Animal homosexual behaviour under-reported by scientists, survey shows

Almost there! Just one more step left on the Gay Agenda:

✔️ look cute

✔️ be gay

✔️ hang out with friends

✔️ make memes

✔️ trick wise protectors of heterosexuality into accepting gay animals

◻️ be treated with decency by society

I call bullshit.
I do not see brunch anywhere on that list.
- What if I'm straight and all about some brunch?
I've heard of the Gay Agenda for years now, and yet I still am a slob and totally lack any fabulousness. Who do I write to in order to complain?

Animal sexual behavior is under-reported in general, I think. Do not forget to report!

Probably because a lot of it is real fucked up, and makes people uncomfortable.
Like female bedbugs not having vaginas and so males have a sharp penis and literally stab the females with it often resulting in death of the female, because it's literally just an open wound.
Further, male angler fish only exist to find the female, touch her, get stuck to her, and get absorbed by her body until all that's left is the testes, now absorbed by and part of the female. The female can hold multiple testes of multiple males inside of her and choose to self-impregnate whenever she chooses.
Don't even get me started on felines and spiny penises so the female can't escape once the male has entered.
Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
Yeah I don't spend my time reporting it because all it does is remind me how lucky I am to be human and be able to have a consensual, loving relationship with another human.
- I think the point is, human discomfort shouldn't play a role in scientific reporting. Humans have projected a lot of human social elements (sex and gender roles, etc) onto animals and called it science, but it's not objective. If we are self censoring, we can't effectively share knowledge with others and we might miss important things down the line.
- If cat cock upsets you, don’t look up duck dick.
- Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
  Pretty much all duck sex. Sometimes males will gang rape a female to death.
- Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
  The documentary on koalas I watched 2-3 decades ago was kind of traumatizing.
- Like a huge amount of animal sex is rape.
  Female garter snakes at the Narcisse Snake Dens in Manitoba would agree.
- Like female bedbugs not having vaginas and so males have a sharp penis and literally stab the females with it often resulting in death of the female, because it’s literally just an open wound.
  Is it bad that part of me is like "GOOD!" because, "fuck bed bugs!"?
- I'm pretty sure female bedbugs do have vaginas and it's just that the males don't care. Also it's somehow better if they stab them.
- Ok but that anglerfish thing is kinda hot.

The very idea of sexuality being divisible into distinct types is a uniquely human construct.

Animals don't think "I'm gonna go find another dude to have gay sex with," they just get the urge and act on it with whoever looks good nearby.

Animals don't think "I'm gonna go find another dude to have gay sex with," they just get the urge and act on it with whoever looks good nearby.
Several animal species are famously monogamous, penguns for example.
- Penguins (emperors at least) must work together for the eggs to survive.
Animals tend to force sex, as well. Humans call it rape.
- Well, animals don't have informed consent like we do.
I consider myself an animal and consider your statement false.

"iT's NoT nAtUrAL"

sO yOuR ArE SaYiNg HeTeRoSeXuAlItY iS nOt NaTuRAl ?! /s

People who publish scientific articles should be forced to declare their religious views at the top of the article so that if anything is listed other than "none" then it can just be automatically discarded unless it's replicated by a non-religious scientist. Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows.

I don't consider myself as religious, but this is just such a bad take.
I too dislike religion, but judging people based on their beliefs and discrediting their views because of it is exactly the problem.
- I think understanding one's own biases is not a problem. Ethics in science is currently a problem. Political lobbying affiliations and funding sources for studies should really be prominently displayed as well.
- I disagree. For hundreds of years, illogical religious beliefs have biased science. People should have a right to know if scientists have religious beliefs so they can be weary of their agendas affecting the results. Many religious beliefs are obviously illogical and make no sense and if a scientist believes them, it does illuminate the likelihood of the accuracy of their results.
  For many years "scientists" said homosexuality was caused by "mental illness" and then suddenly they decided it's not. There were entire scientific programs devoted to racist beliefs that were psuedoscientific and often impacted by religious views justifying racism. Of course religion biases science and is a problem in having unbiased research!
  I don't think we should outlaw religious people from practicing science, but their views should at least be known so people can scrutinize their work more closely.
It's not about religion, haters will be haters, religion is just a tool haters use to prop up their views
- There's a mutualism there. Assholes promote religion as a way to get status and impunity. Religion promotes assholes because they're useful in manipulating populations raised to be asshole-like.
- So it’s religion
- Someone teaches them to hate. That is often religion.
They are already supposed to declare conflicts of interest.
- I don't think most people would consider their religion a conflict of interest. I would agree that it is for scientific research, and probably a whole lot of other things...
You have an ideological viewpoint that says that all people with a certain identity are wrong. And you present yourself as moral.
You sound like a fundamentalist, to me.
- I interpreted it as "You hold beliefs that directly contradict the work you're performing, therefore, you have a bias that needs to be shown wasn't a factor in your research by having your research successfully replicated by those who do not share your bias."
  A Crusade was never launched on behalf of science, people were never burned at the stake because of science, babies are not still being mutilated at birth against their will (circumcision or genital mutilation of young girls) because of science, and AIDs was not spread unchecked across the world due to government's lack of science.
  It's religion, it ruins literally everything, especially science.
- I don't read it as saying they're wrong. I read it as saying it's unreliable. If someone has a cacaine addiction, I'm not going to trust them to hold on to some crack and not use it. If they can prove themselves reliable then they may be trusted.
  I don't think I agree with this person's opinion, but it's not what you said it was.
I'm as atheist as atheist gets, and I completely disagree with this, and it honestly smacks of edgy teen r/atheism. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you'd engage in that kind of dishonesty. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in human history were made by religious people.
Also:
"Religion just ruins everything, like running a computer with Windows." "@secretlyaddictedtolinux"
Username absolutely does NOT check out, lol
The only people with no religion are solipsists. Believing in consensus reality is a religious view. What's it like being a solipsist?

I had a dog that would hump stuffed animals, didn't matter what kind of stuffed animal. Humans live by our culture, which is highly symbolic learned behaviour.

I'm guessing most animal behaviorists have priorities other than watching who is fucking whom. Unless we're talking long-term bonding pairs, which are much easier to observe, but those are not the norm in the animal kingdom.

No, the world and by extension science are just full of homophobia and strict, phantastical, expectations of what sexuality should look like.
- I don't know that I would say that normalizing heterosexual behavior when it shouldn't be normalized is homophobia. Misguided, bad science, poor bias, I would say any of that. But I don't think you can credibly say that all of those scientists who just aren't noticing homosexual mating practices are bigots.

The animal roommate behavior reports, however, are abundant!

They're just really great friends.
Their husbands died in the war.

The librulz are hiding the gay frogs!!!

I remember going to the zoo, they had some endangered wild horses from Asia, iirc, as breeding program.
The zookeeper was explaining to some parents that they males were rocking back and forth to masturbate. Also, that they had given them things to make them horny as fuck.
Nobody asked about the giant piles of jizz everywhere.

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.

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/
- Huh, wasn't aware of that. Well, after a bit more research, excluding that one species in that one study, there are no exclusively homosexual animals.
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.
- 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.
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
- 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.

I mean that's cool and all but that's not really a debunking of biblical creation or sexual order if you take it at what it says and not what traditional religion tells you it says. There wasn't supposed to be death, so animals shouldn't have eaten each other. It also describes something like an asexual heaven. So even if homosexuality isn't in the eternal perfection, everything now is imperfect so it's just like everything else.

Where does the Bible describe an asexual heaven? Do you mean because Revelation says the only people who get to go to heaven are a small number of men?
- I was stretching it a bit but this is from Jesus:
  Matthew 22:30 (NIV Bible)
  “At the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”