Museum Exhibit: Homosexuality is natural

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:39 am

Come on, whos still saying they should be put to death?

The famed National History Museum in Oslo, Norway, has been targeted by local church groups over a historic exhibit, "Against Nature," believed to be the first in the world to examine the role of same-sex animal pairs.

The controversial exhibit opened Thursday featuring photographs of two whales humping and two male giraffes going at it.

A translation says: "We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom; it is not against nature."

Exhibit organizer Geir Soeli explained that the "sexual urge is strong in all animals."

"It's a part of life; it's fun to have sex," he told the Reuters news agency.

Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented in 500 of them, Soeli said.

Bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, are among extremes in having sex with either males or females, apparently as part of social bonding.

"Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said.

Conservative Christians are accusing the museum of displaying pornography, according to Reuters. One evangelical pastor even said museum directors should burn in hell.

Although Greek philosopher Aristotle noted apparent gay behavior among hyenas 2,300 years ago, for various reasons, few modern researchers have studied the phenomenon.

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, Soeli told Reuters. And a study of gay men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring.

"The same genes that give homosexuality in men could give higher fertility among women," he said. (Hassan Mirza, Gay.com U.K.)

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:20 pm

What, no mention of the gay penguin couples?

Wait a sec, since when did the Norwegians give a damn about this?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:57 pm

Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact.

Intriguing. But if the theory is accurate, then why is it still difficult for the society to accept homosexuality? You know, things like anti gay marriage, etc.

Post by **B4UTRUST** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:12 pm

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:
Among theories, males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a pack by having homosexual contact.
Intriguing. But if the theory is accurate, then why is it still difficult for the society to accept homosexuality? You know, things like anti gay marriage, etc.

The one thing that we have that animals don't. And no I'm not refering to opposable thumbs.

Religion.

Because popular organized religions view homosexuality as "morally reprehensible" and this has been ingrained into people for a long long time it seems.

But that's just my thoughts on it. And fitting with the ultra christian conservative views it works, really.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:21 pm

Side example, Ancient Greece did not view limited homosexuality as unnatural. Such relations were suppose to take place between between a social superior and inferior however, a youth and an adult. The sexual idenities were of passive and active, not male and female.

The active religious bais in some sects of Christianity first took root in the High Middle Ages, while the church never approved of the acts it never took major action (it's telling to note that Richard III, the churches champion in the 3rd crusade may have bi, engaging in relations with both sexes). That changed.

Cynical Cat · Post by **Cynical Cat** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:29 pm

frigidmagi wrote: (it's telling to note that Richard III, the churches champion in the 3rd crusade may have bi, engaging in relations with both sexes). That changed.

It was Richard I and he was widely known to have engaged in homosexual relationships when he alive (his feud the Philip the Fair of France was often called a lover's quarrel at that time).

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:36 am

Wasn't the gay one Richard II? Richard I was the dude in Braveheart right - Richard the Lionheart?

Cynical Cat · Post by **Cynical Cat** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:59 am

Stofsk wrote:Wasn't the gay one Richard II? Richard I was the dude in Braveheart right - Richard the Lionheart?

Yes, I mean Richard the Lionheart, who was flamingly homosexual. As one historian put it "lousy king, lousy son, lousy brother, lousy husband, great warrior." The man died without an heir, although he might have had a bastard child, which is how his brother John inherited and we got the Magna Carta after John fucked things up.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:59 am

I'm also told he had a bad habit of sleeping with other people's wives. Thus I suggest the Lionheart is bi. Richard I (from Braveheart) was so flaming that his wife ended up taking a lover and using him to kill him and take over the nation IIRC.

Thus proving it's very likely a bad idea to marry a women and not sleep with her.

Comrade Tortoise · Post by **Comrade Tortoise** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:39 am

Stofsk wrote:Wasn't the gay one Richard II? Richard I was the dude in Braveheart right - Richard the Lionheart?

No hon, that was Edward the Second in braveheart (Longshanks was Edward the First. A very good english king as I remember it... the scotts and welsh were NOT fond of him for obvious reasons), and he was also a flaming homosexual.

In fact, hiswife kind of...gathered together her like.. four lovers and rebelled against him, eventually executing him by shoving a red hot poker up his ass

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:46 am

Wow, you have to wonder what her thought process was. "...And lets see how you like something go up your arse!"

Comrade Tortoise · Post by **Comrade Tortoise** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:07 am

Well, I am not sure they ever even consumated the marriage...

Edward II (the black prince) I suspect is not really Edward Longshanks' grandchild

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:00 pm

That has to be safest bet on the parentage of a historical figure I have ever heard in my life.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:02 am

frigidmagi wrote:I'm also told he had a bad habit of sleeping with other people's wives. Thus I suggest the Lionheart is bi. Richard I (from Braveheart) was so flaming that his wife ended up taking a lover and using him to kill him and take over the nation IIRC.

Thus proving it's very likely a bad idea to marry a women and not sleep with her.

And just to correct this, Richard I died from an arrow wound while he was attacking some castle that refused to give up a Roman treasure it had found. Supposedly his wife knew that he was homosexual but still loved him, even though they had no children.

A historical side note is that Richard was his mom's (Eleanor of Aquitaine) favorite child, while his mom hated John. Eleanor was pretty powerful and worked a lot to protect her favorite son. Not so much John.

Comrade Tortoise · Post by **Comrade Tortoise** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:25 am

Of course John was a little bitch anyway, I can understand why she wouldnt.

Of course, now the joke in the Disney version of Robin Hood with prince John sucking his thumb and screaming for mommy is all the funnier, as it has a historical basis.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:36 pm

I thought Richard III was the Lionheart?

Cynical Cat · Post by **Cynical Cat** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:35 pm

frigidmagi wrote:I thought Richard III was the Lionheart?

No, that was Richard I. Richard III is the bad guy who gets whacked in the Shakespear play. Being a shmuck and getting murdered by his wife and his lovers sounds like Edward II.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:59 pm

Okay did some research, Richard I did not have any childern by his wife. Who was a different women then the one he was engaged to (his father stands accused of making his son's ficanee his misteress). However Richard I did have one acknowledged bastard son, Philip of Cognac and stands accussed of raping the daughters of rebellious nobles and freemen. This supposly took place in the county of AngoulÃªme.

Josh · Post by **Josh** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:27 pm

Back on topic, one of our cats is gay.

And he's so stereotypically effiminate, to boot. He rwowls like he's in heat all the time, among other things.

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:25 am

When I was a kid, our neighbours who worked at the lab at the college I later attended gave me and my brother some gerbils. There were three males and one female.

They said that as long as you kept them in a small enough area, enough room to live but not too big, the boys would fuck each other and not the girl because their instincts would tell them there wasn't enough room for offspring.

And they happily gerbil-buttfucked while the female just chilled.

Later they became cannibalistic and all but one was killed because they ripped each other's faces off. :(

Josh · Post by **Josh** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:05 am

Caz wrote:Later they became cannibalistic and all but one was killed because they ripped each other's faces off. :(

This is where the GAY AGENDA leads us!

Caz · Post by **Caz** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:01 am

Petrosjko wrote:
Caz wrote:Later they became cannibalistic and all but one was killed because they ripped each other's faces off. :(
This is where the GAY AGENDA leads us!

Tell that to our cats.

LibriumArcana.Games

Museum Exhibit: Homosexuality is natural

#1 Museum Exhibit: Homosexuality is natural

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22