1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.

From the middle of October until next summer the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo will host the first exhibition that focuses on homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals.

"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."

Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy".

Homosexuality is a social phenomenon and is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.

Among the apes it is the females that create the continuity within the group. The social network is maintained not only by sharing food and the child rearing, but also by having sex. Among many of the female apes the sex organs swell up. So they rub their abdomens against each other," explains Petter Bockman and points out that animals have sex because they have the desire to, just like we humans.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.

"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."

Indeed, there is a number of animals in which homosexual behaviour has never been observed, such as many insects, passerine birds and small mammals.

"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Petter Bockman regrets that there is too little research about homosexuality among animals.

"The theme has long been taboo. The problem is that researchers have not seen for themselves that the phenomenon exists or they have been confused when observing homosexual behaviour or that they are fearful of being ridiculed by their colleagues. Many therefore overlook the abundance of material that is found. Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles."

One example of overlooking behaviour noted by Petter Bockman is a description of mating among giraffes, when nine out of ten pairings occur between males.

"Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only "revolving around" dominance, competition or greetings.

Masturbation is common in the animal kingdom.

"Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark," says Petter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum.


  1. Josiah Jeong Josiah Jeong United States says:

    I enjoyed reading this article so much. It is pretty interesting that you veered our fervant attention on 'homosexuality between human beings' to that of between animals.

    I was aware that masturbation among animals is common, but this fresh phenomenon is just astonishing. Homosexuality between animals seems to be humorous, but homosexuality between men and women is not a light issue. I believe that our sex is more than instruments that help us achieve sexual pleasure. If that is the case, it would be pointless to restrict people from bizzare crimes involving our sex.

    • Leigh Sabio Leigh Sabio United States says:

      I'm sorry, Josiah, but that comment came off as a bit homophobic. Not all gays or lesbians use each other just as instruments of sexual pleasure. Many have sex for exactly the same reason that a straight couple with no intention of having kids would have sex: because they're attracted to each other, in love, and want a physical and emotional connection with the one they love.

      There is a world of difference between homosexuality and "weird sex crimes." Namely, that difference is consent. Homosexuality is nothing like bestiality or pedophilia, because an animal or a child cannot give consent, but a person of the same sex as you can.

      • Sarah Northwood Sarah Northwood United States says:

        maybe an example that is more similar would be between a father and a daughter or siblings.  What is it that tells us that something like this is? If there is not a standard of right and wrong, it is left up to each person's judgment. That leads to the breakdown of society.

      • J.R. Sorrow J.R. Sorrow Japan says:

        Homophobic, why when people disagree with homosexual behavior are they deemed homophobic? I am not fearful of homosexual people but if I disagree with that behavior I'm called homphobic. It does not take a rocket scientist to see how men and women are created and it doesn't take a rocket sceintist to see how this thing is supposed to work.

        • Brian Cartwright Brian Cartwright Canada says:

          If I disagree with Jews acting Jewish, am I anti-semitic? Yes. If I want black people to stop acting so black, am I racist? Yes. You don't know what the word phobia means. It's not just "fear". It's also "aversion". Look it up. Jesus.

          • Ed B Ed B Canada says:

            I disagree with homosexual behavior.  I also don't think people should get tattoos. I disagree that people should eat dogs or dolphins.

            Disagreeing with a persons or groups behavior does not constitute a phobia.

            • Sunny McCullough Sunny McCullough United States says:

              Notice, too, the only one resorting to hateful ad-hominem attack is Mr. Cartwright.  :?  Sadly, that is typical.

              • Carol Cumbie Carol Cumbie United States says:

                The same people that gave Obama a Nobel prize are you kidding me. I breed dogs and there are times dogs hump other dogs it is a pecking order. When one wants to declare dominance over the other.I have friends who are homo sexual it was their choice. There may be some that are born that way but not the amount that are out there. They want everyone to make it legal but they should have went for a contract because it will never be a marriage that is between and man and women and with that there would be no children. How homo sexuals were treated was wrong. Now it seem homosexuals are trying to get back at every with the lawsuits.it will only hurt things. If I had a son or daughter if someone made them happy I would be okay with that. I don't believe what they are saying about the animals.

                • Stephanie Kerry Stephanie Kerry United States says:

                  So are you saying that I, a straight woman, should not be allowed to marry my straight male husband because we do not intend to procreate?

                • Ringspider Webb Ringspider Webb United States says:

                  The article definitely uses weasel wording to make the research sound convincing, in order to push an agenda. In this case, I think it is more likely that this area of research is neither taboo or too embarrassing. It wouldn't make the researcher subject to ridicule either. The area of research just isn't that rich. 1500 animal species is about a thousandth of a percent of the total number of animal species not including insects. So the actual numbers suggests a transient trait selection rather than anything significant to speciation.

                • Bob Henderson Bob Henderson United States says:

                  I believe, Carol, that is referred to as "willful ignorance." Denying a scientific study because it conflicts with your bias is such tiresome pattern. Your opinion has nothing to do with fact. If you think something that has been researched is incorrect, I encourage you to do some research of your own. Go do some field work and read some books. If you can disprove what this article says by using the scientific method, your idea will have an inkling of validity. Until then, leave your opinion out of research.

                • R Dawn Bieniek R Dawn Bieniek United States says:

                  Of course you don't. I'm sure that you won't check the sources provided by the article or try to do a little independent research either, because the more factual evidence you find that contradicts what you've already set your mind to believe will only provide you with more facts you'll have to deny. Denying the truth on a full time basis is exhausting, I'm sure. Especially when you still need to find time to condemn people while simultaneously telling everyone how accepting you are.

    • Eric Eric United States says:

      The fact that nature partakes in homosexuality is irrevelent to humans partaking in homosexuality. They do not have the same ability to reason as humans do.

    • Nate Nate United States says:

      I am afraid that it is becoming the case that anyone who disagrees in any measure with homosexual practice is labelled an intolerant bigot/homophobe.  The gay lobby has been incredibly effective in bringing this about as they seem to be incredibly motivated in doing so.  

      • Raven Johnson Raven Johnson United States says:

        ...uh, no, not homophobe, which is someone who is personally uncomfortable around gay men and has nothing to do with whether or not one supports, opposes, or thinks homosexuality is irrelevant, but bigot, fucking YEAH if you THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG that is the DEFINITION of a bigot...    duh...

        And if you think that being black is wrong then you are a racist...

        that's kind-of how that works...

        And if your dad speaks to you and says he does not hate you, but he thinks it is "wrong" for you to be with your girlfriend, then obvioulsy you will not want to speak to him again...

    • Nate Nate United States says:

      I didn't see it as homophobic at all.  That word is banded around to mean anyone who doesn't jump up and down clapping.  You are right when you say sex between humans is never mere recreational fun although it includes that.  If it was then rape would be merely an abusive use of recreational fun when we know it is far more than that.  I resent having to even use the word sex in a homosexual context as it isn't sex at all.  Sex is between a man and a woman, a fact that some people will use any argument, no matter how spurious eg. ducks rubbing beaks haha, to avoid.

    • Dr Milton Dr Milton United States says:

      Despite what gay activists believee including the one that wrote this article, "same-sex interaction" is a weasal term designed to confuse.

      These interactions are anything two indivudals of the same gender do with each other, including standing next to each in interspecies familiarity , and acts of dominance.

      Because all the reference acts have nothing to do with sexual interest, it is not homosexuality
      There are no homosexual animals, no animal for instance allows anything in their anus.

      • R Beale R Beale Netherlands says:

        'Allowing something in your anus' does not define being gay.

      • Raven Johnson Raven Johnson United States says:

        ...And that's why this article specifically mentions giraffes...   having sex...   in the anus...   right?

        And also you apparently have never owned a dog?

        • lol
          Chuck Hackworth Chuck Hackworth United States says:

          I have owned lots of dogs, I've never seen 2 males locked.  And just because they are humping a guys leg does not mean they are gay.  And they stop that activity if they are fixed so its pretty much a hormone thing.

        • Nikola Petrovic Nikola Petrovic Serbia says:

          I also own a dog, and had them before. You really could not say that two male dogs humping are gay, it usualy ends up in a fight, humping is their way of showing who is lower in rank.

          I really have nothing against people being gay, and was very curious about this article, but it seems the writer really confuses terms here, i dont know how could you classify dominant behavior in dogs and lions as homosexual.

          And i am really suprised by the amount of incidious comments here, this article is very speculative so i understand why people are skeptical...

        • Robert Masengale Robert Masengale United States says:

          I have seen homosexual dogs. I think the issue is that when a homosexual dog mounts a heterosexual dog, the heterosexual dog takes offense to it and retaliates. It is much the same as any dog that tries to mount a female dog that does not want to 'breed' with them (whether in season or not). They fight back to say that it is unwanted.

          Dogs do not have the same methods of advanced communication we do. Their method of asking is to simply try to start the process. Their method of refusal is to snap at them for doing it, possibly starting a full-on fight.

          I have had dogs that will ONLY mount male dogs, even around a female in heat (especially around a female in heat). That makes the dog homosexual.

      • Amy Schrecengost Amy Schrecengost United States says:

        There's no way you're a doctor. You barely even have the reading comprehension to understand this article. The article specifically mentions male animals, having sex with each other.

      • Jessica Pruyn Jessica Pruyn United States says:

        And if you did more research you would see that there are tons that have anal intercourse look it up before you spout lies.

        • ??
          Nikola Petrovic Nikola Petrovic Serbia says:

          The writer of this article gave, as the source, a link to a Norwegian university and i dont want to apply for a scholarship.

          i mean writing something doesnt make it true, there should be links to some peer review papers or studdies so we could look it up in more detail.

          And saying :

          That could be considered a lie, lions do the same thing as dogs. Males do not have sex. They rub against each other, expresing dominant behaviour , and you could not consider that as sex.

  2. Patrick Patrick United States says:

    I found this article VERY interesting, being homosexual myself. The only thing I sort of had an issue with was the line about the ducks and geese where it says "It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples." How do they judge this in the animal kingdom?

    • kenneth kenneth United States says:

      My guess would be just the overall survival rate of the young being raised by the homosexual couple versus the survival rate of the young being raised by the heterosexual couple.  There may have been a statistically significant difference in these survival rates.  But I don't know because I'm not sure what studies are being cited and have not familiarized myself with any (yet).

      • Canth Decided Canth Decided United States says:

        In Bruce Bagemihl's seminal work on this subject, 'Biological Exuberance', he cites that in black swans, homosexual pairings between male swans, which were lifelong, had higher rates of chick survival than heterosexual swan couples.
        The males would mate with a female, nest, and then when all of the eggs were laid, drive the female away and incubate the eggs themselves.
        The resulting cygnets enjoyed greater survival rates because male swans are more aggressive than females, and as a result, paired male swans were able to command larger and better territories in which to raise their offspring, who benefited from having two bigger, stronger defenders.

        Conversely, female paired black headed gulls suffered lower rates of chick survival because BOTH females would lay, and the resulting super sized clutch made successful incubation difficult, as only one female at a time would incubate while the other was out feeding, and she could not cover all of the eggs with her body for proper incubation.

        If you have not read this book, I strongly recommend it, as it gives all sorts of fascinating information on not only homosexuality in animals, but other aspects of sexual activity, reproduction, and non-reproduction among a wide range of animals.

        Homosexuality is natural, sex is natural, and can be done for both pleasure and for reproduction.

        We're just the only animals who insist on making the whole thing more complicated than it actually has to be... as if we don't have enough reasons to go out and be terrible to one another.

    • Wyatt Erp Wyatt Erp United States says:


      There usually better off but they failed to mention that they taught there neighbors kids HOMOSEXUALITY and the kids took to this and they ended up being homos and not able to reproduce hence there better raising skills werent so better after all hahaha....

    • Raven Johnson Raven Johnson United States says:

      Would be much easier to judge in animals then in humans!!!  And studies show as well that in humans, lesbians are the best parents.  Which makes common sense as well once you consider the average ideas, morals and behavior of gay men, vs. straight couples, vs. lesbians.

      • Colin Baker Colin Baker United States says:

        I dont like generallizations generally even backed by scientific research due to mass perception and interpretation of such facts making other peoples allready hazy perceptions foggier.

        However, I've lived around the LGBT community for years and have to say based off experience I aggree about lesbians being better suited to parent.

  3. billdave billdave United States says:

    I grew up on a farm. The ducks I grew up around had sex with anything, including inanimate objects. I never observed any significant pair-bonding. Maybe the article is referring to some very specific breed of duck...This article seems to have a bit of an agenda, but since it's my agenda too, all is forgiven.

    • Sean Sean Malta says:

      Well its possible that the duck breed was specific but also remember that these guys were studying them - quite possibly other animals don't associate the whole exclusivity thing that's become popularized in human culture but that doesn't mean they wouldn't at the same time have a significant partner

  4. Dennis Bergendorf Dennis Bergendorf United States says:

    Yes, and nearly 100% of animals with mate with their own offspring. Many species eat their young.

    • isa kocher isa kocher United States says:

      Parents virtually never mate with their offspring. Some species of mammals may eat the young of others. Never their own. Most species do not eat the young of their own species. Whoever made the statement that they do is simply not well informed. Human serial killers do eat their co-specific victims though. Not something any other animal does that I know of.

      • Chuck Hackworth Chuck Hackworth United States says:

        hippos, hyenas, polar bears, wolves, many fish and insects eat their own young.  You shouldn't post about what you don't know.

        • Cecelia Ferrara Cecelia Ferrara United States says:

          The animals who eat their own young usually suffer from the equivalent of postpartum depression in humans. Human mothers have killed their own children while suffering from this. It is just an imbalance of hormones and chemicals in the body as the mother transitions from being pregnant. I really wish that everyone would see that humans and animals have more in common than we think.

  5. OJ OJ United Kingdom says:

    An interesting article. Unfortunately it seems biased to me, too eager to prove homosexuality as a natural occurrence. Now, I'm not saying it isn't, as I don't know enough about homosexuality outside of the human race to argue a case, but were there some referencing or manner of proof provided I would be more willing to see this as a point of academic study as opposed to yet another unsupported attempt to justify ourselves.

    However, Peter Bockman does mention with a sense of bitterness a few reasons to account for this. Personally I would be very interested to visit this exhibition, and look further into the subject.

  6. Glenda Parrott Glenda Parrott United States says:

    What a sinful waste of time, effort, and money for this research.  Humans are not of the animal kindgom.  We are a genetic component of God.  HE made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve for sexual intercourse. HE made the perfect design of the males anatomy to fit correctly into a womans vagina.  Having intercourse in a human anus is unreal as that is our sewer outlet. How sicking for a person to engage into this kind of sex.  Having oral sex and sex in this anus is very different. True germs and disease can be gotten and spread both ways, but anual sex is where our bowel movemenets come from--and they are expecelling all the bacteria that thrives there and anyone that has sex in that area is asking for the terrible diseases that exsist there.  Yes, there are diseases that exist between hetrosexuals, but nothing like those between homosexuals.  If you ask God to fogive you of this perverted thinking and resarch HE will--then correct this article so that others will not be condemmed to a unclean lifestyle.  Let the animals do their THING and humans, hetrosexuals, do their THING---THE RIGHT THING.

    • jay jay United States says:

      Humans... not part of the animal kingdom??    

    • Denis Denis United States says:

      We are of the animal kingdom - we share most of the same genetic material and our bodies are *very* similar to that of mammals, even down to having the same kinds of bones and nerves.  How dare you assume what God is made of - the bible was written by MAN, not God, so it is flawed.  How dare you also assume God has a gender and is male!  A Penis also fits elsewhere dear -- if you don't think so, study some anatomy and being gay is not all about sex just as the article is not all about sex, but bonding, etc.  The mucousal lining of the anus and mouth are very similar to the vagina -- that's why you can get diseases of any of these anywhere these mucosa exist.  Vaginas are also where dead/putrid uteral material is expelled from.  You are right that God will forgive you for your hate, but you also have a responsibility to love your neighbor and all created things.  You have the perverted thoughts it seems.

    • Chloe Chloe Australia says:

      God is a woman, have you not heard? SHE might forgive your ignorance Glenda, but most of us are just going to laugh at you.

    • Dr. Scott Dr. Scott United States says:

      Dear Glenda,

      You wouldn't know what "the right thing" was if it walked up and bit you on the bum!. Your archaic ideas about sin are repulsive, and your use of the preposterous phrase "God's DNA" clearly demonstrates that you have no grasp of either metaphysics or science.

      God made some people heterosexual and some people homosexual, and some in different flavors too.  Who do you think you are to contradict God's creation?  

    • dalia dalia United Kingdom says:

      Glenda you are absolutely right, I really liked your article, I think people are mixing up the humans with the animal kingdom, what a comparison to convince humans that being homosexual is normal, Adam and Steve from animal kingdom are open minded , whilst Adam and Eve are odd in our era I guess!!

    • albie albie United States says:

      Glenda, you're so funny.  I almost took you seriously until I realized your blatant stupidity was meant to be ironic.  Adam and Steve!! So clever and original.  I hope to meet you one day and hear the rest of your comedy material...you really should consider a career in show business!!

    • ramael ramael United States says:

      We are not part of the animal kingdom? so, which is our kingdom then... plants? rocks?

      A genetic piece of god!!! ???? LOOOOL OMFG!!

      Where is your proof?, please, do us all a favour and go get a life, or even better. I cannot believe such amount of ignorance can be contained in one single human.

    • nSJ nSJ Brazil says:

      Glenda, you are really funny. I am sorry but you are like my mum. Too emotive to ponder facts instead of feeling emotions.To other readers, I am not referring only to her rationale, but to that which is partially common to all persons that think more or less the same way.

      Human experience and knowledge are god, IMHO.  What's defined in our society as right and wrong are nothing but paradigms. Social paradigms are constantly being redefined. If a  different and new idea is formed by a group, its progression will be positive if gradually being accepted by other groups and individuals, whereas its progression will be negative if other groups and idividuals do not accept it.

      It becomes very interesting if we consider that every new fact is being processed by every human being that comes into contact with it.  The sentence defined as bad or good that reaches majority can also be defined as a social paradigm. It is a different, but undoubtless, natural selection force in action.

      As ideas are recycled, new concepts born just as obsolete ideas go to grave and cease to be paradigms. Because we elaborate/construct/rearrange old concepts into new ones, our behavior has been through  self-inflicted natural evolution/improvement. Human paradigms and behaviour, the latter which is based on up-to-date knowledge, have been under construction since the first atoms glued together into a molecule and shall continue.

    • EEE EEE United States says:

      Oh Glenda. Please tell me where you heard that heterosexuals' (note spelling) STDs are different from homosexuals'?

    • ahem ahem Canada says:

      Imaginary friends make us feel glad. Not gay, just happy. Hip hip, chin chin to scientific reason and whatever fills your blank.

    • sarah sarah United States says:

      Aww, cute. Look how brainwashed by the church you are. Do me a favor, and stay out of the scientific community if you can't be bothered to have any grasp of understanding for it. Go back to your church and Man In The Sky.

    • Ron Ron United States says:

      It is amazing how blind (some)so called Christains can dole out the judgment of others! I'm a Christian, but I appreciate the fact that the bible is missing a great deal of real truths while having too many untruths are placed in what we call the inspired word of God.  Read Misquoted Jesus by experts who have deeply studied the translation of the "word" of God and how many things are placed in the bible that "never" should have been placed in the Bible.  I would wish every damning, judging Christians about homosexuality try to make the choice to be anything other than heterosexual.  Go ahead try just for the FUN of it!!!

    • inga inga United Kingdom says:

      Glenda, I am a heterosexual woman and I have anal sex with my partner on a regular basis. Now according to your 'logic' since I am heterosexual I am doing THE RIGHT THING, right? great, so the problem is solved.

      Bloody Christians! close your bible and get a life. Life is beautiful, love is beautiful, sex is beautiful and it does not matter who you experience all these things with as long as they make you happy and fulfilled!

    • Philipem Philipem United States says:

      Thank you, now I know that god made adam and eve and that godliness or something is genetic in humans being made in gods image and all.

      This is a discussion of facts presented in an article that show that animals of all kinds engage in homosexual behavior, suggests that humans being animals might find the same behavior unsurprising,and it supported by research, lots and lots of research.

      I appreciate that god has chosen you to enlighten me so please, cite the scientific studies showing god's existence, creationistic behavior in general and specifically making man "in gods image (a little narcissistic I think but I'm interested) and the intentional exclusion go humans from teh pattern the rest of the animal kingdom uses.

      Peer reviewed please but I will look at others. Any footnoting or citation format commonly used will be fine but I prefer APA.

      Otherwise, please don not post babble in response to logic and science. Even most of the naysayers are attempting to use logic not deus ex machina to save their arguments.

      I assume you've done your research or you wouldn't have posted?

    • Amber Amber Canada says:

      Its always a laugh to see people who want to hold the bible up high and say the church and God is against homosexual behaviour.   It makes me wonder how quickly people have forgotten that durning the crusades and other church military actions, homosexual behaviour was enchouraged amoung the troops and people who were left behind!

      The church supports any idea that furthers its own cause, and more recently, makes money.  What ever happened to forgive and love thy neighbor?  Your comment and distaste for homosexuals seems quite contradictory to those principals of the church!

    • Jervis Jervis United States says:

      If God had a problem with me being gay, then why did he create me? and after all these years he continues to bless me. He gave me the ability to fall in love and be in love with by someone of the same gender. And please be aware it's not all about having sex. It's knowing someone is waiting for me to get home, or worrying about me if I'm late. It's me being fearless when it comes to defending the one I love. Love is a blessing. No, we won't make children, but we have all this disposable income to help my sister raise her children after her sorry-ass heterosexual husband decided he didn't feel like being married anymore. No, I'm in good graces with God, because he continuously answers my prayers. And finally, you are not or ever will be Gods spokesperson.

    • Lyra Lyra United States says:

      If you plan on using the Bible as an argument, please use the whole thing. The Bible say no gays, ok i'll go with that. But it also says no lying, no cheating, and NO JUDGING!!! Just thought I would help you out since you don't use all the rules in the Bible. Granted I don't either but i do respoect the fact that God would like more love than hate, and currently homosexuals are producing more love than you. Thank you, have a nice day

      • Eric A Eric A United States says:

        Matthew 7:1 (“Judge not, that you may not be judged”) was, by the context of the subsequent verses, clearly an admonition to not be hypocritical in judging.  The Bible, however, clearly does emphasize that we must judge – avoiding evildoers, etc.  John 7:24 – “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge just judgment.”  Matthew 18:15-17 – “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault…”.  James 5:20 – “He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death…”.  2 Timothy 4:2 – “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.”   And the Bible (New Testament) is most clear about the grave sin of homosexuality:  Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10, among other citations.

        • Danielle Moore Danielle Moore United States says:

          Yeah, and we must stone woman who aren't virgins when they marry. And divorce is a sin. Breaking up homes is too. Being afraid or anxious. Not feeding the hungry children. Arrogance. Gossiping. Arguing.

          Unjustified anger is even a sin according to the bible, and last I checked-being angry over something that's none of your business is unjustifiable!

          • Colin Baker Colin Baker United States says:

            "My god love me unconditionally " Really??? dont eat shell fish dont fuck the same sex have some pervert in a dress splash yoiur child with water or what wait a sec that lil fucker is gonna burn for eternity. Really? A god that's doesnt care for geographically challenged children. Slavery once used to be legal and wide spread DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

    • Andrew Wilson Andrew Wilson United Kingdom says:

      We absolutely are of the animal kingdom. We can even trace common ancestors with other species using our genes. Absolutely nothing in our genes suggests they come from some god.

    • Erin Petrosky Erin Petrosky United States says:

      First off, Glenda, humans are part of the animal kingdom. I thought that was common knowledge. Secondly, it is not your right to judge others and what they do in their bedroom. The existence of God cannot be proven, so do not act high-and-mighty. You are not the repository for all knowledge in the free world. What you are saying is judgmental, ignorant and just plain stupid. Instead of reading the bible, maybe you should try and read a biology book.

    • Colin Baker Colin Baker United States says:

      Questioning your heart wether it be with relationships, hobbies, interests or the fear of someone thinking what you like is dumb or make fun of you or hitting  you is just no way to live your life do What you want, maintain that child like mentality of not giving a shit what people think. Do what you love not what makes you the most money and in the end you'll end up making the most.

      This silly glenda is getting more annoying by the minute. DARLIN' GENETICS and a belief of god have nothing in common genes are part of science god is part of a theory and scheme.

      I kinda wish she had been born in a muslim country where women are forced to walk ten feet behind their men and not show their face in fear of beheading and in that case would our good old 1 st world glenda be singing the same tune about the religon she was born in2.

    • Jessica Pruyn Jessica Pruyn United States says:

      And yet the fabled jesus had two fathers.....

    • Cecelia Ferrara Cecelia Ferrara United States says:

      So, if my name is Cecelia and my boyfriend's name is Jake, we can't have sex or get married? I know you interperet the Bible in your own way, but Leviticus was a set of rules for the Hebrews, not the Christian people. Maybe you should focus on doing what Jesus said to do instead of hating other people. How about Luke 6:37? "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Or Mark 12:31? "The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Or 1 John 4:8 "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." If you are a Christian, you must believe that God loves everyone and that He makes our paths. Therefore, how can being homosexual be wrong? If He knows everything about everyone, and chose who they would be, this disposition is his choice and not a mistake. Homosexuality is natural and is no better or worse than heterosexuality. It is not a choice, it is a predisposition. And I know this because of the fact that there are homophobic people out there. Why would anyone choose to be gay when people won't accept them and spout hateful words that are completely wrong?

  7. Gems Gems United States says:


    Should we start letting our human children lend a helping hand in the bedroom?   This article is very biased.  

    • jay jay United States says:

      That is confusing two different issues. The thrust of the point being made is that the 'unnatural' argument won't work. The fact that there are similarities doesn't mean there are not valid differences.
      The puritans and religious bigots will just have to fabricate other intolerant arguments instead, I suppose.

    • Bryan Hendrix Bryan Hendrix United States says:

      You forget that with most other animal species the young mature very fast.  You also forget, even though you quoted the line, that the article states, "engage in oral sex with each other."  It said nothing about sex with adults.  You also may not be aware that sexual experimentation is quite common among human prepubescents, though as a society we attempt to curb that behavior.  You didn't comment on this but you may also want to consider that in most other animal species their isn't a "weaker sex" so rape is usually not a consideration since the would-be rapist might just as likely get their ass whooped if their intended is not amenable.

    • Danielle Moore Danielle Moore United States says:

      That paragraph isn't suggesting children "help out in the bedroom" it simply states that the chimpanzee young try out oral on one another. Being that we are (supposedly) more sophisticated mammals, we do not participate in foreplay or fornicate in front of our children because they would be too curious. Just like anything, the young learn from their parents.

  8. David Rowan David Rowan United States says:

    To Glenda, I'm sorry but that's the most incredulous argument anyone can make. First off, if you knew anything, yes people and animals excrete waste from the rear, but 90% of the time its pretty much empty so its just as clean as vaginal sex. Secondly, contrary to what you may believe, the penis also fits quite well into the anus, infact better as men who are larger can be accomodated better into the anus, as the muscles there tend to strech more than the vagina, and the vagina ends at a point, the anus and rectum go quite a bit farther. And lastly, the "Adam and Steve" arguement. Oh the ever faithful psycho christians favorite argument. Let me point out first that I'm not anti-religion. However if you want to be historically accurate, and i'm sure you would, homosexual behavior in HUMANS existed long before and long after biblical scripture was written. So for you to assume that God made people for exclusive heterosexual sex is blatantly wrong and historically innaccurate. Also, the fact that you even brought up adam and eve reveals to me that you obviously put no creedance in science so i dont know why i'm bothering to argue, but this article makes a vaild point. If it exists in nature, then its natural, and bible thumpers and bigots such as yourself should realize this. Yes this article has an agenda, but its only to prove that homosexuals, such as myself, aren't godless sodomites who are doing this because we "want to". Our very nature has more to do with it than you may want to admit, but here we are.  

    • ashley ashley   says:

      If it's only about bonding, then why have sex? I don't get, it I bond with my children and my parents and my friends and I don't have sex with any of them. I think gay guys are afraid that girls won't like them so they pretend not to want them either. Have a friend. Bond without being gross. Sex in the anus is gross and dirty and there is new evidence linking anal sex with colon cancer in particular when the "man" carries the HPV virus as 2 out of 3 men unknowingly do. There are reasons for all of this. Be careful people take care of yourselves.

      • TyRonda Smith TyRonda Smith United States says:

        No one said it was only about bonding but lifelong partners among same sex animals involves sex. If you are married or have ever wished to be married I'm pretty sure one way to bond was through sex, so to argue that you bond with your children, parents, and friends in non-sexual matters is irrelevant. Also to argue that you believe men are gay because they're afraid women won't like them is ignorant. I have personally seen many homosexual men encounter women who try to convince them to sleep with them and these women aren't unattractive, quite beautiful in fact, but to limit it to that only males can be gay is incredulous. Also to refer to anal sex as if only homosexuals partake in it is ignorant as well. I am heterosexual and I don't partake in anal sex but I have many heterosexual friends that do. Another thing, to state that there is evidence that HPV causes colon cancer without stating that it largely causes cervical cancer sounds like you're trying to use the disease against homosexual activities when it more so affects heterosexual women in larger numbers, so I write all this to say that your argument is completely flawed.

      • Danielle Moore Danielle Moore United States says:

        Just wow...

    • Wally Wally Canada says:

      Bravo, David. I had not seen your entry until I had submitted mine, above. Our points are very similar.

  9. ARaine ARaine United States says:

    I read and reread trying to find a clear bias.

    I think the overall point the author is trying to make is this: Sexually related interaction, that humans may reject on a moral basis, is quite common place in other species. Its a glimpse into a social environment where intimacy is not clouded by our own stigmata.

    Though I could be entirely wrong. The giraffes may be doing Hail Marys even as I type this.

  10. C. Valdez C. Valdez United States says:

    Interesting article. I already knew some animals had homo or bi tendencies. He states hermaphroditic animals are purely bi, but the word is meant to describe someone with both male and female genitalia.

    I disagree that ducks are purely homo. It is true that they stick with one partner for life, but I've only seen hetero ducks.

    • Learned Learned Canada says:

      C. Valdez: Sexuality preferences within a hermaphroditic species is of moot point precisely because both parties have dual-gender reproductive gear.  Within such a species there can't be any practically determined sexual preference because each lucky partner to choose from will always be both male and female.

      It is worth noting that this article is providing a strict definition of gender as defined by one's sex organs. (Excluding other potential factors - such as behavioural masculinity/femininity - which often shape human categorization in modern argument.)

  11. Hudstar Hudstar Australia says:

    In reply to Glenda. I was told by a stoic devout christian that the bible does not include people (humans) as part of the universe or any part of nature - p.s forget that we were sailing past one of the most magnificant sights in the South Pacific. I got this earful of come-me-down because of my "pagan" remark about mother nature. I then learnt we are the only living things created in this "god's" image therefore we are very lucky to be here. I thought god (pick any one - mainly a homophobic male) is failing miserably with humankind. I lean towards the big bang theory myself but I kept quiet hoping this freak of nature would shut up. I was then told we must spend our existance repenting for a sin we were all born with. Now us (humans) being seperate from nature, that is just stupid beyond belief. I never read the bible nor was I raised with gods so this sin was new to me. I guess I would rather feel part of all I see than living blind by biblical guilt. It's interesting the presence of homosexuality within herds seems to "take the focus away from violence". Maybe pent up testosterone smothered with self repression fuels great acts of violence. We also hear about male on male "rape" in war yet that is an act of domination. Interesting seperation. I think this research needs more study but it is certainly a step in the right direction in understanding ourselves as societal creatures. We are definately unique. As for the description of gay sex by Glenda....ummm, thats a bit pornographic for a god fearing mind. In some cultures, women are believed un-natural and evil and have to live seperately from everyone else while they menstruate. In other cultures such as the tribes in New Guinea, male on male sex is seen as part of masculinization. Young adolescent men have been taught how women can be dangerous to then and that they can even die from heterosexual intercourse -(procreation time must be a joyous occasion!) Maybe Glenda's god forgot about them...... oh wait, that's right, the missionaries brought god to Paradise (that's another story, another blog, another subject) I guess if human homosexuality is proven natural, people like Glenda and her religion, or men in power that use religion will lose this self given authority that gives them a sense of superiority and rightfulness over others. If this god given role was to be removed, what you would have left is a society of downgraded ignorant people living without purpose or significance - too dumbed down to believe they are infact relevant and have the knowledge to be protective of all that exists.  Animals don't have gods, we are just animals that somehow evolved to have imagination and what a gift that should be.

    • ashley ashley   says:

      God is not failing, and for someone who doesn't even believe you should not be making assumptions like that. God wants us to come to Him (or Her) willingly. That's why he gave us the choice of Free Will. Animals don't have this choice, they act merely on instinct and impulse. We are the ones who are failing. And we are not born with sin, we are born into a world where there is temptation and there is choice. Temptation is from the devil and to submit to temptation is to submit to the devil. Choose God and temptation won't tempt you any more.

      Attempting to make a woman look stupid who is actually making a good point and giving people something to think about is only the devil working through YOU and you should do something to change it. You have a choice.

      On another subject, The people who segregate the menstruating women are simply uneducated.

      And if homosexuality being natural is your best argument, I leave you with this. Morning breath is just natural, but do you live with it or do you get up in the morning and brush your teeth?

    • ashley ashley   says:

      PS you admit that gay people are acting like animals and not using their higher intelligence to make choices and are acting upon impulse.

  12. Hudstar Hudstar Australia says:

    I did some bible study to be fair to religion vs everything else. I read up on Adam and Eve.... the original procreators from gods garden. I understand the fable of creating people out of this god's rib - makes a story about how we are in gods image, adding his rib is like adding egg to a cake mixture - helps it hold better. So adam and eve are us, one man and one women.... ok like a mum and dad placed on this new earth.  Now I get confused. So this eve ate an apple because a snake told her to (snakes are scary I guess, I can't see bambi telling her to do something bad so already Im thinking mind manipulation at work here) So anyhow snakes are bad, eve is good. Eve ate the apple and then knew all about sin , .... so then how could we have evolved if she only had sons? No mention of her bearing a daughter? So, according to the bible and looking at it in basic logical terms, we evolved out of incest?   Sorry, that is sooooooo ridiculous! I know archeological fossils provide evidence of human evolution. I like the theory of two human species competing and Neanderthal missing out. DNA proves more in linking us with our closest relatives.... so I'm being creative here - maybe one of eves' sons met up with a chimpanzee and you know..... procreated to create Neanderthal people and giving us close DNA matches. Maybe out of that match some family members skipped the bogus gene pool and evolved into modern us. Either way, each scenario tells us we are animals. Face facts, imagination made up of ego, domination and some unknown fear is what creates such fear about sex - unionship that is not found in animals. We are just a species of animal so I guess this research is a real threat. I seriously cannot view any religious argument as evidence for an argument.  

  13. Kate Kate Australia says:

    I grew up in an extreme born again Christian faith from birth until my early teens, so i am very familiar with the "arguments" put forwards by our little friend Herr Glenda here. The funny thing about my background, and the fact that I have since rejected and distanced myself from it almost completely (in faithful circles this gives me the title of "backslider" lol) is that I have had a chance to be completely immersed in two very different subcultures within western society. I am someone who finds blind, dogmatic Christianity extremely distasteful and dangerous - and yet some of the extreme, dogmatic Christians I knew were women who changed my nappies and loved me like a daughter. Their way of showing their love was to help "raise me right" according to their view of the world. This is of course, just one persons opinion, but I feel like someone needs to say this at some point. Here goes...

    When you are a christian, the teachings and messages that you are brought up with can be very intense. Especially in born again circles. (I am from Australia by the way, but the church I attended was actually an import from the bible belt region of the US)You aren't really supposed to associate too much with regular western culture, whether that is buying 'pop music' or having non-Christian friends etc. Your whole world becomes the church (and it's not just Sundays either, you can actually be expected to attend anything up to 4/5 church events per week) Your peer group is small and 'cliquey' and it's pretty much the only one you have, as you are not really supposed to socialise outside it (except to "preach the word" of course) So everyone who's opinion matters to you is sort of locked into this intensely scrutinised competition to see who can be the better Christian. I read somewhere that all humans have a basic drive to make themselves feel important, and I guess in a 'born again' church you don't have many other avenues left to do this except by "excelling at Christianity". I know I'm waffling, but I'm trying to help paint the picture for people who struggle to understand the often very single minded approach that Christians can take...

    ...okay, and in the same way that individuals everywhere do, you absorb the messages about what is or isn't appropriate behaviour from the people around you. If you hear enough people that you trust saying something with enough conviction enough times, you will eventually believe it (just ask the Germans circa 1940 right?) And that's the key here...believe me, I know how it can seem when you catch one of these people in a rant. It's alienating and hurtful and and to be honest they can seem down right vile...But they are actually more scared of you than you are of them. They genuinely believe that you and your values pose a real threat to the world and that in some way (perhaps with satan whispering in your ear) you are trying to spread an evil and cause chaos and suffering to humanity. They stop seeing you as a person, you become more of a caricature figure, representing a larger issue. And here's where the Christians need to listen up...

    ...These people are NOT out to get you! They do not sit at home, trying to think up ways to undermine the righteous and plant seeds of evil in the minds of the innocent. You guys need to try, at least a little to understand, like a rational thinking grown up, why these people you have decided to despise things the way that they do. Liberal thinkers, intellects, or whatever you would like to call them most likely see you as the aggressor, or the perverting influence here. Christians say the things they do because essentially, they care about the state of the world, and think that the liberals free thinking, permissive ways stand to threaten it. And liberals fight against the simplicity and close-mindedness of the Christians because to them, this mind set is dangerous and threatens humanity and its moral compass. Both sides are trying to make the word a better place in their own way and both sides see the other as a real threat to what they are trying to do.

    From my own experience, being a liberal thinker comes from a place of vulnerability, of outrage at a sense of certain injustices we see as being committed by the "smug conservatives". The other side seems to have the upper hand, making unfair, arbitrary judgements on things about which they know and understand very little. Their approach is different to ours. We ask "why?" Why is something the way it is, why should I believe your version of this story? The conservative chooses to construct their values around faith. They start with the story they are told, they accept it at face value and then defend it rigorously...

  14. joel mitchel joel mitchel United States says:

    OKdokey. This won't make much sense to you necessarily unless you believe the bible. Here's a christians point of view and what God's view would be. All death, disease, killing, eating of other non-plant life, greed, fighting, suffering, and homosexuality was never part of his original plan.. nor necessarily good. Humans aren't even supposed to have sex out of marriage. Just because animals do something only proves all of nature is "fallen" and effect by sin. In fact, the bible says many times over to NOT be like the animals that are driven about mindlessly by desires. Sorry.. animals kill each other.. that isn't proof it's ok. Also having a desire to do something, even if it is genetic, doesn't make it ok. I desire to steal.. not ok. I desire to sleep around... not ok. Some people may desire to kill.. they may be genetically predisposed to murder.. still not ok. Sometimes even if it is in our nature.. we can't do it.. if we listen to God. (I know some of you may not believe, but I just wanted to show you how we believe.. with our whole hearts.) What God says goes. Having sufficiently answered that point... the response by most disagreeing readers will be point to some other flaw with God/Faith. That response is usually an unknown frustration with what is usually a misunderstanding about God. But he loves you. And even though you may dislike him.. it is probably just because you misunderstand him. If you would like I could try to answer some other questions.. There is far more misunderstanding about God out there than understanding. If I can share some with you, please just let me know. I love you too, even if I don't know you directly. my email is just my first and last name smushed together at yahoo. Thanks for taking the time.

    • Richard Richard United States says:

      "Nor necessarily good" (On "disease, death, etc")

      It may not be "good", per se, nor was it part of the original plan, but God uses these things to test us and make us stronger.  Will we blame God for our problems or will we be like Job and praise God.

      "The Lord giveth and he taketh away.  Blessed be the name of the Lord." - Job 1:21 (I think)

      "Just because animals do something only proves all of nature is "fallen" and effect by sin."

      Are you suggesting that animals sin?  Animals cannot use reason or logic, therefore, they can't sin.  Humans need to stop putting themselves on the same level as animals because it's just an excuse to sin!

      "I know some of you may not believe, but I just wanted to show you how we believe"

      Bravo!  Unfortunately, people will still twist Christian doctrine to make us into a hateful, uncaring cult.

      Excellent comment!

    • AAron AAron United States says:

      Irrational, that's what you are. A religious tool to the humans that wrote those words down in that book. "God" didn't write the bible. That's a fact. joel mitchel you poor fool. I'm embarrassed by people like you in my country of "freedom". It's a right at birth, deal with it. You have freedom, everyone has it. Leave homos alone, they didn't do anything to you. and if one did, than it's their fault and should not be stereotyped to all the other homosexuals. and same with us straight people. It's time to grow up or shut up. People like you are the ones that enslaved African Americans here all those years ago.

  15. Kate Kate   says:

    Thank you for that Joel, I actually thought that was a pretty genuine kind of a response and you did it without the usual vitriol which I find so distasteful when engaging in conversation with Christians. But, as much as I would like to believe the view you have put forward because it is actually quite a comforting one in its own way, even with all the "do nots" - I'm afraid my conscience pricks me and i just cant jump on that bandwagon. If you are serious about your faith and it is as bullet proof as you seem to think, then it should stand on its own and not fade in the light of truth or reason. When something is so, it just is - it doesn't require great feats of persuasion or self delusion to make it seem more real, because it just is real. So, in a very honest and open minded fashion, i would like to put forward my reasons for deciding not to trust in the christian view of the world anymore, and I am offering you (or any other Christians who see this) the chance to respond as clear thinking, thoughtful and reasonable adults. Please note that if every second response becomes "sometimes you just have to have faith", you will lose me very quickly (as Christianity has lost many would be followers before) I want truth, reason and honesty. If your argument wouldn't hold up in a court of law, for a petty crime, don't feed it to me here when what we are talking about is so much bigger - when the consequences of believing or not believing are so much greater and further reaching.

    • joel mitchel joel mitchel United States says:

      Kate, Thanks for noticing, I had a very kind tone.  I certainly have no reason to be anything but kind. I will try to avoid saying "sometimes you just need to have faith."  I will try to follow Jesus's example when he walked on earth - he was happy to provide proof to anyone who genuinly was interested.

      I think God does want us to base our faith on facts, especially the big beliefs.. I think he asks us to trust him in the daily life and with some smaller details.  But I feel He actually has gone out of the way to express He doesn't want us to just use faith blindly in any way we would fall for any random suggestion. You know?  I see that as why Jesus spent so much time healing and performing miracles (on top of just his compassion for people).
          So, sure, yes.  I will see if I can provide a sufficient explanation to your reason for no longer believing.  I think it is important.  For me and you both.  To give our beliefs a chance to be tried and for us to maybe see something we didn't see before.  Please just let me know if I am getting off track
          Please feel free to email me or post here whichever works better for you.
          Hope you have a good day!  Hope to talk to you soon?

  16. Lithp Lithp United States says:

    Glenda, I don't suppose you've ever heard of a CONDOM?

    These anti-gay arguments are always pathetic. Diseases! Good hygiene prevents them. Natural selecton! Doesn't work that way. God says it's wrong! I don't care.

    Now, I'm not gay, but I do know that you can't dismiss vast amounts of scientific research out of hand just because you don't agree with it. And even if it WAS a choice, so what? You're still allowed to practice the religion of Christianity that you CHOOSE, aren't you?

    • ashley ashley   says:

      Condom real good way to BOND with someone you love by getting off without even touching them. Just admit that it IS about sex and we can all move on.

      • Jessica Pruyn Jessica Pruyn United States says:

        It is by no means about sex. If it was just about sex why would a couple even date why would they want to build a life with a partner straight or gay. So to a girl who was molested by her father for five years during puberty doesn't really want to jump on a wagon and date some more men and relive the abuse (and her father still calls himself a christian) Meets another girl and has a real emotional connection and her whole life changes she suddenly doesn't want to commit suicide because she found someone who cares they just happen to have the same genitalia. I can assume because you think homosexual relations is just about sex all of the people you've dated was all about sex too. Or no that only applies to the people your prejudice against.

  17. Seth Seth United States says:

    I'm someone that really does not care about whether your homosexual or heterosexual but to say that we are apart of the animal kingdom, is wrong! we may share the earth and have some things in common its a known fact that we are very different and our reasoning factor is what sets us apart,God given in fact! Homosexuality is a choice, we all have them. Is it right? That it is something God will judge when the time comes. Think of it this way, we would not be here if homosexuality was the norm or how things were meant to be. They (humans)can not reproduce which tells me if we practice this as a whole humanity none of us would be here to even discuss the issues and i think that speaks volumes. We were put here to reproduce and live on not to extinct ourselves because what we say we prefer. That notion, just does not make sense to me. If you prefer homosexuality just say so but let's not say that it's what we were made to do as our bodies and compatibiliies with each other says something completely different. Listen, no matter how we slice it it comes down to choice, we can all speculate as to why we made it but in the end no matter what you prefer it's a choice we make in the end. When Jesus was tempted by the devil for 40 days and 40 nights he had a choice to give in or not and again it was CHOICE! I do not care what choice you make but just say what it is! None of us have to live any certain way we do not have to do anything we do not want for that matter, but to say we don't make a choice is just not true. Whether good or bad it's our decision and ability to make that decision is what sets us apart from the animal kingdom.  

    • shanny shanny United States says:

      You can't call god or anything you believe comes from god a fact...


    • carmen carmen United States says:

      Seth, are you trying to say that you are a homosexual and that you CHOSE to be homosexual??? or why are you so sure that homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with? I do not think homosexuals CHOSE to be that way I think they are born that way and there is nothing wrong with it.

    • Taylor Taylor United States says:

      I really think you need to separate your opinion from what you call "facts." The actual fact it that homosexuality IS genetic rather than a choice. The best way to look at it is to just ask yourself, can I choose to be gay? No, you cannot. You cannot choose to be gay any more than they can choose to be straight. If you do not believe me, here is a quote from Dr. Qazi Rahman, one who is looking into the origins of sexuality. "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behavior is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors." So there you have it. Next time you go out of your way to post something, take the time to research it a little better.

    • Barry Barry United States says:

      I've read almost every comment on this board as far as this comment. I'd been tempted to comment before, but I figured that there was no point to do so. There still isn't, most likely. However, Seth, your comment was so infuriating that I'm not even going to bother pointing out that homosexuality isn't a choice. It's been said 856 times above me, and if you want to believe that I chose to be singled out and be discriminated against, that's what you're going to believe. No, my problem is with your statement that human beings are not a part if the animal kingdom. Let me call up all of my biology teachers and tell them that the things they're teaching-- things with scientific fact behind them, are incorrect. Human beings are a part of kingdom Animalia, aka the animal kingdom.

      Also, the bible is not fact. It's people like you who give Christianity a bad name.

  18. Izar Talon Izar Talon United States says:

    I just LOVE hearing these homophobic screeds from "Christians."  Let's just ignore for now the fact that this homophobic stuff is from the Old Testament, which Jesus is supposed to have swept away with his sacrifice, and the fact that homosexuality is just as much a sin as banking is, according to the Bible.  Let's just ignore that for now.  

    The verses of the Bible which condemn homosexuality are condemning specific acts of homosexuality, namely the ritual homosexual practices of other religions, including Roman cults and non Hebrew Semitic tribes religious practices.  THAT is what was being condemned in the Bible; the worship of other gods through ritual homosexual rites, NOT homosexuality in all forms.  Read the Bible in it's original language, and not in the interpreted translations passed down from one increasingly intolerant generation to the next.  Entirely different terms are used for general homosexuality and for forbidden ritual sexual practices, which were conflated in translation by none-to-exacting translators.  

    Get some education about what your religion REALLY says about things, instead of relying on talking heads and pedagogues.  

    • Luis Luis United States says:

      Actually Romans 1:26-32 talks about homosexuality as an immorality, and thats the new testament. Stop trying to sound so smart and actually read the bible before claiming you know what it says, you're the one who is relying on talking heads and pedagogues, except they're athiests.

  19. roy roy India says:

    What an animal does is natural though what man do need not be. We are not able to see homosexuality in clear light, as we see it(like everything else!) through the eyes of the most developed of the animal kingdom(though creation began with man). Man was created first and therefore  each subsequent being could be corrected for any errors or other imperfections found in the previous creation. If thus viewed, it becomes fairly simple to consider homosexuality as just another variation of ones nature, many of which, in earlier times could lead one to burning at stakes, deportation and the like. It is only a matter of time for this variation to be accepted into the mainstream of human transactions.

  20. Brandon Brandon United States says:

    As I trudge through these series of mostly knee-jerk reactionary posts, one thing jumps out at me that has annoyed me greatly in my study of the sciences and that is people's tendency to create a distinct line in the sand between themselves and the rest of the natural world. It's such an inbred arrogance guised in a religious humility. Wasn't earth (and by extension, man) supposed to be at the center of the universe. It's not even the center of our solar system or galaxy. Also, every point in the universe is the center of the universe (For those having problems visualizing this, think of the surface of a sphere. Every point on that sphere can be called the top or the bottom...it just depends on where you are looking at it from)

    On this same point, man has made countless claims as to his supposed seperateness from the animal kingdom. One of them (the one I hate the most) is that only man is capable of reason and that animals are driven completely by impulse and instinct(The irony that impulse and instinct can be used to describe a lot of people's behavior isn't lost on this poster). Dolphins, with their self-awareness and abilities to communicate, reason, express emotions, adapt, and perform altruistic acts, they have spread across every ocean and many freshwater rivers in the same way humans have populated every continent. The cognitive abilities of dolphins are exceptional. They also possess the ability of self-awareness, as they recognize themselves in the mirror.

    Elephants honor their dead. How did religion being? While some people may say "God revealed himself to a prophet", the earliest evidence of religious thought is based on ritual treatment of the dead. If religion is truly the hallmark of man, how can such a seemingly lowly beast exhibit the same characteristics?

    Apes are another creature which exhibits the ability to reason. Chimps have been shown to outperform humans in memory tasks (www.newscientist.com/.../...s-at-memory-task.html) Apes have been observed using a stick to gauge the depth of rivers they cross. Apes are also known to use fallen branches and bones as weapons (2001: A Space Odyssey anyone) (So, for the creationists out there, why is it that ape family has over 95% of the same DNA, opposable thumbs [perfect for using tools], make facial expresssions and generally exhibit nearly all the emotions that we do if not for evolution?)

    Birds...look on youtube for vids on Alex the Parrot and tell me with a straight face he's not smarter than some people you know.

    As someone greater than me once said “there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties." About the only one I could find is that mankind is unique is the lateralisation of brain function which arises from the division of the cerebrum into 2 halves. We're just the smartest animals, nothing more. Animals make choices, have their own will, their own personalities.

    The reasoning behind this arbitrary line seperating man from beast is that god created man in his own image. Those not well versed in metaphors take this to mean god has two arms, two legs, a long beard, bald, and a white robe. (Funny how this resembles the archetypal depiction of Zeus. Also somewhat ironic is that this is one of many examples of the evolution of religion and that everything either evolves or die.) What's lost on me is why an eternal all-powerful deity would have a mortal form? I think what the writers meant is that God has human characteristics like compassion and empathy, just as animals have been PROVEN to possess.

    As for my own beliefs, I don't personally believe in god. However, that doesn't translate to god doesn't exist. That's impossible to prove.
    What I do know is that using the Bible as a source of scientific truth is ludicrous, especially since the Bible pre-dates the dawn of science by 1500 years. It leaves you with all sorts of questions that can only be answered by "It's the will of god" which really isn't an answer.

    If the earth was created around 4000 years ago, that would mean dinosaurs and humans lived together...like the flintstones. If this were true, how come the dinosaurs aren't mentioned in Noah's Ark? They would have been the largest and by far most dominant creature on earth. Why would they be left out of the seminal scene involving ALL the animals of the world. A fundamentalist may respond "Well, that's where dragon myths come from." I might respond, "Why does carbon dating place them back millions of years." He/she may respond again "Carbon dating is the devil's technology." Then I would say, "Ok, but to be consistent, don't take any drugs from Amgen, Genentech, or any other company that markets biologics, as their development relies heavily on evolution, which according to you is a perversion of the truth of creationism and, thus, the devil's technology." BTW - Evolution is a fact. No one is going to deny that mutations do not exist. Mutation that causes a new trait to appear + trait passed on to another generation = evolution. Drug-resistant bacteria mutating from non-drug resistant bacteria=evolution. Just believing you aren't descended from an animal is not enough to make it true. Just believing something in general doesn't make it true. Until I get a medical treatment developed using creationist principles, it will remain bullshit)

    Which gets me back to the gay thing....since homosexual behavior has been identified in thousands of species that are able to have homosexual relationships, one cannot say that same-sex attraction is a choice. It is something deeper shared by probably all of our brethern in the animal species who can identiy themselves as male or female. Also, if homosexuality is a sin, how should hermaphrodites identify themselves? As abominations who can only seek salvation if they refrain from sex completely (since (1) they can't reproduce and (2) any relationship they have can be called gay by people who only think in terms of black and white) If god is real, he seems like a real dick to do this. Sexual reproduction isn't even the dominant method of reproduction on this earth. hell, same sex reproduction has been witnessed in certain species of fungus and some worms are true hermaphrodites and are able to self-fertilize, giving new meaning to the phrase "Go fuck yourself."

    So, to deny that homosexual behavior is a natural part of animal behavior is to deny reality presented before you. what's left is to judge the morality of the act. I believe one's basic morality should be based on whether or not the actions you follow lead to a more just, stable, peaceful, loving, and understanding world. Adherence to morality shouldn't be promoted through a carrot and stick approach (ie you either go to heaven or hell.) Doing so means the individual never truly understands the difference between why things are right and wrong. In effect, it's little more than operatic conditioning. If this is the case, than one is doing things for selfish reasons (to avoid hell) and cowardice. The true test of one's morality is how you would act if what you did had no reprecussions or rewards, like the true test of a man's character is what he does when no one else is watching. Otherwise, if one needs to have the ultimate carrot (heaven) just to act in the right way, I don't think that person is moral, just rational...nothing more or less. The world is inarguably more just, more peaceful, loving and understanding than it has ever been. This poster thinks that the extension of human rights to non-whites, non-protestants, and non-males and the world's progress isn't a coincidence. The world isn't perfect, but as a black man, life for me is exponentially better now than it was 30, 60, 100, and 400 years ago. So to people who say that we are slipping into moral decline, I say fuck you. Nothing is more morally reprehensible than denying a person's basic humanity because they happened to be of a certain color. If it was heaven for you and hell for me, that isn't evidence of a more virtuous time.

    BTW - My father is gay. He's a better parent than most couples. I was never abused emotionally nor phsyically. I was cared and provided for. In my home city which has a graduation rate of 40%, I was not only an academic standout, I attended Stanford University. My brother also went to an elite school. It wasn't genetic either, my brother was adopted. Why people think gay couples should not be allowed to adopt is beyond me. I guess being raised in a group foster home is preferrable to being as a gayby? Somehow, being given a warm and loving environment by a couple who is more committed to being good parents (all other things being equal, being a gay parent requires more effort than being a straight parent due to the bs they receive from society.) for those against adoption by gay parents, please go adopt them yourself instead of political grandstanding to make yourself look worthy of heaven in the eyes of god. It is unquestionably devilish to deny an orphan a chance of living in a caring and nurturing home (not to mention paranoid and destructive to society because kids growing up without any special attention from elders turn out way more likely to be fucked up) because you think this is all part of some hidden gay agenda to...what, destroy families and indoctrinate all boys to become gay, or at least bisexual. If you believe that, well, you've found it. Yes, all of us are in on it. The reptiles from outer space, the council for foreign relations, freemasons, skull&bones, rockefellers, bildeberg groups, the illumati, the elders of zion, the bilderberg group, all of us want to turn the USA to the GaySA.

    Sorry, I was bored and went to long on this.

    Also, I personally believe that life is a challenge. If it came with an instruction guide telling you exactly how you should act, it kind of defeats the purpose of figuring out how to live. And aren't cheat sheets offering you salvation if you only do exactly what they tell you to do more hallmarks of the devil?

    • Lyuba Tereshchenko Lyuba Tereshchenko Canada says:

      Brandon I applaud what you said. I think ignorance and fear is behind most of the homophobic comments. I wish people wouldn't feel that way. Gay people are just like straight people except we are attracted to people of same gender. That's it. I wish people would quit demonising each other and listen!

      And why cant I change the title of this comment. I've said what I had to Rik. Title should be Well Said Mate.

  21. Kevin Elks Kevin Elks United Kingdom says:

    Belief and truth is not the same thing, belief can be anything from the truth to downright lies.  If we chose we can 'believe in the absurd and truly 'believe' it is true, the word of God written by man or little mythical creatures at the bottom of the garden. God mad everything perfect, yet, that perfection is mutilated by those that cut off part of the sexual organ of male and females alike 'circumcision' (MGM/FGM); we indeen have too many hangups when it comes to sex to the point of trying to surgically supress or dull the sexual sensations of the genrations when unable to protest.

    Religion is responsible for all sorts of crimes, or at least it manifests itself from those who purport to be religious and phobias such as homophobia is one such example.

    I have thought for many years that the deep natural sense of same sex bonding is natural in humans and the worst of the homophobics have a concious fear of their natural subconcious fealings, homophobia seems to be one way of comfort to them.

    Footballers are encouraged to 'bond' by communual nude bathing yet homophobia is rampant amongst the football fans.  Homosexual touching in front of vast crowds at matches is accepted so why the homophobia?

    Violence in humans does seem to be most prevelant amongst those that are sexually supressed, you could conclude that roughly they are the 'circumcising' nations (USA, Israel, the ruling classes of the British Empire [not the common people], Muslim countries) and in this it is not just war but domestic violence.  On the medical side we have the countries that supress sexuality indicated by the rate of 'circumcision' having a higher rate of HIV/AIDS (the exception being Africa).

    I think this article was very interesting and a good overview of the situation, I see much truth in the points within it.  We are animals and we could learn a lot if we accepted it and looked to nature to resolve our problems.

  22. The Cavalry The Cavalry United States says:

    In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement 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,the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality.

    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, and
    Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
    There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals

    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.

    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.

    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.

    -- 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.

    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."

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...

    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...

    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.

    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:"

    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.

    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.

    • Jeff Jeff United States says:

      I just want to say, while I am an advocate for equality and freedom for all humans to do what makes them happy (so long as it isn't at the involuntary expense of another...) what you have written here makes perfect sense. I think it's shameful that anyone would find just cause in limiting the rights of a homosexual adult, and that the entire community of gays must resort to these measures (explaining themselves) to justify their desires to the public...

      So I ask: will you please apply such effort as you have shown here already, to explain what is wrong with consenting homosexual adults getting married even if only for the sake of receiving the equal benefits of a heterosexual couple.
      -Are men and women equal?
      -Should heterosexual married couples even receive any special benefit in this day and age?

      I say if homosexuals can't have it, then no one should.

      Where do you stand on this subject?

  23. Athena Athena United States says:

    I can see the religious view point because I am Christian myself and also straight. I believe in god, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. However, I have a gay brother, and bi and lesbian best friends. And I can't help having them as friends, I just attract flaming people and I love them for who they are! My brother and best friend were never attracted to the opposite sex as far as I could tell, and would I be a good Christian if I condemned them for not being anything but themselves? How can I as a Christian ask them to live a lie and "choose" to be straight? Why does religion have to be about condemning people? I always believed being Christian was about helping your neighbor, having morals, respecting others, being tolerant, being generous, and learning from individuals different than myself. If this makes me a sinful person than I'd rather go to hell. Let god judge mankind because we have no right to judge what we don't fully understand.

    • shanny shanny   says:

      I agree with the majority of your post... and I want to point out that it shows why the religious arguments don't work.  Religion is very personal...each person believes something different from the person next to them in the pew each Sunday.  Religion is nothing more than man's attempt to regulate others morality.

  24. Beckworth Beckworth United Kingdom says:

    We all have to live together regardless if we agree with each other or not. So if everyone just minded there own we would all be a lot happier. Put what you want in your own hole it's no one elses hole to decide what goes in there xx

  25. Cassidy Cassidy United States says:

    Hmm 'Mind your own'... that's an interesting point of view...
    I do not believe being gay is natural. As far as I'm concerned, individuals choose those thinngs. I think it's pretty unprofessional to say "it's your hole, who cares what you wanna put in there??"

  26. Cassidy Cassidy United States says:

    It's not a very good phrase to use in an argument, it's not going to persuade anyone. It only makes you sound uneducated.

  27. RdP RdP United States says:

    The fact of the matter is: Are we animals? Animals lack the ability to reason between right and wrong. They don't have a moral compass. Unlike humans (well some of us, that is) we have a strict sense of moral direction (whether it leans towards doing what's right or what's wrong). Just because animals practice homosexuality (which is clearly quite prevalent) does it mean that we too should follow their example and defile what is natural? Animals also eat their own feces should we in part eat our own shit? Animals also partake in inter-species devouring, as well as devouring their own young. Is that morally correct? Obviously, we do not practice any of the latter, so where is the reasoning behind this? Nature intends that a male and female have intercourse to thus multiply, while homosexuality has no purpose but to satisfy ones lust and desire. I'm not a homophobic nor do I believe that people who are homosexual shouldn't practice how they feel, that is their human right: to choose for themselves what is correct. It's just not intended for human nature.

    • Nature Observer Nature Observer United States says:

      Anyone who does not KNOW that humans belong to the animal kingdom is just ignorant beyond comprehension!

      I recently heard an interview with an animal behavior expert (sorry, don't remember his name). He stated that if cats had opposable thumbs and a brain cortex just 1/4-inch longer, the human race would be history.

      I am much prouder of belonging to the animal kingdom, than being a member of the human race!

    • Nature Observer Nature Observer United States says:




    • Lyuba Tereshchenko Lyuba Tereshchenko Canada says:

      RdP, comparing gayness to shite eating and cannibalism is low; surely you can do better than that.

      Really, this only demonstrates the lengths people will go to vilify something they do not and will refuse to understand.

      What are some of you afraid of? Seriously, get a clue!

  28. Zeigeist2012 Zeigeist2012 United States says:

    Liberal scientists, who are probably gay lovers themselves, out to promote the liberal, propagandist, agenda, like the global warming scientists who are shredding email to cover up the lies they have been spreading to the public to get more money from the tax payer….
    Gay unions and homosexuality is a perversion of natural law and of the institutions that bond men, woman, family, and society together in a positive functioning unit that nations are built upon. These delicate God given bonds enable a nation of people to unite and stand up for the good of the nation against those who wish to impose their will, choices, and life-styles on the nation in order to corrupt it, control it, or destroy it. People who wish to undermine, control, or  destroy the social bonds that hold a nation together in peace, love, truth, and harmony (as best as is humanly possible) suffer from an "I wanna play `God syndrome''. This `God syndrome' is demonstrated by those who mutalate themselves in a feeble attempt to change their God given sexual orientation, and by those trying to change the perverse into the natural, and normal, by imposing it on the rest of us and our children.... I found that such people cope with, and view, the world around them through different aspects of a fragmented super-ego, their inner most lens/lenses that affects deviant behavior in other areas of their choices, life-styles, and actions on a deeply personal, spiritual, and psychological level. I further believe these `God syndrome' personality types are responsible for much of the chaos and moral decline we all must face and deal with in our world today on a daily basis.... God Bless the American people who stood up and voted against the agenda of perversion and destruction-you all helped to postpone our country from completely becoming Sodom and Gohmorah....

  29. Zeigeist2012 Zeigeist2012 United States says:

    Furthermore, my little scientific, blessed sycophants, and loquacious, sapphic gaffe(s)...I have every right in the world to defend, and protect my priciples, values, wife and children from those who wish to subvert and pervert them....

    It greatly disturbes me when another man looks at me or my sons with some sort of twisted love or lust in their eyes, and the same goes for my wife and daughters, because of people like you in the scientific community promoting such non-sense and perverting the animal kingdom to do so.... After all, I was not born with a nipple on the back of my neck, or titties on my back, and my wife does not enjoy plastic, strap-on, toys....

    If other people want to subject their God given orifices to other perveted uses other then naturally intended they should keep it to themselves and not impose it on the rest of us and our children....

  30. Zeigeist2012 Zeigeist2012 United States says:

    Gays, even those in the scientific community who are now attempting to use the animal kingdom to justify their own perversed existance, set themselves a part from society with their perversion and make themselves into oddities searching for acceptance and special recognition for their self inflicted malady that many classify as form of demon possession....I would guess this is why so many gays tend to liberalism and seek to abolish God and his principles from everyones lives.... Dream on...........................

  31. Zeigeist2012 Zeigeist2012 United States says:

    Some now espouse that monkeys, and basically the over-all animal kingdom, are naturally, sexually perverted as a part of male dominance while leaving the female monkey simply perverted…. Well, if this is true for the animal kingdom, by and large, though the validity of this claim is inherently ridiculous, at best, and disputable as far as evil tendencies of the freak minority goes, then the people who believe this non-sense should use such critters as a their personal role models and do as they do…. But, please, keep the beastiality to yourselves…and have very blessed lives….

    • Amx Amx United Kingdom says:

      Just to clarify, this article counteracts a claim often made by homophobes of all stripes that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. Nowhere is it saying that because it occurs in animals we should be happy to do everything that animals do, for example eating our own shit (a favourite insult of the Phelps brigade).

      Also those posting claiming that if homosexuality was 'normal' that none of us would be here because two people of the same sex can't procreate. Well guess what, gay sex has been happening since the dawn of time and we are all still here on this discussion board, just as all of the animals displaying homosexual behaviour have managed to continue the propagation of their species.

      Jus' sayin'

  32. Zeigeist2012 Zeigeist2012 United States says:

    It is apparent that our supreme court and our other vital institutions have all been infiltrated by perverts, baby killers, and other nefarious fringe elements…. Even modern day television shows are all about how to be the perfectly normal, everyday, liberal thinking citizen; American role models as to how to think, act and live out your every day libral life…. Might as well take a gun and blow your brains out all over the sidewalk…. There is no God so, what difference would it make-anyway….A bunch of earthworms and monkeys from hell….

    Hey…I got an idea! Lets just let everyone into our country and into our Gov’t…. And, lets let the minorities dictate foundational principles and impose them on the majority…. Doesn’t it sound familiar?

  33. Armenion Armenion Armenia says:

    I'm gay. I don't remember a day I woke up and decided: "Hey, no girls. From now on, boys only!" Since my early childhood I felt and experienced my that peculity, and I realized and naturally accepted it later, so naturally.

    I'm gay. I pray to my Creator/s thanking Him/Them for all the things I'm granted as a human being and as a personality. I ask Him for the guidance and Light, asking not to allow me to be blinded by my own or by other people's ignorance. I thank Him I can witness the Rebirth of the Spring, the "coming-out" of the Sun evety day.

    I'm gay. And I want to find another gay like me and live happily with him, in Harmony with the Worlds that surround us. And I want to have my own children later, biological or not, better if both. To share my Love, Knowledge, Joy and whatever I have and will have. I want to have my own child, to carry on the Circle of Life, not being the Alfa, not being the Omega, just a circle. I'm gay. And I'm so OK.
    May my corrupted mind be fixed, if I'm wrong. Though I do not hurt anyone, do not hate anyone.

    I'm not a "straight" christian who is proud of himself, happy he'll go "up", hating those who will go "down".

    LLP to us all, which is Love, Light and Peace

    • Sag Sag United States says:

      Boy, you can't resist nailing the Christians, now can you?  That is the problem I have with Gaytards.  Every religion in the world forbids homosexuality, yet you never fail to thrash a Christian.

      And that my dear proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that gays have a rebrobate mind.  Case closed!

  34. Texas breast reduction Texas breast reduction United States says:


    • Jeff Jeff United States says:

      If animals only live by instinct, for instance, then they are ruled by nature and have no free will, therefore all that they do must be natural. Now if you are coming from a Christian stand point, then I ask, what kind of God would make nature possess homosexuality, and then despise it in humans?

    • Deanna Zimmerman Deanna Zimmerman United States says:

      Humans are animals. Cows and alligators and spiders are animals, too.

      Our so-called moral compass regarding homosexuality is STRICTLY a religious indoctrination.


      Since it's obviously natural for the non-human animal, why do you believe it ISN'T natural for the HUMAN animal?

      And nobody is "following" the example of other animals. All of us are just following our own instincts. You see, we have those, too. (grin)

  35. zeitgeist2012 zeitgeist2012 United States says:

    Sexual perversion is still perversion, sick, and twisted within the secular religion and in all religion...in all aspects of life. Gayness is viewed as a form of demon possession by scripture and by billions of people. Some view those afflicted by gayness as suffering from an aberrant or fragmented superego wherein certain fragments are used for coping with and viewing the world around them as the result of traumatic experience, and is also viewed by many as a deviant mental disorder. Who is to say the small number of animals committing unnatural acts are not afflicted with these same maladies? Or why would animals with their limited mental capacities be exempt from the influences of evil?

    • quixoticstranger quixoticstranger United States says:

      "Gayness is viewed as a form of demon possession by scripture and by billions of people."
      Not too long ago, scripture "taught" us that seizures were a form of possession by demons and that sickness and ill-health are curses put on us by god.
      Now we know that seizures are nothing more than your brain's electrical signals going haywire and we have the germ theory of disease.
      You may ask yourself why science is superior in explaining these phenomenon. The simple answer is that science can (1) makes predictions based upon its theories and (2) offer treatment and care a whole lot more effective than simple praying.

      Also, the belief that male-female relations are the only context for reproduction hints at a limited view of life in general. Did you know that hormones can completely change a frog from male to female and vice versa? (Link: www.livescience.com/.../...e-atrazine-100301.html) And what's more, the sex changed frog can reproduce. How does that fit into your context of perversion, sir?

    • Jeff Jeff United States says:

      Is how one person can stand and judge others as wrong while they themselves do not uphold a standard of rightness. Perversion implies that something is unnatural, and sick implies that the unnatural activity is a result of illness, and not choice. So by this perspective you seem to have, a person can be born unworthy of peace and civility. I didn't choose the parents I grew up learning from, I didn't choose the area in which I was forced to go to school and learn by a particular standard... really EVERYTHING up to this point in my life has all been cause and effect reaching backwards for thousands of years. Where is the free will of that? This is why I can't judge your bigotry, and see you as evil for it, because you never had a choice, did you?

    • Mekkininsm Mekkininsm United States says:

      Seriously bored now, it's like you're not even trying with your arguments.

      Yeah and people used to think mentally retarded children were fairy babies. Schizophrenia is also thought to be caused by demonic possession. Turns out some good anti-psychotics drive those old demons right out.

      You're talking about Freud who never backed up anything he said with fact.

      "and is also viewed by many as a deviant mental disorder."
      The idea of even HAVING an orientation only came about because people were gleeful categorizing anything that strayed outside of the "norm" as a mental disorder. Pretty much any malady a woman had during Victorian times was deemed to be hysteria, something they treated by administering good, old fashioned orgasms. Until they managed to figure out that the women were enjoying it and well...can't have that, can we?

      "Who is to say the small number of animals committing unnatural acts are not afflicted with these same maladies? "
      1,500 species isn't a small number and none of your "maladies" are back by fact.

  36. zeitgeist2012 zeitgeist2012 United States says:

    They judge themselves by their own choices and actions. We jugde or discern according to the fruit they bare or the morality defined by OUR GOD in his scriptures. We strive for spitiual progress domestically, socially and politically by overcoming evil and temptation to the best of our human ability with OUR GOD'S HELP.

    Gays assume a whole lot when they equate freedom with immorality/sexual perversion or decadence. The inalienable rights we are endowed with by OUR CREATOR in our blessings of liberty did not include such twisted unnatural rights that never existed and were never ment to exist in our morally based free society known as the Republic for which it stands one nation under OUR GOD. Moral laws were established by our Founders based on biblically defined immorlity. The common point of attack and the failings of the gays and other subversive elements in our courts, our gov't, and our schools is found here.

    God used a pack of wild dogs to attack a group of kids who were harrassing a couple of men of God in their travels...are the dogs culpable? Cannot evil work through animals as well?

    • Lyuba Tereshchenko Lyuba Tereshchenko Canada says:

      LOL! Our God? Your god is none of my mine; I'm an Asatruar.

      Why do you think because someone is gay, they automatically are evil, immortal and perverse? As if I'm only defined by my sexuality and nothing else. Keep your religion to yourself, again all people are asking for is equality.  When your country becomes a theocracy then you can make the Bible the laws of the land. Last time I looked America was NEVER a theocracy and the founding fathers were deists for the most part.

      Nice try, but no cigar, mate.

  37. roy roy India says:

    Sexual unions, especially for the male, is a tough, highly demanding exercise. In all forms of animal life, immediately after mating, the female can be observed as one with a highly dissatisfied look, and, in some cases, like certain breeds of spiders, with very violent disposition. Honey bee for example, maintains a whole army of worker bees, the only function they are required perform being to sexually entertain the queen. All male animals, aware of the impending disgrace after each mating might have been reluctant to enter into sexual union, forcing nature to come up with the idea of mating season when no other thought disturbs him.  I think our forefathers preempted such a fate if things are to follow a natural path and devised various ways to reduce the necessity to perform sexually, as far as man is concerned. Thus we have sex prohibited on various grounds, of certain relation, certain time, giving abstract meaning to gratification and it's results etc. Homosexuality is one such method to escape from the rigours of performance.

  38. Ellie Ellie United Kingdom says:

    It's comments like the ones that zeitgeist make that make me sad that we can't move on. We're now in the 21st Century and still arguing about this? Still? Remember there was a time when Blacks were discriminated against for not being fully "human". Sometimes the human race is blinded by its own self importance.

  39. Emanuel Emanuel Spain says:

    Just because homosexual acts are found in nature doesn't mean it is good for humans to practice. It is also found in nature that some animals in certain situations, like lions, eat their young (or offspring). Would you eat your babies because of that? No, that ridiculous. In the same way, just because homosexuality is found in some cases in nature doesn't mean it is good for humans to practice.

    • Eye Eye Armenia says:

      Surely, you're right. But there is something that is very important: because homosexuality is found in some (actually, in many) cases in nature, it DOES meanit is totally NATURAL, therefore, it can't be called a crime against nature!!!

      This is a highly important point, do not dismiss that, because the church and many authorities used to (and still practice it) say it is an anti-natural act. Well, it's apparently not.

  40. Noneed Noneed Armenia says:

    It seems your logic is flawed: if something is not against nature, it can't be against Gd, can it?

    AND: Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

    Do you think this is what God designed? Is this his law? Would you kill someone who works on Sabbaths???
    AND 1 Timothy 2:11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

    So, shall we forbid all the women to be public speakers, professors in the universities, politicians, managers, etc,etc,etc???
    Shall we get into the medieval and prehistoric chaos and darkness, living in prejudices?

    • Teresa Teresa United States says:

      Just so you know God does not literally mean that those partaking in work on the Holy Day should be killed...that is Old Testament. God is saying that those who put their selfish and worldly lives before him shall be dead spiritually. Not physically shooting someone at point blank for doing paperwork, or hanging someone for punching their time card. And as far as women not having a voice, that's a bunch of bull...God did make man before woman, it was woman who sinned first, but it also states things in the bible about men being submissive to women. God does not intend for a man to beat down his wife and for her to walk on egg shells her entire life, but he does want both sexes to be submissive to each other through respect, love, and devotion. Thus one of the reasons he created marriage to be between a man and woman not man and man or woman and women

  41. Noneed Noneed Armenia says:

    And the slavery: Exodus 21:7"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do." Well, god is against gays, but he's fully for slavery, eh? Do you think this really it the God's law? Shall the fathers be allowed to sell their daughters against their will to the slavery???

    And so much this kind of sh*t is full the Bible... do you follow all this Godly Laws?

  42. _FYRE_ _FYRE_ United States says:

    I hope this gets out because it is the proof that being gay occurs NATURALLY. It is not something one chooses to be. When is the world going to wake up? In the U.S. you may not be killed for being gay but you do live as a second class citizen. Not allowing gays to marry is a violation of human rights, rights that the U.S. government insist they must protect. I am sure there are many gays who would like to be protected by laws,and protected w/ insurance that other couples CAN get b/c they are heterosexual. EVERYONE MUST be allowed to marry who they love,same gender or not. Really,if you are against it ask yourself this "Are you sleeping with them?" No? Well then it isn't your business to say they can't marry or shouldnt be together, unless of course you are already married to them yourself, in which case you should get a divorce!

  43. GoD GoD Syria says:

    Men were not created for Men nor Women for Women. My children, do not belittle yourselves by comparing yourselves to thy animals of the Earth. Amen

  44. Ellen Ellen Canada says:

    Honestly, reading the comments after this article make me feel sick to my stomach. I am a lesbian, but I have also been raised by loving Christian parents. I have gone to Christian school since I was a little girl, and I know the Bible inside and out. What I don't understand is why there has to be so much hate directed at either side. Yes, Christians (as well as people from other religious backgrounds) have hurt homosexuals. And yes, homosexuality is a scary thought to those who do not understand it or agree with it. But why does that mean we have to attack each other. Using words like "gaytard"... How can you honestly have read the Bible and know God, and yet blatantly attack a person using hateful language? I am not saying the sides need to agree, because its quite obvious that they will not. What I am saying is that if you are going to comment on this article, please leave the hate at home. It's hurtful and offensive to both sides of the argument. No one needs to come here and feel attacked. Debate can happen without attacking. Please at least try to tone down the hate a little. Thank you.

  45. John John United States says:

    Heh. Ellen, it makes you feel sick to your stomach? Now you know what it feels like when a normal person (i.e. heterosexual) see's two men or two women kissing or fondling in a public place. Sick to my stomach. Yes. That's what.

    • Ellen Ellen Canada says:

      John, it is obvious to me that you must be harboring homosexual tendencies. To be that turned off by the idea of two people kissing, it must really be doing the opposite. Get your head out of your butt and realize that a normal person as you would say, does not object to any form of love. You are not a normal person John, rather a life form that has missed a little bit of a heart and a brain. People like you make me sick to my stomach. I was merely commenting on the hate that I saw on both sides and that the hatred can hurt. Thank you for further cementing the fact that hatred makes us blind to the fact that the person typing this out is in fact human, gay or not. You are a sad person.

  46. Aaron Aaron Ireland says:

    TNever enjoyed reading comments after a post so much before in my life. Why are all the gays hyped up about a few idiots who don't believe in homosexuality. Leave them be, they are idiots, you are gay...ohh look... the world is still going around

    As for the bible bashers (gay or not) leave your bible at home, there is no place for ancient novels in modern internet times. You should be concerned with good fiction, like Harry Potter.

    John 'a normal person' ha ha, as opposed to an unnormal or antinormal person is it?

  47. Rueben Rueben South Africa says:

    The puritan's idea of hell is a place where everyone has to mind their own business.

  48. Student in AZ Student in AZ United States says:

    I have heard the ultra-conservative, anti-gay rights people state that being gay or bisexual is a choice.  If that is your position then I would ask you just one question.  Exactly when was it that you chose to be heterosexual?  Just asking...

  49. thurman man thurman man United States says:

    There pros and cons to the subject, we may never know.

  50. Darkvader Darkvader United States says:

    Homosexuality is a very complex subject, we may never know why some people are homosexual and others heterosexual. It may be hidden in our genetic codes.

  51. Joe Joe United States says:

    I doubt the validity of this post. Some of the information is contradictory. How does a completely homosexual bird couple have children? They will only lay unfertilized eggs, correct? Some of the information may be true, but it seems spurious to me. I'm not homophobic; I'm just not credulous. Don't play around with science and information. I love CORRECT information.

  52. Jack S Jack S Australia says:

    An interesting take on the subject from Ricky Gervais http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIcrCZQkSlg

    • Joe Joe United States says:

      He further solidified my disbelief in this stuff. How can science be backed by drawings? I must say this is just a trick to get people to accept or to practice homosexuality. I don't condone false science. Science is now saying that homosexuality is genetic. Rats. Ask a psychologist about the effects of society on behavior. They'd tell you that homos are gay because they were either touched by a person of the same gender, viewed too many same-gender parts, or were told by science that is just the way of mankind. This is junk made for people who will receive it. It's bull.

  53. Justin  Randal Justin Randal United States says:

    We all know animals do things that at first may seem to have no reason like when your dog drags its butt across the carpet but in fact it has a purpose like a cat eating grass and other odd things we may see like a cow eating the after-birth from a calf she may of just had or even another cow joining in on the feast these things all have a definite reason so if animals display what may seem to be homosexual behavior it serves a purpose other than the animal likes a same sex partner it is serving a purpose and filling a need, perhaps like a group of females living together so no single male can have his way with each one, or to protect a female who is not ready to mate or other options to be sure all the young are conceived and born and raised at the prime time not because they are a group of butch females.Don't forget that until modern times when people who had made the choice to be gay, humans made a deliberate effort to conceal that choice (that's a human trait) apparently animals don't try to hide things that are required to keep living HOMO-sexuality is a HOMO-sapien thing connected with sexual desire, human thinking and a soul which most people believe animals don't have

    • Natalie Natalie United States says:

      Homo means nothing more than "the same." Homozygous twins, for example, are identical, ie the same. Homosexuals like the same sex. Homosexuality was not created my H. sapiens. Being gay was looked down upon because it was out of the ordinary in many cultures, but not all cultures. It was hidden for the same reasons it's hidden today. You can choose to hide or reveal something, you cannot choose how your brain works.

  54. Simplisitty101 Simplisitty101 United States says:

    I can't say I approve of gays cause I don't I have begun to realize that gay people are looking for an excuse for them to say that being gay is normal when in fact it's not believe in the bible or science the facts are there we were created with opposite sexual organs for a reason and that's that. Gay came out of follys people wanting more than wanting to experiment and I have nothing against them but plz don't make it seem normal stop looking for and excuse to feel normal like everything else in this world that lifestyle is a choice and has become a highly influenced choice in this modern day society

    • andthemachine andthemachine Canada says:

      There will always be a dividing line between: Liberals and Conservatives;Jocks and Stoners;Americans and Mexicans;Homosexuals and Christians.  
      It is not just one issue, it is a multitude of problems that we love to fixate on. There is no side that will ever say they are wrong, and that anger is fueling so much hate in the human race. We are meant to be a lot of things; but, divided is not one of them. People should accept the good and the bad of the Earth and just be happy with what they have. This is all just wasted energy. Why don't you all try to be a little less judgmental and defensive? If we didn't have diversity life would be really boring. And if this wasn't the way it was meant to be, it wouldn't be this way.

      "Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind."

      Just be happy people. You don't live forever.

    • Lithp Lithp United States says:

      I can't say I approve of Simplisity101 because I don't. I have only just begun to decipher that word salad up there. I realize that using proper grammar & diction is a choice, one that he has obviously foregone. He's looking for an excuse to believe his position is well-reasoned when it's not. It came out of folly, of not knowing what "facts" & "reasons" mean in science. I have nothing against him, but "plz" is not a real word. Everything is not a choice, that's moronic, & if society were so damn influental he'd learn how to write.

  55. Simplisitty101 Simplisitty101 United States says:

    Firstly let me apologize for my grammar and diction. I did not see it neccessary to write a speech to get my point across. I did learn to write and chose not to do so correctly, therefore supporting my arguement that everything we do is a choice, how we react to every situation is a choice, etc. I have yet to find evidence proving otherwise.  

  56. Lithp Lithp United States says:

    There is no natural law that says you have to stick a penis in a vagina.

    Consequently, I don't need to sit here explaining things like how "any psychologist would agree with me" and "psychologists don't all agree on this matter" are contradictory. It's a stupid Red Herring anyway.

    Unless either of you can produce actual scientific data against homosexuality, NOT half-baked misrepresentations, then your arguments are from pseudoscience. You can tell yourself your ideas are true until you're blue in the face. I don't give a crap. The Human Genome Project doesn't give a crap. The American Psychiatric Association doesn't give a crap. The scientific community in general doesn't give a crap. The world doesn't give a crap. But, most importantly, I don't give a crap.

    • Simplisitty101 Simplisitty101 United States says:

      I am not against homosexuality, but I am against making it seem normal. I do believe that we are each born with some sort of reasoning, without penis and vagina there would be no reproduction where humans are concerned. No matter how many big words you use to make yourself sound smart etc, the fact still remains that  "penis and vagina " is the only way for us to reproduce, therefore anything else is not normal. I have no problem with homosexuals and their lifestyle, it's their choice. If you don't care keep your opinion to yourself, or state facts proving otherwise.

  57. Philipem Philipem United States says:

    Well first of all people use sex for all kinds of thing other than reproduction as I have noted and if its ALL about that then stop having non-reproductive sex, it's perverted.

    As to reproducing I have not noticed a shortage of children in this world. The 5-10% of us who are gay are not going to end the species.

    Finally I want to clarify how people get children:

    Str8 People:
    Artificial Insemination
    Foster Parenting
    In Vitro Fertilization
    Inheritance/Being Appointed someone's Guardian
    Step Parenting (marry someone with a child)
    Stray Collection (runaways, throwaways)
    Vaginal intercourse

    Gay people:
    Artificial Insemination
    Foster Parenting
    In Vitro Fertilization
    Inheritance/Being Appointed someone's Guardian
    Step Parenting (marry someone with a child)
    Stray Collection (runaways, throwaways)
    Vaginal intercourse

  58. Sevak Sevak Armenia says:

    Well, some people are still dumb enough...

    A BIG SECRET WILL BE REVEALED TO YOU NOW: If a gay man has sex with a lesbian woman, they WILL have a child. THUS, even if (though that NEVER happened) the world is populated ONLY BY LGBT people, children will still be born.

    Religion is a crap not to discuss. You follow the commands of your Bible? You hate your father and mother they way Jesus commands you? You stone non-virgin brides and kill the pagans? Grow up, you zealots and homophobes!

    Accept your nature, whatever it is (hetero, bi or homo) and do not hide against religion poisoning hatred on open gays and lesbians making religion impure by your hatred and attacks on others!

  59. Kat Kat United States says:

    I am not sure what makes you think that you can tell me what my religion is or isn't.  Region isn't a requirement, it is a culture's way of acknowledging God and His intent in our lives.  There are many different approaches to maintaining the ways of the Bible mostly due to the different types of social cultures and the marriages from them.  As a gay rites activist, you tend to cite it most.  Religion tends to shift emphasis as elders begin to fade away and children grow up and take a rightful place in the world, we begin to develop our beliefs and our devotions similarly.  I do not believe in religion, I believe in God.

  60. melissa melissa Canada says:

    Animals are most definitely related to humans considering humans are a part of the animals kingdom. Homosexuality is not a sin, if anybody knows anything about religion they would know God wants us to love everyone not limit our love based on what society believes to be right and wrong. Homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted so for anyone who doesn't agree, you will soon be the minority and the outcast, have fun.

  61. Rueben Rueben South Africa says:

    Our planet is already overpopulated...homosexuality is nature's way of preventing this...homosexuality is Not abnormal....what is abnormal is the amount of people on this planet and how everything from climate to resources are taking strain because of it...Reproductive rights should be taken away from 50% of heterosexuals who are not fit to be parents and feel that it is there god given right to reproduce hence overpopulating this planet.The truth is... there are just not enough homosexuals....think about it!

    • roy roy India says:

      This is a unique view!

    • Tabby Tabby United Kingdom says:

      I absolutely agree, I am bisexual myself, and have chosen to have a child with my partner, but I see SO many other parents who don't really want their kids, and treat them like dirt. It is heartbreaking.

      We have raised our son to know that homosexuality and bisexuality and heterosexuality are all normal and acceptable, with the hopes that he will grow up healthy, open minded and able to realise his sexuality when he comes of age.

      It is nice to know that nature shows homosexuality occurs, but its a bout time humans learned to get on with it, if it isn't hurting anybody, what exactly is the problem with anybody's lifestyle, sexuality, gender, ethnicity, age.... The list goes on, we are all people, made of flesh and bones like each other.

  62. Arnold Arnold United States says:

    Are we comparing ourselves with our PREY???

    Animals are our food--

    I look at it this way---

    If you watch a PORNO and when asked which one would you want to go to bed with tonight and you pick same sex--well guess what; you are gay!! On the other side where I am straight---Look! I really dont care if you are GAY!!! I dont go around saying I bed a woman!! So please stop the movement--(straight people would rather not know) be yourself--and yes I would vote for same sex marriage..

    Love is LOVE---

    • Lithp Lithp United States says:

      I don't know how you expect people to vote for an issue if awareness can't be raised for it.

      Disregard that said issue shouldn't really be something that is voted on anyway.

      Disregard also that "saying I bed women" happens a lot in our society.

  63. Jo Jo Australia says:

    when "gayness" was not talked about - and that was because of the dire consequences from religious zealots- men and women lived lives of lies if they survived witout committing suicide as a teenager or young person. Even today in many parts of Australia and America young gay men in particular are beaten and killed for being openly gay. It is fantastic that you are accepting and would vote for gay marriage but if it had not been discussed ad nauseum you wouldn't be the enlightened supportive person that you are. You are only truly accepting if you are willing to stand up and speak out loud your acceptance - standing against bigotry and fundamentalism - much courage is needed to do this but you would be surprised at peoples reactions. Good Luck being not just supportive but being an advocate.

  64. jtcupwb jtcupwb United States says:

    This article contains a fallacy of relevance:

    An appeal to nature can sometimes be considered a fallacy of relevance which rejects the claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural or artificial. In this type of informal fallacy, nature implies an ideal or desired state of being, a state of how things were, or how they should be: in this sense an appeal to nature may resemble an appeal to tradition.

  65. AJD AJD United States says:

    SO, uh, I think many people (ignorant idiots) forget that WE - YES, US HUMANS - are mammals. We are animals. We are part of the animal kingdom. Some talk about the human race as if we aren't classified by anything.

    WE ARE ANIMALS. Intelligent and self aware, but still animals. I can't stress that enough.  

  66. Anonymous Anonymous Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela says:

    Every argument that uses "God" on a sentence is nonsense. That's all I have to say about all the homophobic comments. Use science to go against science; use truth and teories, not speculation and stupidity. It is an obvious fact that you can believe in everything you want, but religion is not the answer for the origin of man or what we are supposed to be. Science and reason can help us, but if you continue to go against it you clearly show that you prefer to live on the black age. And no, I'm not an atheist nor homosexual nor transgender, I'm just a human being that wants to advance and experience true knowledge.

    • 21stCenturyAmericanWoman 21stCenturyAmericanWoman United States says:

      Applause. I wholeheartedly agree, I especially find it irksome that no one takes into account that politics have existed since the beginning of group dynamics ((aside) yes I'm talking about human's primate ancestry, which if you don't believe in despite the Literal Tons of evidence, then you belong in the same category as those that think the Holocaust was a conspiricy) and that religion has political factors. When the Old Testement was written people had diffrent value and taboos, thats why there is a New Testement, so the things written in the "Holy Book" are the views and beliefs of that time and culture, especially the tradition of emphasising the importance of lineage and genetic heirs. They also thought it was fine to sell people into slavery, publicly stone people, and that the sun revolves around the Earth. Also, there is no evidence that either God or Jesus actually approved the things in the Bible, besides the Ten Commandments, and even they are questionable. Plus, for my observation, if Bible thumpers are such homophobs then why are they reading this articule anyway, there's logic here! I think they are trying to convince themselves not to surcumb to their true sexual desires. Come on all you haters step out of the closet, you'll feel better.

  67. Mickie Woodard Mickie Woodard United States says:

    Why do people think its okay to be homosexual god put Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Amanda and Eve?

    • Tanukisan Tanukisan Australia says:

      That is the most pathetically idiotic statement I've ever seen; and I've only ever seen it from pathetically idiotic Christians. Do yourself a favour and stop posting; you only make yourself and your religion look even more ridiculous than both already do.

  68. Ray Ray United Kingdom says:

    The continued indoctrination from the homosexual and pro-homosexual lobby is very tiring. It is full of distortions, half truths and downright lies.  For the truth to come to the fore there needs to be impartiality for a start. There are so many faults in their arguments it is not possible to know where to start. It is a waste of time of course, as they are partial and will only believe what they want to.The term "homosexuality" in animals is given such a wide scope as to he devoid of any genuine meaning. The actual homosexual orientation of animals is actually extremely rare. There is also incest, cross breeding, the eating of their own young in nature.

    • Tanukisan Tanukisan Australia says:

      The "indoctrination" is all one way and has been going on for about 1500 years; ever since Constantine manufactured Christianity to unify the Roman population in an attempt to restore the empire. Fortunately, it's power seems to be on the decline.

      If the success of the homosexual members of society in their attempts to win back those human rights that the advent of the Abrahamic religions' political and military power have denied them for so long is such a threat to you, perhaps you would be happier living in a more repressive society. I'm sure some of the more vigorously conservative Islamic countries would welcome your attitudes with open arms.

      Feel free to slam the proverbial door as you leave if it will make you feel any better.

  69. GloriaGloryGirl GloriaGloryGirl United States says:

    ...and animals don't live off 2000 year old books filled with bs.

  70. Wow
    Blahblahblah Blahblahblah Canada says:

    I'm not going to add much to the discussion as most of my thoughts of have already been spoken to death already. But I am shocked at the amount of ignorance towards science in the comments section.

    How come the religious community is allowed to say anything they want, and they will hammer that point across, until they are finally defeated. Then they will backtrack with another argument, without any acknowledgement of their error. They will then hammer that argument. It's a cycle of ignorance. Yet, whenever a scientist makes an error, they point out how flawed science is and how it cannot be trusted due to it's error.

    I do apologize to any rational believers for generalizing religion as such, I don't mean to insult the thinking people. I only mean to try to cause the irrational ones to question their beliefs, and their form of argument.

  71. Landerson Landerson United States says:

    The person quoted in this article, Petter Brockman, is a former zoologist who builds exhibits and does school tours at the Natural History Museum in Oslo. Hardly an expert. It's irresponsible to believe something just because it's posted on the internet. Don't be ignorant, people. There is NOTHING that fully explains homosexuality in humans. There are studies that explain homosexuality in some of the gay community (abuse, hormone imbalance, etc.) but nothing definitive that explains 100% of homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality. Check it out for yourself.

    • -_- -_- United States says:

      OK, so three years later and the ignorance has gotten even worse. Why doesn't that surprise me.

      And what's ironic is the huge debate going on now over people's sexual orientation. What I don't understand is the fact that people are ACTUALLY DEBATING over CIVIL RIGHTS! This study clearly shows homosexuality occurs in other animals. What could possibly be a more scientifically proven study? If you find one, I'll give you a cookie.

      And if this outrageous bill gets passed, people might as well take the next step and make sure that two male/female animals don't accidentally fall in love with each other. We wouldn't want that to happen now, would we? That would just end the would, because the opinions MUST be true. Silly people thinking those "studies" and "facts" will explain things better than people's opinions! Seriously? It's like you're saying the sky is orange while you're staring at it.

      And who is to say that homosexuality isn't the "true" sexual orientation? How about this, let's all just move on with our lives instead of dwelling on something so irrelevant. Don't you people have better things to do anyways, like go to church, get friends, ANYTHING!

  72. Obi Obi Nigeria says:

    If the essence of this research is to validate homosexualism for humans because it is predominant in animals, then are we saying that we are merely animals? So what happens to all those studies on us being higher and wiser beings? If the entire world were to become homosexuals, so what happens to humanity? That "Christian" or the "Church" encouraged homosexualism did GOD also encourages it. It will be like saying because a war broke out between two nations that God also encouraged soldiers to rape and maim innocent women. Every natural law, every cultural law encourages marriage between male and female and nothing more anything less is unnatural and abnormal...and in our conscience/s we know it. Love to all!

  73. Erskien Lenier Erskien Lenier United States says:

    Think about it a moment.... God supposedly took Male DNA (Not dust as he did to create Adam and manipulated it to become female (same as scientist are able to do in the lab now a days) and grow a women of whom was literally a female version of Adam even more so than your or my sister or brother and Adam had sex with her and they made babies out of wedlock. Since there was no other humans on Earth these children had to have sex with either their parents or each other to keep the family tree going. Even thought Christians might have a million and one opinions about this there is no other way to get to where we are today according to the Bible. If we know that red hair or blue eyes is recessive and can pop up anywhere in a family tree why not same sex or even wrong body in relation to sexual orientation can't happen? Did God not create this and set it in motion? He could have chose otherwise... Why would he create this then curse his creation when it's his fault if he has or had an issue with it? Sounds like God needs to man up and stop being schizophrenic and childish.

  74. lindsey lindsey United Kingdom says:

    Maybe humans are so prone to conflict because they reject there natural instincts. Streight women spend more time looking at womens bodys then men do, and then turn it into bitchy comments (conflict). I a man even looked over me to the level i have had streight women look over me i would want to ask him what his problem was. A man looks and then if he does not like he looks at someone else, if he does like he then tries to talk to you. Women look over and over, if they like what they see they hate you, and if they dont like what they see they become smug. Women always maintain a level of cattyness with there close friends, as they have to make sure there natural inclinationms dont take over. Its the same with men, they have to be tougth enougth to show there maintaining a defence against other men.  

  75. evod777 evod777 Austria says:

    The most biased and unscientific opinion I have ever come across. It's not official or backed up by qualified research scientists - just a load of nit-picking off Wikipedia. Your incredibility does more damage than good for your misguided and ignorant cause.

  76. 21stCenturyAmericanWoman 21stCenturyAmericanWoman United States says:

    Um Kate, I'm pretty sure Lithp is being sarcastic.

  77. Dauntae Dauntae United States says:

    This is why I do not live by religion; a group of people who follow a set of ideas based on the influence of others perception and approval.

    I will not allow another life form to dictate who I date, have intercourse with or hold hands with in public. This part of humanity disgusts me profoundly and I refuse to keep quiet if anyone challenges me in public or private.

    Discover yourself and what you really want, who you are, what brings you joy and live, live, live your life why because it is YOUR life. Not the people at church, the grocery store, the mall, the gas station, your neighbors, co-workers, classmates, stop living based on what OTHER people believe...STAND UP. Peace and happiness to all!

  78. Mekkininsm Mekkininsm United States says:

    Did everyone miss the really important part of the article in which it was explained WHY homosexual acts may be more prevalent with some groups, specifically herding groups? In any group that has a complex hierarchy same gendered male sex can provide bonding without the threat of competition. I find this sociologically interesting but still irrelevant to human sexual orientation. Exposure to mercury can lower testosterone levels in birds and cause a much higher incidence of same sex bonding. Prior to the 1800s the concept of a sexual orientation did not exist. (And therefore is a little hard for God to condemn 2000-6000 years before the invention of the idea) Why should we assume that such a rigid social construct effectively describes animal behavior? All this article really proves is that sexually stimulating acts are used by animals for purposes other than procreation, and that they are important to the basic social order.

    For those trying to relate incest to homosexuality for some odd reason, anthropologists believe the most likely reason for the strong taboo against incest stems from the inherent confusion in social structure, not purely biological reasons.

    People also seem to comment saying that seeing people express their homosexuality in public makes them nauseous because they see it as abnormal, but in the same sentence are warning people against teaching our children that such expressions of affection are normal. Our perceptions of normality are taught to us.

    And the only person qualified to quote Leviticus at me is someone who hasn't ever shaved their beard, gotten a tattoo or worn clothing made of mixed fabrics.

    To sum: Homosexuality in animals seems largely to be a byproduct of social order, not natural instinct. This doesn't help any argument unless you can effectively teach a group of animals to understand the social constructs of orientation and then communicate their preferences. Equating homosexuality to incest, cannibalism, or other taboo subjects is weird and also counter productive because they are generally just deeply ingrained social constructs anyway. What you think is normal does not equal what is right and wrong. And if you quote Scripture at me you're probably a giant fucking hypocrite.

  79. Maddi Maddi United States says:

    I read through a few comments and I'm happy to see so many people on here ready to defend us 'homo's' against these crazy Christians and their crazy bible. It amazes me that people in this day and age still believe that making arguments according to a 2,000 year old text that came before many sciences were discovered is an intelligent thing to do. If you believe in God, that's fine. But please, the rest of us are trying to enjoy the one life we have with the right one. Male or Female.

  80. Riemmelth Riemmelth Canada says:

    only because there's homossexuality among animals it doesn't mean that it's natural, we're also animals, animals have instincts, one of these instincts is the sexual desire, the purpose of sexual desire is reproduction, the organism generate sensations of pleasure through our nervous system with the only purpose of making us have sex and reproduce, the nature of sexual organisms is a male and a female to breed and make offspring, to keep life, their species, existing, a individual may feel physical attraction and affective feelings for another of the same sex, but this is not the rule this is the exception, the vast majority of sexual and affective relationships in nature is heterossexual, because this is the natural, while homossexuality keep being a exception it's ok but if it becomes mainstream, it will threaten the existence of life, at least our kind of life, homossexuality is a perversion of the natural order

    • Dev Dev United Kingdom says:

      You call Heterosexuality natural and its in animals
      You call Homosexuality unnatural and yet, it is in animals

      Homosexuality and Bisexuality is a sexual release of energy on the same gender, true it may not reproduce life, but yet, clearly hear it is natural because it runs in animals as well, evolution just took its course and some of us still carry this

      It is perfectly natural if it isnt fading away and if homosexuality and bisexuality is unnatural it would be an evolution dead end, but it aint, we are evolving as well, in a slow long process yes, but its happening and it will continue. Homosexuality and Bisexuality (to me) is a beautiful thing, it is an express of love as well as sexual energy. I hold nothing against Heterosexuality as I am Bi but being Bi doesnt change who I am, it doesnt change how my family sees me, its just who I am, and I am proud of it. I do not see it as unnatural, especially not now after I just read that 1,500 species carry it.

  81. Doug Doug United States says:

    One thing I'd like to point out is that homophobe  means a fear of homosexuality. I don't think it's necessary to call someone something they are not just because they don't agree with you. I may not agree with homosexuality but that doesn't mean I'm afraid of gays. And usually name calling beings when you know you're losing the argument.

  82. Laser Laser United States says:

    This was an apparently successful April Fools prank.

  83. Arthur Ide Arthur Ide Peru says:

    Homosexuality exists in more than 1500 species; it is catalogued in over 150 books.  It is natural (it occurs in nature), normal (it is repetitive) and good for the planet in cutting down the number o births, the demands made on nonrewable resources, and giving expression to individual identity and self actualization.

  84. Lance Spencer Lance Spencer United States says:

    We see infanticide, rape, murder and even pedophilia in the animal kingdom yet none would say that because these things are done they are morally ok!

  85. Tamer none Tamer none Turkey says:

    Are you aware that this article is strictly "non-scientific"? Or am I missing something? Because I have seen no references to scientific methods, analyses, methodological observations, or any other musts for a valid argument.

  86. Chris Bryson Chris Bryson United States says:

    um...so is incest and rape and male domination and pedophilia and...I could keep going. Most instances where homosexuality is prevalent, so is pedophilia. Infant animals are forced to partake in the homosexual acts because it is a part of their societal tradition. The monkeys that do this have a very strict male domination, and males dominate other males by this butt-rape action as well as females. Even the females who show domination do so by mimicking the male sexual actions upon other monkeys. This is what your point looks like in context.

  87. None Given None Given United States says:

    Consider the following statement made by a prominent member of the American Psychological Association and published by the Harvard University Press: "...it may be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise. If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?"

    Where are the guardians of our professional ethics? Will they really allow such Machiavellian statements to go uncritically examined? Is there an ethical violation when a self-identified psychologist and a member of APA supports activism masqueraded as science, and states that it is not so bad?

    Political correctness would suggest that there will be no response from the APA.

    In his book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health, former APA president Nicholas Cummings notes that he and his co-author lived through the abominable McCarthy era and the Hollywood witch hunts; still he notes, there was "not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that currently exists under political correctness." He says, "Now, misguided political correctness tethers our intellects."

    Perhaps the British playwright, self-identified secularist atheist Pat Condell, is indeed correct: "Political correctness is like a drug that we just can't stop injecting, even though we know it's going to kill us."

    In summary, if one reduces the recent APA document to one based on scientific merit and ethicality, it might translate into something like the following:

    "We at APA acknowledge that there are probably many factors that lead to one to claim a gay identity, likely different for different folks. However, what is clear is that homosexuality is not simply a biological phenomenon. We are not sure about the effectiveness of reorientation therapy (or any other therapies for that matter!) but political correctness demands that APA take a position of extreme caution, even though there is no evidence to support such a position. And APA believes that though homosexuality may be fluid for some people, it is certainly not a matter of choice for anyone. However, having expressed these reservations (and fears), it is important that all mental health professionals respect client self-determination (including those who seek reorientation therapy)."

    The APA should be commended for its greater reliance on science and ethicality in this document. Perhaps now is the time for the association to abide by its commitment that accompanied then-APA President Nicholas Cummings' proposal to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1974: "a proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions." None, however, was ever conducted.

  88. Stephen Kaufer Stephen Kaufer United States says:

    As someone who pays a lot of attention to animal behavior, I cringe when I read false conclusions like this from common animal behaviors.  When male lions mount another male, it is more to show domination so would be more appropriately called rape.  When killer whales form pods of males, it is for hunting...not for sexual encounters.  And to say that gulls are lesbians, etc is a causation fallacy and more anthropomorphication than science.  

    But what is sad in all this is that people are forced through the discrimination of others to try to prove that a lifestyle is acceptable.  A lifestyle that brings two people in love together, promotes happiness and does nothing to affect the lives of those who try to tear down their happiness.  Why prove it is natural or unnatural?  Just because some bible thumper with nothing more to go on that what their preacher told them is doubting your choice?  Here is a word to the wise...nothing you say, even if you prove it through science eventually, will change their minds.

    • Bryan Phillips Bryan Phillips United States says:

      For someone who is advocating gay rights, you didn't read this article completely and you certainly do not speak on behalf of the gay community. Of the 1500 species, you give two example of behavior that YOU interpret as domination and not homosexuality. Read it again without skimming this time.

  89. Amenda W Amenda W Canada says:

    according to this logic and the logic of most of the people commenting, if we are no different then the animal kingdom, shouldn't we then put people in zoo's and the circus, oh yeah, society calls them freaks and criminals? Maybe we should replace our family outings to the nearest jailhouse and look at the people behind the cages instead of the zoo, it's all the same ... right?

  90. Robbyn Mattei Robbyn Mattei South Africa says:

    So...if we're going to follow species examples to become homosexual...

    Do we follow those same species examples to accept rape, murder and other "Human" crimes as the new "normal"

    You cannot compare humans to animals...

    If we're going to say inter-species sex within the Animal Kingdom (which includes humans for anyone not of a biological background) is ok...then why is bestiality still a crime in most countries...???

    I'm not for inter-species sex...and I'm not against homosexuality...

    I just think that we should focus research finances on more important research rather than looking for excuses to justify a person's sexuality...my opinion of course - I'm not always right...but I do think it's silly to use lower-order or more primitive species as comparisons for human evolution...

    If you want to be gay - sure...if you want to be bi...ok...and if you want to stay straight then fine...I don't see a problem here...just a waste of research...

    • Bryan Phillips Bryan Phillips United States says:

      It's not a matter of wanting to be anything. It just is. That is one of the points of this article. You are not against homosexuality, but it sounds like you are against common sense. You compare homosexuality (this is between two consenting adults) with "...rape, murder and other "Human" crimes as the new "normal" ." Finally, no one is following examples of species to become homosexual. It simply is or is not.  That is out of the individuals control. Nothing has changed.

  91. Johnny Bluenosei Johnny Bluenosei United States says:

    Many good points on both sides of this debate. Personally I believe it all comes down to what you believe. You can go on to justify your beliefs via the Bible or what you think is science but ultimately you are just trying to support the position you already own.

    It could be that people who reject homosexuality have a 'natural predisposition' to feel that way. In any event the statement 'homosexuality is wrong, people shouldn't do it' is a valid belief and shouldn't be attacked anymore than the statement 'it's OK to be Gay'. It's up to the individual to decide.

    Unfortunately this will not suffice because both sides don't want the other to preach their agenda as it threatens there own.

    The problem with the anti-gay position is it is a position that preaches restraint. Don't do that. It restricts or attempts to restrict. Hence the opposing group uses the mantra of freedom. No one likes to be told not to do something.

    We live in a society of laws, rules, regulations, morals and ethics. These rules change as society changes. Some things on the cusp like homosexuality can readily come beck over to the 'acceptable' side because after all can anyone really say it is hurting anyone? It may hurt out feelings but that is not enough. Bring down society? Don't think so...too late!

    If college students started drooping their pants on campus and a group was opposed you could make all the same arguments. Who is it hurting? It's about freedom of expression. Let's bring a lawsuit because our group is being discriminated against. They would call us haters but a parent telling his child to pull their pants up doesn't mean we hate anyone.

    The fact is millions of people believe homosexuality is wrong regardless of religion and we reserve the right to remind you of that and to teach others and proclaim the same. We don't hate you, but if you try to shove your agenda down our throats we will speak up and remind you.

    To be sure, there are hundreds of 'wrongs' that people do everyday and this one is minor in comparison but it is still considered wrong by many and after all is the topic of this debate.

    • Amy Schrecengost Amy Schrecengost United States says:

      My problem, specifically with those who use religion to justify their arguments on homosexuality, is that they pick and choose what parts of the Bible they choose to follow (and they do choose these parts willingly). In almost the same breath that God (or I should say the fallible human(s) who wrote the passages) says homosexuality is a sin, he says that eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are a sin. And the only sin that is greater than any other is denouncing God. Bible also states that if a woman is raped she should marry her rapist. Or that stoning you insolent wife or child is justifiable. We reserve the right to remind you of this.

      I don't hate religious people. And I honestly could care less if millions of people think homosexuality is wrong. Millions of people think tattoos are wrong too. If those extremely fervent anti homosexuals cannot get over their focus on other people's lives and deal with their own, then maybe they should move to a country that is actually a theocracy, like Saudi Arabia, and leave Americans with individual freedoms alone.

      Honestly, if everyone just dropped their "agendas" (both sides), and looked at this as nothing more than a legal matter (which is all it really boils down to in the end), then everyone could just shut up and move on already to actual important issues.

      There is no fun to be had in being objective though. And being objective certainly doesn't fit into our cultures love of personal drama. Gotta feed that beast!

      • Dean Williams Dean Williams United States says:

        Please note that eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics was not "sin"; not following God's direction at that particular time was the "sin".  He was concerned for their well being, and provided them with directions on how to maximize their diet, preservation of clothing etc. This was in addition to scores of other laws/directions/order they were provided with.  This is no different than our society having laws on the books to protect us.  I've noticed time and time again how individuals in all the above posts (on both sides) have twisted facts (and in some cases decry a "lack of facts"). Please provide me with the biblical book , chapter, and verse which says a raped woman should marry her rapist (nowhere to be found as any directive).  Also there has been a progression of the relational laws given in the Old Testament portion of the Bible and the New Testament, hence the dictates about stoning "disrespectful" children etc.  cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament (and no true Christian would advocate any such behavior).  So its not picking and choosing, its merely a progression of how God dealt with society in the manner that was most appropriate to the overall health of society at that given time.  Some of these things are hard for us to fathom, but it seems to me that if there is a "God" and he created all things he would have to be pretty "incredible" and would therefore, probably know what's best for society at any given time.  Interestingly enough, our society accepts the killing of innocent babies in the womb (even up to the point where they would be able to survive even if they where taken out of their mother's stomach) and the same people who typically accept this practice are "mostly" the same ones who would rail against some of the "hard to fathom" prohibition/laws/consequences in the Old Testament.  They then accuse Christians who "rightly divide" and apply the scriptural mandates given by God himself (The Bible clearly teaches that God supernaturally guided the hand of man in writing the Bible exactly as he wanted it) of "picking and choosing".  If you don't believe me, then as an example, go into the New Testament and you'll find the removal of the dietary restrictions (given to Moses) being handed down to the Apostle Peter by God himself.  And so it is with many other issues.  The practice of homosexuality however is condemned equally throughout the entire Bible, as is heterosexual sexual immorality, killing, lying, stealing......

        And for those who claim that science trumps the Bible, they should ask themselves "where did science come from"? My answer God created everything; even the principles by which the universe functions.  Well how do you know there is a God? Ans. by the appearance of the historical Jesus.  Christianity is not a religion of myth, fantasies etc.  Its a religion based on a factual person, who made claims that if they were untrue, then he would have to be deemed to be nothing more than a lunatic/liar on the level of a poached egg and Christians would have to be the biggest fools in existence.  And before someone screams or but Christianity says you have to have faith; The theory of evolution has huge gaps in it that require "a leap of faith" to believe.  The atheist says there is no God.  How does he/she know, did he/she trek through the entire universe and the scores of Galaxies that science says exists? Has he/she gone to Heaven and found no God.  He/She has more faith in his statement than the average Christian does in a "tangible book" (which claims to be a true revelation from the "claimed creator" of all things), and a tangible historical figure (Jesus).  

        Finally, we should love one another in tone and in action.  We should all be free to engage in debate, conversation, discourse without personal attacks (ie. the advocate of an opposing view viciously attacking someone from the other side (calling them names etc.) while screaming for tolerance, love etc.) This does not mean that we all have to agree or even like what the other side is saying.  But it does say a whole lot (ie. the person really doesn't know, or are not able to communicate their position because of lack of facts, emotional control...) when a person resorts to attacking someone else just because they don't agree with them. And sad to say that's what I saw over and over again in the above posts, and in the general "market place of ideas" in our society today.

  92. Eni Ekukole Eni Ekukole Cameroon says:

    It is preposterous to liken being black to being a homosexual. being black is a physical characteristic encoded in the gene. the skin color is directly influenced by the genetic make-up of the individual and that pigmentation is an adaptation. homosexuality is not something encoded in the gene per se. the human genome codes for individuals with the ability to procreate sexually. so they are formed with the physical adaptations for that. hormones and the reproductive system lead the individual to develop a reproductive behavior which involves sexual attraction to a complementary sex. And here lies the critical step because at this stage it means the development of a reproductive behavior is not directly and entirely controlled by the genes but also largely influenced by brain functions and processes, which in turn is largely influenced by the environment. As Richard Dawkins explained in his classic work ,The Selfish Gene, the brain evolved to make quick decisions and adapt to sudden changes in the environment which will be otherwise to fast for the genes themselves to adapt to directly. And as it is natural with such rapidly changing systems and processes errors or unintended and expected outcomes become more probable, so success to produce individuals with coherent reproductive behavior in accord with the anatomy becomes less restrictive and so individuals are spawned whose reproductive behavior is inconsistent with their phenotype.
    It is a scientific fact ( though not necessarily a political one) that sexual behavior not coherent with the human anatomy is a dysfunction because the genes do not code for an anatomy that fits a homosexual behavior. if this dysfunction happened  at the level of the genes it is mostly called a mutation or a genetic diseases or genetic defect. Such as albinism. Most mutations are disadvantageous. In fact disadvantageous mutations tend to limit the ability of an individual to pass on its faulty gene so that it  does not enter the gene pool and lead to extinction of the species.  I strongly believe homosexuality in humans could be a result of a defective gene but a lesser influence than the psychological and environmental component. And that the genetic influence may vary in strength from one individual to the other. Thus my guess and observation is homosexuals should not be allowed to donate sperm or eggs for fertilization because that very practice could be the very doom of humanity especially those who are gender-confused, such as transsexuals, cross dressers, effeminate men etc because this particular group seem to exhibit a form of reproductive behavior dysfunction that may be to a greater extend influenced by the gene component .

    In conclusion, all our hate and love are just aspects of the survival of genes. Love must not be erotic to be love. And not all hate is hate. The ability to be disgusted by something is what keeps one from committing murder, for instance, or having sex with close relatives. Being disgusted by the thought of incest is an adaptation which is part genetic and part (mostly) psychological, which we know is missing or deminished in some people. Being disgusted by homosexuality is all but a natural and normal adaptation.    I personally see homosexuals in the same light I see all sexual defiance: dysfunctional reproductive behaviors.

    • Bryan Phillips Bryan Phillips United States says:

      Doomed? How do you think a homosexual is born? Most often it takes a hetero man and woman to create this child. Most likely it is a trait that is inherited and passed down and you could very well be someone who creates a homosexual child because you possess the genes that make it happen. Now passing on those genes does not make said child gay. We are now studying epigenetics which are markers that influence genes. Usually identical twins have the same sexual orientation. This is good proof of it being biological. But sometimes they do not have the same orientation. It is where we begin to look at these markers that influence genes to explain why sometime these twins can have different orientations. I don't think we will ever be able to pinpoint all the ingredients that make a homosexual. I have a serious problem with your comparison of homosexuality to murder and incest. That alone discredits your whole view on the subject. Then your irrational spout of being doomed if we allow homosexuals to donate sperm? Guess what. Homosexuals have been making straight babies for some time now. Where have you been? It's just as well since it took two straight people to make a homosexual.

  93. tesa baley tesa baley United States says:

    juvenile chimps participate in sex with their parents and relatives.  Let's get this new movement of prepubescent incestuous sex started baby!

  94. tesa baley tesa baley United States says:

    You brought up young animals practicing sex on each other, you opened that can of worms

    • Bryan Phillips Bryan Phillips United States says:

      You are either trying to misrepresent and demonize, or your comprehension skills are a bit lacking. Instinct tells me the first is true. Your so called "can of worms" is hardly an issue as well. For the record the article reads as follows, ""Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other." Okay that sounds totally different from what you wrote. Now let's add some common sense to this and see what we come up with. We know that non-human animals mature at a far greater rate than humans. We know that mating in non-human animals happens out in the open with no shame for the whole group to see. We also know that humans often engage in sexual experimentation at an early age. When was the first time you kissed someone that was not out of family greetings and goodbyes? It would seem that the problem here is your perception and representation. Nice job!

  95. Martin Raymond Martin Raymond Iraq says:

    Is it if you want to be dirty be dirty a freedom of practice? There is a general opinion about animals' behavior. They refer to a man who is dummy an ass ,a coward a chicken, a dirty a pig or an ape. Something is described as in human opposite savage. Animals learning from humans in the circus have succeeded in teaching Man how to behave like them.

  96. Martin Raymond Martin Raymond Iraq says:

    Isn't that too funny to believe that animals have become smarter than humans ?I guess yes it is. In the past we were watching men and women containing animals' behaviors in the circus and now things have turned upside down. Instead of calling a dummy an ass, a coward a chicken and a dirty a pig or an ape and try to develop animals' skills we turned to imitate their savagery and they have also become an ideal example of so called freedom of practice. Anyway it has long been a way of expressing animal desire through battling in wars similar to such events that can be witnessed in the jungle.

  97. Scooter Van Neuter Scooter Van Neuter United States says:

    Far from making a case that homosexuality is normal in the animal kingdom, this article proves the opposite. 1,500 species displays some form of same-sex behavior? Considering there are AT LEAST 8.7 million species, homosexuality would be scientifically considered absolutely ABNORMAL, just as it clearly is with humanity.
    I think the homosexuality apologetics really need to look up the definition of "normal" before attempting to make any sort of argument that their sexual confusion/mental illness/perversion (pick one or more) is, in fact, normal.

  98. Kosta Lookas Kosta Lookas Australia says:

    Not one example of homosexual partnering for life.

  99. Kosta Lookas Kosta Lookas Australia says:

    Not one example in the animal world of homosexual partnering for life; as an effort to show that homosexuality is a natural proclivity.
    The sexual progressives like to point to the animal world as evidence that it's a natural phenomenon, but many seem to "grow out of it", or in some way, it's an act of desperation: "any port in a storm". Like a randy dog; even a table leg will do.
    Even animals seem to show a preference for "straight" sex; but not humans for some reason.

Post a new comment
You might also like... ×
Researchers may be overlooking complexities in social relations of primates