When debates in homosexuality and society begin in any forum, there seems to be a point at which the conversation turns to animals. That is, homosexual animals. This topic is usually introduced by the party that is trying to portray homosexuality as a constant norm in life. After all, if homosexuality is common in nature, than how can anyone consider it a deviance or unnatural?


There are overall three topics that are usually presented to defend homosexuality as a normalcy to be embraced. First, we are told homosexuality is purely genetic, biological or innate. Second we are told homosexuality is irreversible. Third, since a wide variety of animals engage in homosexuality, it is therefore natural.[1] All three of these are very hot topics, which unfortunately usually received biased press coverage and thus the population in general mostly believes that all three are true. However, it is very well documented that homosexuality is not purely biological and innate, and it is very well documented that homosexuality is not a permanent irreversible life sentence. Please visit my other article “Born That Way,” at https://matthew2262.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/born-that-way/. So all that is left to discuss on this topic are the animals.


Homosexual Animals Are Everywhere!


The exact number of how many animals are known to engage in homosexual behavior is very high at first glance. The typical number of animal species in which this behavior has been observed is generally said to be about 500. [2] According to trans-gendered biologist Joan Roughgarden, there is documented evidence of homosexual behavior in 450 different species and undocumented reports related to another thousand species.[3] According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to engage in same-sex behavior.[4] This leads one to then of course ask, which animals are doing it?


Here are some common claims of animal homosexuality: While studying a mutant allele of an eye color gene on fruit flies, scientists changed the genetics of the fruit flies which inadvertently caused the fruit flies to begin to express homosexual behavior.[5] A zoo in Germany had more male penguins than females, and when it came time to rear young, the surplus males shacked up with each other. When the zoo tried to fly in additional females, gay activists cried out in protest claiming the zoo keepers were interfering with the penguin’s natural “gay” behavior.[6] Studies show that 10% of domestic rams prefer to mate with other rams instead of ewes.[7] Dogs often mount other dogs of the same sex exhibiting homosexual behavior.[8] Male bighorn sheep engage in genital licking intercourse to the point of ejaculation.[9] In one example, sixteen male finches were raised to adulthood together in captivity. Upon reaching maturity, the males coupled up and showed signs of affection to each other. When females were then introduced to the finches’ cage, five of the eight male-male pairs stayed together and ignored the females.[10] Bonobo monkeys exhibit a wide variety of homosexual behavior from female to female genital rubbing to male and male sexual interactions.[11] Albatross females have been known to couple up for as long as 19 years together incubating eggs and raising chicks together.[12] All-male “orgies” are claimed to have been observed with giraffes, dolphins, killer whales and manatees.[13] Homosexual behavior has also been spotted with bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon, etc.[14] The list is extensive!


So many animal species have been accounted for as exhibiting homosexual behavior that the NaturalHistoryMuseumat the Universityof Oslonow has an exhibit called “Against Nature?” The exhibit displays the wide variety of animals that engage in homosexual behavior. The intent is obviously to prove that the behavior is not against nature.[15] This prevalence in nature itself is what drives many to accept that it is natural and normal.


Psychologist Dr. Nigel Barber writes, “Apart from ‘gay genes[16] in humans, the main evidence that homosexuality is naturally selected is the fact that gay animals are so common.”[17]  Geir Soli, the project leader for the “Against Nature?” exhibit remarks, “The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the ‘laws of nature’ can now be rejected scientifically.”[18]

The agenda here is very clear. If it can be established that animals are indeed genuinely homosexual in nature, then society has no ground to frown upon homosexual behavior because it is a normal part of life. Neuroscientist and self-proclaimed homosexual Simon LeVay expresses it as this, “It seems possible that the study of sexual behavior in animals, especially in non-human primates, will contribute to the liberalization of religious attitudes toward homosexual activity and other forms of non-procreative sex. Specifically, these studies challenge one particular sense of the dogma that homosexual behavior is ‘against nature’: the notion that it is unique to those creatures who, by tasting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, have alone become morally culpable.”[19]

For James Esseks, Director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, finding out that many animals were gay was the final push for him to come out of the closet. In his words he described his initial thoughts upon finding this out, “Oh, hey, this is quote-unquote natural. This is normal. This is part of the normal spectrum of humanity — or life.”[20] Clearly the question of normalcy and what is “natural” is paramount here.

Procreation or Pleasure


This additionally leads to the question of reproduction being engaged in for reproduction alone, or also for pleasure. Obviously humans do not engage in homosexual behavior for reproduction and the prevalence of homosexual activity in nature seems to suggest that it cannot be for reproduction alone. Janet Mann, a biologist at GeorgetownUniversitywrites, “Not every sexual act has reproductive function. That’s true of humans and non-humans.”[21] As head of the Anthropology Department at East Carolina University, Linda Wolfe believes, “You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it’s for dominance. It’s for this. It’s for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it’s just for sexual pleasure.”[22]


Now most people tend to believe that sex for reproduction is only a religious idea institutionalized by those superstitious bible thumpers. But the greatest threat comes from the evolutionary idea. After all, in evolution theory the whole goal of survival of the fittest is to out perform others to reproduce and generate the most offspring. Something homosexual behavior does not do. With this in mind it should be understood that the greatest hindrance to the study of homosexual animals has not been from homophobic religious powers, but from the evolution hardened scientists. Many attempts to fit homosexuality in the realm of competitive evolution have been proposed, like Universityof California Biology Professor Marlene Zuk’s theory that gay individuals contribute to the gene pool of the community by taking care of their relative’s young without compromising local resources by having young of their own.[23] Such theories are not rooted in scientific observation has it has not been successfully demonstrated in any experiments.


When it comes to homosexuality in the animal kingdom within the framework of evolution, evolution theory becomes very flexible. This is noted in many evolutionist theories that attempt to accommodate animal homosexuality within the evolutionary framework as Zuk tries to do. A theory that is so flexible it can account for everything and anything isn’t a good theory at all as explained by biologist and chemist Dr. Phillip Skell: “Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”[24]


Yale ornithologist Richard Prum states, “Homosexuality is a tough case, because it appears to violate that central tenet, that all of sexual behavior is about reproduction. The question is, why would anyone invest in sexual behavior that isn’t reproductive?”[25] It is self-evident that homosexuality in the animal kingdom is at odds with evolution theory. Especially when humans are supposedly the same product of this animal evolution.


According to Zuk, “Sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. You have this idea that the animal kingdom is strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic, that they have sex to procreate. … Sexual expression means more than making babies. Why are we surprised? People are animals.”[26]


The Difference between People and Animals


The main problem is the modern outlook that humans are just animals. How many times have you heard someone excuse inappropriate, immature, or irrational behavior by blaming it on their “animal instincts.” It is this same line of reasoning that leads people to conclude that morality is determined by nature and therefore what is commonplace in nature is acceptable. Anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist Donald Symons writes, “Despite the absence of God in most scientific writing, the implicit belief that nature constitutes a moral order frequently persists. Thus writers with tolerant or positive views about homosexuality often begin their discussions by emphasizing the frequency with which non-human animals and preliterate peoples engage in homosexual activities, implying that homosexuality is natural and hence acceptable.”[27] The mindset is that animals act according to their nature, which is best for them. So if they engage in homosexual behavior it is essentially good for them, and therefore morally acceptable. And since man is an animal, what is morally right for animals is morally right for man.


But should we really let what is natural (or “good”) in the wild determine what is morally right for humans? Let us say for the moment it does. And let’s agree that whatever is scientifically found to be common place in nature should be considered morally acceptable. Based off that, we should consider filicide and cannibalism morally acceptable. After all, cannibalism and filicide is very common in nature, more so than homosexuality. Theft, rape, and incest are common place in nature as well.[28] But yet we wouldn’t consider these morally sound practices… So we cannot let what is common in nature determine what is acceptable morally.


We need to understand that humans are very distinct and separate from animals. This distinction comes from three principles; 1) Animal instincts are not bound by absolute determinism of physical laws governing the world. 2) Animal cognition is purely sensorial, and therefore lacks human intellectual perception. 3) Animals are often over stimulated when experiencing multiple instinct impulses occuring at the same time which can lead to abnormal behavior.[29]  When two instincts clash with a human, intellect prevails to determine which instinct to follow. Since animals lack intellect and will power, the instinctive impulse with the most favorable outcomes prevails. Animals are therefore at many levels, whether intellectually or consciously, radically inferior to humans. Animals lack reason as well as many other attributes that humans have at their disposal. To compare animal behavior to man is to deny the very scientific understanding of human behavior which far exceeds that of any animals.[30]

The actuality that humans have a body and life shared with animals does not mean we are strictly animals. Nor does it mean that we are a half-animal or quarter animal. Human rationality exhibits all of our nature so that our sensations, impulses and instincts are not purely animal but instead are controlled by rationality which is essentially what constitutes us as human. Therefore, humans are characterized not by what we have in common with animals, but by what differentiates us from animals. This difference is paramount, not coincidental. We as humans are rational animals. Human rationality is what makes human nature distinctive and vitally separate from animal nature.

Paul Vasey, of the Universityof Lethbridgecautions, “For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn’t natural. They make a leap from saying if it’s natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly. I don’t particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes.”[31] Dr. Charles Socarides of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality writes, “The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal’s motivation he is applying human psychodynamics–a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.”[32]


Are They Really Gay?


Of all the animals listed earlier, we need to now ask ourselves if these animals are actually gay. Is their behavior actually homosexual or just appear to be homosexual? Are they engaging in this behavior because of the same factors that cause humans to do likewise? Let’s examine the examples provided earlier of homosexual activity in the animal kingdom.


The fruit flies that exhibited homosexual behavior were genetically altered in a lab. Something that can’t be consider natural at all. Additionally, all that the mutation did was alter the fruit flies’ sense of smell, making them attracted to male pheromones, which lead to the male on male activity.[33] And human smell has nothing to do with homosexuality. As far as those penguins inGermany; penguins always couple up, so when there are not enough females to go around, the males couple up with the males. We cannot consider them homosexual because they never had “sex” with one another, and additional females were never introduced to test whether or not the males would ditch their male partners and join with the new females. Something which has been observed with similar captive penguins in other zoos when there are not enough females to go around.


In regards to the Rams in which 10% of the population is considered homosexual, the behaviors observed are simply that of males “mounting” other males to exhibit dominance over another male.[34] In addition, the number in Ram populations that exhibit this dominance behavior is actually 1.5% not 10%.[35] Lastly, the tests conducted to determine this behavior involved locking up male and female rams in a pen leaving nothing but their hind quarters exposed, then releasing a male ram into the pen to see which one he will try and mate with. If the Ram mated with a locked up male ram then it was considered homosexual. Hardly a sound experiment of natural Ram behavior especially considering that the only way for the ram to determine which one was male or female would be by scent alone. If the Ram had a poor sense of smell, which is not uncommon, it could easily have just chosen the wrong “rump” to mount.[36] According to biochemist Dr. Neil Whitehead, “Those who study this field acknowledge that mounting behavior by rams on rams is deeply mixed with expressions of dominance, which is so critical in the life of a ram.”[37]


In regards to dogs mounting other dogs of the same sex, it is caused by one of two things; the scent of a female in heat, or establishing dominance. When the scent of a female in heat is in the air it can cause a stimulus overload in both males and females, which leads to the dogs mounting other dogs regardless of their sex.[38] The other cause is the establishment of social dominance that is most notably observed in un-neutered male dogs, but is sometimes observed with female dogs.[39] Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, explains, “When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex.”[40]


Male bighorn sheep cannot be considered gay either. The “homosexual” behavior in question is only found in outcast groups of males that were kept away from the females by other dominant and superior males. These outcast males stick together but still establish dominance over each other via mounting. Ejaculation occurring in these mountings is rare, and when it does occur from these encounters it is significantly less than when mounting females.[41] Most notably, one year the superior males were shot to conserve the population. This left the females available and the bachelors moved in to take over the now available females. That year, male to male mounting was non-existent.[42]


What about the gay finches? Well, none of them ever engaged in anything remotely sexual with each other.[43] Their behavior was more of a coupling for survival that is apparent in many bird species.


Bonobo monkeys are probably the most frequently mentioned animal when these matters are brought up. Especially since there is an overwhelmingly popular notion among the general public that we are closely related to these monkeys. Female bonobos that have sexual encounters are noted in new females that enter bonobo clans, and immediately engage in sexual contact with the dominant females in the clan. The reasoning has been found that these activities are for establishing bonds of trust, friendship or alliance which helps the new females become integrated into the group.[44] Is this anywhere near why female humans engage in sexual contact with each other? These females also mate with males, and do not have contact with the females exclusively but instead temporarily. This means they’re not homosexual, but at the most bisexual.[45] Frans B. M. de Waal, who has spent hundreds of hours filming and observing bonobo behavior declares, “There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo’s answer to avoiding 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.”[46] Their actions are clearly in the context of diffusing tension, expressing acceptance and other affective states. Again not the same reasons humans engage in homosexual activity.


As for those lesbian albatross, they couple up to incubate eggs and look after off spring, but they never do anything remotely close to what can be considered sexual activity.[47] The coupling is necessary because one bird must stay behind to look after eggs or chicks while the other searches for food. This is typically done with male-female partners, but when there are not enough males to go around, the additional females pair up with each other. When males do become available these female-female couples are usually broken up, as what has been noted with captive penguins in zoos. For example, two male penguins at the San Francisco Zoo that were together for six years. That was until a female became available, after which the couple broke up as one of the males coupled with the now available female. The penguin zoo keeper Anthony Brown was accused by pro-gay activists as intentionally splitting up the couple, to which Brown responded, “Penguins make their own decisions here at the San Francisco Zoo.”[48]


Male dung flies mount each other to tire the other one out making him less able to compete for mating. Male marine mammals often mount each other to establish trust and social bonds.[49] The list goes on and on. In fact, the further you go down in the animal kingdom the more common homosexuality appears simply because lower forms of life are more difficult to identify as male or female because there is less to distinguish the differences between the sexes, and therefore there is often confusion as to which sex another is.[50]


Symons writes, “Writers with less sanguine views of homosexuality point out that a great deal of mounting among non-human animals is not sexually motivated, that homosexual behavior is more frequent among captive than among free-ranging animals, and that exclusive homosexuality is rare among preliterate peoples, implying that homosexuality is unnatural and hence unacceptable.”[51] Sociobiologist Edward Osborne Wilson writes, “Further, homosexual behaviour among animals is engaged in for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with sex. In many cases it is only a ‘ritualized form of aggression.”[52] LeVay writes, “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.”[53]


Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the Universityof Navarrewrites, “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.”[54] Ades declares, “Human beings have sex one way, while animals have it another. Human sex is a question of preference where one chooses the most attractive person to have pleasure. This is not true with animals. For them, it is a question of mating and reproduction. There is no physical or psychological pleasure….The smell is decisive: when a female is in heat, she emits a scent, known as pheromone. This scent attracts the attention of the male, and makes him want to mate. This is sexual intercourse between animals. It is the law of nature.”[55]


But I believe biologist Bruce Bagemihl, said it best: “Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena….We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer–in both the gathering and interpretation of data–come to the forefront in this situation…..With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)….With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.”[56] Thus, labeling an animal homosexual is not proper in the realm of science, but is instead the inferred opinion of the observer.


The Prisoner Effect


As much as we’d like to think that animal researchers conduct their observations in the wild, there is often not enough funds to do so, among many other problems that arise when trying to follow wild animals. Because of various difficulties that arise in trying to monitor wild animals, many of the behaviors we observe in animals are not taken from circumstances in the wild, but instead in captivity. Many statistics come from animals in zoos. In fact, most homosexual activities noted in animals come from animals in zoos.[57] Biologists call this the “prisoner effect.”


This leads to a dilemma, because behavior found in captivity is not natural behavior. Quite often animals do not reproduce and live short lives in captivity because they are not in the wild. How can we consider behavior most frequently found in unnatural arenas, natural?


The Christian Perspective


The Bible declares that we are made in the image of God as recorded in Genesis. This separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom which was not made in this same fashion. Therefore we cannot compare ourselves to that of animals because our creation alone separates us from them. It is also evident in psychology and philosophy that our rational capabilities further separate us from the animals.


Now many Christians use the argument that homosexuality is not “natural” and therefore unacceptable. Even if it could be concluded that many animals in nature were in fact genuinely homosexual and therefore homosexuality was natural, this would not make it morally sound. Thus, this is a poor argument to make because whether something is natural or unnatural does not make it right. Nor by that same token does it make it wrong. We forget that what we observe in nature as “natural,” is in fact the nature of a sin cursed world. Filicide is common, and doesn’t violate the laws of nature, yet Christians can’t declare it is right because it doesn’t break the laws of nature. Throw in the established fact that we as humans are capable of ethics and morality which the rest of the animal kingdom is not capable of and it becomes clear that what is “natural” in the world is not what is morally right.


Morality among humans should not be determined by biology or zoology. Morality in humans belongs to the realms of philosophy and ethics. Something which animals are not capable of, and therefore should not be determinants in how we behave. As bioethicist Bruto Maria Bruti declares, “It is a frequent error for people to contrast human and animal behaviors, as if the two were homogenous. …. The laws ruling human behavior are of a different nature and they should be sought where God inscribed them, namely, in human nature.”[58]


In conclusion, the claimed homosexual behaviors we see in animals are not homosexual at all. Many animals never engage in intercourse with the same sex but are instead simply coupled for survival. Those that do engage in homosexual activity are never exclusive to the same sex but always mate with the opposite sex as well. Overall, claimed homosexuality is rare in the wild, it is very dependant on social environment, it is most commonly the result expressing dominance or trust, and change is possible.[59] This is hardly comparable to the nature of homosexuality in humans. Mostly because, as mentioned earlier, humans are much more intellectually capable than animals and not prisoners of instinct. Any gay man or lesbian woman that points to alleged cases of homosexuality in animals to support their lifestyle is doing a serious discredit to their cause and themselves as intellectual and rational human beings.


At that, I think it to be irrational to claim that homosexuality is “good,” because of the simple premise that “animals do it too.”

[1] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” http://www.narth.com

[2] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th ed.,McGraw-Hill,New York, NY. Pp. 113.

[3] Roughgarden, J. (2005). Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people.Berkeley:University ofCalifornia Press.

[4] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,” http://www.livescience.com

[5] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, 8th ed.,McGraw-Hill,New York, NY. Pp. 114.

[6] (June 2009) “Male Penguins Raise Adopted Chick,” news.bbc.co.uk

[7] Fitzgerald, J.A., (1997) “Sexual Orientation” as written in Ellis L, Ebertz L, (eds). Sexual Orientation: Toward biological understanding. Praeger,Westport,CT.

[8] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[9] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,” http://www.psychologytoday.com

[10] Wall, T., (August 2011) “Zebra Finch Bro-mance Trumps Mating,” news.discovery.com

[11] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,” http://www.psychologytoday.com

[12] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[13] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,” http://www.psychologytoday.com

[14] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,” http://www.livescience.com

[15] Goudarzi, S., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet,” http://www.livescience.com

[16] Please read by other article on gay genes at https://matthew2262.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/born-that-way/

[17] Barber, N., (June 2009) “Gay Animals,” http://www.psychologytoday.com

[18] Goudarzi, S., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet,” http://www.livescience.com

[19] LeVay, S., (1996) Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality (MIT Press;Cambridge,MA, pp. 209.

[20] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[21] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,” http://www.livescience.com

[22]Anderson, D., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals: Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda.” Creation.com

[23] Moskowitz, C., (May 2008) “Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild,” http://www.livescience.com

[24] Skell, P., (August 2005) “Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolution Theory Contributes Little To Experimental Biology,” The Scientist, 19(16), pp. 10.

[25] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[26] Smith, D., (February 2004) “Love That Dare Not Squeak It’s Name,” The New York Times

[27] Symons, D., (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” Oxford University Press,New York: NY, pp.60.

[28]Anderson, D., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals: Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda.” Creation.com

[29] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” http://www.narth.com

[30] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” http://www.narth.com

[31] Smith, D., (February 2004) “Love That Dare Not Squeak It’s Name,” The New York Times

[32] “Exploding the Myth of Constitutional Homosexuality,” National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.narth.com

[33] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[34] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,” http://www.NARTH.com

[35] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,” http://www.NARTH.com

[36] Whitehead, N.,  “Is Ram Behavior Evidence of ‘Natural’ Homosexuality?” http://www.mygenes.co.nz

[37] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,” http://www.NARTH.com

[38] Schultz, J.L., (Summer 2002) “Getting Over the Hump,” ASPCA Animal Watch, http://www.petfinder.org

[39] Schultz, J.L., (Summer 2002) “Getting Over the Hump,” ASPCA Animal Watch, http://www.petfinder.org

[40] “Gay Puppy?” Focinhos Online, www2.uol.com.br/focinhos/petsnodiva/index.shtml.

[41] Whitehead,  N., (September 2010) “’Gay’ Ram Claims Questioned By NARTH Leader,” http://www.NARTH.com

[42] Whitehead, N.,  “Is Ram Behavior Evidence of ‘Natural’ Homosexuality?” http://www.mygenes.co.nz

[43] Wall, T., (August 2011) “Zebra Finch Bro-mance Trumps Mating,” news.discovery.com

[44] Lucentini, J., (February 2001) “In Search of the ‘Gay Gene,’” http://www.washingtonpost.com

[45]Anderson, D., (November 2006) “Homosexual Animals: Using ‘Science’ to Push a Political Agenda.” Creation.com

[46] Waal, F., (March 1995) “Bonobo Sex and Society,” Scientific American, pp. 88

[47] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[48] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[49] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[50] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” http://www.narth.com

[51] Symons, D., (1979) The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” Oxford University Press,New York: NY, pp.60.

[52] Wilson, E.O., (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,HarvardUniversity Press;Cambridge,MA, pp. 281.

[53] Simon LeVay, (1996) Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, MIT Press;Cambridge,MA,  pp. 207

[54] Prado, A., “Aspects of Homosexuality and Medical Difficulties,” Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.

[55] Solimeo, L.S.,  (September 2010) “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” http://www.narth.com

[56] Bagemihl, B., (1999) Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin’s Press;New York,NY, Pp.2.

[57] Mooallem, J., (March 2010) “Can Animals Be Gay?” http://www.nytimes.com

[58] Bruto Maria Bruti, “Questions and Answers on the Issue of Homosexuality,www.paginecattoliche.it/domande-_omosessualita.htm.

[59] Whitehead, N.,  “Is Ram Behavior Evidence of ‘Natural’ Homosexuality?” http://www.mygenes.co.nz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s