Catch and Release

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:22:43 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:


"Thomas Littleton" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:cTmpf.28558$Ht4.18395@trnddc08...
SNIP
there is the crux of my difference. I do believe homosexuals, with some
small exceptions, are born with that orientation. Recent research would
indicate that to be the case, as well.
Tom


Perhaps, I really don?t know. What I do know is that most of the gays I have
met, except under artificial circumstances, have been quite sad at their
orientation, and many suffer considerably as a result of their leanings.

I know I would be sad and suffering if most of humanity regarded me as
an upsetting and disgusting pervert. Hell, even if a sizeable
fraction of it did, I'd suffer, emotionally or by whatever means they
thought up to support their opinions.

I wonder why there are no other homosexual animals? Might it possibly have
something to do with the fact that it would be well nigh impossible to pass
on ones genes? Or are you now going to tell me that being bisexual, or
multisexual, or screwing sheep, or house bricks, is perfectly normal?

Are you sure there aren't any homosexual animals? Really sure? I've
read some studies, since sex has been open to discussion (in my youth
it wasn't, much) that have shown field animals exhibiting homosexual
behaviours. Mostly it was decided that it was an exhibition of power
by the more active partner in the act. But that was an opinion
offered by the person studying the behaviour. No one asked the
domestic animals. Then there are the bonobos, who seem to do anything
sexual possible as much of the time as possible. They seem to be
breeding just fine.

As for wild animals, there has been, except for the bonobos, almost
nothing in print on their sexuality. I'm sure any observer who saw
something 'unnatural' simply left it off the record, or mentioned it
only to the people he was out with around the fire at night. So no
one really knows much about that.

The fact that the animals continue to breed does indicate that they
are, in general, mostly heterosexual most of the time. Other than
that, I've seen nothing that I'd regard as definitive.

Until recently, most following and studying of wild animals has been
for the purpose of killing them for food or trophies, with a side
group capturing them for sale to zoos. This does not lead to much in
the way of the studies of their sexual behaviour. If a hunter found
a couple of male animals who weren't in the rut season hanging out
together, he'd assume they were just good friends, 'cause you know how
guys tend to buddy up. Yes, there have been naturalists on and off
throughout history and more in the last hundred years, but how many of
them mentioned even heterosexual behaviours?

I'd assume that homosexuality and cross species dating (bestiality,
but when both are beasts, what can one call it?) are rare in the wild
(the latter more rare, as it tends to be dangerous for some species to
be near others), but our assumptions on it are just that, assumptions.
And the information from naturalists, even now, would be biased by
their own social prejudices and proclivities. Not to mention how
little they'd like to be unpublished or vilified if they the did get
on to unpopular ground.

Natural may not be all the same all the time for all species.

Switching to another urge and keeping in mind the female lioness who
had a strong mothering urge and no cubs. She kept kidnapping baby
antelopes and trying to raise them. Not successfully, as every time
she left to hunt, some other predator would chow down on her recent
adoptee. Was she natural? Were the baby antelopes natural for
accepting the mothering? Were the predators who ate the baby
antelopes more natural? Personally, I was kind of po'd that the
observers didn't capture the lioness and antelope, keep them safe, and
observe them for a while. But that's just personal.




Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: lid (strip the .invalid to email)

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Littleton" wrote in message
news:8Zopf.29062$Ht4.18812@trnddc08...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

SNIP SNIP
.. . . undergrad doing an internship......say, something like twelve or so
people
altogether, on average. It is impossible for us to keep up on everything
published in our specialty.

Wolfgang

.. . . much less have the time to blow one another more than once, although
it would be perfectly normal to blow one another multiple times.

By the way I have noticed that you have been very cranky since your weekend
at the Ramrod. Is that normal? How about in the animal world?

Dave

"Mike Connor" wrote in news:do4vg9$5o3$02$1
@news.t-online.com:

I wonder why there are no other homosexual animals?

At least I can save you the time you spend wondering.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gayanimal.html

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:59:03 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rw wrote:
Aren't you the same guy who used to try (unsuccessfully) to insult me by
calling me gay?

Nope, I'm the guy who pointed out that you were an
effeminate putz pretending to be a wild west he-man.

SPLORK

Ain't life grand, sitting back and watching the liberals trash each
other. Why, it's a regular daisy chain of "perversion", but fun
nonetheless. d;o)

"David Snedeker" wrote in
:

Being one of the instigators of this turn in the thread, let me say
don't read too much into his comment. Not that I agree with him but
remember that lots of us older citizens are less evolved on some of
these issues than folk just a few annum younger. So we tend to stumble
into politically incorrect boxes. Doesn't mean we are totally
retrograde (except maybe Frank). It might mean simply that we don't
look good in a bra and panties.

.....in your case getting older has not given you more common sense or
wisdom, but an abundance of weird **** running through that mind of
yours.
I repeat, what a wonderful feeling to know that I don't have to suffer
the disease of the mind that you and other tin hat wearers have to deal
with.
I'm not one to Google up someone's posts on here, but it seems to me that
over the years that you have been infesting this group with your
confrontational style there have been pitifully few posts that relate to
flyfishing or anything even remotely associatied with said activity. At
least Gherke, who was taken to task many times over his outrageous
behavior here, did post some good advice, stories, etc. having to do with
flyfishing. You, on the other hand seem to exist here to regale us with
your ****ed up tin hat rantings, and of course someone almost always
challenges your tripe. That leads to being "snedekered", helluva legacy
to have your name turned into a verb connoting the sort of treatment you
hand out. This thread is over for me, an absolute waste of time to deal
with your ranting.

Frank Sr.
*PLONK*

wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:56:44 -0800, "David Snedeker"
wrote:

I understand that quantities of burnt cork were found in Ernst
Rohm's effects.

Aw, he was probably just experimenting with rod handle repair
techniques...

Now *that* was funny. :-)


Chuck Vance

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
. ..

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Littleton" wrote in message
news:8Zopf.29062$Ht4.18812@trnddc08...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

SNIP SNIP
. . . undergrad doing an internship......say, something like twelve or so
people
altogether, on average. It is impossible for us to keep up on everything
published in our specialty.

Wolfgang

. . . much less have the time to blow one another more than once, although
it would be perfectly normal to blow one another multiple times.

By the way I have noticed that you have been very cranky since your
weekend
at the Ramrod. Is that normal? How about in the animal world?

Hm.....

Well, as has been pointed out elsewhere, I'm no authority on current events
but, as I stated above, I DO try to keep up with what's hot in the
scientific literature. As yet, I've discovered no credible evidence of
widespread Homo Immuno Virus or Hebrew Immuno Virus in the Pacific Northwest
of the U.S. Moreover, rumors of spread by casual contact appear (for the
moment at least) to be just that and nothing more. Still, you're right, I
think, a boy can't be too careful.

Always remember, boys (especially) and girls, thorough and frequent hand
washing with plenty of soap and hot water is still the single best
prophylaxis against the spread of communicable diseases.......but do watch
out for flying spittle as well.

Wolfgang
who hastens to add that to date authorities are by no means unanimous in a
definition of "casual".

David Snedeker wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Mike Connor wrote:

... Not that I agree with him but remember that
lots of us older citizens are less evolved on some of these issues than folk
just a few annum younger. So we tend to stumble into politically incorrect
boxes. Doesn't mean we are totally retrograde ...

Is that what you call it, "retrograde" ?

At the the risk of "smarmy political correctness" I'd
suggest that "retrograde" opinions about Jews, blacks
and homosexuals should be kept to oneself and not posted
here. This suggestion applies especially to those posting
here from Germany. Know what I mean ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:43:38 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

This suggestion applies especially to those posting
here from Germany. Know what I mean ?

Why don't you just say it, 40?
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...

. This suggestion applies especially to those posting
here from Germany. Know what I mean ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

C'mon Ken.

You're smarter than to invoke Godwin's Law. I figured someone would go there
eventually, but I didn't think it's be you.

Dan