Gay Animals

I don't know whether to laugh and take it as a joke or to ponder what it says and take it seriously....is it a true article?
 
Lots of debate raged over this topic in my anthropology courses in college.

I tend to believe that there are no homosexual animals. Here's why: although countless species participate in what appears to be same-gender sexual behavior, there has not been one case, to date, of an animal that was exclusively homosexual. Female bonobos may rub their clitorises together, male bulls and dogs may mount each other, yet they all commonly participate in sex with the opposite gender as well. These behaviors, which we perceive as "gay," are probably more likely friendship or dominance behaviors, depending on the species.
 
my sister had gay cats~i've posted this before. she used to breed longhairs. the stud she bought wanted nothing to do with the females,even when theyd go into heat and instead set up house with the housecat perry.
 
Pyper said:
.

Female bonobos may rub their clitorises together



are probably more likely friendship or dominance behaviors,


I do that often.
 
Pyper said:
...I tend to believe that there are no homosexual animals. Here's why: although countless species participate in what appears to be same-gender sexual behavior, there has not been one case, to date, of an animal that was exclusively homosexual. Female bonobos may rub their clitorises together, male bulls and dogs may mount each other, yet they all commonly participate in sex with the opposite gender as well. These behaviors, which we perceive as "gay," are probably more likely friendship or dominance behaviors, depending on the species.

I agree. As the article itself stated, the behaviors were bonding acts or "aggressosexual" behavior (establishing dominance).

There's lots of scientific data for this from actual studies, whereas there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest that an animal can be truly homosexual.

I think it's a form of anthropomorphizing, applying human sexual preferences, labels and definitions on a non-human creature.
 
When I was growing up I had a dog named oddly enough woody (we found him in the woods.) he would exclusivly mount other male dogs even when a bitch in heat would be available.

I know thats nothing conclusive but just a point to think on.
 
for what it counts...

I've observed not one, but two pairs of gay ducks. The first pair I noticed quite a few years ago. They were male mallards, and walked around side by side all the time, swam around close together, fed together, and never left each other's side. I have frequently observed this same exact behavior in mallard duck couples consisting of a male and a female. I don't think it had anything to do with dominance behavior because it wasn't spring, and I never saw them attempt to mate with each other or chase each other away.

Just last week I saw another pair of gay mallard ducks. Again, they were swimming around side by side, keeping each other company. I've never seen male ducks doing that outside of these two couples I've mentioned (and yes, I've seen a lot of ducks-- they're everywhere where I live).

Interesting but useless fact: In Puerto Rico, "pato " ("duck") is slang for a gay male. That makes me wonder if, in fact, quite a few people have observed this same phenomenon in ducks.
 
What about those penguins in the zoo somewhere? Was that central park zoo?
 
There's no such thing as a gay animal. Individuals that mount or otherwise engage in "sexual" acts with those of the same gender have also been observed to do the same with opposite gender individiuals (and no, they're not bi either :rolleyes: ).
 
Etoile said:
What about those penguins in the zoo somewhere? Was that central park zoo?

I do seem to remember some hoopla in the media about gay penguins a while ago.

One thing to remember about same-sex animals that seem to have chosen each other as long time companions, though, is that they are almost always a product of an unnatural upbringing in captivity. For one reason or another, they weren't exposed to natural reproductive behavior and latch on to the "wrong" partner. This seems to be especially common in birds, and might have something to do with their imprinting instincts (think of the many cases of birds that have chosen humans as their parents or as their mates).

In humans, by contrast, homosexuality seems to arise naturally, no matter what the culture or the upbringing.
 
Pyper said:
I do seem to remember some hoopla in the media about gay penguins a while ago.

One thing to remember about same-sex animals that seem to have chosen each other as long time companions, though, is that they are almost always a product of an unnatural upbringing in captivity. For one reason or another, they weren't exposed to natural reproductive behavior and latch on to the "wrong" partner. This seems to be especially common in birds, and might have something to do with their imprinting instincts (think of the many cases of birds that have chosen humans as their parents or as their mates).

In humans, by contrast, homosexuality seems to arise naturally, no matter what the culture or the upbringing.

That makes sense. In fact praying mantis females only kill the males after mating if they're in captivity, so the environment has a profound effect on animal behavior.

But I would like to disagree with the last part.

I don't think that all homoseuxals are necessarily gay because the were 'born that way,' that it's genetic or however one would like to explain it. As far as I know, no 'gay gene' has ever been found...that is, no such study results have been verified by numerous independant, nonprofit sources, although there have been a few unsubstantiated claims.

Anyway, I think some choose to be homosexual and some have felt different ever since they were a young child. My point is, I think it varies. I don't think it's necessarily one way or the other.
 
Stuponfucious said:
That makes sense. In fact praying mantis females only kill the males after mating if they're in captivity, so the environment has a profound effect on animal behavior.

But I would like to disagree with the last part.

I don't think that all homoseuxals are necessarily gay because the were 'born that way,' that it's genetic or however one would like to explain it. As far as I know, no 'gay gene' has ever been found...that is, no such study results have been verified by numerous independant, nonprofit sources, although there have been a few unsubstantiated claims.

Anyway, I think some choose to be homosexual and some have felt different ever since they were a young child. My point is, I think it varies. I don't think it's necessarily one way or the other.

So far as scientists know, you will not find a gay gene. What you'll find is a certain releasing of chemicals at various stages throughout the pregnancy, which scientists are fairly certain (at this point) affect the sexual orientation of the child. The timing of chemical releases, and the strength and type of chemicals seems to be genetic--which is why families with a gay member may have more than one gay family member. In that way, it can be said to be genetic. But there is not, as far as anyone has found, any sort of a gay gene. I woudl argue that many people do have a particular sexual orientation from birth. But since I'm not a specialist in genetics or chemistry, I can't do a very good job of discussing the specifics.
 
Xtaabay said:
So far as scientists know, you will not find a gay gene. What you'll find is a certain releasing of chemicals at various stages throughout the pregnancy, which scientists are fairly certain (at this point) affect the sexual orientation of the child. The timing of chemical releases, and the strength and type of chemicals seems to be genetic--which is why families with a gay member may have more than one gay family member. In that way, it can be said to be genetic. But there is not, as far as anyone has found, any sort of a gay gene. I woudl argue that many people do have a particular sexual orientation from birth. But since I'm not a specialist in genetics or chemistry, I can't do a very good job of discussing the specifics.

Well, I'll buy that, but I feel compelled to say that if there is not a gay gene that we know of, then by definition we can not say it's genetic. The gene(s) that cause the release (or increase) of these chemicals is what is genetic. That may seem like a semantic point, but I think it's important to be clear that homosexuality itself is not directly caused by a genetic factor.

I think it's also important to emphasize again that not all homosexuals are born as such.
 
Last edited:
Stuponfucious said:
Well, I'll buy that, but I feel compelled to say that if there is not a gay gene that we know of, then by definition we can not say it's genetic. The gene(s) that cause the release (or increase) of these chemicals is what is genetic. That may seem like a semantic point, but I think it's important to be clear that homosexuality itself is not directly caused by a genetic factor.

I think it's also important to emphasize again that not all homosexuals are born as such.

Point taken. Instead of saying it's genetic, people could say it was natural (i.e. occurred from the time of formation in the womb) that would be more accurate. However, I get the bad feeling that there will be those who will say "See? It's not genetic! That means all those gay people are freaks, and are capable of changing themselves!" And that's simply not true. I don't believe that being gay, or bi, or whatever one happens to be is unnatural. And while I'm sure there are a few people who have chosen to be bi or whichever way they want to be, I'd wager that the vast majority of people are the way they are because that's how they were born. In other words, I don't believe that being gay or straight or anything else is something one can learn and unlearn (i.e. speaking in strict terms of environmental influence). Sure, it's possible for people to change the expression of their behaviors. For example, I'm sure a lesbian could have sex with a man, but that doesn't mean she'll be happy that way. Actions can always be modified, but what you feel inside cannot. So if anyone tries to argue that "gayness" is something that was "mistakenly learned" I would sincerely have to disagree.
 
Stuponfucious said:
Well, I'll buy that, but I feel compelled to say that if there is not a gay gene that we know of, then by definition we can not say it's genetic.

That's incorrect. Most of our genetic characteristics are not caused by "a gene" by rather a complicated combination of genes and chromosomes. Something as simple as eye color is caused by the combination of multiple genes. Even if homosexuality is genetic, we are extremely far from finding what part of our genome contributes, simply due to the complexity of it and our newness to the field. Also, saying that just because we haven't found it means it doesn't exist is extremely naive.

Research that has been done on the topic of what makes homosexuals homosexual is very limited so far. As Xtaabay said, some scientists believe that it is caused by hormones in the womb. Research done on male homosexuals does confirm that their brain chemistry is different from that of straight men, so there is a definite biological link, disproving the idea that sexual orientation is purely psychological.
 
Pyper said:
That's incorrect. Most of our genetic characteristics are not caused by "a gene" by rather a complicated combination of genes and chromosomes. Something as simple as eye color is caused by the combination of multiple genes.

I know, but even if it is determined that there is a gene (or chromosome or whatever) that causes it or gives someone a genetic predisposition toward it, that doesn't mean that they will necessarily be homosexual. IMO environmental factors and thought processes still play a vital role in the development of personality traits.

But regardless, my point is that if homosexuality in SOME cases is proven to have genetic factors related to it, that doesn't necessarily mean it's purely genetic, especially considering that in many cases the person chooses to be homosexual.

It's a variation of the old Nature vs. Nurture debate. Do genetics essentially predetermine our health and the sort of life we'll lead or does environment have a greater impact? I think it varies from individual to individual, but in general I believe neither is necessarily true.

Even if homosexuality is genetic, we are extremely far from finding what part of our genome contributes, simply due to the complexity of it and our newness to the field. Also, saying that just because we haven't found it means it doesn't exist is extremely naive.

I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said we can not SAY it exists if we haven't detected it yet. It's the difference between fact and theory. What I was saying was, if we have not yet detected a gene and/or chromosome that directly 'causes' homosexuality, then we can not reasonably claim (at this time) that it is purely genetic.

Research that has been done on the topic of what makes homosexuals homosexual is very limited so far. As Xtaabay said, some scientists believe that it is caused by hormones in the womb. Research done on male homosexuals does confirm that their brain chemistry is different from that of straight men, so there is a definite biological link, disproving the idea that sexual orientation is purely psychological.

Well, of course there are people who say they always felt different from the other kids and there are people who say they chose to be gay later on in adult life. So neither the idea that all homosexuals are born that way or the idea that all of them choose to be homosexual is valid IMO. As I said, it varies from individual to individual I think.

Just because the homosexual men tested did have brain chemistry different from that of straight men, does not mean that all homosexuals have different brain chemistry. And even if they did, that doesn't mean that the chemistry 'caused' thier homosexuality. Cause and effect have yet to be determined.
 
So.... what would pictures do to prove or disprove this?

I did a search, and I'm not sure what to think of what I found.... But anyways... posting

[edit] copyrighted image removed [/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bull Elk mating?

[edit] copyrighted image removed [/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[edit] copyrighted image removed [/edit]
Male Lions????

[edit] copyrighted image removed [/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[edit] copyrighted image removed [/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I take it the removed images featured animals of the same gender engaging in what appeared to be sexual behavior? I don't see how that proves anything one way or the other personally. As has already been stated (even in the article that the originator of this thread cited) a male humping another male isn't necessarily for sexual gratification, it's an act of dominance.

Similarly, female bonobos who rub thier genitals together are not necessarily 'lesbians' or even bisexual, they're merely consoling and comforting the other or both.
 
Stuponfucious said:
I take it the removed images featured animals of the same gender engaging in what appeared to be sexual behavior?
Yep. They were from zoofur.com if anybody feels like seeking them out for themselves.
 
Back
Top