Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Stephen Fry: "only humans are homophobic"

152 posts in this topic

Stephen Fry has denounced critics of same sex marriages claiming there are 260 animal species that have gay tendencies but only humans are homophobic.

The author, actor and presenter also accused the Church of England of caving in to “screeching” extremists who he claims have spread lies about gay marriage.

Fry, who is gay, spoke out in a new video, for the Out4Marriage campaign, which has persuaded a string of celebrities and politicians to back its calls for reform.

During a three minute monologue, he says gay people “used to be regarded as villains because we were so bohemian and outrageous and we eschewed family values, but we’re not.

"We’re human beings like everybody else and we believe first and foremost in love.

http://www.telegraph...homophobic.html

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he makes valid points and yet again as he mentioned extremism in the Church always seems to rear it's ugly head.

Top guy and a national treasure regardless of his sexuality...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with him that only humans are Homophobic. He is right that there are some animals that do have some same sex behaviors however I do not believe it is for the same reasons that Humans do. In the animal world it is a dominance thing you cannot really compare the two because they are not really the same. The reasons behind the behaviors are very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would agree with him that only humans are Homophobic. He is right that there are some animals that do have some same sex behaviors however I do not believe it is for the same reasons that Humans do. In the animal world it is a dominance thing you cannot really compare the two because they are not really the same. The reasons behind the behaviors are very different.

It's not always about dominance in the animal world. Many types of birds engage in life long homosexual relationships, many dolphins engage in homosexual behavior for pleasure, and some ducks engage in homosexual **********.

There are many other thousands of instances of animals other than humans engaging in homosexuality that are not acts of dominance.

You can easily compare the two because humans are also animals and also have sex, homo or hetero, for many different reasons.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be the devils advocate, has anyone ever tried to have gay sex with a bear? Just to see if he minds? Its not like you can ask any animals....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be the devils advocate, has anyone ever tried to have gay sex with a bear? Just to see if he minds? Its not like you can ask any animals....

I wouldn't mess with bears, man. They're into all kinds of freaky stuff like knife play, bsdm, and violent role playing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be the devils advocate, has anyone ever tried to have gay sex with a bear? Just to see if he minds? Its not like you can ask any animals....

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ovXnZcb_A[/media]

I dont know The bear doesnt seem to mind here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I saw that movie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bear-knife-fight.jpg
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not always about dominance in the animal world. Many types of birds engage in life long homosexual relationships, many dolphins engage in homosexual behavior for pleasure, and some ducks engage in homosexual **********.

There are many other thousands of instances of animals other than humans engaging in homosexuality that are not acts of dominance.

You can easily compare the two because humans are also animals and also have sex, homo or hetero, for many different reasons.

That would lend to the metaphorical use of dead as a duck or he's a dead duck . :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://rainbowallian...m/science3.html

Apparently Birds can be Gay..

Probably a bit of fun Though..

Edited by shaddow134

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I have on occasion heard a few homophobic dogs bark abuse at some gay dogs...made them cry and everything lol

Stephen Fry is correct..It is only humans and to add, a natural state of mind for so many humans to be homophobic...

If a religion was not against it, homophobia would still very much exist.. The only difference would be is no sod can use a bible to excuse their homophobia

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fry, who is gay

Well blow me over, I never knew that... I always knew he was highly educated and funny, filled with talent.. Love his skits with Hugh Laurie ( the wacky doctor from House )... but I had no idea he was gay...he never struck me as gay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a silly and usless comment. Of course humans are the only animals who are homophobic. They are the only animals capable of creating this linguistic /symbolic construct and applying it.

We are the only beings capable of thinking this way and thus being homophobic.

That doesnt mean anything when compared with animal behaviour. Animals kill their rival's young to ensure the dominance of their own gene pool, dont ask permission for sex ,and eat their dead etc To arge that same sex behaviour in non sapient animals is a justification for same sex behaiour in sapient self aware animals is just dumb. Ohter animlas do a whole heap of things which would put a human being in gaol for example like killing their own species, or having sex without consent.

And heres a completely different and light hearted look at it.

Just because some bears engage in same sex sex, doesn't mean all other bears approve of it, think it natural, or or don't think that those who do indulge in it are damned to bear hell for eternity.

A philosphical bear might say, "Well its not to my taste but go for it." OR "Such behaviour reduces the fertility levels of our species, which is already in decline and endagered, and detracts from the cohesive unit which is bear family, so i do not approve of it, and i would hate my cute little cub Benjamin to be a gay bear"

Iv'e never really been able to see any credibilty in arguing that just because anything is observable in animal behaviour, it is a good or accepatable model for human behaviour. Cancer is natural and amny animals die from cancer Does that make it something we should accept as humans.

Infertility is natural, and many animals are naturally infertile. Should we just accept it in our own lives, because it exists in nature?

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not always about dominance in the animal world. Many types of birds engage in life long homosexual relationships, many dolphins engage in homosexual behavior for pleasure, and some ducks engage in homosexual **********.

There are many other thousands of instances of animals other than humans engaging in homosexuality that are not acts of dominance.

You can easily compare the two because humans are also animals and also have sex, homo or hetero, for many different reasons.

Just to be pedantic. No other animal can engage in homo sexual beahviour, in that homo means man. Other animals engage in same sex sex, not homosexuality. If they did, that would be beastiality from our perspective.

All animals (with a few exceptions) are driven by a strong sexual urge which causes some strange behaviors, like our desexed lab humping my wife's knee, a blanket, and anything else which takes his interest. He doesn't have an attraction to them perse, just a driving need to hump something. Perhaps his lack of opposable thumb and manual dexterity, leads him to these measures.

I would find any human who modelled this "natural" behaviour, just a tad offputting/disturbing, I must admit.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be pedantic. No other animal can engage in homo sexual beahviour, in that homo means man. Other animals engage in same sex sex, not homosexuality. If they did, that would be beastiality from our perspective.

If you feel the need to be pedantic, you might want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about.

Homo is a greek prefix meaning: the same, not human. It is the opposite of hetero meaning: different.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be pedantic. No other animal can engage in homo sexual beahviour, in that homo means man. Other animals engage in same sex sex, not homosexuality. If they did, that would be beastiality from our perspective.

All animals (with a few exceptions) are driven by a strong sexual urge which causes some strange behaviors, like our desexed lab humping my wife's knee, a blanket, and anything else which takes his interest. He doesn't have an attraction to them perse, just a driving need to hump something. Perhaps his lack of opposable thumb and manual dexterity, leads him to these measures.

I would find any human who modelled this "natural" behaviour, just a tad offputting/disturbing, I must admit.

Well, no. In Latin, Homo means "man, human, self", sure.

In science, however, Homo means "same" and hetero means "different", i.e. homogeneous and heterogeneous, homosexual, heterosexual.

There is no such thing as "natural human behavior", as the phrase is used today, to edify. Unless you were born before thousands of years before the advent of civilization, you mean "human cultural behavior". Big distinction.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel the need to be pedantic, you might want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about.

Homo is a greek prefix meaning: the same, not human. It is the opposite of hetero meaning: different.

Boom. You just got served.

Jokes aside, if someone wants to come on this thread and argue about how homosexuality is "unnatural", don't bother trying to engage me in conversation.

You spend ten years researching biology, then come talk to me.

.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel the need to be pedantic, you might want to be sure you actually know what you're talking about.

Homo is a greek prefix meaning: the same, not human. It is the opposite of hetero meaning: different.

Its not often I learn something new. But i am happy to admit it when I do.

See the post below by imaginary number. I was educated in latin and am an english teacher. I never learned greek. Homo sapiens means sapient man, not sapient same (I am also a history teacher). Why should homo sexual mean same sex? Am I caught out by the illogicality of english? Perhaps.

And yet the ancient greeks and romans called homosexual men, man lover or lovers of men. In the etymology of the word the greek meaning was only attested in the early 1900s Given the historical overlap of greek and latin in ancient times i am not absolutely convinced which etymology is correct, but given modern understandings I am prepared to accept that, currently, homosexual means between the same sexes. Fair cop. But it has no wider ramification than that. While you can call same sex sex between animals homosexual sex (even if it grates on me persoanlly) that has no bearing on the wider isue of the nature of such attraction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are also the only animals who can deceive themselves into not only worshipping imaginary friends, but killing those who have different imaginary friends.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom. You just got served.

Jokes aside, if someone wants to come on this thread and argue about how homosexuality is "unnatural", don't bother trying to engage me in conversation.

You spend ten years researching biology, then come talk to me.

.

I am not arguing that it is unnatural, just that natural doesnt automatically mean the best or optimal form of anything and that one should not argue that because a condition is natural it is automatically right or productive. Homsexuality is a natural genetic condition. So is infertilty in many cases That alone doesn't make either an acceptable or productive alternative. Should an infertile person be condemned ,denigrated, looked down on, treated poorly, disciminated against, etc., or loved less for a condition thay had no say in? No of course not. Neither should a homosexual person.

Will their natural condition affect all things about their life and lifestyle, and define/separate, them from fertile/heterosexual people in many ways? Yes, of course.

Will the removal of all prejudices and discriminations make them fertile or heterosexual and restore to them the attributes and consequences of fertility and hetero sexual attrction ? NO .

Therefore,will real physical barriers, Including their tiny minority status, constraints and effects (including harmful effects), remain while they are infertile or homosexual, without any discrimination or prejudices? Yes of course.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we just show more love than other species. More hate too yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a silly and usless comment. Of course humans are the only animals who are homophobic. They are the only animals capable of creating this linguistic /symbolic construct and applying it.

You've missed the whiole point of the original comment. The natural part was addressed at homophobic people that say 'homosexuality is unnatural'. Hece, that was what the comment was aimed at.

Personally I find nature a rather odd thng to argue. Homophobic people certain shouldn't use 'it's unnatarural' as a valid arguement since our lives are filled with things that are unnatural. It's funny how the people that say 'it's unatural' are more than willing to benefit from or use other things that are unnatural if it suits them.

Its not often I learn something new. But i am happy to admit it when I do.

See the post below by imaginary number. I was educated in latin and am an english teacher. I never learned greek. Homo sapiens means sapient man, not sapient same (I am also a history teacher). Why should homo sexual mean same sex? Am I caught out by the illogicality of english? Perhaps.

And yet the ancient greeks and romans called homosexual men, man lover or lovers of men. In the etymology of the word the greek meaning was only attested in the early 1900s Given the historical overlap of greek and latin in ancient times i am not absolutely convinced which etymology is correct, but given modern understandings I am prepared to accept that, currently, homosexual means between the same sexes. Fair cop. But it has no wider ramification than that. While you can call same sex sex between animals homosexual sex (even if it grates on me persoanlly) that has no bearing on the wider isue of the nature of such attraction

As others have said the pre-fix 'homo' has two different meanings. That shouldn't really come as a surprise, many words have different meanings depending on the situation in which they're used (one of the reasons that makes English a tricky language to learn). Also, since there have been many languages in the world, it's hardly surprising that the same word can have completely different meanings in other languages.

Whether the term grates on you personally makes no difference to the actual meaning of the word.

The oddest thing about you is that you use pretty much the same logic as a homophobic person does and come up with the opposite conclusion. ie a homophobic sees a gay person as different and thus reason to hate them, you see a gay person as difference and thus reason to pity/love them. Is that better? Yes and no. Yes because, well love is better than hate, but no because (all things being equal) you see homosexuality with a degree of negativity. Don't believe me? Look at the comparison you constantly make to infertility. You constantly compare homosexuality to something which is negative, why? And how is that much better than homophobic that compare homosexualty to pedophilia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recollect the source, but I remember reading that humans have a very unique tendency of being hostile to other humans with different sexual behavior, which means reproductive strategy. That's why many people do not tolerate promiscuous behavior or homosexuality.

You know, I try not to be homophobic. But ironically working at the entertainment industry as a production artist made me hate some gay people. Some gay people (mostly in the showbiz) do not respect others sexuality, meaning they don't care if others are straight. They will still want to bone you no matter what. Many of the casting couch BS are gay affairs and I am afraid that I will have to face that kind of situation someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will still want to bone you no matter what.

I hate it when a straight guy acts and thinks in the same way.. Ohh look another part of human nature at it's most greedy and idiot stage...Animals the lot of em lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.