve. I think it just takes too much social energy to preserve. All this campy, flamboyant behavior: It's just such hard work."
I would have to agree that a Godless society is definately heading in this direction. Roughgarden overlooks the obvious difference here......the human soul.
Yeh, you guys are right. Let us all become queers and see how it ends up. Oh yeh, life will not exist anymore. How will a society or group of these so called animals continue if they are gay?
AMEN!
Add a poll tax to it also -
And all elections have to be in cycles - no special CALLED elections -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Sodom and Gomorrah -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Sure, but not that many gay ones. I suspect that most of the gays in Oklahoma have moved out of state to one of the coasts.
My dog eats his own turds. I had a sheep that killed itself by picking a fight with a tree in the middle of an 80 acre field. There's a redbird that has been fighting the passenger side mirror of my wife's Chevy nearly every minute she's parked there for almost a month. I had a cat who ate two entire liters of her own children even when we surrounded her with high dollar canned cat food.
Are those good examples?
wow, this thread has really digressed. out of character, i'm going to bring it back to its original subject, rather than taking it further toward the netherworld. i seem to remember salty and others talking about what a big deal the libby indictment was, and promising more indictments to come. what was that -- three years ago? i think i said then that there was no underlying crime, so now i would like to take this chance to say "i told you so" and to give salty, et al, a chance to defend themselves/admit to overzealous hopes for bush-cheney wrongdoing.
(if you don't like cut-and-paste articles, feel free to ignore)
Frogs Aren't Marching
The Rove prosecution vanishes into partisan air.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
So much for having Karl Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House "in handcuffs." That's the fate Democratic partisan Joe Wilson once predicted for President Bush's political guru, and yesterday his hope and accusations vanished like fog on the Potomac.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald informed Mr. Rove's lawyers on Monday that he'll bring no charges as part of his investigation into who leaked the CIA identity of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Mr. Wilson's original claims that Mr. Bush lied about Iraq intelligence have been discredited many times over, including in a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. And now we know that even the relentless Mr. Fitzgerald has concluded that the charge that Mr. Rove criminally blew Ms. Plame's CIA cover is false.
The mystery is why Mr. Fitzgerald kept Mr. Rove twisting in the wind for so long. The prosecutor has been on the case for 2 1/2 years, and he long ago learned the source for the July 2003 Robert Novak column that "outed" Ms. Plame and was the reason he was appointed. Mr. Rove was forced to make no less than five grand jury appearances, the latest as recently as April.
In the end, it seems Mr. Fitzgerald was trying to trap Mr. Rove over the minor matter of his failure to remember a conversation with Time reporter Matthew Cooper. But Mr. Rove is the one who later volunteered information about the conversation to Mr. Fitzgerald, after a check of White House records reminded him of it. A perjury or obstruction accusation based on that inconsequential discrepancy would have been prosecutorial misconduct.
The Rove decision also finally discredits the accusation that there was some grand White House conspiracy to smear Mr. Wilson. Mr. Fitzgerald has brought no charges concerning the original leak, which means there was no underlying crime. His entire case--and this entire "scandal"--has been distilled to charges of perjury and obstruction against one man, former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
And that one case comes down to nothing more than the fact that Mr. Libby's memory of conversations with three reporters differs from that of the reporters themselves. Think we're exaggerating? Here's how the judge in the case, Reggie B. Walton, summarized it in a recent ruling on evidence: "The charges against the defendant are based entirely [our emphasis] upon what the defendant has said was discussed during his conversations with these news reporters."
Those conversations took place in the summer of 2003, while the reporters didn't testify about them for Mr. Fitzgerald until a year or more later. Memories aren't always perfect, and Mr. Libby's lawyers will no doubt have ample room to cast doubt on those recollections against the record of notebook entries and public statements made by the reporters. Mr. Fitzgerald will also have to prove why a seasoned lawyer such as Mr. Libby had a motive to lie if there was no underlying crime to cover up.
We should add that the lack of any underlying crime also means that Mr. Fitzgerald's pursuit of journalistic sources in this case violated the Justice Department's own guidelines, which state that "there should be reasonable grounds to believe . . . that a crime has occurred, and that the information sought is essential to a successful investigation."
Mr. Fitzgerald could ignore those guidelines because he was a "special" counsel subject only to the supervision of the friend who appointed him, former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey. Only weeks into his probe, he had his official orders changed to include investigation of perjury, suggesting that even at that early stage he had concluded that the original leak was probably not a crime.
The tragedy of this episode is that a political fight over the war in Iraq was allowed to become a criminal matter. Mr. Wilson spun his false tale in an effort to discredit the war and deny Mr. Bush a second term. The liberal media put partisanship above their own interests in demanding a special counsel probe of "leaks"--until that probe turned on their own sources. The Attorney General at the time, John Ashcroft, passed the buck to Mr. Comey by recusing himself on flimsy grounds--an act of political and legal abdication.
So what we are left with is a three-year political spectacle that has kept the White House under siege during a war, weakened or pushed out of office some of its most important aides, and made liberal celebrities of Mr. Wilson and his wife. And to what public purpose? A prosecutor with more wisdom than Mr. Fitzgerald would have long ago understood he was injecting himself into a political brawl, closed his case, and left the outcome to the voters.
I love cut and paste articles as long as they have commentary.
This Rove thing is hilarious. All of the conservative pundits can't stop playing the sound byte after sound byte of people talking about how he would lok in a green jumpsuit. The Dems better watch their butts, because This Haditha thing is turning out the same way. One article actualy said, "If this thing is true, and I see nothing to make me believe otherwise, it is the most horrible ... since Vietnam". Go ahead lefties, open mouth so the foot can fit.
Do you mind if we wait until Libby's trial is over before making final judgments?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
