The first article is simply spin and equivocation; it attempts to redefine homosexuality very broadly to allow for certain things to fall under the definition that normally don't...
Almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.
Under the broad definition used to claim that the black swan couples are "homosexual", the three guys raising the girls in
Full House would have to be considered three homosexual guys in relationship with each other; a gay trio. Basically, they are claiming homosexuality in an incident lacking any truly homosexual acts! That is a big stretch.
Sorry, that is not what homosexuality is. Homosexuality is dependent on sex and sexual attraction. The only evidence of any sexuality cited in that example is heterosexuality.
FYI; There is no reason for hermaphrodites or asexual reproduction in the article or the exhibit except to further confuse the issue...
The article only offers some speculation and conjecture that animals have sex for pleasure, but offers no evidence for it. Only a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof...
For pleasure
However, species continuation may not always be the ultimate goal, as many animals, including humans, engage in sexual activities more than is necessary for reproduction.
"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," Wolfe told LiveScience.
However, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay, a scientist who's study is sexuality and its causes, and whom you have cited here in this thread, says that homosexual acts in the animal community are incidental at best...
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.
It has been scientifically show that the vast majority of the animal kingdom
doesn't have sex for pleasure. There are other motivations; mostly reproduction, but also to show dominance, acceptance, etc. Mere conjecture doesn't change that.
The second article, like the first is simply spin and doesn't disprove any of the claims regarding animal homosexuality that I have laid out in this thread. It simply takes facts that are in line with idea I conveyed, spins it 180 degrees and then tries to shift the burden of proof...
Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex.
The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous roll in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals. [to avoid violence...showing dominance, submissiveness or acceptance?]
Homosexuality is also quite common among dolphins and killer whales. The pairing of males and females is fleeting, while between males, a pair can stay together for years. Homosexual sex between different species is not unusual either. Meetings between different dolphin species can be quite violent, but the tension is often broken by a "sex orgy". [showing acceptance?]
All these example fit in with what Simon LeVay said and what I quoted Dr. Antonio Pardo as saying:
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.
All the actual homosexual acts cited in either article are incidental and can best be explained through some instinct other then reproduction or pleasure.
Both articles also attempt to redefine homosexuality to include pairing up for child rearing in the face of actual heterosexual acts, when no actual homosexual acts have been committed.
Neither of these articles in any way
disproves what I laid out in post #38. Just spin, equivocation and a subtle shifting of the burden of proof. Nothing more.
Either way, animal sexuality doesn't say much of anything about human sexuality. If you are ultimately wanting to prove that human homosexuality is natural, you are barkin up the wrong tree here.
Off topic:
Next time you might wanna provide links to the articles (if possible) and provide more of your own commentary and argument; you are bordering on the whole "wall 'o' text" argument here. Just some helpful advice...