Homosexuality in animals myth

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The homosexuality in animals myth refers to the current interest on whether homosexual behavior is or is not zoologically "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation." Examples such as one male mounting another have been used as evidence in the argument that homosexuality is natural and therefore should be permitted in human beings. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected.[1]

Creation Ministries International wrote on this subject of whether or not there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom: "There is...documented proof of cannibalism and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it right for humans."[2] While some animals (like the lion) eat their young, neither supporters or opponents of "gay rights" have used this as an argument in favor of infanticide or cannibalism.[3] Thus, a healthy dose of wariness needs to be employed in making scientific claims about homosexual animals justifying homosexual humans.

A 1996 article published by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.[4] It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated 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.

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

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.[5]

National Geographic somewhat favors that homosexual behavior occurs in animals although their article leaves the question open.[6] The scientific claims of National Geographic are certainly open to dispute, however. For example, although it might not have been the result of a deliberate hoax, the Archaeoraptor was a large embarrassment to National Geographic and National Geographic's judgment in scientific matters is certainly open to debate given the Archaeoraptor episode.[7][8] In addition, every cattle farmer is familiar with the phenomenon of "bulling", cows mounting other cows; in fact, this is one of the standard signs farmers look for when determining that a cow is coming into estrus. However, it does not follow that the cows involved are showing anything analogous to human lesbian orientation. It is worthy of note, however, that some species—for example, New Mexico Whiptail lizards—exhibit apparently homosexual behavior. However, these lizards exhibit parthogenesis, in which there are no males in the species. Pseudo-copulation does occur, with one lizard (higher in progesterone) taking on the "male" role, while the other takes on the "female" role.

Despite the hotly contested nature of homosexuality in animals, ideologically motivated zoo directors in liberal American cities and progressive European countries are placing their supposedly homosexual animals on parade and declaring it to be fact that the animals are gay and that homosexuality occurs naturally in nature. In addition to the famed "gay penguins" Roy and Silo at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan there has been a supposed homosexual animal photo and video gallery in the zoo in Oslo, Norway, featuring flamingoes and giraffes, among other allegedly gay animals.[9]

In July 2009, an alleged homosexual penguin in a California zoo was debunked.[10]

However, in July 2009, an alleged homosexual penguin in a California zoo was debunked. Peter LaBarbera reported:

San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTVU reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.

“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTVU.

But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:

“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”[11]

The denial that homosexuality is a choice by homosexual activists and liberals is similar to the behavior fat acceptance movement activists who insist that being overweight is never a choice and ostracize ex-overweight people (see: fat acceptance movement for details).

Researchers claim that the reason for homosexual behavior in non-social animals is related to dominance, preparing for future heterosexual encounters, to expel low-quality sperm, and to engage in reproductive suppression.[12] Salamanders were inspected in 90 different pairs. The males would mimic females in order to trick the male into depositing unprofitable spermatophores. The rival male wastes his sperm, aiding the mimicker in spreading his genes to an actual female.[13] These examples show that non-social animals may have homosexual tendencies, but are acting aggressively in order to distribute their genes and to suppress the reproduction of other males.

Macaques were studied engaging in same-sex behavior. However, a female may engage in female-female mounting, but that doesn't mean she isn't interested in males. Females often mount males, apparently to encourage them to mate more. Once they had learned this behavior, it was easy for them to apply it to other females as well.[14] We may never find a wild animal that is strictly homosexual in the way some humans are.

Homosexuality in Animals Myth, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science

For more information please see: Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science

In 1993, Professor Miron Baron, M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in BMJ (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction."[15] In the United States, liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution.[16] Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality.[17] Given Dr. Miron Baron's commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

An individual's beliefs regarding creation science/creationism and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.[18][19] Creation Ministries International states: "Homosexual acts go against God’s original design of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see Genesis 1 and 2, endorsed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:3–6."[20] In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of genetic determinism concerning the origin of homosexuality.[21]

See also

External links


  1. [1]
  2. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774
  3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
  4. The Animal Homosexuality Myth, Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, excerpt from book Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.
  5. http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
  6. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
  7. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp
  8. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4273news4-11-2000.asp
  9. BBC Oslo gay animal show draws crowds
  10. http://americansfortruth.com/news/gay-penguin-flies-straight.html
  11. http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/
  12. LEVAN, K. E., et al. “Testing Multiple Hypotheses for the Maintenance of Male Homosexual Copulatory Behaviour in Flour Beetles.” Freshwater Biology, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), 13 Oct. 2008, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01616.x.
  13. Arnold, Stevan J. “Sexual Behavior, Sexual Interference and Sexual Defense in the Salamanders Ambystoma Maculatum, Ambystoma Tigrinum and Plethodon Jordani.” Freshwater Biology, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), 26 Apr. 2010, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1976.tb00970.x.
  14. Vasey, Paul L., et al. “Male–Female and Female–Female Mounting in Japanese Macaques: A Comparative Study of Posture and Movement.” SpringerLink, Springer, Dordrecht, 26 Apr. 2006, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-005-9007-1.
  15. BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.
  16. https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
  17. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764
  18. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136
  19. http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp
  20. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774
  21. http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp