posted on May, 5 2015 @ 02:02 PM
a reply to: Ironhawke
To assume that just because something is found in nature that is it morally good is a fallacy. I can think of plenty of actions that are commonly
found in nature that we do not think of as morally acceptable in human society. Should we also allow cannibalism to be practiced again or infanticide
for example? Both are very common in throughout nature.
Not only that, but just because you see homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom does not mean that those behaviors are a pair bonding behavior.
Most of the time, homosexual action in animals are for establishing dominance and hierarchy, not because two animals are actually trying to establish
a mating pair bond with one another.
Or in other instances it is done to confuse actual mating between male/female. I've directly observed subdominant male cichlid fish adopt female
coloration and behavior, even mating postures to confuse the dominant male in the tank. They've done this for two reasons: 1.) A sub-dominant male is
going to get his butt kicked and risks serious injury, so he adopts female colors and postures to defuse the dominant males aggression. In the wild,
he would then simply swim out of the dominant male's territory once that had occurred. 2.) During a spawn, a sub-dominant male adopts female colors
and postures to confuse the dominant male and come between him and the egg laying female. He can them scatter his sperm at the same time as the
dominant male, and some of her eggs will he fertilized by him and some by the dominant with the dominant male being none the wiser.
In both the instances above, there was no impetus to engage in the homosexual behavior out of a desire for the two male fish to mate with each other,
and in the last instance the urge was quite the opposite, it was very heterosexual. He was playing the pool boy, so to speak.
Are there instances of true homosexuality in the animal kingdom? Probably. Are they as common as people would like us to think? Not nearly.