Recent same-sex couplings at New York’s Central Park Zoo include
these two young male chinstrap penguins, Squawk and Milo.
Image: Nicole Bengiveno New York Times/Redux
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.
This article was originally published with the title Bisexual Species.
See what we're tweeting about
49 Comments
Add CommentPlease, comments in English please!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see how observing it in a vast array of species constitutes an "exception". Seeing homosexuality as abnormal and immoral is a cultural manifestation only (see: Religion).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoincido contigo, estimado Jorge, definitivamente es un arículo poco científico y contradice otras investigaciones publicadas en esta misma revista donde se ha demostrado que lo que parece ser un "apareamiento" entre machos del mismo sexo, sobre todo entre primates, no es tal, sino simplemente un acto de sometimiento. No cabe duda de que esto es una manera más de tratar de justificar comportamientos culturales humanos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnimals in captivity??? Just look at the human prison system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHAT REALLY MAKES HUMANS SUPERIOR?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn short, this article claims homosexuals are perpetuating animal tendencies, and rightfully so.
But what really makes humans superior?
Animals may ignore the law of incest in an amazing way. A male individual would simply forget the female in front of it raised it not long time ago. It is just irrelevant for an animal. Should we trace such shameful tendency in humans?
Animals may ignore their having sex in public. It is just irrelevant for an animal. Should we trace such shameful tendency in humans?
Animals may go back to eat what they just vomited. It is just irrelevant for an animal. Should we trace such shameful tendency in humans?
What really makes humans superior?
I find it absolutely astonishing that someone could read this article and come to the conclusions that you did. I guess it's a testament to the mind-altering power of religious belief that you can read this article and think that it supports your anti-homosexual beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just mentioned examples of animal behaviour to poin to the fact that tracing homosexual behavior in animals is not the best way to defend it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll assume you're honest in your reply and don't see that your opinion is a case of prejudice. I'll try to point out why:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, the article is not defending anything. The cool thing about science is that it's in the business of telling us how things ARE and not how things OUGHT to be. It's up to us to AGREE on the latter. We express our needs and figure out how we meet them, unless of course you think it's the role of the Bible.
Second, the fact that you're comparing homosexual behaviour to eating your own vomit and having sex with your own child points to the fact that you have already decided homosexuality to be a kind of behaviour society should frown upon, skipping the agreement part. On what grounds, other than your own emotion or belief in transcendental authority, do you compare things and decide what "shameful tendency" is?
I hope that helps.
Fortunately for them, other animals are free from the superstitions which humans have a tendency to fabricate in order that we may feel superior to not only other animals but other fellow humans as well. To use these superstitious proclivities to justify vilifying behaviors which some of us may not understand, having been misinformed by our superstitions, is no more human than acting solely on genetic programming. Something which some of us humans relegate only to 'animals.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat? I disagree. Why would you assume that this article somehow links humans and their supposedly superiority to the topic of predisposed sexuality behaviors? [this is in response to very top Fabrice's comment]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article brings new set of evidence and supportive ideas to the notion that homosexuality and its origins is different then what has been generally accepted to be: something abnormal. Overall, it is a well thought article. However, we should not simply jump to conclusions and start sidetracking from its intended course. It's a good read. That's all.
next...
To continue on my commenting... . It appears that we have a hard time understanding what homosexuality is. I am not assuming that i know what it is, but simply question the assertion stated and passed down from other scientific minds 'per se'. So intrinsically speaking, I believe we fail to give some sort of final account on what homosexuality is because we examine the surrounding world by inadvertently including ourselves in the equation. We draw conclusions based on human experiences and feelings projected onto the species we observe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake for instance, our loving interactions with pets. What is it we assume when a dog comes running to greet us, displaying a wagging tail? In particular, we would automatically think of Love, Happiness. and/or Ecstasy. I agree, the list can be much more complex, but I would prefer to keep it simple. So, love, happiness, and ecstasy, are feelings we automatically register, without questioning, or thinking twice about it. In this sense, we have projected our feelings onto the behavior of a non-human species.
Thus, i ask, is it fair to do that when assessing behavior that seems rudimentary in species survivability? I think not. Because, we introduce human species stereotypes (behavioral, physical, psychological) into non-human species environment. At the same time, I agree that it is very hard not to lean towards comparing non-human behavior with human species as a means of better understanding the world and its biosystem. How would be understand the penguin behavior related in the beginning of the article? Thinking like one would help. But how do they think like? Do they think like us? Ah..and that is how we begin to associate our modes of thinking with the penguins, for example. But trying to be non-specific and non-biased is important in understanding species behavior.
THE LAW OF ADAPTATION WITH SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF LIFE To read the entire article, go to: http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:LOTY_Pierre_Jean_Daniel This newly discovered law comes as a death stroke to evolution theory. We have the guarantee from the nature of the underlying philosophy (Intelligent Design) that the resulting application (programmable bacteria) is free of eugenics. First of all; let us recall the fundamental reasoning in evolutionism: natural selection coupled with mutations can transform a species S1 into a totally new species S2. Then, let us assume an individual S1 is under difficult conditions and undergoes modifications. What evolutionism did not consider is that at the same time, another process comes into play: difficult conditions cause S1 to enter into a resistant form, with a subsequent loss of life. What if conditions improve? As shown with the 1970?s research led by Peter and Rosemary Grant, ?in the years following the drought, previous finches (with smaller beaks) again dominated the population. There was a reversal in the direction of the selection; the population subjected to selection oscillating back and forth each time the climate changed.? Thus, modifications tend to reduce if difficult conditions do not persist. However, there is absolute need of a directional, steady line of changes, should the species cross over to a new form of life. Now, in case difficult conditions do persist, two processes admittedly would run parallel. As modifications would increase, the ?quantity of life? would decrease downward limits of tolerance. Modifications would at best help the species to cope, though with a subsequent loss of life. Surprisingly, the species S2 that admittedly evolved from S1 is found with high ?quantity of life?. But S2, which is assumed to have undergone the full amount of modifications, should have undergone accordingly the full amount of adverse conditions. Thus, S2 would have been found with a lowest ?quantity of life?. Indeed, natural selection, coupled with mutations leads necessarily toward the extinction of the species. As evidenced by the law of recurrent variation, the range of possible adaptations is preprogrammed in DNA, thus imposing inherent boundaries between kinds (groups of species defined only through lineage criteria).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article's ending does raise the issue of whether a child raised by a gay couple will automatically socially encourage that child to become gay too, given that she isn't the gay couple's biological offspring. If that's so, then it'll seem that social conditioning have still have a significant part to play in determining a person's sexual orientation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article also strongly suggests that animals engage in homosexual coupling to gain some social advantage. Can this not be extrapolated to similar human pairings too outside of say prison settings? That the stress of daily living is inducing such a tendency? Then the question is this: what environmental stress factors are triggering same sex preferences?
While one can have a separate discussion about the propriety of homesexual relations, the idea that its existence in nature supports it must also take note, infanticide is common in nature and plays an important role in survival and so does polygamnous relationships, ie harems such as gorillas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed throughout human history - beyond the animal world - polygamy was a frequent practice. If we are going to look for guidance, the path backwards runs first through our ancestors, ie legitimizing polygamn and continues to infanticide.
None of this answers the question how modern society should address homosexuality, but it does say, those who invoke 'nature' as a rationale for homosexuality venture down a path filled with analogy potholes.
I think those that see homosexuality as "morally repugnant" don't realize that morals are a man made concept like many other things. Whereas attraction and love on not only biological but transcends concepts like religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article wasn't published to excuse or accuse. It was published to open our eyes and see truth. The nature of all of us.
No one's "defending" anything. The article is a scientific discussion of how homosexual behavior, despite your protestations to the contrary appear to be perfectly natural. Your religion may tell you otherwise, but your religion is neither the only one nor even the largest. Science is about discovering truth, which is what this article does. Your opinions are meaningless because they are just that; opinions. They may have been given to you by others, but they remain opinions with, as the article points out, no basis in reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo address your specific points: "ignore the law of incest" There's a natural "law" against incest? Really? I better tell my cats, then. My males are constantly mounting their sisters (AND BROTHERS). Good thing they're neutered.
"male individual would simply forget the female in front of it raised it not long time ago"
Yes, it would "forget" it's related to it and mount it. The cats in my house that are siblings have been together since birth, yet the males will still mount their siblings regularly. In fact, I've noticed they're more likely to mount their siblings than the others, but that may just be bias. See how I'm willing to admit bias? It's what a good scientist does.
"Animals may ignore their having sex in public"
Apparently you've never watched pornography. People do it, too. Swingers, wife swappers, Romans...The only reason people don't have sex in public now is because it's against the law to "protect the children".
"Animals may go back to eat what they just vomited"
So will a human if it's hungry enough. Have you never seen a homeless person pulling food from a trashcan or dumpster?
"What really makes humans superior?"
Nothing. Why do they need to be? Why can't you live in harmony with your world instead of trying to dominate it? Oh, that's right, your "god" says you're supposed to. It also said pi is equal to three, so we have to take what it says with a grain of salt, I think.
"What if conditions improve?" It depends. If the change in species is not detrimental to the survival of the species under the new conditions, both species will surive. Most likely, though, there won't be enough genetic variance to disallow interbreeding. In the example you cited, for example, there isn't enough information on what they're talking about, but I gathered this much: there was an area in which there were small-beaked finches. Apparently there was a drought and larger-beaked finches were the dominant variant. Then, the drought subsided and smaller-beaked finches dominated again. Evolutionary Theory doesn't preclude this situation, in fact it supports it fully and you've demonstrated why "intelligent" design is so incidious: it buries enough fact within itself to give it some semblance of internal consistency. But, then, it throws enough insanity on top to remove its credibility for rational people. The finches lived in an environment where their beak size was sufficient for them to gather food. Then, there was a drought and those that had longer beaks were more likely to find food and thus survive. This drought didn't last long enough to kill off the smaller-beaked finches, though. The drought subsided and the smaller-beaked finches were just as able to get food as the larger beaked versions, and thus survived. BUT, the larger-beaked variants were not precluded from gaining food in these new conditions, nor did it make it more likely they would get fed. Thus, their genetic lineage survived as well. A credible scientist would have done a bit more research. For example, is the population of finches larger now? That would indicate the two variations are living together and might just be two separate species. If, as I suspect is the case, there's the same amount of finches, that means the population nor species have changed, just the range of beak size. All you've proven is that IDers simply don't get it. The sample size and conditional change in this example aren't sufficient to prove your theory, and by relying on it you've proven nothing except a complete misunderstanding of scientific procedures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a "technical" question? What does the author mean by "mate"? The definition for the verb, in a biological sense, is normally either "To be paired for reproducing; breed" or "To copulate." Either definition seems inaccurate for the author's usage. Further, how can the author say that, in the case of black swans, a pairing of males would offer an "evolutionary advantage"? It surely offers none - there can be no progeny and therefore no transmission of genetic material to the next generation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's immoral about it? Or surprisiing? After all, these penguins live in Manhattan!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomosexual acts like genital-genital rubbing as stated in the article probably help an individual to attain a higher position in the hierarchy of ones own sex so that he/she will have higher chances of mating with the opposite sex in the future. We may have to assume that position/ranking is based on who performed and gave the greatest pleasure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomosexual acts like genital-genital rubbing as stated in the article probably help an individual to attain a higher position in the hierarchy of one’s own sex so that he/she will have higher chances of mating with the opposite sex in the future. We may have to assume that position/ranking is based on who performed and gave the greatest pleasure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow that was a very interesting article! I saw it in the magazine and I am very glad to see that it is now available on-line. I have already emailed the link to all of my friends. I hope to see more articles from Emily Driscoll. The topic was intriguing on its own, but her take on it all was very informative and it made for a fun read. This was the first time I picked up this magazine and I think this article may inspire me to pick it up again. Thanks :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow that was a very interesting article! I saw in the magazine and I am very glad to see that it is available on-line. I have already emailed the link to all of my friends. I hope to see more articles from Emily Driscoll! The topic was intriguing on its own, but her take on it all was very informative and it made for a fun read. This was the first time I picked up this magazine and I think this article may inspire me to pick it up again. Thanks :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate to tell you this but "superior" we AIN"T. When you are the one constructing the heirarchy you tend to plunk YOURSELF right on top...silly,silly humans.!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"BUT, the larger-beaked variants were not precluded from gaining food in these new conditions, nor did it make it more likely they would get fed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou therefore mean the larger-beaked finches decrease and the ability to gain food are independant. It follows the larger-beaked finches decrease is due to factors inherent to the finches. Smaller-beaked finches are dominant under normal circumstances because of being more LIVELY. Therefore, what evolution thought to be natural selection is actually tactic regression.
The article says clearly that in the wild the homosexual behavior is the exception, not the rule. From that I understand that the 'natural' way of life for us humans is the heterosexual one. Of course, a series of factors (stress, inhuman conditions - like in jail, war, etc.- ) can influence our choices in this respect, but that doesn't make the homosexuality more natural (except for a minority with genetic predispositions). After me, that makes evolutionary sense. All the hot posts -including ID advocacy- are (from my perspective) out of mark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA species with a large population is a particularly good target for communicable disease, including venereal diseases. Promiscuity is impractical as a peace making strategy for a population of six and a half billion people, even if works fairly well for between five and sixty thousand bonobos. This is particularly true because humans are highly mobile. The six and a half billion humans are far more closely connected than the 5 to 60 thousand bonobos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it is not at all clear that sexual promiscuity reduces violence among humans. For example, during sexual revolution in the 1960s and early 1970s the murder rate doubled.
A species with a large population is a particularly good target for communicable disease, including venereal diseases. Promiscuity is impractical as a peace making strategy for a population of six and a half billion people, even if works fairly well for between five and sixty thousand bonobos. This is particularly true because humans are highly mobile. The six and a half billion humans are far more closely connected than the 5 to 60 thousand bonobos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it is not at all clear that sexual promiscuity reduces violence among humans. For example, during sexual revolution in the 1960’s and early 1970’s the murder rate doubled.
"BUT, the larger-beaked variants were not precluded from gaining food in these new conditions, nor did it make it more likely they would get fed." You therefore mean the larger-beaked finches decrease and the ability to gain food are independant. It follows the larger-beaked finches decrease is due to factors inherent to the finches. Smaller-beaked finches are dominant under normal circumstances because of being more LIVELY. Therefore, what evolution thought to be natural selection is actually tactic regression
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"BUT, the larger-beaked variants were not precluded from gaining food in these new conditions, nor did it make it more likely they would get fed." You therefore mean the larger-beaked finches decrease and the ability to gain food are independant. It follows the larger-beaked finches decrease is due to factors inherent to the finches. Smaller-beaked finches are dominant under normal circumstances because of being more LIVELY. Therefore, what evolution thought to be natural selection is actually tactic regression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are superior because they are aware of their actions. They are able to rationalise their opinions, ideas and make reasonable judgements about the things thatthey do or say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs such they are able to make the reasonable judgement that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and homophobia is an illogical, bigoted and unscientific intellectual disease which some human beings unfortunately suffer from.
As technology increases, our ethics change and we become more tolerant and rational human beings, homophobia slowly begins to disappear and human beings become that much more able to boast their superiority to the animals around them.
Damn it, I mean 'technology IMPROVES' heh - typo. Sort of ruined the 'oomph' of that reply, didn't it? :P
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough the evolutionary benefits of heterosexuality are evident, and the fact that homosexuality does have some (overblown) mental and physical problems, this alone is not enough to classify it as "wrong" or abnormal. My argument is that humans engage in a myraid scope of behaviours that are just as, if not more harmful, though not viewed as abhorrent as homosexuality. This is hypocritical and an infringement on human freedom on the most basic level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy wife and I have sex in public all the time. You should try it, it's invigorating, healthy, natural, and where people had sex as long as people were people, up until very recently. People have always ignored the "law" of incest up until pretty recently as well, and the last holdouts were considered noble royalty for it, by faithful followers just like you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswergter
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that this artical claims that homosexuality is promoting animal behavior is irrelivant. Heterosexual behavior is promoting animal behavior as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless there is a logical reason to consider homosexual behavior as being somehow either harmful or in someway impossible to find an appropriate place for it then what are we really talking about?
Actually the quote is: " situational homosexuality in humans in same-sex settings such as prisons or sports teams.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the quote is: “situational homosexuality” in humans in same-sex settings such as prisons or sports teams.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the gist of this thesis from another angle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDogs eat their own droppings.
It must be natural for animals to do so.
People are animals.
So let's all swallow and BS that is put on the net.
SCIAM is really slipping to let this pass by the editors desk.
Can I have sex with your wife or watch?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans like you only THINK they're superior. "Think" is the operative word. In almost every other way aside from (most) humans' ability to reason, we are inferior ANIMALS. Yes, it is an undeniable fact that humans are animals and therefore they naturally have animal tendencies. Would you suggest that we ignore our tendencies to eat and breathe, just because they're "animal"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the Fritzl family in Austria (and many more cases), there is no such complete incest barrier in humans, and likewise most species of mammals won't mate with their siblings either if they have the chance to get around it. Thus humans are animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn ancient Egypt intercourse in public was usual. Thus humans are animals.
Not all animals eat all they vomited, seriously, and if you don't advise a baby to not touch its wastes it might... you know.
So the one thing to make humans "superior" to other animals is... shame? God forbid!
the is no clear proof that homosexual;ity exist in the animal kingdom. Same sex animals humping each other is not an indication of homosexual;ity but rather a training in heterosexuality to come when a mate is found. All of the soo called homosexual animals did not engage in long sustained homosexual acts recorded for a certain period of time to achieve a sense of accomplished ensemination but perhaps only for the instantaneous sexual discharge it seeked in the first place. A male dog humping your leg doesn't mean its homosexual, let alone interspecies sexual but rather primitive biological drive to discharge to point that often a any tree stump would suffice. I don't think it was conscious of your leg or the stump or homosexuality. But it will still eat it's own puke! WOW1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI ran across this reference on Wikipedia's bisexuality page and find the discussion interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello philly,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi love you
from jim
First, you need to realize that human beings are animals. Secondly, humans are no more superior than any other part of the ecological system, except by those who choose themselves to think that humans are superior. Humans may be superior in some ways but in other ways they are inferior. As to what is proper, immoral, etc., realize that most of what people have been led to think of as immoral, improper, or whatever, are all man made ideals, and a lot probably by bigots, who perhaps spent to much time being brainwashed, or brainwashing others, about things that perhaps they should have been researching themselves and formulating different opinions on what is proper for them rather than what is proper for others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, you need to realize that human beings are animals. Secondly, humans are no more superior than any other part of the ecological system, except by those who choose themselves to think that humans are superior. Humans may be superior in some ways but in other ways they are inferior. As to what is proper, immoral, etc., realize that most of what people have been led to think of as immoral, improper, or whatever, are all man made ideals, and a lot probably by bigots, who perhaps spent to much time being brainwashed, or brainwashing others, about things that perhaps they should have been researching themselves and formulating different opinions on what is proper for them rather than what is proper for others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith respect to situational homosexuality, it could very well be that given the right situation, each gender of the human species would choose to indulge in homosexual acts, and that without the barriers placed on humans by other humans, without man made prejudices, and none as much as the Bible, homosexual acts might be a part of everyone, as much as heterosexual acts for some. The article indicates that such is the case is other species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRadonBaloon: "exception" is really more of a statistical term in this context. I think what the article is saying is that sexual beings in the animal kingdom display a wide range of different sexual behaviors. Homosexuality is one of them. However, the article makes it fairly clear that homosexuality as a sexual identity does not occur in the animal kingdom and homosexuality as a preference in exclusion of heterosexual contact is very rare. This would suggest that homosexuality as it manifests itself in human species certainly is exceptional
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this