I’ve used information about gay animals in debates before, specifically the almost entirely bisexual bonobo species, but an article in Scientific American Mind recently probed the issue more deeply than I ever realised the issue went:
Two penguins native to Antarctica met one spring day in 1998 in a tank at the Central Park Zoo in midtown Manhattan. They perched atop stones and took turns diving in and out of the clear water below. They entwined necks, called to each other and mated. They then built a nest together to prepare for an egg. But no egg was forthcoming: Roy and Silo were both male.
Robert Gramzay, a keeper at the zoo, watched the chinstrap penguin pair roll a rock into their nest and sit on it, according to newspaper reports. Gramzay found an egg from another pair of penguins that was having difficulty hatching it and slipped it into Roy and Silo’s nest. Roy and Silo took turns warming the egg with their blubbery underbellies until, after 34 days, a female chick pecked her way into the world. Roy and Silo kept the gray, fuzzy chick warm and regurgitated food into her tiny black beak.
Like most animal species, penguins tend to pair with the opposite sex, for the obvious reason. But researchers are finding that same-sex couplings are surprisingly widespread in the animal kingdom. Roy and Silo belong to one of as many as 1,500 species of wild and captive animals that have been observed engaging in homosexual activity. Researchers have seen such same-sex goings-on in both male and female, old and young, and social and solitary creatures and on branches of the evolutionary tree ranging from insects to mammals.
- “Bisexual Species,” Emily V. Driscoll
Scientific American Mind; 2008, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p68-73
The article goes on with wonderful new information (and admittedly a handful of speculation) about the evolution of homosexuality as a positive trait in the survival of populations and the widespread proliferation of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom.
It’s a great article. Go pick up the latest edition of SciAm Mind to read the whole thing.
Here’s another article on the topic. It’s much more technical (OMG maths!) and only focusses on humans, but it’s a terrific insight into the evolution of homosexuality and bisexuality. If you can just get past the equations (”Squiggle + [Greek letters] + [what looks like Arabic] + [Hey look! A real number!] = Gay,”) without your head a splode, there’s some fantastic information to be taken out of there.
Thanks to Richard for pointing the articles out to me. I have the SciAm Mind issue but I had completely skipped over the gay penguin article. D’oh!
Not really surprised that my obviously quick, non-exhaustive comment elicited such an angry response. Before I get into a lengthier response, let me make a few relevant points:
- I am not a professional psychologist, psychiatrist, biologist or zoologist. I am, therefore, not speaking definitively on any of this. I am aware of my limited knowledge, and would not ignore new information on the topic of homosexuality and its causes.
- Because I am none of the aforementioned things, I need to be very careful what I say. Someone’s personal preference is very closely related to who they are, and it is very easy for this to become very personal. For that reason, I do owe Reed and anyone else an apology for posting without reading that article. I assumed it was the same one about Silo and Roy from a few years back. It does reference them, but it is a different article. So…Reed, I’m sorry I didn’t read the article and that my curt response wasn’t very sensitive to you.
- Finally, I want to make it clear that FOR ME, believing that some action or belief is wrong doesn’t necessitate that despise that individual. It may seem hard to believe that I can believe that homosexuality is wrong and still not hate a gay individual, but that is my stance. If any of you has a friend of a different belief, hopefully you can sympathize to some extent. I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t hate Reed, think he should be outlawed by our government from practicing it, or that I have a right to treat him with less respect than any random hetero-person.
With that out of the way, here are my thoughts on the article and Reed’s thoughts. By the way, telling me to fuck myself, pointless insults and whatnot don’t really phase me; nor do I find them interesting enough to comment on most of the time, so don’t think less of yourself if I ignore them.
One of my comments was that “homosexuality” in animals is “rare…(in the grand scheme of things). I am aware that there are documented cases of “homosexual” behavior being present in about 1500 species; however, last I checked there are 1.7 million species discovered with a possible 10 million to 100 million to be discovered. In addition to that, “homosexual” behavior is not the norm in those species. By norm I am speaking statistically, by the way. In my mind this justifies my statement that “gay” animals is a rarity.
On the Scientific American Mind article, let me say first that I am surprised at how dated the information is. Silo and Roy (Rilo) have already raised that female chick who attached herself to another female, Silo left Roy for a female penguin named Scrappy (Scrapilo) leaving Roy solo, and then I think Scrapilo has broken up now too. This information is in the article but at the very end, with little note at all. What’s up with that? If sexual nature is malleable, does that make it non-biological? I feel the article is very biased, and has a definite angle it is presenting .
Even though it does have a definite slant, I do think that its evidence doesn’t support its case nearly as much as you would like it to. For instance, my statement that often same-sex behavior is an issue of dominance finds support in the second paragraph of section titled “Making Peace.” Females demonstrate same-sex behavior between possible competition, and males use it between mature (dominant) and immature males. The fact that this section proceeds the other conjecture for possible reasons, gives me reason to believe that it is the most common catalyst for same-sex behavior. Further evidence seems to be found in the examples of cattle where bulls or cows mount each other to display sexual ability. It doesn’t go into much detail on this, but some research shows that bulling is an issue of dominance either for mates or resources. And it shouldn’t be too hard to guess which bull is considered the dominant male, either.
The article then goes on to say that same-sex behavior may have very little to do with biological orientation and more to do with social advancement:
Researchers are now revealing, for example, that animals may engage in same-sex couplings to diffuse social tensions, to better protect theiryoung or to maintain fecundity when opposite-sex partners are unavailable — or simply because it is fun.
That doesn’t seem at all to be what Reed wants the article to be saying. Now, I could of course be wrong, but there seems to be vast difference between the same-sex behavior in animals and that of humans emotionally, in motives, and in light of consequences. The article itself attests to how captivity and all kinds of external factors lead to increased and pronounced same-sex behavior, while I believe (and I could be wrong) that Reed’s position is that it is all biological, that he had no choice. I have talked to Reed about this issue, which I thought was going to be put into transcript form and posted, but Reed decided not to, which is certainly his prerogative; however, if he cares to confirm, my position is that the causes for homosexuality are not known definitively at this time, but that I incline towards the view that biology may play a part in potential, but that experiences and “nurture” contribute to the final decision.
It is for this reason that I am not persuaded by the research into animal’s same-sex behavior. The logic seems to follow:
Natural = Normal = Moral
And that is just an equation that I cannot condone or support. It has all kinds of flaws in it, as I don’t see anyone doing wholesale advocacy of what goes on in the animal kingdom with infanticide, cannibalism, a return to physical fights for dominance, etc. The article itself attests to the flimsiness of the argument.
Let me state again, that I don’t mean to come across as insensitive or callous. I can sympathize with feelings of rejection as a gay person, though not perfectly. I will never jeer a gay couple for holding hands, and my awkwardness at two men making out at a restaurant in front of me would be only slightly higher than that of a man and woman doing the same. It doesn’t make me sick or vomit, and I believe that two men or two women can genuinely love one another. However, my belief is that it is a sin, but that it is not a sin any worse than sins that I commit daily, so I do not view Reed or any gay person as of less worth than myself or deserving respect.
Comment by Trey — 11 July 2008 @ 10:42 pm
I just noticed that my post was never responded to, Reed. Seems like a very fitting time for you to address some of the issues I raised. Also, I am in my Counseling course right now, and the topic is Homosexuality and later a man who has struggle with homosexuality is going to speak. I am going to try to record it for you, so you can judge it for yourself.
Comment by Trey Jackson — 13 November 2008 @ 5:21 pm