Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?

Arash Fereydooni March 14, 2012 29

Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought. Although Darwin’s theory of natural selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world.

Human beings are not the only animals to exhibit homosexual behavior. Photo courtesy of the globalanimal.org.

Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.” In addition, male giraffes have also been observed engaging in homosexual behavior by rubbing their necks against each others’ bodies while ignoring the females. Yet another example is lizards of the genus Teiidae, which can copulate with both male and female mates.

Biologists Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk from the University of California, Riverside have investigated the evolutionary consequences and implications of same-sex behavior, and their findings demonstrate benefits to what seems to be an evolutionary paradox. For example, their studies of the Laysan albatross show that female-female pairing can increase fitness by taking advantage of the excess of females and shortage of males in the population and provide superior care for offspring. Moreover, same-sex pairing in many species actually alleviates the likelihood of divorce and curtails the pressure on the opposite sex by allowing members to exhibit more flexibility to form partnerships, which in turn strengthens social bonds and reduces competition. Thus, not only do animals exhibit homosexuality, but the existence of this behavior is quite prevalent and may also confer certain evolutionary advantages.

29 Comments »

  1. eddandi July 3, 2013 at 7:14 PM - Reply

    so if i shake another guy’s hand – that’s homoexual behaviour?!?

    • Ricky Coleman January 7, 2014 at 4:55 PM - Reply

      No, shaking hands is not a display of homosexuality. But asking that question is a display of homophobia, don’t you think?

    • josh January 14, 2014 at 1:48 AM - Reply

      Yes, It is.

  2. Rich July 29, 2013 at 10:09 AM - Reply

    Well if shaking another guys hand was a courtship ritual than Yes. Some people may not like the idea that homosexuality is found elsewhere in nature, whilst homophobia isn’t. Celebrating diversity in nature as opposed to old dogmas.

    • Chris April 26, 2014 at 10:23 AM - Reply

      ” Well if shaking another guys hand was a courtship ritual than Yes. ”

      You mean like hugging? Some completely heterosexual men kiss each other too. The fact remains that at least the vast, vast majority of cases where people are saying this is so evident in other species are just blatant confirmation bias. It is an absolute and total assumption. How do you know that the reason males sometimes engage in “mating rituals” with other males isn’t because they get confused and think it is a female because the other females are not in heat? Animals brains never misfire now? Dogs don’t ever hump a leg? Cats don’t chase after their own tail because they think it is an animal? Sometimes instincts kick in when they aren’t supposed to. Some “science” this is.

  3. Jazmine August 2, 2013 at 11:23 PM - Reply

    I don’t understand why no ones ever mentioned this before? I understand homosexuality was taboo… it still is somewhat… but you’d think even recent scientific magazines since they are scientists would mention this homosexuality? From a few articles I’ve read it’s sometimes a display of dominance, unless of course it’s a male and a female and the female is “at that time of the month.”

  4. Happylada August 15, 2013 at 10:27 PM - Reply

    Sry to rain on this parade, but just where are the citations? Lots of statements, no proof. Where are the peer reviews? or is this simply another feel good piece for the ay crowd? remember the thalamus gland fraud? and how many people touited it as a scientific breakthrough?

    Totally made up by moving the shells around. Is this any better?

    And even IF this could be verified, so what. Animals rape, canibalize and abandon their young. Does that mean that humans should do the same?

    If Darwin’s theory contradicts the findings of this study, then it must assuredly be false.

    • equalityv January 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM - Reply

      The idea isnt that we should do those things because animals should(even though humans do the same and much worse.) The idea is that this fact makes it so that the “its not natural” arguement is complete bullshit. Also you do realize this is Yale Scientific right? Now please stop being an ignorant bigot and just realize your sides losing.

    • Tina February 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM - Reply

      All very valid points… Thank you.

  5. Skitch August 16, 2013 at 10:52 PM - Reply

    total bs…ascribing human qualities to non human creatures.That`s called anthropomorphism. Men in Europe used to walk arm in arm down the street.They weren`t gay. Women kissed each other on the lips. They weren`t gay. This article reeks of political correctness and gay agenda. We`re humans, you idiots. The animal kingdom is foreign turf. How can you possibly ascribe motivation to a non reasoning animal?
    Animals also engage in infanticide and cannibalism. Should we include those characteristics too? Absolutely asinine article.

    • equalityv January 7, 2014 at 2:31 PM - Reply

      Actually the animal kingdom is not so foriegn. Considering the fact we evolved from animals our instincts are very similar to theres. Also this study prooves that the “its not natural”arguement is wrong and thusly unusable as an arguement against gay rights.

    • john March 24, 2014 at 4:43 PM - Reply

      Photos of sperm whales engaged in “penis fencing” isn’t anthropomorphizing. Video of Great Horned Rams engaged in full penetration anal intercourse, with the one on the bottom adjusting his position to facilitate entry, are not anthropomorphizing. Noting that roughly 10% of deer in any given herd never attempt to mate with females, while willingly mating with other males is not anthropomorphizing.
      p.s.
      that term is WAY over used.

  6. Sean K August 20, 2013 at 1:32 PM - Reply

    Are there any recorded instances of animals actually engaging in the practice of sodomy? While some mammals my practice certain “courtship” rituals, this article does not address the issue of anal penetration. It would seem that Humans are the only species on the planet who engage in this practice.

  7. Hmm August 24, 2013 at 4:28 PM - Reply

    Seems like some are butthurt here.

    We are all homosexual and heterosexual to some degree. Like it or not. They same characteristics of gender differentiation and mixtures can be found in other creatures. Some even have different mating strategies than the M-F needed in humans to give birth.

  8. Jason September 17, 2013 at 5:20 PM - Reply

    There are plenty of instances of anal intercourse observed. Specifically in big horned rams where the one being mounted has been observed to adjust his position to facilitate entry.

    • alpha October 20, 2013 at 11:43 AM - Reply

      Well can you cite one of those numerous instances????????????

  9. Richard November 1, 2013 at 5:44 PM - Reply

    I have seen with my own eyes animals of the same sex practice mating( the big horned rams; those popular in west Africa) and this amazed me, funny enough people saw it as a normal act and left them to their vices. I have read some of the comments above saying and calling for proof of the source of the article, well you can investigate on your own or rather get on youtube to see live videos. However, I also came across, comments stating that animals carry-out cannibalism, and infanticide( and I know that incest also occurs in the animal kingdom) and the fact that humans should not practice these acts. The point of the article is not a “validate” infanticide or incest or in the context of the article homosexuality in humans, but to point out that it is in fact natural, as opposed to the “made-to-become” belief of sexual orientation. One comment pointed-out that we as a Higher class are capable of intellect and shouldn’t be reduced to mere non-humans, but have failed to remember(if they knew before) that animals do not “think(at least not on a human level if they think at all)” before doing anything, they only act on solely instinct and instinct is a VERY natural(yes natural) aspect of all animals. Infanticide, cannibalism, incest, homosexuality and so on have all occurred humans (the higher class) and all the above mentioned should be considered wrong except incest(because that’s how your ancestors came to being; how did the first man and woman give birth and how did their children; siblings, have their own children?) and homosexuality, because these two do not physically harm the individuals involved, except the “sickness” that comes with continues in-breeding. However, homosexuality doesn’t always involve anal-sex like closed mind people would like to think. Animals mentioned above were said to engage in non-sexual activities as well. Lastly, as humans, our instinctive behaviours (Cannibalism, Infanticide, polygamy, incest, homosexuality; because its “openly” rare) have been shaped by mostly religion(which influenced our social behaviour to detest them) among other reasons, regardless, the non-murderous(except incest) “instinctive” characteristics like polygamy and homosexuality, are still practised today. In some cultures, polygamy is wrong, and is some it is ok, having multiple sexual partners is polygamy in a non-defined state(so you know), but yet is not frowned upon in some societies, but is detested in some among others. All of the above are practiced in the animal kingdom, but they are not intelligent to “think” and say “God said this is wrong, meaning we shouldn’t do it” instead to totally surrender to nature’s(including homosexuality) call.

  10. Karl November 20, 2013 at 11:50 PM - Reply

    Well Skitch, you should learn something, Humans are in the Animal Kingdom, if you say were not, well then, Chimpanzees aren’t either, dumbass

  11. Matt January 19, 2014 at 5:00 AM - Reply

    for those looking for citations you can look up homosexual behavior in animals on Wikipedia and at the bottom you will find all the citations. religion and personal feelings aside, factually homosexuality occurs NATURALLY in nature among virtually all animals that have sex, this article is referring to observed “relationships” of a sort, but broader studies observe that all animal species that have sex, have some that engage in same sex acts. the fact that this occurs naturally is De Facto proof that it is in fact natural, and not “unnatural behavior” as it is coined by some. Humans fall into that category as well. But then enters the religion and personal views to bury or cloud the issue, which it undoubtedly will.

    • john March 24, 2014 at 4:49 PM - Reply

      People always ask for citations, as if its so hard to type a search phrase into the engine of choice. I guess that would give them too many citations to chase down.

  12. Cathi Andrews February 5, 2014 at 10:24 PM - Reply

    Amazing what a stretch. lmbo

  13. Shawn February 6, 2014 at 4:38 PM - Reply

    This is what I call pseudo-science… This is coming from an agnostic who holds zero religious doctrine. Homosexuality is not just ONE thing. It’s a combo of heredity – environment – and nurturing of young… Sadly, child abuse and neglect plays apart in some as well. It this time , it is not politically correct to give these answers though.

    • dannymayk April 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM - Reply

      Child abuse and neglect causes homosexuality? Really?
      Can you cite a reliable source that observes that correlation?

  14. Shii May 1, 2014 at 4:04 AM - Reply

    You know what I really love? The fact that people care SO MUCH about what other people do in the bedroom! “Homosexuality is wrong”. Well then don’t marry someone who has the same parts as you! “Sodomy is wrong”. Why are you thinking about it in the first place?!

  15. Jabanaster May 9, 2014 at 2:05 PM - Reply

    from ”Born that way” theory

    The Animal Homosexuality Myth

    by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

    The following article is adapted from the author’s recently published book, Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement

    In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:

    Homosexuality is genetic or innate;Homosexuality is irreversible;Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises,[2] the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.[3]

    Animals Do It, So It’s Natural, Right?

    The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:

    - Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
    - Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
    - Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
    - Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
    - Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature.This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?

    In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

    There is no “homosexual instinct” in animals,It is poor science to “read” human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, andIrrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

    Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal “homosexuality,” “filicide” and “cannibalism” are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

    – Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts

    To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.

    Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.

    Third, an animal’s instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal’s behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.

    In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]

    At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal’s instinctive impulses result in cases of animal “filicide,” “cannibalism” and “homosexuality.”

    – Animal “Filicide” and “Cannibalism”

    Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving “mixed signals” from their instincts:

    Most female cats can switch between “play mode” and “hunt mode” in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of “hunt mode” may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the “hunting” instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue…. Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]– Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States

    To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.

    Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man’s disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They “borrow,” so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.

    – Explaining Seemingly “Homosexual” Animal Behavior

    Bonobos are a typical example of this “borrowing.” These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:

    There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding conflict.

    First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.

    Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter’s mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]

    Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.”[8]

    Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

    Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance–in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent…. And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]Other animals engage in seemingly “homosexual” behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

    – “Homosexual” Animals Do Not Exist

    In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

    Although 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.[11]Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]It Is Unscientific To “Read” Human Motivation
    And Sentiment Into Animal Behavior

    Like many animal rights activists, homosexual activists often “read” human motivation and sentiment into animal behavior. While this anthropopathic approach enjoys full citizenship in the realms of art, literature, and mythology it makes for poor science. Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) observes:

    The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal’s motivation he is applying human psychodynamics–a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.[13]Ethologist Cesar Ades explains the difference between human and animal sexual relations:Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure….The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.[14]Even biologist Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was cited by the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association in their amici curiae brief in Lawrence v. Texas and is touted as proof that homosexuality is natural among animals, is careful to include a caveat:Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer–in both the gathering and interpretation of data–come to the forefront in this situation…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.”[15]Dr. Bagemihl’s interpretation, however, throughout his 750-page book unabashedly favors the animal homosexuality theory. Its pages are filled with descriptions of animal acts that would have a homosexual connotation in human beings. Dr. Bagemihl does not prove, however, that these acts have the same meaning for animals. He simply gives them a homosexual interpretation. Not surprisingly, his book was published by Stonewall Inn Editions, “an imprint of St. Martin’s Press devoted to gay and lesbian interest books.”

    Irrational Animal Behavior Is No Blueprint For Rational Man

    Some researchers studying animal “homosexual” behavior extrapolate from the realm of science into that of philosophy and morality. These scholars reason from the premise that if animals do it, it is according to their nature and thus is good for them. If it is natural and good for animals, they continue, it is also natural and morally good for man. However, the definition of man’s nature belongs not to the realm of zoology or biology, but philosophy, and the determination of what is morally good for man pertains to ethics.

    Dr. Marlene Zuk, professor of biology at the University of California at Riverside, for example, states:

    Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. … Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.[16]Simon LeVay entertains the hope that the understanding of animal “homosexuality” will help change societal mores and religious beliefs about homosexuality. He states:It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of nonprocreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is “against nature”: the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.[17]Other researchers feel compelled to point out the impropriety of transposing animal behavior to man. Although very favorable to the homosexual interpretation of animal behavior, Paul L. Vasey, of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, nevertheless cautions:For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.[18]The animal kingdom is no place for man to seek a blueprint for human morality. That blueprint, as bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti notes, must be sought in man himself:It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. …. The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.[19]The fact that man has a body and sensitive life in common with animals does not mean he is strictly an animal. Nor does it mean that he is a half-animal. Man’s rationality pervades the wholeness of his nature so that his sensations, instincts and impulses are not purely animal but have that seal of rationality which characterizes them as human.

    Thus, man is characterized not by what he has in common with animals, but by what differentiates him from them. This differentiation is fundamental, not accidental. Man is a rational animal. Man’s rationality is what makes human nature unique and fundamentally distinct from animal nature.[20]

    To consider man strictly as an animal is to deny his rationality and, therefore, his free will. Likewise, to consider animals as if they were human is to attribute to them a non-existent rationality.

    From Science To Mythology

    Dr. Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance research displays his fundamental dissatisfaction with science and enthusiasm for aboriginal mythology:

    Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures about systems of gender and sexuality…[21]

    To Western science, homosexuality (both animal and human) is an anomaly, an unexpected behavior that above all requires some sort of “explanation” or “cause” or “rationale.” In contrast, to many indigenous cultures around the world, homosexuality and transgender are a routine and expected occurrence in both the human and animal worlds…[22]

    Most Native American tribes formally recognize–and honor–human homosexuality and transgender in the role of the ‘two-spirit’ person (sometimes formerly known as berdache). The ‘two-spirit’ is a sacred man or woman who mixes gender categories by wearing clothes of opposite or both sexes …. And often engaging in same -sex relations. … In many Native American cultures, certain animals are also symbolically associated with two-spiritedness, often in the form of creation myths and origin legends relating to the first or “supernatural” two-spirit(s)….A Zuni creation story relates how the first two spirits–creatures that were neither male nor female, yet both at the same time–were the twelve offspring of a mythical brother-sister pair. Some of these creatures were human, but one was a bat and another an old buck Deer.[23]

    Dr. Bagemihl applies this androgynous myth, so widespread in today’s homosexual movement, to the animal kingdom with the help of Indian and aboriginal mythology. He invites the West to embrace “a new paradigm:”[24]Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological Exuberance brings us full circle–back to the way of looking at the world that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This perspective dissolves binary oppositions….Biological Exuberance is…a worldview that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable.[25]Conclusion

    In summary, 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.

    Luiz Sérgio Solimeo joined the Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) in 1959. As a researcher and writer, he specializes in philosophical and theological topics and has several published works. Mr. Solimeo has been in the United States assisting the American TFP since 1999.

    In this article, Mr. Solimeo develops a section of Chapter 11, “Answering the Movement’s Scientific Arguments,” of the new bookDefending A Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement (Spring Grove, Penn.: The American TFP, 2004) — ISBN 1-877905-33-X — 232 pages — paperback — $14.95 (s/h included) — To order, call toll-free (866) 661-0272. 

    [1] The expression homosexual movement is used to designate a vast network of organizations, pressure groups, intellectuals and activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs, morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not only tolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, movement activists pressure society to legalize both the practice and the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as same-sex “marriage,” while relentlessly assailing those who defend traditional morals. 

    [2] For a brief overview of the evidence debunking the “it is in the genes” and the irreversibility of same-sex orientation theories see the TFP’s flyer “Not Genetic! Not Irreversible! Not Natural!” http://www.tfp.org/tfc/boston_scientific.pdf. 

    [3] Cf. Simon LeVay, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999). 

    [4] Cf. RŽgis Jolivet, TraitŽ de Philosophie, (Lyon-Paris: Emmanuel Vitte, ƒditeur, 1950), Vol. 2, pp. 306-396. 

    [5] Sarah Hartwell, Cats that kill kittens, at http://www.messybeast.com/kill_kit.htm (Our emphasis.) 

    [6] “Cannibalism in Animals.” (Our emphasis.) 

    [7] Frans B. M. de Waal, “Bonobo Sex and Society,” Scientific American, Mar. 1995, pp. 82-88, http://www.songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html. (Our emphasis.) 

    [8] “Cachorro Gay?” Focinhos Online, www2.uol.com.br/focinhos/petsnodiva/index.shtml. 

    [9] Jacque Lynn Schultz, “Getting Over the Hump,” ASPCA Animal Watch, Summer 2002, http://www.petfinder.org/journalindex.cgi?path=/public/animalbehavior/dogs/1.2.36.txt&template. (Our emphasis.) 

    [10] Ibid. (Our emphasis.) 

    [11] LeVay, p. 207. 

    [12] Antonio Pardo, “Aspectos mŽdicos de la homosexualidad,” Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89. 

    [13] “Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality,” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/exploding.html. (Our emphasis.) 

    [14] “Cachorro Gay?” 

    [15] Bagemihl, p. 2. (Our emphasis.) 

    [16] Dinitia Smith, “Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name,” The New York Times, Feb. 7, 2004. (Our emphasis.) 

    [17] LeVay, p. 209. 

    [18] Quoted by Dinitia Smith, “Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name.” 

    [19] Bruto Maria Bruti, Domande e risposte sul problema dell’omosessualitˆ, www.paginecattoliche.it/domande-_omosessualita.htm. (Our emphasis.) 

    [20] “Man is correctly defined as a rational animal; animal refers to the proximate genus; rational refers to the specific differentiation.” Joannes di Napoli, Manuale Philosophiae (Turin, Italy: Marietti Editori, 1961), Vol. 2, p. 165. 

    [21] Bagemihl, p. 5. 

    [22] Ibid., p. 215. 

    [23] Ibid., p. 216. 

    [24] “The final chapter of part 1, ‘A New Paradigm: Biological Exuberance,’ calls for a radical rethinking of the way we view the natural world. This revisioning begins with an exploration of another, alternative set of human interpretations: traditional beliefs about animal homosexuality/transgender in indigenous cultures.” Ibid., p. 5. 

    [25] Ibid., p. 262.

  16. Vix June 4, 2014 at 10:33 AM - Reply

    It seems to me that the definition of “Homosexual Behavior” has changed in the last 60 years or so. When I was a child it was not unusual to see teenage girls holding hands while out walking or shopping, or dancing together at a wedding reception. It wasn’t too unusual for two men or two women to live together and form a lifelong bond, but not (at least openly) participate in sexual activity. Back in those days living openly with someone of the opposite sex was extremely taboo. Today these folks, some of them like J. Edgar Hoover who would have been surprised to be called homosexual, are being said to be just that. I don’t have a problem with gay and lesbian relationships. In a world that can sometimes be brusque and mean, it is a wonderful thing to find a loving relationship, I’m happy for any two people who can find love together. I think it is sad, though, to speculate publicly whether some same-sex couples from the past were anything more than companions because the way we view relationships has changed. There might still be relatives or friends who may be hurt by this speculation and it skews history.

    I would like to comment that I have witnessed at least one strong and abiding sexual same-sex relationship in the animal world. There was a pair of female dogs (sisters) dumped on my uncles’ farm in the mid-1960s. I don’t remember the exact circumstances, only that they were not meant to survive. These girls were very close and were sexual almost exclusively with each other even though there were other male and female dogs on the farm. Growing up, I was touched by their relationship, and have never seen another animal relationship that was closer. However, there are some aspects of this relationship that would bother me if it was a human one that did not bother me because it was an animal one. The fact that they were siblings was somewhere in the middle of the factors that concerned me. I am wondering if there has been any research into the genetic relationship of animals that have demonstrated close, bonded same sex relationships in the wild as compared with those that mate with opposite sex partners and produce offspring. Are these relationships more common among siblings? Are they more likely in instances where population growth is not needed or would be counter survival? Is the relationship related to survival, for example, in penguins where the males are left to hatch the eggs and nurture the hatchlings in harsh conditions it might be good to have 2 males who are bonded and help one another.

  17. Sam June 12, 2014 at 11:19 AM - Reply

    The interpretations of these observation are far from convincing in any shape or form. It is mindboggling that a scientific journal reports such flawed interpretations as correct conclusion.
    There are many reason why animals of the same sex bond, but does that amount to the modern human construct of homosexuality. Unless you are biased, no of course not.
    The big mistake made is to read human understanding, issues, or confusion into animal behavior.
    There are many social inclinations in animals:
    Domination, pheromon confusion of males recently involved heterosexual mating, mounting as an assertion of bonding rather for sexual tendencies, extreem male heat period, lack of access to females.
    Furthermore, when one takes a look at 450 species, one finds large portion of animals as hermaphrodites, these are male/female organs equipped animals, or sexually morphic animals..hence can’t be interpreted as homosexuals. because homosexual means exclusively homosexual.

  18. Johna981 September 25, 2014 at 8:51 AM - Reply

    I have read several good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you put to make such a magnificent informative web site. ecdeefkedgdd

Leave A Response »