why do people say that other animals can be homosexual?

Question

It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

the homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science.

in other words, it is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, since humans are more complex..

by the way, have u ever seen two female species ever having a "relationship" hehe

Answer 1

I wonder why you feel so strongly about homosexuality. Obviously, you think it a choice rather than a sexual behavior based in biology. A bold statement, especially when you now have taken on the responsibility to convince us of your argument. Unfortuantely, you are not presenting any support for your statement, which is surprising, given that you claim that the notion of homosexual behavior in animals is bad philosophy and poor science. You have yet to make that case.

Homosexual behavior has been found in numerous species, both primates and other vertebrates. It is quite easily observable: animals have sex with same-sex partners even in the presence of members of the opposite sex. It is true, they don;t room together and listen to Judy Garland records or go to "World of Music" sing-alongs. But that is no reason to belittle the fact that the relationship between two bonobo males having sex is entirely simplistic and little different from two amoebas reproducing. Cognitive abilities have evolved to greater complexity with social requirements. Face recognition, learning, reconsiliatory behavior, empathy, etc. all evolved to great complexity in numerous social animals, and that includes us. Within such social organizations sex is not simply a means to reproduce. It is part and parcel of maintaining social order and stability. It is crucial for group building and for maintaining bonds between individuals. Consequently, what we see in animals that display homosexual behavior is very much indiciative of the natural basis - obviously further affected by all sorts of socio-sexual experiences - of sexual behavior in humans.

However, you could of course argue that only because it is alright for two same-sex animals to have sex with one another, this does not mean we as humans should think it right to do the same. As you suggest, there may be moral implications. However, now the ball is once again in your court. What would those morals have to look like for your argument to hold? Personally, I believe that acts of genuine love are in no way detrimental for any society, unless they involve acts against unconscenting others. If the relationship between two people is based on mutual respect, love and agreement I cannot see how such behavior could hurt society. On the other hand, I can see how violence within relationships does, and we find such violence in all sorts of relationships, regardless of sexual orientation.

You may argue that sex without love would be detrimental to society, and that homosexuals have more sex of that kind. However, first, you would have to say that loveless sex is not exclusively a homosexual phenomenon, and therefore you would have to include heterosexual people as well. Furthermore, the assumption that such sexual behavior displays a statistical bias towards homosexuality begs proof. So far, studies have failed to make the case, since the data that could possibly support such statements is hopelessly flawed with errors in experimental design. (As you pointed out yourself, human behavior is very complex, and to get rid of the great degree of variation is excruciatingly difficult. For example, would heterosexuals behave any different if after having to live for years in the closet, not being able to experience their sexuality as normal, they finally get to live in a way where their sexuality is socially accepted? All I have to say is college dormatories and frat boys...)

The notion that gonadal sex equals sexuality is a rather bold statement that lacks any substantial support. On the contrary, research has shown beyond any doubt that while gonadal sex may be in most cases clearly determined, sexuality shows great variability. It seems fairly easy to determine the "normal" behavior of males versus females, but the intrasex variation is at times confusingly greater than the intersex variation. This begs for explanation, and the notion, which I assume you hold, that gonadal sex begs one typical sexual behavior is simply not sustainable.

Of course, at this point you could argue that neither is sociopathic behavior, thereby moving homosexual (or, as it would be far more accurate, bisexual) behavior into the realm of pathology. Although a very common move, it brings us right back to the problem of conscent and intent. Of course, if a man rapes a little boy we are dealing with a pathologic behavior, but we are also NOT dealing with homosexuality. When people however, act out of love, thereby strengthening their society by living in example (not int he example of having same sex sex, but in the example of sharing life in love), there is nothing sick about it. Moreover, according to the World Health Organization "health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" (WHO, 1946). The only reason why many bi- or homo- or transsexuals would not be healthy is because their society does not accept them and create a situation in which their mental and social well being is indeed impaired. In that context, many homosexuals are indeed sick, but to heal them we would not have to make them have heterosexual sex, but rather we would have to remove the true cause for their sense of feeling bad, namely our societal pressures that lack any good reason other than a phobia of that which is foreign.

Finally, you ask about "female species". Given that you are obviously not a biologist, I think such an honest mistake can be forgiven, but it should nonetheless be corrected. Male and female referrs to the sex of an individual in sexualy reproducing species. What determines an individual's sex as male or female is the size of the gametes its gonads produce. The sex producing the larger gametes is referred to as female. Now, in your defense, their are indeed female species, which then reproduce parthogenetically. An example is the whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus uniparens), which consists exclusively of female animals. Interestingly though, these females have to physically have sex in which of course no sperm is transfered from one to the other female. However, behaviorally, the pseudomale animal acts exactly like a male (mounting the animal, biting it to hold it in place, rubbing its cloaca onto the cloaca of the other female), while the female-acting female in the mating acts entirely like females would in other Cnemidophorus species. Without the mating the female acting as female would not be able to reproduce, since her egg cells would not begin to divide. Interesting, wouldn't you say? Now here, you truly have a female species.

Answer 2

No, it's not trying to establish that humans are more complex, but instead proving that animals based on primal instinct can be homosexual and therefore exist "naturally" because everyone is pointing the fingers at gays and are forcing homosexuals to prove that they are normal and not deviant.

It is not poor science to put emotions that humans feel into animals that feel that same emotion, for instance the behaviors of my cats towards one another sometimes sparks that of curiosity and jealousy, because these are things that humans feel, suddenly animals cannot feel them either? You cannot prove that animals do not have the motivations and sentiments that you claim are "human"

Homosexuality is not an irrational animal behavior.
There is no empirical data suggesting that humans are more "complex". Why do you state these ignorant questions as fact and talk bs?

Answer 3

When 99% of the human genome matches that of primates, of which have homosexual tendencies, there is bound to be a connection of behaviors. In certain species 75% of sexual contact is for a non-reproductive purpose. In addition, some species are entirely bi-sexual. The functions would include bonding, conflict resolution, and pleasure. If homosexuality is a reality in most other mammals how could there not be a link?

Answer 4

"Homo" means same, "sexual" refers to sex acts in this context....so two organisms of the same sex being sexually active is the definition of homosexual.

I am not gay.

As a scientist while here on this earth this life I know many animals and humans have same sex sex. That does NOT mean that I have projected any of my human or heterosexual motivations or sentiments onto animal behavior. It IS in biological nature and part of biology frequently, but it is not the majority or most common way!!! THis orientation in humans is more and more likely to be of genetic origin as well, although there are some environmental factors that can affect this orientation.

What it seems you are having trouble with is your definition of "nature and natural" along with definitions of morality, wrong, right. Spirit and spirituality is what is our eternal nature and truly natural state is while we are riding in this "unnatural" material-animal body that is part of the temporary illusory "material-cosmos." When we are body-matter identified, however, we are more ignorant, less spiritual-eternally identified and are not able to make distinctions knowledgeable, informed, enlightened distinctions between

matter vs spirit
eternal vs temporary
truth vs illusion

It is not until we are able to understand and know these distinctions clearly that our less intelligent and ignorant sleeping human-animal motivations, sentiments and definitions (veils of illusion) can be pulled aside from our blind eyes, weak senses, dirty hearts and false egos that we can see our true eternal nature as spirit-souls tring to get back Home to Him.

Answer 5

I only say it when people say that only humans exhibit homosexual behavior, because it's not true. There are several examples of species that exhibit similar behavior that scientists have backed up with detailed observation.

Doesn't mean that everything animals do should justify what humans do, but when someone says "Only humans do X," then why not cite other species if the statement about humans is untrue?

Answer 6

Animals are a lot more like us than you realize. They have emotions, attachments and can fall prey to many things we can fall prey to. I do know that there are animals who will display homosexual behavior. I don't know if it means they are gay or they are just being animals willing to experiment around with their pals. But really, get over what other people are. And realize that animals are just as complex as we are physically, physiologically, and emotionally. Enjoy life. Don't get hung up on people and things you don't like or understand. There's more fun than that to get into.

Answer 7

Homosexualty exists and always existed at animals. You shoud watch Dicovery Chanel or National Geographic and you can see there some shows with monkeys haveing sex male-to-male or female-to-female.Even dogs do it and almost all the animals.Homosexuality is normal, having sex with an animal for example is not!!!

Answer 8

Just because animals are less complex, doesn't mean homosexuality is not possible within them.

Answer 9

There are many, many documented cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

And humans are animals (advanced primates) as well, whether you like it or not.

Answer 10

You have a valid point. Too many people project themselves onto thier pets, mainly dogs.
Ever walk by a person walking a dog, and when they see you, they start admonishing the dog?