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.
Life long bachelors
They lived in a one bedroom cottage and kept Jack Russell terriers and were buried next to each other.
Otherwise it was an older billionaire that took in the younger when he was in college and they donned masks and fought crime together.
No homo sapiens
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.
deleted by creator
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
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.
thx… just spent the last hr watching monkeys fuck and masturbate
-
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.
-
I think the whole nature angle is stupid to begin with. Everything is natural because everything comes from nature. Fire is natural, being gay is natural, plastic is natural.
Binding anything to natural and then saying it is good because of that or it is bad because of that is a complete waste of time and just shows the bias of the person categorizing.
As I often find the right answer to the question is “mu” which means the question is wrong.
Is ist natural? Yes, everything is so fuck that question. The better question would be “does it hurt people?” or something else like that.
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.
Alabamans : InC-
Giraffes are shockingly gay too, something like 80% of giraffe sex had is gay.
I’m 20% better than giraffes 😎
Eh, not enough for me to choose you over a giraffe. Sorry bro
Those are rookie numbers.
You should see Uncle Paul on the weekends. No man escapes that grizzly!
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.
Right whales too - with a metric tonne of balls to bring to the party - they are made for lovin’ not fightin’:
Right whales form large mating aggregations, which can include several males seeking access to a female. However, unlike humpback whale competitive groups, male right whales do not engage in aggressive displays. One female may successively mate with several males, and it is believed that males compete to pass their genes to the next generation through quantity of sperm they deliver when they mate, rather than fighting for access to females. This theory is supported by the fact that male right whales have the largest testes of any animal on earth (up to 500 kg each), as well as extremely large penises.
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.
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?
Do you typically believe everything you read in meme form?
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
Always was.
There are also many, many gay and bi sheep
Look it up
And about 200 other species, but only one has exhibited homophobia.
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!!!
Bromance!
Since “no discrimination” was mentioned, I wonder if there’s actual discrimination in the animal kingdom, except us humans?
Maybe not sexual, but animals get outcasted/exiled from their groups for all sorts of reasons!
Stolen from AI google response for wolf exile, as an example.
-
Aggression: If a wolf displays aggressive behavior towards other pack members, especially the alpha pair or other dominant wolves, it may be exiled to maintain harmony within the pack.
-
Injury or illness: Wolves that are injured or sick may be seen as a liability to the pack as they may not be able to keep up with the group or contribute to hunting effectively. In such cases, the pack may exile the weaker individual to ensure the survival of the rest of the group.
-
Reproductive competition: In some cases, subordinate wolves may challenge the alpha pair for dominance or breeding rights within the pack. If a wolf is unsuccessful in its attempts to challenge the alpha pair, it may be forced out of the pack.
-
Old age: Older wolves that are no longer able to keep up with the pack or contribute to hunting effectively may be pushed out of the group to ensure the pack’s survival.
-
Genetic diversity: In some cases, wolves may be exiled to prevent inbreeding within the pack. Maintaining genetic diversity is important for the long-term health and survival of the pack.
-
Resource scarcity: If resources such as food become scarce, the pack may not be able to support all its members. In such situations, weaker or less dominant wolves may be forced out to reduce competition for resources.
-
Behavioral issues: Wolves that consistently display disruptive or antisocial behavior within the pack may be exiled to maintain social cohesion and hierarchy.
-
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?
The picture is literally of two penguins kissing.
deleted by creator
I’ve seen birds kissing, and I can’t come up with any nonromantic explanation for it. Also they only do it when they think I’m not watching.
You should start streaming some old Animal Planet shows. Grooming each other is a big part of social bonding among many different animals.
Also, the second part is because they’ve seen what you do when you’re alone and know you’re a perv.
deleted by creator
Damn straight they are!
Low hanging fruit and all, but
Damn gay they are!
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.
That or the parents starved to death or got eaten by a seal
I thought I was in linuxmemes
If I hug my male friend, have I become the gay?
Pretty sure they get up to all sorts of rape and paedophilia and incest too. This might be a nice fact, but penguins are dirty bitches and certainly no behavioural gold standard.
I don’t think anyone but you has even remotely implied there’s some overall gold standard presented by penguin behavior that needs to be compared to humans. Simply the fact that other species have homosexuals, and those pairs can raise a “family” successfully. Compared to your mentioned standard humans don’t do so great sometimes either.
I didn’t imply they were a gold standard. I just remarked that they certainly weren’t, which is very different.
