On this subject, my favorite example is lesbian bonobos making out with each other and doing each other.
But they can at most be described as bisexual, since they copulate with males as well. Calling them “lesbians” is incorrect.
I wouldn’t call that “homosexual” behavior as such – sounds more like an alternative reproduction strategy.
Or even, to tell a female beetle from a male?
thats easy just flip them over and take a look with a magnifying glass
Not bitter or anything, are we? 
From most of the cites here, including Cecil’s it appears that homosexuality is more of a learned behavior then hard wired, sometimes brough on by the lack of a opposite sex partner.
Once learned they might prefer it to hetrosexual sex.
Or at least that’s my take on it.
“Deviant?” What’s “deviant” mean to a duck? Hell, it’s not “deviant” it’s the result of intelligent design.
Add seagulls to the long list.
:dubious:
I can see more arguments here for the opposite. Have you read Bagemihl’s book? Did you read Shagnasty’s post? SentientMeat’s link?
“Intelligent design” means the ability to twist any conceivable example around to fit a preconceived agenda.
Then take your take over to great debates.
I agree. The factual answer to the OP is, quite simply, Yes. Debates as what political agenda these facts support will only derail this thread into a tangled hijack. (Three metaphors in one! Woot woot!)
Didn’t realize this wasn’t GD’s when I posted.
My apologies to those who I offended (and that must be some loooooog list) for posting out of place.
As are the sketches he includes which purport to demonstrate bestial homosexuality. The lack of solid, scientific evidence in the form of photographs was the subject of a brilliant exposé by Ricky Gervais in his stand-up show ‘Animals’.
However, if you’re willing to take the pencil drawings as imaginative art then there is much to savour. The two dolphin males enjoying blowhole sex (really not sure if the one underneath being suffocated can be said to be enjoying it, but who knows? maybe cetaceans share the admittedly marginal human predilection for extreme sex and wants to be fucked to near unconsciousness before floating to the surface for a quick gulp) will, I believe, become a classic of the genre.
Which genre, you ask? Attempting-to-pull-the-wool-over-people’s-eyes-by-using-dodgy-science, I shouldn’t wonder.
Mmmm…“pulling the wool over eyes”…
Yes! “The bonobo assumed complete control as he stretched the silky material over his victim’s eyes, pausing only to spread another piece over his partner’s throbbing chest, all the while pulling violently on a chain attached to his nipples, which jutted like pencil erasers through the thin fabric.”
I think I’ve got another “animal diversity” book coming on. I can hear the cash registers ringing already…
Makes me sick when people assume you’re gay just because you’re smartly dressed.
I read that three times, roger. What the hell are going on about? Are you rejecting Bagemihl’s book? For using hand drawn illustrations?
Dude, do a little research before you embarrass yourself again. If all the scientific writing that included diagrams and drawings were to suddenly be declared invalid, we’d be, well, we’d be in the dark. Probly in a cave. With the sun going around the earth. The very young earth. Well, at least all science that preceded photography would have to be tossed out.
Please try to know what you’re talking about. (Although maybe a comedian’s riff DOES have more scientific validity than your standard peer reviewed publication, and I’M the benighted one here.)
Go easy on roger. He still thinks humans lived with dinosaurs and trilobites.
For the record, I’ve seen Ricky Gervais’ routine featuring this book and it did not stick in my memory as an ‘exposé’ in the sense that it was anything like a refutation of the work.
lissener. A warning. Don’t misquote someone.
And, to all the other participants, let’s leave out the debate so this can stay in GQ.
samclem GQ moderator
Much depends on how you define homosexuality, to what extent you anthropomorphise animal (i.e. non-human) behaviour, and above all what prejudices and socio-political stance you bring to the topic.
The interesting thing about the Gervais riff (okay, not expose, but it was extremely powerful as a call to reality and common sense) was that to the best of my knowledge he’s neither homophobe nor Christian fundamentalist. He saw something that others were glossing over (or, even more worryingly in the case of scientists, pretending not to notice or actually filtering out because of their own evangelical zeal), and said “Not good enough!”
And it isn’t. Agreed?