[quote]They've observed preferential and even exclusive same sex partnerships over and over again. It's not some conspiracy. Animals are capable of preferring same-sex parnerships.[/quote] Particular same sex partnerships that involve a good humping from time to time for unknown reasons is a very different thing from observed arousal and preference exclusively for the same sex in general. Not a conspiracy - just observational bias, anthropomorphism, in that it is based upon the assumption that the animal a. knows what it is doing, b. is exclusively sexually aroused/attracted to the same sex, c. would not be sexually aroused by or engage in sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. Without being open to all possibilities and understanding that all we can do is observe as best we can (since we're not all Dr. Doolittle), we can only document what we observe in an objective manner as real science is suppose to do, or we can interpret what is observed and make assumptions.

Observational bias can be all but completely ruled out in [u]peer-reviewed[/u] journals. They didn't go all over the world trying to [i]prove[/i] gay animals existed. They went trying to [i]find out[/i] if gay animals exist. And they've done plenty of natural habitat [i]and[/i] controlled environment testing on the subject where animals where shown to [i]only[/i] engage sexually with partners of the same sex.. as in ever... throughout their entire life.

[quote]Observational bias can be all but completely ruled out in [u]peer-reviewed[/u] journals. [/quote] Not at all. Peer reviewed simply means that others in the field have reviewed it and that a majority have approved it. It is not an infallible method for making infallible interpretations, particularly when one interpretation among many involving a lifeform we can only observe as best we can is being so readily singled out, assumptions made, and conclusions reached. [quote]They went trying to [i]find out[/i] if gay animals exist.[/quote] So they were not only trying to see if it was something that existed, but they also made an interpretation of their observations by applying human characteristics to and perceiving human nature in animals which we can only observe as best we can. That doesnt sound like a recipe for accurate and purely objective observation. Key word here is "interpretation." We observe animals doing lots of things, even humping and ejaculating in or on lots of different things, but we can only assume to know anything beyond that.

It seem far more likely that the conclusion they came to after years of research is correct than that they assumed facts not-in-evidence so they could get published. This is science, not a contest to see who's the smartest. With all the information [u]I've[/u] been provided it seems the best course of action to trust high level, deeply studied and reviewed scientific journalism above almost all sources be they gut feelings or very plausible hypotheses. I put very high regard in those who hold the scientific ideal above all else. A scientist's job is to prove themselves wrong, not right.

[quote]It seem far more likely that the conclusion they came to after years of research is correct than that they assumed facts not-in-evidence so they could get published. This is science, not a contest to see who's the smartest. [/quote] I understand the willingness to agree with the interpretations, but likelihood and assumptions are not science. Science is about observation and study. The problem in this case is in that there is what is observable and then there are the interpretations and assumptions made by humans, which are certainly not infallible. [quote]With all the information [u]I've[/u] been provided it seems the best course of action to trust high level, deeply studied and reviewed scientific journalism above almost all sources be they gut feelings or very plausible hypotheses. I put very high regard in those who hold the scientific ideal above all else. A scientist's job is to prove themselves wrong, not right.[/quote] Yet nothing has been proven. There are simply too many variables to consider. Gut feelings aren't involved in understanding the possibilities that remain. All we can do is observe other animals as best we can and make interpretations based upon what we can observe.

[Quote] Yet nothing has been proven. There are simply too many variables to consider. Gut feelings aren't involved in understanding the possibilities that remain. All we can do is observe other animals as best we can and make interpretations based upon what we can observe. [/Quote] I would argue that the interpretations made by experts in the field after years of research are the closest possible thing to empirical evidence that can ever be presented, given current technology. Nothing in science can be proven absolutely. That's why we have scientific theory. I understand that complacency breeds stupidity but never accepting anything that cannot be empirically proven is a recipe for conspiracy theorizing. At some point we have to trust that those with knowledge above our own are correct in the testing of their hypotheses.

[quote]I would argue that the interpretations made by experts in the field after years of research are the closest possible thing to empirical evidence that can ever be presented, given current technology. Nothing in science can be proven absolutely. That's why we have scientific theory.[/quote] I would argue that there is a big difference between scientific theories based upon that which is observable and testable and theories that obviously involve making assumptions about what, if anything, is going through the mind of an animal. We only know that they will hump or ejaculate in or on lots of different things, and have been observed pairing with the same or the opposite sex or not at all. Does this, by our definition, equate to true homosexuality? No, it doesn't. [quote] I understand that complacency breeds stupidity but never accepting anything that cannot be empirically proven is a recipe for conspiracy theorizing. At some point we have to trust that those with knowledge above our own are correct in the testing of their hypotheses.[/quote] Oh, I don't doubt the proffessionalism involved in the tests themselves so much as I understand that we are limited in that which is observable and testable, thus we are left with inconclusive data, subject to interpretation often formed by assumption and anthropomorphism in this particular case. I doubt there is an actual conspiracy, but rather there are those who are simply drawing conclusions based on limited information, as we humans are prone to do. Here is a link for reference. It describes what I've conveyed in greater detail, appears to be objective, and includes a nice overview of what we've learned regarding this subject: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals

You know what. I think I've been looking at it from only one angle: Behavior. Even lifelong homosexual behavior in animals is not identical in function to its counterpart in humans. I've seen this article before and I was thinking of it as backing my argument but I've been too simplistic. Homosexual feelings are impossible to truly prove. This we've established, but I've been make as broad an assumption as I accused you of making. I still believe true homosexuality, at least at a genome level exists within the animal kingdom but that it's many behaviorally similar genes serve more diverse purposes across a broader spectrum. Edit: anyway, thanks for the stimulating argument. As somewhat of a connoisseur on gay animals it's been really a interesting and rare conversation. 😅

Thank you. I enjoyed it as well, and I truly appreciate that it remained civil and respectful. It's rare these days, on the Internet that is, to have intelligent conversations without the nonsense and distraction of insults and ridicule.