• lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Some people claim homosexuality is as old as humanity. This is clearly wrong. Homosexuality is much older

        • pyrflie@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          Probably not quite that old. Sexuality probably developed in the Proterozoic as a means of diversifying reproductive burden and offsetting parasites.

          Multicellular life predates this by quite a bit.

          So homosexuality likely dates back to the Proterozoic Era when the sexes where largely dimorphic and prone to shift as needed. Life … uh, finds a way.

        • lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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

    • ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.”

  • rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This must be the famous Linux-to-queer pipeline I’ve heard so much about.

  • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      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

      • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • drathvedro@lemm.ee
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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.

          • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • drathvedro@lemm.ee
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              23 hours ago

              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.

              • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                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.

                • drathvedro@lemm.ee
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  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.

    • OldChicoAle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      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?

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        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?

  • Dasnap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Just a couple of bros snuggling while rasing a family together.

    No homo tho

    • HSR🏴‍☠️@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • oo1@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        https://iwc.int/about-whales/whale-species/right-whale

    • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

  • Emmie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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

  • letsgo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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?

      • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The gesture almost can’t mean the same thing to a creature that doesn’t have a pair of soft appendages with some of the densest nerve clusters on its entire body in that specific location. But yeah raising a child together is pretty darn gay. I guess they could be platonically coparenting but tbh that seems like an even bigger anthropomorphization. “They’re gay, Karen” is honestly just occam’s razor for this situation.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          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.

          • lath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            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.

          • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Humans cuddle platonically/familially. I also wonder if it’s maybe not more like holding hands which isn’t always romantic among humans depending on culture. Again, arguing 0% on the gayness, my only beef is with the anthropomorphization, and the whole point of acknowledging in the first place is that no human has any real way of knowing what’s going on in an animal’s head.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    oH YeAh WeLL yOu kNoW wHaT eLsE iS NaTuRaL, RaPe aNd cAnNiBaLiSm!!!11!!!1!1one!11!1!!1eleven!!!1

    • Owl@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Great argument against the “bUt iTT”s nAtcHurAAL !!!11!!” for anything really. Natural does not mean good

      • dingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • MeatPilot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          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.

        • Iapar@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

        • Snowclone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago
          1. It indicates sexuality isn’t a choice of behavior, it’s inborn

          2. 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.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

  • rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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.

      • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I didn’t imply they were a gold standard. I just remarked that they certainly weren’t, which is very different.

  • Meldrik@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    Bromance!

    Since “no discrimination” was mentioned, I wonder if there’s actual discrimination in the animal kingdom, except us humans?

    • meliaesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.