I heard an excerpt of Rosie’s recent interview on Larry King (?) in which she, in explaining homosexuality among humans, made this assertion: “It’s a well-known fact that 10 percent of every animal in the animal kingdom is homosexual.”
She definitely said it is found at this level among ALL animals. Any facts to back her up? (This, of course, depends upon what constitutes “homosexuality.”)
There was an article in ‘New Scientist’ (Queer Creatures: 7/8/99 pp: 32-35) that talked about how commonplace homosexual activities are in the animal kingdom, but whether that means that the animals are exclusively homosexual is another matter entirely.
No, it’s complete BS. Homosexual pairs (often female-female) occasionally occur in birds, for example, but the frequency would be far far lower than 10%. In sexually dimorphic birds (where the sexes can be told apart visually) I can’t recall ever seeing a definite same-sex pair, in many many thousands of observations.
In many “lower” animals, a male will attempt to mate with anything of their own species that moves, but this certainly doesn’t constitute homosexuality. A male will reject another male that tries to mate with him.
This would be a tough one to demostrate with hermaphroditic animals and asexual-reproducing animals.
If Rosie said it, it must be true but wouldn’t homosexual refer to we humans only?
It seems that about 90% of male dogs will hump anything that moves, including my leg.
The prefix ‘homo’ means ‘same’ in Latin, it doesn’t refer exclusively to humans.
You are mixing up your latin and greek. Here, the prefix homo comes from the greek for ‘same.’ The homo in Homo sapians comes from the latin for ‘man.’
No, this prefix homo- means same, as opposed to hetero-, meaning different. Homo meaning human/man comes from a different root.
Thanks for the Latin lesson, I guess we never had to learn homo when I was learning latin to serve Mass.
If I’d have thought about it though, homo milk probably isn’t from humans.
Putting aside Dr. Lao’s well-taken point that the animal kingdom includes many animals to whom the terms homosexual and heterosexual are irrelevant, I find it interesting that some people refer to “well-known facts” that are unknown to virtually everybody else.
This appears to be just a mutation of the claim that 10% of all people are gay. I believe this has been pretty soundly debunked, but that never stops a story from getting around.
This is extremely interesting. Who is to say that the origin of the term “homosexual” is not based on the latin. That is mansexual. It seems to me that it is just as likely, given that homosexuality was generally regarded as a male phenomenon, and the term “hetero” came into use as a take off on the alternative greek meaning.
I’m sure however, that there is a simple explanation for your assertion.
This is the first time I have heard anything like homosexuality occurring in all species. I have wondered about this topic before, and have found some pretty interesting sites. At best, the percentages given seem to be about as varied as the percentages given for human homosexuality, but it still makes for good reading.
This site gives a figure of 3.5% - 10.1% of the animal population. It also suggests that homosexuality is more common in other species than in humans.
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
I found quite a few other sites covering this topic, but none supporting Rosie’s claim as stated.
grienspace wrote:
The person who coined the term said it was not based on the Latin. When Karl Maria Kertbeny invented the term “homosexual” in 1869, he had based it on the Greek.
grienspace wrote:
As a philosophy professor once told me, “Don’t ever hand me a paper that says `Who’s to say?’ You are to say, or you flunk.”
A brief lesson in grammar and etymology:
[ul]
[li]Homo is the Latin word for man in the sense of humankind – the word for man in the sense of a male human is vir.[/li][li]Homo- is a Greek prefix meaning same, which happens in modern English to look and sound just like the Latin homo.[/li][li]That two words look or sound alike does not mean that their origins are the same, nor does it mean that their origins cannot be distinguished decisively. There are a lot of complicated questions still facing modern linguistics, but distinguishing between Latin and Greek origins is not among them. The distinction you’re asking about in particular is a cake walk, as I’m about to illustrate.[/li][li]The two can be easily distinguished by remembering the following – the Latin homo is a word as in homo sapien, the Greek homo- is a prefix as in homosexual.[/li][/ul]
Wow, Rosie O’Donnell, the famed biologist, has finally taken a stance on the hotly debated homosexuality-in-animals question?
It must be true, then!
Apart from the veracity of her claims I find the whole premise rather odious to begin with. Perhaps Miss O’Donnell is referring to primates? I rather imagined she watched a ‘special’ on the Discovery Channel and is thus now qualified to instruct the nation on such matters. Is there some sort of validation involved here, if critters in the animal kingdom find “any orifice will do” ?
http://www.glccftl.org/library/general_info/myths.html
Conflate the two, and you’ve got your factoid.
Terrific. Somebody else equating us men with lower species. :rolleyes:
I’ve run across variations of Ms. O’Donnell’s statement before. It probably arose as a response to a certain sector of fundamentalist Christian religious-aggressive types, who are fond of asserting (at the top of their lungs) that “no homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom, ever.” This assertion is a surprisingly common one, used as part of their primary argument that homosexual behavior is an unnatural, demonic, making-baby-Jesus-cry (add your choice of pejoratives here) activity. This in turn is used to advocate whatever Unpleasant Consequence re homosexual behavior (job discrimination, assault, random death from above, etc.) they happen to espouse at the time.
However, said assertion ranks higher on the BS scale than Ms. O’Donnell’s. A quick perusal of PubMed reveals that homosexual behavior has been observed in rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, swine, cattle, various birds, various primates . . . the list is lengthy. It appears likely that at the very least, instances of homosexual behavior can be observed in the majority of mammals, possibly all mammals. There are some interesting experiments involving messing around with prenatally stressed rats; that seems to be a reasonably reliable way of producing gay grown-up rats. And I can only speculate on the content of a Russian Veterinary journal cite titled “Prevention of Sexual Perversions in Bulls”—is this a common problem in Soviet bovine circles? So, while Ms. O’Donnell probably chose her percentage for the sake of a sound bite, it is correct to say homosexual behavior does too exist in the animal kingdom, (both in the lab and out) and it’s not exactly all that rare. No-one knows the precise percentages, and indeed, Ms. O’Donnell’s assertion is a tad over the top, (for one thing, she should have specified mammals) but still not completely specious as is the argument it is designed to counter. Her primary message is correct: homosexual behavior does indeed occur in species besides Homo sapiens, thus refuting the claim that it is some kind of “unnatural” human-species-only activity.