Ah yes, the old 'Gay Animals' argument.
Almost all cited examples of alleged 'gay' animals end up referring back to Bruce Bagemihl, author of "Biological Exuberance" - try reading this book, or reviews or a precis of it, and you will see it is pseudo-science at best (a view shared by many biologists who are not fettered by political correctness or a hidden personal agenda). Bagemihl himself is gay, and an activist (so hardly impartial), but most incredibly, his book aims not just to further the cause of the gay rights lobby, but goes on to refute darwinism (almost universally accepted) and attack the importance of heterosexual reproduction! Never mind the fact that ALL living organisms (bar monocellular ones) are the product of a
heterosexual act (even 'gay' organisms!). He claims to have documented over 450 examples of animal 'homosexuality' - yet offers no evidence other than his own testimony. He also dismisses alternative explanations - one of which can be read
here.
Even if animals are, in fact, 'turning queer', this does not mean that this is a
'natural' phenomenon. There is an increasing body of evidence,
including experiments that can be reproduced in a lab (as opposed to the possibly biased claims of 1 individual), that the situation is very much man made. See an example
here,
here, and even
HERE! Also worth considering are the possible effects of the sheer volume of oestrogen and similar female hormones that have been, literally, pissed into our water table over the last 40 or so years, since use of the contraceptive pill became widespread - read about it
here.
My belief that homosexuality is not a 'natural' phenomenon is NOT based on prejudice, bigotry, intolerance, nor any other label the gay rights lobby would throw at me for challenging their almighty assumptions. It is based on a large body of scientific evidence.
As you so succinctly put it,
Scud-U-Like, you can either
like it or lump it, I'm afraid
16B