Thread: Homosexuality in animals

I was just reading on the internet about homosexual behaviour in animals, on wikipedia and some other websites it says homosexuality is common in animals etc, but I haven't found any scientific article about this, nor images or videos, so could some of the members of this forum provide me with relevant sources? Thanks.

P.S. Don't mind my bad english.

That's odd. There are links to articles in the References section near the bottom of the Wikipedia page. Are those found there not satisfactory?

Well the Wikipedia article at Homosexual behavior in animals should have a list of citations and references at the bottom of the page, they would probably need to be scientific articles in order to be accepted.

Why do you want "images or videos"

Enjoy: Ambisexual behavior with male-male anal penetration in male rhesus monkeys - Springer

... but not too much ...

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Why do you want "images or videos"

That seems a very niche market.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I was just reading on the internet about homosexual behaviour in animals, on wikipedia and some other websites it says homosexuality is common in animals etc, but I haven't found any scientific article about this, nor images or videos, so could some of the members of this forum provide me with relevant sources?

I think you have to be careful with definition of homosexuality. You do not have to confuse true and innate homosexuality which assumes persistent sexual attraction to the species of the same sex and practically zero attraction to species of the opposite sex with situative and social behaviour in animal kingdom. Most of studies dedicated to animals describe dominance and social rank demonstration and conflict resolution methods which look like imitation of sexual relations or situations when animals remain isolated from species of the opposite sex and gone mad. It doesn't mean that these animals experience no sexual attraction to opposite sex if access to later is available without a conflict in a pack. This is natural because complete homosexuality is a dead end of evolution and leads to extinction. From natural selection point of view it the same if animal have some genetic disorder which makes it to dye before puberty and remain no offsprings or if it is born homosexual. The probability of this should be very low similar to occurrence of cystic fibrosis or similar rare genetic mutation. Innate homosexuality seem to be extremely rare in animal kingdom, there seem to be hardly any study which would describe such a phenomenon.

Most of this sounds like anti-gay bullsh*t propaganda.

Here, two male penguins, which mate for life, even nested a fake egg. Yet, remarkably, penguins aren't extinct.

Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate - SFGate

No one is suggesting an entire species of homosexuals, but the practice (for reasons other than dominance) is still widely observed throughout the animal kingdom. Your unwillingness to accept that fact does not alter it.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

From natural selection point of view it the same if animal have some genetic disorder which makes it to dye before puberty and remain no offsprings or if it is born homosexual. The probability of this should be very low similar to occurrence of cystic fibrosis or similar rare genetic mutation.

Or sickle cell anemia. Yet it persists because there is actually a benefit (resistance to malaria) that comes from that genetic trait. Similarly, homosexuality may provide a societal or genetic benefit that we simply don't understand yet.

Innate homosexuality seem to be extremely rare in animal kingdom, there seem to be hardly any study which would describe such a phenomenon.

Actually not all that rare.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I was just reading on the internet about homosexual behaviour in animals, on wikipedia and some other websites it says homosexuality is common in animals etc, but I haven't found any scientific article about this, nor images or videos, so could some of the members of this forum provide me with relevant sources?

I think you have to be careful with definition of homosexuality. You do not have to confuse true and innate homosexuality which assumes persistent sexual attraction to the species of the same sex and practically zero attraction to species of the opposite sex with situative and social behaviour in animal kingdom. Most of studies dedicated to animals describe dominance and social rank demonstration and conflict resolution methods which look like imitation of sexual relations or situations when animals remain isolated from species of the opposite sex and gone mad. It doesn't mean that these animals experience no sexual attraction to opposite sex if access to later is available without a conflict in a pack. This is natural because complete homosexuality is a dead end of evolution and leads to extinction. From natural selection point of view it the same if animal have some genetic disorder which makes it to dye before puberty and remain no offsprings or if it is born homosexual. The probability of this should be very low similar to occurrence of cystic fibrosis or similar rare genetic mutation. Innate homosexuality seem to be extremely rare in animal kingdom, there seem to be hardly any study which would describe such a phenomenon.

Most of this sounds like anti-gay bullsh*t propaganda.Here, two male penguins, which mate for life, even nested a fake egg. Yet, remarkably, penguins aren't extinct.Central Park Zoo's gay penguins ignite debate - SFGateNo one is suggesting an entire species of homosexuals, but the practice (for reasons other than dominance) is still widely observed throughout the animal kingdom. Your unwillingness to accept that fact does not alter it.

Usually penguins elicit more publicity for racial issues.

This is natural because complete homosexuality is a dead end of evolution and leads to extinction. From natural selection point of view it the same if animal have some genetic disorder which makes it to dye before puberty and remain no offsprings or if it is born homosexual.

The failure of any individual to reproduce does not matter to the evolution of the species generally.

In fact, if the reason for the failure is that the enthusiasm for sexual activity - within the species generally - means that some individuals will choose non-reproductive activity as often as not, or more often than not, the enthusiasm for sex is still a good strategy for that species' survival anyway.

Many species rely on pair-bonding in some way for the maximum survival of healthy young. Some are season by season, quite a few mate for life even if they don't spend the whole of the year together. The fact that some individuals mate for life with a non-reproductive partner is less important to the species than that the pair-bonding urge should be strong for all individuals within the species.

Other species, wolves and meerkats are the most popularly known species here, rely on one mating pair and the whole pack of related family members assist in rearing the young produced by that pair. It's entirely possible for many, sometimes most, of a family to never get the chance to reproduce before they die (if, for instance, there's a succession of bad years in the environment leaving no "room" for the formation or success of new families). But the survival of the families means the survival of the species.

.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Any citation from a study (and link to it), which is dedicated to innate and complete homosexuality among animals?

"Complete" homosexuality? Haven't seen any such studiies. Almost all bonobos exhibit homosexual behavior - and since it certainly isn't trained, it is innate.

For example creatures with cystic fibrosis are very rare among animals because in animal kingdom they would dye and unable to have offsprings and pass down genes of cystic fibrosis to the next generations.

Unless there was another benefit to having the genes for cystic fibrosis.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I think you have to be careful with definition of homosexuality. You do not have to confuse true and innate homosexuality which assumes persistent sexual attraction to the species of the same sex and practically zero attraction to species of the opposite sex with situative and social behaviour in animal kingdom.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Just because I sleep with men doesn't mean I'm gay!" argument.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I think you have to be careful with definition of homosexuality. You do not have to confuse true and innate homosexuality which assumes persistent sexual attraction to the species of the same sex and practically zero attraction to species of the opposite sex with situative and social behaviour in animal kingdom.

Like those Penguins?

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

I'm pretty sure "true" homosexuality has also been observed in Lions that have refused females, too.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

The failure of any individual to reproduce does not matter to the evolution of the species generally.

Who says that? I just said that failure of an individual to reproduce means dead end to genetic traits of this individual and its inability to pass its genetic data to offsprings. For example creatures with cystic fibrosis are very rare among animals because in animal kingdom they would dye and unable to have offsprings and pass down genes of cystic fibrosis to the next generations. The species in whole survive because such individuals are very rare.

Adelady's entire post was beautiful and worth a re-read. But let me hammer something through: Family traits may be latent or active in different individuals; one breeding sibling may carry and pass on traits visible only in its siblings. This explains why the vast majority of honeybees produce no offspring, yet continue their genes: worker bees pass their (mostly sterilizing) genes through their princess sisters.

In social species that strategy of including some non-breeders can be really effective. Just like a queer auntie who takes your kids on trips and has the time to care for grandpa, is a boon to the family. Both sides of my family enjoy this advantage, as I see it. Whether or not it's from a latent gene I've passed to my offspring, I hope it continues to appear sporadically down the generations.

EDIT: boom -> boon

In social species that strategy of including some non-breeders can be really effective. Just like a queer auntie who takes your kids on trips and has the time to care for grandpa, is a boom to the family. Both sides of my family enjoy this advantage, as I see it. Whether or not it's from a latent gene I've passed to my offspring, I hope it continues to appear sporadically down the generations.

I don't have the link myself, but I'm sure someone here has previously posted details of a paper showing that sisters of homosexual men tend, on average, to have larger families than women from families that have no known homosexual members. So the reproductive success of the whole family appears to be enhanced by some mechanism or other that's also related to a family tendency to have non-reproductive men among their group.

I'm sure there'll be more research along these lines in the coming decades.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Innate homosexuality seem to be extremely rare in animal kingdom, there seem to be hardly any study which would describe such a phenomenon.

Actually not all that rare.

Any citation from a study (and link to it), which is dedicated to innate and complete homosexuality among animals?

The failure of any individual to reproduce does not matter to the evolution of the species generally.

Who says that? I just said that failure of an individual to reproduce means dead end to genetic traits of this individual and its inability to pass its genetic data to offsprings. For example creatures with cystic fibrosis are very rare among animals because in animal kingdom they would dye and unable to have offsprings and pass down genes of cystic fibrosis to the next generations. The species in whole survive because such individuals are very rare.

Where exactly are you getting the notion that homosexuallty leads to species extinction. Cite your source for homosexuality percentages in a species which are higher then 30%.

Complex genetic traits result from multiple recessive and dominant traits, just because a trait is not expressed does not in anyway mean it is not present. This is very very basic biology. Homosexuality is not a single gene trait which is what you seem to be arguing.