• threeduck@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    8 days ago

    The issue with finding homosexual behaviour in animals is that it’s never exclusive. Homosexual animals tend to be bisexual at best, and can often be chalked up to erroneous mating.

    A lot of these studies are used to validate human homosexuality and harm the “it’s unnatural!” argument touted by conservatives. However using a Call to Nature is fallacious, and could be used to validate all number of animal behaviour.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      8 days ago

      Never is a strong word when that’s just not true

      An animal model of spontaneous exclusive homosexuality has however been described in sheep. About 8% of the males in a population studied in the western United States were shown to mate exclusively with other males, even when the choice was given between a male or female partner (Perkins and Roselli, 2007; Roselli et al., 2011b).

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7484171/

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 days ago

      But there definitely have been observed instances of long-term same-sex bonding pairs in nature and in zoo settings.

      Most famously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

      Silo appeared to be bisexual, but Roy was only interested in two males, one being Silo.

      You do have a point though. For example, make cane toads will literally mate with anything they think they can mate with. Like soda cans. They don’t even see, to consider whether what they are humping has something for them to stick their cane toad penis in. Honestly, it’s amazing they breed so prolifically in Australia despite the lack of predators because they’re clearly very stupid.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        Zoos shouldn’t be used for study though. As I don’t see bears walking back and forth all day in the wild. Lots of animals also do. It have long term partners the screw and move on.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      8 days ago

      Animals have no idea of sexuality, they are only seeking pleasure and release. They have no idea they are boys or girls or that sex leads to pregnancy

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        Okay the idea that animals are somehow just mindless automatons that have zero idea of what is happening… that’s a take all right.

        A take that would send people who study animal cognition into a binge drinking session.

        • kandoh@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          They’re not mindless, they have feelings and instincts, they can remember things.

          But they don’t have language, so they can’t organize their thoughts. They’re like humans who were born blind and deaf before Helen Keller.

          How does an animal know sex leads to pregnancy? They don’t, they’re just horny or they aren’t.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            But they don’t have language

            Ant… pheromones? Whale song? Whatever crows do to remember peoples faces they haven’t seen.

            Not every animal is as sophisticated as we are, but communication in general is pretty integral to herd survival strategy.

            How does an animal know sex leads to pregnancy?

            We’re not… different. We have schools and parents and movies we aren’t supposed to see yet that tell us it does.

            • kandoh@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              We’re not… different. We have schools and parents and movies we aren’t supposed to see yet that tell us it does.

              Exactly, humans are animals. They’re just really good with language.

              I’m not disrespecting animals, I love animals. I’m just pointing out that a bear in the woods isn’t thinking "Since I am a heterosexual bear, I am not going to rub my penis on that other bears ass because I see it’s a boy bear and that would be gay. I am only interested in sex if it means babies will be made!’

              • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                Oh, for sure. I don’t imagine bears have the same cultural understanding of sex, however complex that may be, that people do.

                bear in the woods isn’t thinking “Since I am a heterosexual bear, I am not going to rub my penis on that other bears ass because I see it’s a boy bear and that would be gay. […]”

                I do think this might be overly simplistic, though. The tendency for a bear to “be gay” by our standards might manifest differently, but it would still be an observable behavior, no?

          • nikaaa@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            The animal and human dichotomy seems mostly religious in nature.

            Agreed, and interestingly, it can be interpreted in one of two ways:

            • Religion says that animals and humans are different.
            • Religion is the difference between humans and other animals, i.e. other animals don’t have religion.

            I guess both are true.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Sure but they are thinking of surviving. It’s lie us why do we have these conversations because we have the luxury to. If we where fighting for survival these discussions wouldn’t be happening.