Curators say a Norwegian exhibition on homosexuality among animals has been well received, despite initial indications of strong opposition.
The Oslo Natural History Museum opened the show last week and says it has been well attended, not least by families.
Organisers reported early criticism of the project, and being told by one opponent they would “burn in hell”.
But there has been strong interest in an aspect of animal behaviour the museum says is quite common.
It says homosexuality has been observed among 1,500 species, and that in 500 of those it is well documented.
The exhibition – entitled Against Nature? – includes photographs of one male giraffe mounting another, of apes stimulating others of the same sex, and two aroused male right whales rubbing against each other.
The museum says it is the first exhibition in the world to touch on a subject that has been taboo in the past.
It says sex between animals – as between humans – is often a matter of enjoyment, rather than procreation, and that this applies to animals of the same sex as well as opposite sexes.
American commentators say the organizers are still worried about missing out on The Rapture.
[All right — I made that part up :)]
“homosexualty is an abnormal process in nature because all creatures who practice it are an evolutionary dead end. They do not reproduce and therefore do not pass on their flawed genes.”
Do you think there is a “tall” gene? Or a “brown” gene? Notice that people are not uniformly tall, or uniformly colored? Could it be that most traits are controlled by -many- genes, along with such quaint things as epigenetic modifications, environmental variance, ect. ? Thus, is it not possible that by taking care of making things work smoothly, and caring for the children of other creatures killed in the hunt, that even fully gay individuals in social groups can pass along their filthy gay genes through their relatives that thus have a better chance of survival? Indeed, cases of gay penguin pairs adopting the eggs of shark-bait kin are fairly common. Of course, you know what this means; just as we all have a bit of Asia and Africa in us, you have the gay in you as well, to some extent or another.
“dogs lick their butts, puppies eat their own poo, some animals eat their young ,whales beach themsleves on purpose (put em back in the water and they run ashore again )”
It would be much better for them to walk around with feces and blood all over their backside, eh? You ever seen what a baby will put in its mouth? As for the last two, how about war, and wanting more war after that? Now, I’m not holding animals up to be bastions of morality, but that’s the point; they are amoral, they simply behave as they must for survival, and for the survival of those around them. That is the essential difference between us; we can choose to not fear death, we can choose not to fear anything. No dog is noble enough to walk into the fiery furnace, or lead a people out of bondage knowing a bullet can be his only reward. That is the difference between nature and morality, and I wish that you people would listen to your prophets about it instead of slandering them with your superstition.
“Also these so called brilliant animals have brains the size of a piece of fruit ”
Your brain is about the size of a melon. Don’t you feel fruity?
“#15 the tribe with all the children will survive much better children help take care of children and also grow up to make more children and add to population making all the easier”
First, you obviously have never raised kids. You have no idea the work they require. And even worse you seem to think that having more kids will lead to less work. That’s ludicrous.
Second, while the first tribe is foraging around trying to find food to feed their kids. The second tribe will be arming their themselves with the newly developed spear, eating food they farmed, and eating meat they raised from animals they domesticated.
“you logic is flawedon that question”
Making up nonsensical words and creating your own grammar really doesn’t help.
BTW, biochem and molgen here, doubled it up and still kept my tassel.
I get it – homosexuality is either unnatural, or if it is natural, so are a lot of nasty things.
gotcha.
justifying hate just gets tougher and tougher, don’t it?
Two years ago, anti gay sentiment was extremely high. I am so glad to see the intolerance is wearing off in society. While we still have some distance to go before homosexuals are totally accepted, it seems every day we get a little closer.
pmitchell, And if you don’t want to share your foxhole with a gay man, just think of how lucky all those guys are not to have to share a foxhole with an effen asshole like you.
Frank IBC, I loved your wife introduction question. Absolutely masterful.
Woohoo!
I’m getting a mighty stiffy just reading all this enlightened commentary…
Worst joke I ever heard:
What’s black and blue and only comes out at night?
.
.
.
.
The nine year old outside in my car’s trunk.
Yikes!
>>the rights I am objecting to are I dont want in a fox hole with
>>a homosexual
The good news is that you are undoubtedly a right-wing neocon nutjob, given your hatemongering on this blog. That means you’re most likely a chickenhawk, and won’t be sharing a foxhole with ANYBODY.
And have you been drinking, or are you ALWAYS this incoherent?
just think of how lucky all those guys are not to have to share a foxhole with an effen asshole like you
Worst pun ever:
If burros burrowed, would they live in ass-holes?
I do have to apologize for the poor typing skills and grammer.
I do have to say that it seems you liberal types cant seem to stick to the arguement, but seem to only be able to ridicule my typing skills and unchecked gramme,r but you really dont seem to be able to argue your point very well
I also must say I have not been rude crude or called names, but as usual when you cant argue your point you call names and slander the person because you cant win the arguement
I’m not a “liberal”, pmitchell.
And you still haven’t demonstrated how anyone here is suggesting that homosexual animals are somehow “more brilliant” than heterosexual animals.
And you still haven’t answered how it is a “choice” to become aroused by someone of the same sex, or why it is somehow reasonable to refuse to share a foxhole with a homoxesual soldier.
I think in the case of Silo and Roy it may have been more a case of prison gay for Silo.
Pmitchel – I believe in small, restrained government, accountability, federalism, and a cohesive foreign policy strategy. So, yes, I suppose I am a “liberal” now, though that word has been redefined so many times it is nothing more than a slur. You might as well call me a “Nazi” or, for that matter, a “faggot” for all the weight that carries. However, I object to you characterizing my analysis to be nothing more than “grammar and spelling” corrections, as I reduced your arguments to absurdities, and you have yet to counter my arguments (genetic, behavioral, or botanical). If we were following the greek rules of debate you’d be covered in rotten fruit by now, given that you tried to counter an ad absurdum argument with an vacuous implication/ad ignorantiam reply. So, lets try this again; do you care to meet my arguments, or merely whine like a fruity baby.
#40 – Trust me. Your sub-literate writing skills are not what you need to apologize for.
#39, oh my god. I didn’t see that until you pointed it out. Good eye.
And the burros? Geeze, Frank you’re on a roll.
Hmmm, I like chicken. Oh wait, those are penguins – yuck.
Zoo sex like jail sex… these animals will go straight once they’re released.
There’s no such thing as a gay gene, even among twins, a friend of mine is gay while his twin brother is str8t and married with kids.
The best part of being gay is: No accidental pregnancies, so the next quickie won’t end up costing you $100,000 until the kid gets a stable job.
Just two problems with that little theory, Greg Allen.
1) Most of the examples cited are from the wild, not from zoos.
2) Unlike in prisions, there is no lack of availability of the opposite sex in zoos.