Buddha1 is Wrong about Sexuality.

The information has not come from a single person. The information has come from thousands of scientists who have worked over 200 years. Bagemihl has only collected all the informations with proper and scientific documentation at one place. He took 10 years to do that, and even his most ardent critics cannot call his work unscientific.

What good is the scientific institution if we can not depend on the extremely scientific work of a high profile scientist, who is praised by scientific journals like the 'nature' --- writes in a peer-reviewed and widely acclaimed book.
.
Don't forget that no scientist has ever disputed the work of Bagemihl. He published his work in 1999, and if weren't genuine his work would have been discredited doubtlessly. Bagemihl has created many enemies in the scientfic world, but they can't harm him only because his work is immaculate.

And then Bagemihl is not alone. More and more number of scientists are now beginning to report widespread same-sex behaviour in the wild. You can google about "Frans de waal", "Johann Roughgarden", and "Paul Vasey" among aothers.

I see no reason to distrust Bagemihl. You can go on living in your own world. Or after my giving such solid sources, you can now come up with what you know OR FUCK OFF!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Peer reviewed papers are correct, scientifc papers. They prove the research has been conducted in a scientific manner. Not by someone who sat around in a stable for 30mins and decided that horses must actually be gay because they eat hay rather than straw!

http://www3.vet.upenn.edu/labs/equinebehavior//publixs/Papers/91PastureU.pdf

A peer reviewed, scientific journal, with plenty of references within the introduction studying the sexual behaviour of horses, prewalski's horses and donkeys. You can look through all of those.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear me, are you losing your temper?
Now that's the sign of a losing side....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Darwin wasn't the first to propose evolution. He was the first to propose a viable mechanism that drives the process of evolution. So he merely corrected what was false.

Every scientist may challenge Darwin.

 

you and everyone else on the board

 

Don't tell me about peer-reviewed papers.

We have had long debates about them with Ophiolite.

The world doesn't end with peer reviewed papers, nor are peer-reviewed papers any guarantee that we are reading the truth.

If peer-reviewed papers do not talk about something, something doesn't stop to exist.

Besides Bruce Bagemihl is as peer-reviewed as it gets.

Yes I'm getting angry not because I'm losing but because you are behaving very unscientifically and dismissing a very scientific work.

Contrary to what you were accusing me of, YOU are denying everything that I provide as evidence even if it is a well-established scientific work.

 

I Am Getting Angry Because The Only Way To Deal With The Vested Interest Group Is To Kick Them In The Ass.

 

The problem is, there is no argueing with him, he just refers back to that one damn study, when asked to provide any more he goes back to the conspiracy theory as an excuse why he can't

 

well buddha i beleive that everyone on the board has come to the same conclusion

you are wrong buddha
95% of men are not homosexual

i think everyone that has responded to this thread, except you, beleives you are wrong

 

Is this the best you could come up with?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

First they dismiss you because they want scientific evidence. When you get scientific evidence they dismiss you saying the scientist is what ..... 'gay'!

Should we dismiss everything 'heterosexual' that is reported by 'heterosexual' (sick) scientists, because they are after all heterosexual? Is there any scientific evidence that says that 'heterosexuals' are more honest than 'homosexuals' in reporting science?

I'm sorry but your arguments are untenable.

Here is information about Bruce;

Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D., is a biologist and researcher who has served on the faculty of the University of British Columbia, where he taught linguistics and cognitive science. He has published diverse essays and scientific articles on issues pertaining to language, biology, gender, and sexuality. He lives in Seattle, Washington.

(source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0312192398/104-6516538-0985534)

In any case here are some of the reviews that I found on the net:

"A scholarly, exhaustive, and utterly convincing refutation of the notion that human homosexuality is an aberration in nature . . . Bagemihl does realize that some among us will never be convinced that homosexuality occurs freely and frequently in nature. But his meticulously gathered, cogently delivered evidence will quash any arguments to the contrary."—Kirkus Reviews

"A brilliant and important exercise in exposing the limitations of received opinion . . . an exhaustively argued case that animals have multiple shades of sexual orientation."—Publishers Weekly

"Bagemihl has done an extraordinary job in compiling a vast bestiary . . . This book should surely become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered."—Nature

"A landmark in the literature of science."—Chicago Tribune

"By producing a work that is accessible to the general reader while engaging for the specialist, Bagemihl has accomplished a most extraordinary feat. In the tradition of the finest nonfiction, this is a book that will force us to reexamine who we are and what we believe."—The Philadelphia Inquirer

 

I am dismissing it, because i refuse to believe something because one book says so, when you can provide more proof I may consider it. You say all these scientists helped put forward into the book, but what proof?
How am I being unscientific? I have been through higher education and am now studying a science based degree, I have studied the history of and proper untilisation of science and scientific procedures.

 

Have fun trying to dislodge that one damn study!

If we can't use scientific evidence as proof, then this scientific forum is uselss. Any talk of being scientific is useless.

YOU ARE AVOIDING THE ISSUE. YOU HAVE LOST ALREADY!

 

How exactly am I avoiding the issue?
You will find this thread was put up here because of this exact problem, we disagree with you, and there is no argueing with you. When we try and put forward logical scientific reasoning you come back with repeated quotes from one single study. When you are again shown wrong, you get abusive.

 

Can you show me a peer-reviewed paper that proves beyond doubt that one scientifically written and produced book can not comprise facts......or that it is a valid ground for rejecting someones work, especially when scientists have accepted that as creditworthy?

If you can show me such a peer-reviewed paper, I promise I'll get you peer-=reviewed papers about Bagemihl.

 

I can name you a bunch of books, which have been peer reviewed and published, and are yet discredited by scientists.
You will find that peer reviewed papers look at hypotheses, not books. You are after a book review, you will not find those online.

 

And you numbskull, here are other scientists that speak the same thing as Bruce:

Animals prefer homosexuality to evolution:

"I WAS YOUNG AND NAIVE," recalls Linda Wolfe. "I thought everyone would be happy that I had found something new." But she was in for a big shock. "People started to ask me, do you have some kinky interest we don't know about?" And when she came to publish her results, the referees accused her of doctoring the photographs and making up data. What could an innocent young graduate student have found to create such a stir?

In the mid-1970s Wolfe was in the wilds of Japan studying macaques. As she grew to know her troop of monkeys, it soon became apparent that the females were having sex with one another. And these encounters weren't mere flings. Females paired off for days or weeks at a time, forming exclusive couples. They moved around together, and spent ages grooming one another between bouts of sexual activity that typically culminated in orgasm for both partners. Wolfe was convinced she was witnessing homosexual behaviour, but most researchers were sceptical. "They said that females were mounting each other by mistake--they didn't know what they were doing," she recalls. "People wanted to believe that only weirdo humans engaged in this behaviour.

"Even today, many researchers are reluctant to admit that same-sex encounters are "normal"--that is, "part of what primates do, part of their total sexual repertoire" says Wolfe, now chair of anthropology at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina.

(To read further click here\0

 

And here is further evidence from the same source of the kind of extensive credibility that Bruce Bagemihl holds.

according to a compendium of animal homosexuality, just published in Britain by Bruce Bagemihl, an independent scholar and author based in Seattle. For 10 years Bagemihl scoured the scientific literature, unearthing documented cases of same-sex encounters with apparent sexual significance. He also contacted scores of researchers to add details not included in published papers. The result is a species-by-species profile of more than 470 species. "Most are mammals and birds," says Bagemihl, "but perhaps only because I didn't have time to go further.

"When the book came out in the US earlier this year, it caused quite a stir. The Chicago Tribune called the 750-pager "a landmark in the literature of science", while Publishers Weekly declared it to be "a brilliant and important exercise in exposing the limitations of received opinion". But it has also provoked criticism, not only from social conservatives. Most scientific readers take exception to one controversial chapter in which Bagemihl presents his own highly speculative alternatives to Darwinian evolutionary theory. He draws on a heady mix of chaos theory and anthropology in an attempt to explain how "exuberant" diversity of sexual behaviours could emerge.

That aside, however, a growing band of researchers are welcoming his efforts. "Bagemihl's bestiary of homosexual behaviour really impressed me," says Paul Harvey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford. "It is very clear that animals do it very regularly right across the animal kingdom. The beauty of the book is all that data--how much that guy's read," Harvey adds. "This book should not be ignored.

 

More evidence from the above article:

Yet despite its apparent ubiquity, homosexuality among animals is far from common knowledge, even among biologists. "Although the first reports of homosexual behaviour among primates were published more than 75 years ago," says primatologist Paul Vasey of Concordia University in Montreal, "virtually every major introductory text in primatology fails to even mention its existence."

Personal prejudice

The neglect reflects an uneasy mix of personal prejudice and intellectual anxiety among professional zoologists, Bagemihl suspects. One time-honoured solution has been to avoid acknowledging that same-sex interactions have anything sexual about them. Most researchers are not as candid as field biologist Valerius Geist, well known for his long-term studies of mountain sheep in the North American Rockies. Some 20 years ago, he bravely confessed: "I still cringe at the memory of seeing old D-ram mount S-ram repeatedly. To conceive of those magnificent beasts as 'queers'. Oh God!" For two years, Geist recounts, he tried to convince himself that the mounting was essentially an aggressive, dominance behaviour. "I never published that drivel and am glad of it. Eventually I called the spade a spade and admitted that the rams lived in essentially a homosexual society."

 

So you're basically asking me to get something that you know I don't have access to. Why?

Apparently you don't want this issue to be discussed. But you can get lost!

 

Where was that quote taken from?

Please refrain from insulting me, it merely weakens your case.