Hey /LGBT/, I want to rant here for a second about Wikipedia

any social issue on Wikipedia is really liberal and I would say not factual, there's a reason why you weren't allowed to use the site in school.

Okay but before we do anything else
1. How does this affect your everyday life in any conceivable way
2. Is it worth expending energy on this topic

>>8751647
It's really boring having everyone come here to rant to us about lgbt related bullshit they find on other sites or hear about in the news. We are not a hivemind.
If you want to talk about that shit, fine, post some actual examples from the article and ask what people think. But posting the link and calling it bullshit like you think anyone here actually wrote it and is going to defend it is just a stupid waste of time.

>>8751659
Wikipedia has been repeatedly shown to be as reliable as actual encyclopedias though.

>>8751659
This. Wikipedia is manipulated by mtfs and (((academics))).

>>8751688
>Science is biased because of trannies and SJWs
lmao

>>8751659
Middle schools won't let you because they don't want you paraphrasing or copying it verbatim. Colleges simply advise you to check the citations below and use your best judgement

>>8751647
How is homosexuality in animals a stretch when it's been documented?

>start at 0:40 to skip the long intro
https://youtu.be/5I5N34Q1Bio?t=40s

There is no benefit to making homosexuality seem natural anyway, because being natural does not make anything more or less morally superior. Remember that animals kill, rape and steal in nature too. So who cares?

>>8751736
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom makes the nature argument moot.

>>8751748
>>8751736
>>8751708

You guys are completely missing the point of this thread. I am not trying to debate whether or not homosexuality exists in other animals (obviously it does). I am trying to bring attention to the fact that researchers (or whoever wrote this page) is stretching the definition of homosexuality in an effort to fit more examples/cases of homosexuality in other animals into their research. Why would they do this? You tell me.

>This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs.

Since when does pair bonding count as homosexuality? Are two military bros who bond during battle now considered homosexual? Of course not.

>>8751771
What the fuck do you think gays do when they're not having sex?

>>8751797
Lay eggs?

>>8751800
The lining in my duterus doesn't have the enzymes to properly form eggs anymore

>>8751771
i've noticed things like this and it bothers me too
like what is the point of stretching the truth just to make people feel better? if its science you don't need to lie

File: 1457654335770.png (114KB, 293x370px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 293x370px

>>8751680
>>8751669
>>8751736
This

>>8751771
>Since when does pair bonding count as homosexuality?
"In biology, a pair bond is the strong affinity that develops in some species between a pair consisting of a male and female, or in some cases as a same-sex pairing, potentially leading to producing offspring and/or a lifelong bond. Pair-bonding is a term coined in the 1940s[1] that is frequently used in sociobiology and evolutionary biology circles. The term often implies either a lifelong socially monogamous relationship or a stage of mating interaction in socially monogamous species. It is sometimes used in reference to human relationships."
You call this stretching the definition of homosexuality?

>>8751958
Pair bonding is a liberal conspiracy. The only kind of homosexual behaviour is penis in vagina.

>>8751647
What exactly is your issue with the article? I read through parts of it and I don't get your point. There are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviour in animals, which are clearly outlined in the link you provided. What "definiton" are they stretching, exactly?

>>8751993
Forget it. You're clearly one of them.

>>8751647
>wikipedia
>any better that reddit and facebook screeds by people who think they're so much smarter than the common man

>>8751771
Classic redefining the goal posts to support /pol/tard arguments.

>Why would they do this?

Gee I dunno the JEWWWWSS LIBRUL EGNDA GOY GOY GOY SHEEPLE

there we go /thread

>>8752122
(((Oh no))) (((he))) is (((one))) of (((them)))

Fuck off.

>>8752122
oh muh gawd muh redpill is le faild DDDDDDDDDDDDD:

alt knowledge belongs in the garbage

>>8752228
>alt knowledge belongs in the garbage
Exactly why Wikipedia is trash.

>>8752259
>n-nuh you

Pathetic and spineless, like every toadlet laymen trying to speak for scientists.

>>8752268
?

>>8752280
Here's your last (you)

>>8752283
?

File: fuckantifa.png (562KB, 480x569px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 480x569px

fuck you spaghetti soup motherfuckers

>>8752351
This has nothing to do with Antifa. My point is still valid. The scientific definition of homosexuality is not consistent with the real world/practical definition.

>>8751647
do you think this was written by someone here? do you think someone here will bring it up at the next council meeting?

what is the point of this post beyond "muh /pol/"

>>8752351
Middle one.

Antifa and LBGTQHIJKLMNOP etc etc..

are all the same

File: 1502768892439.png (209KB, 333x316px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 333x316px

>>8752122
10/10 argument. You truly fed ((((them)))) that red pill

>>8752122
Well, you completely convinced me! Science is bullshit because some anon on an Indian spice mulling forum just doesn't have good feels about it. You're just as bad as the SJWs. If you have a problem with anything in the article you need to actually explain why and provide evidence to support your position.

>>8751771
>Since when does pair bonding count as homosexuality?
Stopped right here.

You don't even know what "pair bonding" means, but you're trying to suggest the Wiki article is inaccurate? You literally started this thread because you're too stupid and poorly-read on the topic to even understand the goddamn Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article, I might add, which is actually very well written and objective, repeatedly pointing out confusions of terminology usage and limitations of the available research.

You're a fucking idiot. Shut the hell up and go start reading some books - any books, but lean towards non-fiction for the educational benefits. Make it a goal to read a book a week. Don't start a new thread for two years so we don't have to listen to your nonsense until it (hopefully) stops being nonsense.

>>8752971
Of course OP doesn't know what pair bonding is

That would involve, like, actually getting some sort of education, even an informal one. And clearly education is just a way for the Jews and Gays to manipulate free thinkers into being slaves

>>8751647

Is that an FtM?

>>8752971
Sorry sweetie, your liberal propaganda isn't going to fly here. Try convincing the wiki editors instead, they seem to be more your way.

>>8753393
You can literally just search for homosexuality in the animal kingdom with your preferred search engine and ignore wikipedia.

>>8753433
I never thought of that. Thank you. I read this article and he gave me a different perspective of the issue.

http://www.tfp.org/the-qanimal-homosexualityq-myth/

>>8753433
>>8753451
B T F O
T
F
O

>>8753451
>American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property

DURRRRRR WIKIPEDIA IS BIASED

Jesus christ you fucking retard.

Did you even bother to read the first paragraph OP?

> however, that this is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena".[7] Simon LeVay introduced the further caveat that "[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[8]

Im here for the cute animu girls