Confirmed: God is Slightly Gay

Just ask the animals. As soon as they stop having all that homosexual sex

This is a article that a friend linked to me and thought it was worth sharing.

Quote :

homosexual and bisexual behavior, it turns out, is rampant in the
animal kingdom. And by rampant, I mean proving to be damn near universal,
commonplace across all species everywhere, existing for myriad reasons
ranging from pure survival and procreative influence, right on over to
pure pleasure, co-parenting, giddy screeching multiple monkey orgasm,
even love, and a few dozen other potential explanations science hasn't
quite figured out yet. Imagine.

Quote :

Let's flip that around. Here's the shocking new truism: In the wilds of nature, to not
have some level of homosexual/bisexual behavior in a given species is
turning out to be the exception, not the rule. Would you like to read
that statement again? Aloud? Through a megaphone? To the Mormon and
Catholic churches? And the rest of them, as well? Repeatedly?

This is awesome! I can't WAIT to see how the Fundie shitheads try to discredit this!

This isn't new information.

And don't bother telling any bigots - here is how the conversation inevitably goes - always has, always will.

Bigot: Homosexuality is an abomination! It doesn't occur in nature, therefore it is unnatural!

You: No. Look. Animals do it all the damn time.

Bigot: Are you saying we should act like animals? Only a psychotic atheist could come up with that gem!

And so on. I once even heard a fundie assclown admit that it does occur in nature, but that animals exhibiting homosexual behavior should be shot on sight. So don't expect anybody to be shutting up about it.

[/gloom&doom] :headshot:

Out on the ranch, I had a lesbian chicken. She had her own flock of hen followers which challenged the rooster's.

if I didn't know it would start a shit fit, I'd mention it to the boy's father. But it would be bad. And he voted no on prop 8 o.o;

I once dealt with a homophobe who put forward a bizarrely Schrodinger's-cat argument: that homosexuality was still "against nature", because you can't prove that animals exhibit same-sex behaviors when humans aren't watching them.

Darth Darthington's right, though: the most common response is on the order of, "So, do you base all your moral judgments on how animals act?"

*that's a lie - wolves do, for exampleI've had several conversations on the subject. Usually they follow this general flowchart with little variation:

Fundie: "Homosexuality is against nature. Animals have sex only for reproduction."
Common sense: "Actually, species X, Y and Z (to name a few examples) have been observed having buttsex. Or masturbating. Or engaging in any kinkiness your narrow mind can come up with, plus a few more."
Fundie: "They were probably sexually frustrated because they could not find an opposite sex partner, because they were in a zoo, or they were omega males."
Common sense: "So you admit that animals will rather have sex and no offspring rather than no offspring and no sex."
Fundie: "Because the reproductive instinct is the strongest there is. If homosexuality was widespread, we'd be extinct."
Common sense: "Unsurprisingly, there's a theory that homosexuality and same-sex couples are ways of avoiding overpopulation. There might be just as many extinct species that had too much het sex. By insisting that everyone must have as many children as they can deliver, we're actually courtsing extinction."
Fundie: "Overpopulation can be avoided through chaste abstinence."
Common sense: "Which is just as against nature, since there are no species observing that*."
Fundie: "Only because animals cannot rise above their basest instincts."
Common sense: "But we've come a long way from 'sex is only for reproduction', haven't we? You admitted animals have sex to let out some steam, yourself."
Fundie: "STOP USING ANIMALS AS MORAL EXAMPLES! There are animals that eat their young, do we have to follow that example too??!?!?!??11??"

Usually at this point the fundie makes him/herself scarce, before people start pointing out that s/he was the first to take animals as examples.

In keeping with the pun in the thread title, God not only is slightly gay, He might have a furry fetish, going by what the neighbours' dog was doing to its plushie bunny.

*that's a lie - wolves do, for example

Cactus Wren wrote:

I once dealt with a homophobe who put forward a bizarrely Schrodinger's-cat argument: that homosexuality was still "against nature", because you can't prove that animals exhibit same-sex behaviors when humans aren't watching them.

And the concept of sound is "unscientific" because you can't prove that a falling tree makes a sound when humans aren't around to hear it.

Also, when you're not watching, this post is in Spanish.

Wow, you guys have had some interesting arguments about it. Every fundie I've ever talked to about it just goes into denial and calls me a liar.

Psy-4 wrote:

Cactus Wren wrote:

I once dealt with a homophobe who put forward a bizarrely Schrodinger's-cat argument: that homosexuality was still "against nature", because you can't prove that animals exhibit same-sex behaviors when humans aren't watching them.

And the concept of sound is "unscientific" because you can't prove that a falling tree makes a sound when humans aren't around to hear it.

Also, when you're not watching, this post is in Spanish.

Actually, if a tree fell in the forrest and no one was around, it would only make vibrations. The concept we call "sound" only exists when there is a working eardrum for the vibrations to reverberate off of.

Yes, but does it make a sound when it falls?

The Unoriginal wrote:

[size=9]
In keeping with the pun in the thread title, God not only is slightly gay, He might have a furry fetish, going by what the neighbours' dog was doing to its plushie bunny.

If God is a furry, then therefore all furries must be voices for God.

Oh, okay, that one didn't work. How about, if God is furry, then that makes YOU blasphemous for deriding how wonderfully open-minded I am about sex.

If, of course, God exists and there is any reason for living beyond the 70 or so years we spend on this earth.

Thinking about dying makes me feel sick.

Quadratus wrote:

Yes, but does it make a sound when it falls?

It would make vibrations. For example, if the only living creature in the forrest at that time (unlikely, I know) was a snake, the snake would feel vibrations but not actually hear sound. (Snakes don't have eardrums.)

Why do you fail to contribute anything relevant to this thread (or any thread), Melissa?

Psy-4 wrote:

Why do you fail to contribute anything relevant to this thread (or any thread), Melissa?

You aren't contributing anything either Psy.

Sorsa A. Jänis wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Why do you fail to contribute anything relevant to this thread (or any thread), Melissa?

You aren't contributing anything either Psy.

I contribute the following:

PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS.

Well, Jesus does apparently admit to being "a bit gay" in Jerry Springer: The Opera...

Sorsa A. Jänis wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Why do you fail to contribute anything relevant to this thread (or any thread), Melissa?

You aren't contributing anything either Psy.

I contribute mockery of the fallacies religous people spew.

Psy-4 wrote:

Sorsa A. Jänis wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Why do you fail to contribute anything relevant to this thread (or any thread), Melissa?

You aren't contributing anything either Psy.

I contribute mockery of the fallacies religous people spew.

Hurray!

Quadratus asked me a question, so I answered it.

Sorsa A. Jänis wrote:

Hurray!

Rebuked with all the hilarity of a potato.

The qualifier was relevance not worthwhileness.

Melissa wrote:

Quadratus asked me a question, so I answered it.

I didn't ask you a question, and you answered it. Also, learn to rethoric.

They're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, homosexuality apparently doesn't occur in nature and so is bad. (Neither for that matter does the computer they typed that comment on, nor the building they were sitting in whilst doing so.) But if rational people point out that it actually does occur in nature, suddenly it's a bad thing to argue from that basis.

There's only one "r" in "forest."

Psy-Wolf wrote:

Quote :

Melissa wrote:

ote="Melissa"]Quadratus asked me a question, so I answered it.

I didn't ask you a question, and you answered it. Also, learn to rethoric.

[/quote]

Learn to spell rhetoric.

Sorry about misspelling forest. The R key was stuck.