Thread: Is it factually incorrect to say homosexual acts can be seen in many species?

Question 1:

Is it factually incorrect to say homosexual acts can be seen in many species?

Question 2:

Also even if that were true it wouldn’t matter humans have sex/procreate by choice & for pleasure other species by instinct it’s apples & oranges.


What do you think?

Homosexuality is observed in many social species.

Also even if that were true it wouldn’t matter humans have sex/procreate by choice & for pleasure other species by instinct it’s apples & oranges

No. In fact it might be more accurate to say the opposite, that only humans are cognitively aware of sex leading to reproduction while the rest of the social animals do it ONLY for pleasure and relief sexual tension (like human teenagers). Aside from that sex serves all sorts of roles in social groups--including social bonding, to establishing dominance/submission hierarchies, resolving conflicts. One of humans closest living relative primates--bonobo do all this and more.

Originally Posted by JennieDar

Is it factually incorrect to say homosexual acts can be seen in many species?

Homosexuality is seen in many species besides homo sapiens.

Also even if that were true it wouldn’t matter humans have sex/procreate by choice & for pleasure other species by instinct it’s apples & oranges.

I think the more we learn about animals, the less we believe things like "it's all instinct." Bonobos, for example, have sex for fun.

In addition, an awful lot of humans have sex because of hormonal pressures, rather than any rational decision-making process.

I say labeling animal behaviour homosexual - or heterosexual - is anthropomorphizing a bit. Seems to me when animals feel horny they'll go for anything including other species, but a smattering of instincts and courtship rituals help moderate that. Consider housepets. When a male dog humps a woman's leg, it that "heterosexual"? How about humping the sofa? Meaningless distinctions! What I see - generally - is males in rut try to copulate with anything, but - generally - only females of the right kind at the right time, getting the right cues, will tolerate it.

Prove wrong: Find "lesbian" animals.

Originally Posted by Pong

Prove wrong: Find "lesbian" animals.

https://www.pride.com/lesbian2015/6/...ayed-your-team

Originally Posted by Pong

I say labeling animal behaviour homosexual - or heterosexual - is anthropomorphizing a bit. Seems to me when animals feel horny they'll go for anything including other species, but a smattering of instincts and courtship rituals help moderate that. Consider housepets. When a male dog humps a woman's leg, it that "heterosexual"? How about humping the sofa? Meaningless distinctions! What I see - generally - is males in rut try to copulate with anything, but - generally - only females of the right kind at the right time, getting the right cues, will tolerate it.

Prove wrong: Find "lesbian" animals.

There is ample data on homosexuality in higher animals, which you have already been shown on a number of occasions in the past. you again try to ignore that data with an argument from incredulity, and an example of dominance behavior in a non-monogamous pack species. "males in rut" is NOT a biology situation, its a meaningless oversimplification based on a lack of biology understanding.