This short 8 minute video was posted in a forum, as proof that animal homosexuality is a norm and thus refutes any heterosexual’s claim that homosexual is unnatural. As I viewed it several things stood out. And that was the narrator included a lot of supposition and “could have been” in the narrative. He showed a male deer trying to mount what he said was another male, to no effect because the other one kept moving away. He showed an elephant touching the penis of another, but no mounting happened. The closest thing to a homosexual act, was a bull walrus, tasked with baby sitting young cubs, end up raping a few. Although they never presented any proof, other than their say so, that the cubs were actually males. Yet even in this narrative, he stated that these bull walrus, were sexually frustrated, in heat and was chased off during mating season by a alpha male, so they took out their sexual frustration on defenseless young males AND female walruses.
There was nothing else in the video that indicated actual consenting sexual activities between same sex animals. Now many people have speculated that when an animal…in the example of a Alpha monkey or Great Ape, mount a beta male or have the beta male suck him off, that this was a show of dominance, a power move if you will to keep lesser males in line. I have never seen any of those, but I have heard people say this.
I find it interesting how many so called scientists, try to view animal behavior based on that of a human characteristics. Even though these scientists will admit that they know very little of animal behavior, yet, they still promote the idea that animals have human like behavior. This is evident when mainly promosexuals or homosexual scientists, authors or researchers, go out of their way to try and prove that homosexuality is normal in nature and thus, should be accepted as a natural part of human socialization.
My first encounter with the idea of animal homosexuality, was through a series of heated email conversation between myself and a so called Pan Afrikanist, who later turned out to be a “feminists” and a very staunch promosexual. This was way back around 2005 or 06. This kat has been such a supporter of homosexuality, that when I began praising straight black pride, dude equated this with the Klu Klux Klan. I didn’t really overstand the depth of the retardation kneegrows have fell into, until the last couple of years, where I have seen numerous defense of homosexuality. By people who claim they don’t practice it, but embrace it and will ostracize you even if you don’t speak out against it. Just as long as you defend Straight Black relationships.
Well what does this have to do with animal homosexuality? Before I answer this, let me fill in the blanks…or start from a particular point. The back and forth email I spoke off? It centered around a book, published in 1999, by Bruce Bagemihl, called Biological Exuberance.
Note that according to Bagemihl, although gay himself, he says he did not write his landmark book (which he spent nine years researching) simply because of his own sexual identity but rather because “the implications for humans are enormous.”
Yet in this 768 page book, Bagemihl exhibited some of the same shucking and jiving around animal homosexuality, as the narrator of the video did. Here is one of the passages from that book…. “..a zoo penguin approaches another, bowing winsomely. The birds look identical and a zoogoer asks how to tell males and females apart. “We can tell by their behavior ,” a researcher explains. “Eric is courting Dora.” A keeper arrives with news: Eric has laid an egg…”
Basically it was stated that they mistook the female penguin for a male until she laid eggs. But this was one evidence sited as proof of homosexuality. Bruce Bagemihl spent 10 years scouring the biological literature for data on alternative sexuality in animals to write “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.” The first section discusses animal sexuality in its many forms and the ways biologists have tried to explain it away. The second section, “A Wondrous Bestiary,” describes unconventional sexuality in nearly 200 mammals and birds — orangutans, whales, warthogs, fruit bats, chaffinches.
Bagemihl then gets confusing when he stated that animals can be called homosexual or bisexual, but not gay, lesbian or queer, and put forth the types of social interactions, used by the promosexual and so called scientific community as way to include animals in their agenda of making everything homosexual. For examples, the author makes references to selective terms, seeking to associate them with homosexuality:
- “multi-female associations”—when multiple female animals mate with one male.
- “unisexuality”—- refers to things that are not gender-specific, being suitable for any gender, but can also be another term for gender-blindness.
- “isosexuality”—-to refer to same-sex sexual behaviours in non-human animals.
- “intrasexuality”—-when members of the same sex (within a species) compete with each other in order to gain opportunities to mate with others, e.g. the male against male competition for females.
In his book Bagemihl includes nonsexual bonds and friendships. He referenced female grizzlies sometimes forming partnerships, traveling together, defending each other, raising cubs together and putting off hibernation in what seems to be an attempt to stay together longer. Bagemihl accordingly claims to also chronicle homosexual incest (foxes), rape (albatrosses) and homophobia (white-tailed deer).
His favorites are beasts with “a special courtship pattern found only in homosexual interactions.” This author claims that “two percent of male ostriches ignore females and court males with a lively dance that involves running toward your chosen partner at 30 mph, skidding to a stop in front of him, pirouetting madly, then “kantling,” which includes crouching, rocking, fluffing your feathers, puffing your throat in and out and twisting your neck like a corkscrew. A male ostrich courting a female omits the speedy approach, shortens the display, adds a booming song and may include symbolic feeding displays. Male ostriches have not been seen actually having sex, unlike male flamingo pairs, who mate, build nests and sometimes rear foster chicks.”
So far Bagemihl, in 768 pages has succeeded in further confusing the the whole debate instead of clearly laying out his argument that homosexuality is and was always a a normal part of nature. I guess at this point I should define “normal”. Normal is the conforming to the standard or the common type, as opposed to abnormal.
Bagemihl continues to use human language to explain certain animal behavior, when he stated that “some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages”. Marriage? Really? Very few animals in the wild, elephants come to mind, ever have sustainable one-on-one relationships. yet this kat is talking about marriage! He also claims that “Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year. Bottle-nose dolphins don’t form male-female couples, but males often form lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and more with male or female alike”.
On the surface the above statements seem to uphold his and others theories that homosexuality is present in animals on a regular. Until you realize that many of the observation is cursory at best. We can see hundreds of video on YouTube of heterosexual activities of animals, yet when I tried to view videos on homosexual animals, I come across, videos where a male tried to mount another. Penis out and everything. Yet the male that was mounted always moves away. I guess because the bottom male didn’t through hands (or paws), the promosexuals believed that he was cool with being mounted. YET EVERY ONE OF THEM KEEP MOVING AWAY.
Recently in that vain, some people posted images of male lions having sex, claiming it is true. I saw one video where a trio of lions attempted some homosexual orgy with no penetration, but again, nobody was throwing “paws”. I did however, come across this link, because many keep siting South Afrikan lions as culprits in the whole homosexual lion saga. Based on the information in the link, this is a female lion with an in balance in hormones, which made her showing masculine traits…loader roar and a full main. Tell me where in nature have you heard of this before? Keep in mind these lions are in a game reserve. They are in captivity.
I have argued that the reasons for any similar types of male bonding and female bonding in the animal kingdom, has to do with the fact that, most animal don’t have the same kind of relationships that humans do, and only get together with the opposite sex for procreation, then they hang out same sex, but not homosexuals, or if they are in heat, instincts take over and they need their genitals rubbed. <—-as they like to tell me on military courses, pay attention to this line, you will see it again!
One other theory of mine is that environmental toxins have done to animals what commercial food has done to humans, destroyed our adrenal and pituitary glands, attacked our brain chemistry and allowed a cross wiring in the brain. Of course for many its easier to say that animals are homosexuals and refuse to contend with a wider reasons as to why.
Often these same observers don’t know what they’re seeing. If males and females look alike, researchers assume that when they see animals mating, they are seeing a male and a female, and the one on top is the male. Thus, we read about the mistake with the penguin Eric, later renamed Erica. If they switch positions, no doubt it’s just confusion. As Bagemihl says of this widely expressed idea, “What is remarkable about the entire debate about the naturalness of homosexuality is the frequent absence of any reference to concrete facts or accurate, comprehensive information about animal homosexuality.”
This is the book that spawned numerous research promoting animal homosexuality!
So why are promosexuals treating this as gospel truth, written in stone and buried for thousand of years? Because it is imperative for advocates of same-sex marriage to “normalize” homosexuality. One rationale used to promote this is to proclaim that it exists in the animal kingdom, so it must be part of nature. According to this thinking, since homosexual behaviors are purportedly seen among animals, we would expect a portion of humans to be homosexual also.
Furthermore, the propagandists say, attempts to restrict its full expression would be going against nature itself! In this view, homosexuality is simply one sexual variation among many occurring “naturally” throughout the animal kingdom, so we should conclude that homosexuality is commonplace and “normal.” RIGHT!
The propaganda of animal homosexuality can be summed up thusly:
- Animal instinct and behaviour are governed by nature.
- It is “natural” for animals to follow their instincts; it accords with nature itself.
- A portion of virtually all species engage in homosexual behavior.
- Therefore, homosexuality accords with instinctual nature and must be part of nature itself.
- We are animals, so it follows that homosexuality in humans is perfectly natural.
There are so many flaws in that argument its not funny. But I will attempt to break it down in small bites.
First: if “homosexual” acts among animals are in accord with animal nature, and we are like animals, what about animals that kill their offspring? What about species sometimes cannibalizing their own kind? Polar bears, gerbils, pigs, hamsters, orangutans, rabbits, chimpanzees, and birds have been known to kill their offspring. Promosexuals and advocates of animal homosexuality maintaining that we must accept instinctual nature seen in animal behaviors, so we should conclude that infanticide and cannibalism is a natural part of human nature. At least when it comes to Afrikans. Should we not accept this as well? Anyone who engages in the most basic observation of animals would conclude that what appears to be animal “homosexuality” is an exception to their normal behaviors, as are infanticide and “cannibalism” in the higher species. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts, but rather exceptions to normal animal behavior resulting from extraordinary factors that pervert their instincts.
Second: the advocates are claiming that irrational and instinctual behaviors of animals should be used to set a standard for determining morally acceptable behaviors for humans.
Third: it is ridiculous to ascribe human motivations and feelings to animal behaviors. In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, anthropomophism is “an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics,” and the Oxford Dictionary defines it as “the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object” (emphasis added). The advocates are insisting that we become anthropomorphists.
Finally: even if this homosexual behavior were occurring in a portion of most animals, it does not mean that it is acceptable: Many undesirable characteristics occur in all populations: Schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy, bipolar disorder and Down Syndrome, for example, occurs in about 0.1 percent to one percent of all populations. Rape, murder and child molestation also occur in every population, and appear to have genetic components. It goes without saying that if something occurs “naturally” in the population, it does not mean that they are normal, acceptable, or desirable.
Distortions and Myths of animal homosexuality
With animals, their cognition is sensory and includes odors, tactile inputs, tastes and images. In processing these, animals lack human intellectual perception, so they frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another. An animal’s initial instinctive impulses can change along the way: Other sensory input can act as new stimuli, affecting the animal’s behavior. Even a conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes alter the original behavior.
But in man, our intellect decides the best course to follow, and our cognitive process, holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. Animals lack this cognition and will, so when instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by the immediate situation prevails. At times, these internal or external stimuli that affect an animal’s instinctive impulses can even result in cases of animal infanticide, cannibalism and what is construed to be…. “homosexuality.”
Consider infanticide among cats: Cats switch between what is considered a “play mode” and a “hunt mode” quite easily and do not to harm their offspring. With male cats, however, if they become highly aroused through play, the hunting instinct might take over, and they may sometimes kill their kittens. Also, since their hunting instinct is incredibly strong and it can be hard to switch it off when prey is present, they can wind up dismembering and even eating their own kittens. The instincts have become confused.
And consider cannibalism; sometimes cannibalism occurs in pigs, gerbils, birds, and even chimps, but it is not a “natural” trait, either. Cannibalism usually happens when a predatory animal mistakes one of its own for prey or can occur when food is extremely scarce. Sharks are the most notable example of this kind of behaviour.
So what are these promosexuals pointing to as apparently more common occurrences of homosexual behaviors in animals?
Apes: Scientists claim that apes are the closest to us genetically, with chimpanzees being the closest; bonobos are primates from the chimp family. Frans de Waal, multiple-award winner and Professor of Primate Behavior at Emory University, spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos. In “Bonobo Sex and Society,” he wrote about their sexual activity being used to avoid conflict:
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter’s mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.
But advocates for “normalizing” homosexuality would instead present a superficial, propaganda-driven observation of bonobos’ behaviors and claim that some of them are “naturally” homosexual.
Dogs: Dogs mount one another simply because of the strength of their reaction to a purely chemical stimulus: The smell of a female in heat—emitting a scent called estrus. Researchers maintain that the smell can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors: Other females who are not in heat will mount those who are; males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent; and males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person’s leg) they come into contact with. And Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, in “Getting Over the Hump,” provided another reason for dogs mounting other dogs of the same sex:
Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance – in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who’s boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.
Cattle: With cattle, farmers watch for “bulling” behaviors – the female being in heat. At this time, the female in estrus might mount other cows, other females might mount her, and bulls might try to mount other bulls if they have the smell on them. In the Merck Veterinary Manual, this behavior is treated as a problem and recommendations are provided to deal with such behaviors that can result from cysts, overcrowding, aggression, and illnesses; it hardly justifies saying that the cattle are gay or lesbian….
In 1996, neuroscientist Simon LeVay, a homosexual himself who has held positions at the Salk Institute, Stanford University and Harvard Medical School, admitted that homosexual animals really do not exist, In “Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality,” he wrote that the evidence points 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 (emphasis added).
Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, in “Aspectos medicos de la homosexualidad,” agrees:
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.
If we are going to remain true to science, reason and common sense, we must reject the “animals-are-homosexual-so-it-is-normal” propaganda. It is not only illogical, demanding that we become anthropomorphists, base our morals on animal behavior, and say that if a behavior occurs in nature, it must be acceptable, but it is further predicated on the bogus assertion that homosexual “orientation” exists in animals despite the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence to the contrary. The idea is simply self-serving, and it is an egregious distortion of facts and logic ultimately contrived to promote same-sex marriage and lifestyle choices by “normalizing” homosexuality.
There is a saying if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. kneegrows don’t read any critical books. And if they do read, they don’t practice critical thinking, because it has been shown that a lie can be inserted in any book to appear as truth. We already have a large number of kneegress’s who welcome friendship with homosexual males over other females and heterosexual males. We have numerous kneegrow males are not only accepting of homosexual friends or the lifestyle, but many of our males and female are actively engaging in this behaviour, years after they were unadulterated heterosexuals. Why is this? Because we have been programmed by media, social conditioning and even bio-chemical warfare to be open to this death style. So its not a stretch to overstand how promosexuals will embrace animal homosexuality as normal, in a vain attempt to get the last of the holdouts to accept their death style.