
Why Are So Many Animals Homosexual? - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/why-are-so-many-animals-homosexual
======
Kristine1975
Because some animals fuck anything that moves and doesn't, including dead
animals[1] and other species[2]. Not sure if applying human categories such as
"homosexual" to non-human animals is helpful, though.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-
depravity-p...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-depravity-
penguins-scott-antarctic)

[2] [http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141117-why-seals-have-
sex-w...](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141117-why-seals-have-sex-with-
penguins)

~~~
nathanvanfleet
That's kind of reductive, and I wonder if you read the article. The goose
example is a long-term pairing and not just a roll in the hay. Some people
might find your comment a bit offensive.

~~~
acqq
I have read it, it's almost exclusively about some geese, but the title is "So
Many Animals."

Actually "many" animals aren't choosy, having no problem jumping on the same
sex or even corpses or non-living objects, and don't make long-term
unbreakable bonds. There are enough links here in responses.

Honestly, have you never had a male dog trying to copulate with your leg?

~~~
dsmithatx
> Honestly, have you never had a male dog trying to copulate with your leg?

Having trained my four dogs I do not have this issue. I believe they are not
copulating but, trying to establish dominance. I'm not sure that particular
behavior is proof that they will hump anything. My friend had a female poodle
who used to hump furry toys and she wasn't rubbing her parts on it. I think
she was small and felt like a boss in doing it.

~~~
acqq
> Having trained my four dogs I do not have this issue.

What happens when they aren't trained against? How far would they go? I claim
the untreated and unneutered males would actually ejaculate.

~~~
dsmithatx
Personally having been raised going to dog shows and multiple people in my
family owning grooming shops I've never seen a dog ejaculate. I've seen many
untrained dogs humping people's legs though.

~~~
acqq
> I've seen many untrained dogs humping people's legs though.

Do people in these situations let dogs do this as long the dogs would prefer
is the real question.

------
joshuaheard
There was a study on rats that found homosexuality arose when there was
overpopulation or overcrowding. This would make sense of non-procreative
coupling from an evolutionary standpoint. More recently, there was a study
that found a biological basis for homosexuality where there was a genetic
misfire during fetal development that caused too much of the wrong hormone to
be released for that gender: too much testosterone for a woman, too much
estrogen for a man, resulting in the person adopting traits of the wrong
gender. I see no reason why these causative factors cannot be found in the
animal world as well.

When people describe homosexuality as unnatural, I don't believe they are
claiming homosexuality is not found in nature. I believe they mean that the
homosexual sex act is not how our sexual organs are supposed to work
biologically.

~~~
acqq
> I believe they mean that the homosexual sex act is not how our biological
> sexual equipment is supposed to work.

And that's provably wrong, as we have enough examples in nature of "sexual
equipment" working on whatever.

~~~
notlisted
The sites I never visit (ahem) and discussions with people younger than myself
seem to indicate that "inappropriate use" is no longer a taboo or an exception
for heterosexual couples, but the rule (or at the very least tried once). This
makes the stance of it being "unnatural" extra hypocritical.

PS Don't even get me started about saddlebacking 'virgins'.

~~~
acqq
Wow, didn't know about that expression for that practice, thanks:

[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Saddlebacking](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Saddlebacking)

The religions often depend on sacrifices.

~~~
kbenson
You might find this relevant, and funny. The Loophole by Garfunkel and
Oates[1].

1:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8ZF_R_j0OY)

~~~
notlisted
I do. They're great, but thanks for sharing. NSFW peeps (no nudity, words)

------
jimmytucson
Well, the article is about the occurrence of homosexual behavior in some
populations of greylag geese. I don't know how this turned into "so many
animals". According to Wikipedia, homosexuality has been observed in anywhere
from 500 to 1500 species -- out of an estimated 8.7 million currently living
(estimate from 2011).

I'm all for using science-based observations to promote tolerance but this
feels a little forced.

~~~
privong
> Well, the article is about the occurrence of homosexual behavior in some
> populations of greylag geese. I don't know how this turned into "so many
> animals". According to Wikipedia, homosexuality has been observed in
> anywhere from 500 to 1500 species -- out of an estimated 8.7 million
> currently living (estimate from 2011).

Comparing the 500–1500 number (of presumably well-observed species) with an
estimated total number of species is not really a good comparison. Setting
aside the accuracy of the estimate of the number of species and how many of
those have actually been seen/classified, what fraction of those have been
observed well enough to make a reasonable determination of the occurance of
homosexual activity? Certainly the fraction of well-characerized species who
exhibit homosexual behavior is much higher than the 1-in-1000 rate your
numbers imply.

------
chillingeffect
I started getting the idea while reading this:

What if individual reproduction is NOT the norm? What if species survival is a
combination of reproduction and survival (producing food, defense from
predators, etc.). What if only a fraction of a species are required to be
"breeders" and the rest perform survival duties? What if the apparent majority
of sexual reproduction is only a temporary abberation and now that the species
has reached a stepping stone, the "temperature" on sexual reproduction is
turning down? Look at bees, for example. Only a minority of them reproduce
while the rest perform survival functions.

~~~
jccc
In the early pages of Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, Lawrence tries to
understand Alan Turing (who is a character in the novel):

"From an evolution standpoint, what was the point of having people around who
were not inclined to have offspring? There must be some good, and fairly
subtle, reason for it.

The only thing he could work out was that it was groups of people--societies--
rather than individual creatures, who were now trying to out-reproduce and/or
kill each other, and that, in a society, there was plenty of room for someone
who didn't have kids as long as he was up to something useful."

~~~
Chris2048
Historically, people not inclined to sex with the opposite gender, still had
children.

------
sreyaNotfilc
Someone in the comment section mentioned that there may be a correlation to
rise of gays and the rise of urban life. Their reasoning was something about
not having to reproduce.

It has gotten me to think about this. In general male and females are the same
except we have organs that allows reproduction. Essentially that's it. As we
passed the 7 billion people mark (let alone 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 billion) do we
really feel the need to populate? Sure a lot of us are embedded with sexual
desires, but as the population grows sex for recreation takes place over sex
for survival.

This bring me to another thought about conservatives. They disagree with sex
between the same gender. In a way they have a point. Googling "conservative"
grants the following definition -

"holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or
innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."

Back in the day there was much more of a need for sexual reproduction as the
human race had been plagued with deaths, diseases, and unfortunately events.
There was no need for "nonsense" like having fun. We had to survive! You'd
follow an order (be it wealth, race, gender roles) and that's that. As we
began to master or land and really create our own destiny having fun (e.g.
sex) became something to do for fun. Its a circle...

Idunno, just a thought. Its an interesting topic non-the-less.

------
janlukacs
so we're calling animal friends homosexual now? wow :)

~~~
goda90
The article doesn't even mention them having sex. I imagine theres something
different between goose pair bonding and human romantic relationships that
makes the homosexual label technically accurate, but not suited for equating
to human homosexuality.

~~~
fossterer
Excatly, I feel the same @goda90

------
jhallenworld
Well here is one direct survival advantage in human society: your gay uncle or
aunt may bequeath their estate to you and otherwise contribute to your
upbringing (with higher probability than if they had their own kids). This is
a considerable benefit, and it is to related genes.

~~~
dTal
That's great for you, but not so great for your gay aunt or uncle who would
have been far better off (genetically) having their own offspring, and
bequeathing their estate to them instead. So it doesn't really explain
anything on its own.

------
elcapitan
Why are so many animals gay? Because they're watching too much internet
pornography, so let's clean up the internet to protect our animals!

------
marknutter
This is a little like saying "why do so many animals fall in love"?
Homosexuality, like love, is a human abstraction and doesn't really apply to
the broader animal kingdom. Animals are acting more on instinct than we are,
and when they pair up it's due to a survivalist instinct rather than a
complicated social construct. So the answer is, there are no "gay" animals
just like animals don't "fall in love". We are simply projecting our highly
abstract concepts onto them.

~~~
mfoy_
So you think an entire field of research is irrelevant because "they're just
animals"?

That's what people thought about animal suffering back in the 17th century.
Descartes argued that animals didn't have consciousness, even, just base
instinct.

------
Cyph0n
So many... what a sensationalist title

------
drethemadrapper
This is highly incorrect. Unless animals are genetically modified, they cannot
ever think of being gay! It is the act of science that makes it possible.
Nature won't.

------
realworldview
Why do so few animals identify as straight?

------
Tharkun
It's unnatural, I tell you. Caused by the liberal media and their leftist
propaganda!

Goose pride is where it's at.

