This must be the famous Linux-to-queer pipeline I’ve heard so much about.
Careful when programming near long, colorful socks.
Just a couple of bros snuggling while rasing a family together.
No homo tho
They were roommates.
Some people claim homosexuality is as old as humanity. This is clearly wrong. Homosexuality is much older
Likely as old as sexuality itself.
So as old as multicellular life. Which I completely agree with.
Single cell life doesn’t have sexuality, not even all multicellular organisms do. And there are lifeforms like plants that throw around their pollen and hope that pollen of the opposite sex meet or make insects or alike distribute their pollen to other plants. That’s sexuality in the biological sense, too
deleted by creator
Not only are you correct, we will never have any real sense of scale of just how correct you are, since we’ve only been exposed to about less than 0.01% of life that’s ever existed on Earth in the last several billion years.
For all we know there were clans of synapsids that were exclusively homosexual for terms of child-rearing and had complicated social systems with language and structured hierarchy, etc.
The idea that we can even remotely determine what this world’s natural systems have been like from looking at a sliver of a sliver of a sliver of the total picture is once again peak human hubris and self importance.
This planet has been a thriving source of life in the universe, maybe the only one like it for far, far longer than any human alive can comprehend. In the last several billion years nothing complained about homosexuality. Humans will be here for a brief blip on the larger picture, and there will be no record nor impact from anyone’s hate or fear of sex acts. Earth will keep spinning through the void, life will keep evolving. Protest signs and hateful messages will dissolve back to the systems that created them.
All you people screaming and crying about “woke” this and that, and who get confused by terms like LGBTQ+, it doesn’t matter. You will be dust for far, far longer than you will be a human screaming about what’s “natural.”
oH YeAh WeLL yOu kNoW wHaT eLsE iS NaTuRaL, RaPe aNd cAnNiBaLiSm!!!11!!!1!1one!11!1!!1eleven!!!1
Great argument against the “bUt iTT”s nAtcHurAAL !!!11!!” for anything really. Natural does not mean good
Yeah I feel like I used to give the nature argument to support being gay, but in reality, being natural shouldn’t just mean that it’s good. There’s rape, murder, cannibalism, danger, poison, etc. in nature. Nature =/= good.
I’m not saying this because I’m anti-gay. Actually I feel like I’m on a bisexual-asexual spectrum. It’s just not an argument that we should be using I guess unless there’s a better way to spin that particular argument.
I agree with this. One day I was cursed with seeing a video of a monkey masturbating with a dead frog’s mouth.
Animals are unfiltered horny. Humans are way more complex. It is 100% ok to be gay, just animal comparisons are thin. They are typically not banging for love or adding complex thinking emotions to their actions.
P.S. Don’t look up the monkey thing, I regretted having eyes to watch it.
-
It indicates sexuality isn’t a choice of behavior, it’s inborn
-
If God made everything, he made a lot of gay stuff.
.
Morality of nature isn’t the question. This whole issue really clearly demonstrates that morality comes from people, and religions struggle to keep up by decades and centuries. The Catholic Church recently solidified is moral objection to IVF pregnancies. Wrap your head around how absolutely stunted you need to be to think this is a MORAL issue you must oppose. It’s absurd.
-
It does indicate people are born with their sexuality from the start and it isn’t a personal choice to engage in criminal or degenerate behavior as Western culture and Christianity has claimed for centuries, and ignorant bigots still claim today.
What ?
It merely serves to illustrate that traditionalist conservative chudscum will say anything to excuse their disgusting barbaric inhumanity without actually believing it. They will make both of these arguments in the same breath. Then they’ll say their “god” works in “mysterious ways”. Arguing with them is a waste of time except in so far as being able to publicly embarrass them and get them so angry that they discredit themselves in their own irrationally because at least THEN you can convince some bystanders to not be like the waste of skin you just dunked on.
I’m not saying this fact about penguins isn’t true, I don’t know, but this isn’t a real wikipedia screenshot like it acts like it is. In fact, searching for “homosexuality is common in penguins” only returns results for transcriptions of this meme.
As a penguin, I can say with 100% certainty that there are gay penguins.
We also like to do giant penguin orgies, but we don’t let the researchers see that
Check the article history.
Haha I’m committed to the truth but not that committed. Anyone can edit an article to put in whatever blurb they want, but it won’t stick for long if most of the community agrees with it and it has decent citations (none of which are in the screenshot). Also the text isn’t written professionally, “love to cuddle” is not language that would normally appear in a scientific wiki article.
and it has decent citations
Not a case anymore, unfortunately. There are leftist meme articles that only cite tweets and buzzfeed reposting said tweets, but if you try to do anything about it, your edits will be instantly reverted and your account will get banned.
Without examples it’s hard to say anything at all beyond guesses really.
But if the article is about a xitter meme, tweets are the original source, and therefore perfectly relevant citations.
The most obvious example I know of is this one. Not a thing, never was a thing, and the entire page is just folk from 196 and blahaj dunking on wikipedia. And check out the talk page where they try to pretend that the skeleton image is the best representation of said “phenomenon”, while simultaneously removing any messages doubting it’s existence.
I dunno, it doesn’t seem to overstate its case
While not all films, television shows, photographs, and music videos that use this lighting intend to portray bisexuality, many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
I wouldn’t call it a high quality article, like at all, but I also wouldn’t call it factually incorrect.
many queer artists have deliberately used this color palette
[Citation needed]
There were definitely none that did before the wiki article was created.
It also uses sources such as Vice and the BBC
The article from BBC is fluff written by a rando and is based completely off twitter circlejerk. VICE is not a reliable source as anyone can register as an author and make articles there.
Was it instareverted?
Love that you saw this and was like “this can’t be true. Gotta fact check bullshit”. Like why do you need to go out of your way for that?
Some people just dislike misinformation, regardless of whether it aligns with their world view.
There are plenty of real reasons homosexuality is natural, why invent fake ones?
I have always loved ther verbiage about Giraffes on the Wikipedia page below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
At first this caption made me think that Kenyan giraffes are especially gay, as if Kenya was some kind of Washington D.C. of giraffe world. In other news, I am now aware of grey whale orgies.
Giraffe, why are you gay?
Disclaimer: Pepe Julian Onziema is an absolute legend and hero and is based in Kenya’s neighbor Uganda, not actually Kenya, but THAT interview is a source of joy for me and jumped to my head.
Homosexuality is natural. I don’t know about you but this is very soothing sentence in my mind after years of all sorts of morality figures saying the opposite. I want to like repeat it and savour it
There are also many, many gay and bi sheep
Look it up
Always was.
Penguins aren’t natural. They’re cybernetic sentinels made by the Illuminati to defend the Antarctic Wall and stop people from discovering the edge of the flat Earth.
I take offense to that
What a nonsense. Penguins are birds and birds are governmental drones aimed to spy on people, not to defend anything. Polar bears are!
Finally, the truth!!!
From the penguin documentaries I watched as a kid, I feel like the “leaving eggs behind” might involve relentless bullying.
It takes two penguins working together to care for an egg, if one penguin dies the remaining penguin can’t hold the egg and feed itself, so either a couple steps up or a lone penguin joins the remaining penguin, having several homosexual couples who are on standby to take care of orphan eggs is a clear evolutionary advantage.
I’d be cautious with saying evolutionary advantage here.
I don’t believe the “Gay Uncle hypothesis” any more than the somewhat debunked “Grandmother Hypothesis”, which aimed to explain menopause with biological altruism. Just because we could think of a way in that it might be advantageous for a species doesn’t mean it’s advantageous for an individuals fitness.
Of course, it can be still an advantage, but we’d only know with more free, uncensored research.
Does evolutionary pressure only exist on individuals? I’ve never heard that. There’s a wide variety of species that are highly socially organized, do you not accept that that’s through evolutionarily pressure?
I never said that. What I meant is that a behaviour, which benefits a species as a whole but reduces one individual’s fitness, is not evolutionary competitive. It’s evolutionary game theory, like the prisoners dilemma from normal game theory.
And to determine if some behaviour is such a dilemma, you have to consider costs and benefits of it, which is not at all clear in natural situations. That’s why I said it needs to be studied.
But I must concede, I sort of assumed what exactly you called an evolutionary advantage. Common homosexuality in penguins or not discriminating against homosexual individuals in penguins have very different analysis here.
Has homosexuality been redefined?
I thought huddling together for warmth in cold weather was a survival technique: a method for staying alive, rather than counting as a sex act.
And two males bringing up an orphaned child seems like a jolly nice thing to do for the child and the community. If an orphanage is staffed by one sex, does that make the whole place a massive L/G orgy even if nobody is having sex with anyone else?
Akshualy those are lesbians, because birds have XX for male and XY for female. 😅
Don’t birds have W and Z or something instead of X and Y?
Are we pretending that humans and animals do the same things? You can be fine with homosexuality, but what animals do have nothing to do with what humans do.
Humans are literally a categorical subset within the taxonomical kingdom of “animals”.
“People” who argue that humans aren’t animals are clearly vegetables :p /s
So then if animals do it then its the same as humans doing it?
Yes. Everything else is only because we perceive it differently, notably culturally. And that depends on the individual, time and culture that percieves it. And our perceptions aren’t always good but are built from other things including misconceptions.
So when a human rapes or murders and eats another human that is natural becuase animals do this?
Or maybe animals and humans are not the same and we dont get to pick and chose for memes…
It’s something that happens naturally, yes. I’m not picking and choosing nature. We can decide what we want to be, including the ability to chose to not be a bigot.
Animals frequently murder those other than themselves, so then is what could be considered bigotry also natural? If this is all natural then what is the whole point of calling things natural?
