We Must Protect the Sanctity of the Animal Kingdom!
13 October 2006 by King Retard
Uh oh, somebody better warn Fred Phelps’s animal kingdom equivalent. Animals can practice homosexual behavior. A museum in Oslo, Norway has documented homosexual or bisexual activities in “over 1500 species.” The title of the exhibit is “Against Nature,” which is designed to dispell myths that homosexual behavior is a deviancy or sickness.
With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as “unnatural.”
“We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear — homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature,” an exhibit statement said.
Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled “Against Nature,” told Reuters: “Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them.”
Of course, anything designed to show that being gay is ok is sure to come under the loving gaze of Christian groups.
One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition — partly funded by the Norwegian government — should “burn in hell,” Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a “crime against nature” are still on the statutes in some countries.
Now this is the useful kind of contribution to the scientific community that I’ve come to expect from Christian groups. This museum does careful research, documents instances of behavior in over 1500 species, puts their findings out there for public discussion and consideration, and all this Christian respondent can’t think of to say is that the organizers of the exhibit “should ‘burn in hell.’” Thank you for that thoughtful response. I’m sure the scientists responsible for this exhibit will now have to rethink the implications of their research due to your carefully crafted refutation of their findings. Of course, South Park had already taught us that there are plenty of gay animals.
13 October 2006, on 12:23 pm
Those animals are extremely lucky that there is no “animal hell” or they would be going there for sure.
13 October 2006, on 12:26 pm
Funnily enough, oral sex is practiced by only a handful of species.
So remind your Christian “unnaturalists” that what they likely practice in the privacy of their own homes is much more “unnatural” than homosexuality.
13 October 2006, on 12:34 pm
I am going to tell you about a dog we owned when I was a teenager. I am not making this up and it is absolutely true.
I bought this mutt from the animal shelter when she was just a puppy. I named her Pooky. After Pooky had her first heat, I took her in and had her spayed. It wasn’t long after that Pooky started behaving as a boy dog and started humping things. This dog humped people’s legs, the legs of furniture and anything she found desirable. But her very favorite thing to hump was a big pink stuffed poodle that she went absolutely crazy over! We would keep it in a closet or else she would hump herself to death on it. What is even more interesting is that she would try to hump both male and female dogs. My parents have had two female dogs since and they have been spayed and have not behaved in this manner. So…I have been a first hand witness to bisexuality in the animal kingdom.
13 October 2006, on 12:34 pm
I wonder how long before someone starts godhatesanimalfags.com?
13 October 2006, on 12:34 pm
One thing that wasn’t mentioned. Do those specific animals exhibit ONLY those tendencies? Or do they still successfully propagate the species? If the latter, then such “homosexual” tendencies could just be ritualistic behavior meant to show who’s in charge.
Just a guess, mind you, but it would be interesting to know.
Revenant
13 October 2006, on 12:35 pm
I can see why some xians hate science. It’s knocking down their beliefs like pins in a bowling alley. I’m ready for a perfect strike!
13 October 2006, on 12:36 pm
Lol Stardust. Pooky must have thought you wanted her to be a a boy, having gotten rid of the other important female parts. So she was just trying to please her masters.
13 October 2006, on 12:43 pm
Yay, a scientific post, thank you, KR!
13 October 2006, on 12:46 pm
This is too damn funny not to comment on…and I wish I had a video cam in the 70’s when I could have gathered evidence in my own barnyard of abherant animal behavior. Not only could I have filmed homosexual behavior, I could have filmed INCEST!
My brother and I raised beef cattle and the last two animals we owned were TWIN BROTHER Angus steers. They spent hours in the pasture orally satisfying each other in a “69″ standing position. It was quite the sight for all who drove by on the major US highway that bordered the pasture. Imagine two large black steers performing fellatio atop a hill for all the world to witness. I took quite the ribbing from my fellow agrian friends about my “Queer Steers”.
Perhaps the Christian group is right about the burning in hell part; if I remember correctly they both became steaks and hamburger and were quite tasty when grilled.
13 October 2006, on 12:51 pm
“Queer Steers”.
Perhaps the Christian group is right about the burning in hell part; if I remember correctly they both became steaks and hamburger and were quite tasty when grilled.
Russman, I am rolling on the floor with that one! Oh my gawd! LOLOL!
13 October 2006, on 12:52 pm
Revenant pondered: One thing that wasn’t mentioned. Do those specific animals exhibit ONLY those tendencies? Or do they still successfully propagate the species? If the latter, then such “homosexual” tendencies could just be ritualistic behavior meant to show who’s in charge.
I think that in some cases these activities are in addition to heterosexual behaviors and at other times they are exclusive from heterosexual activities.
This whole thing got me thinking about the concept of homosexuality in general. Michel Foucault argued that homosexual behavior has been around as long as people have been but that our concept of the “homosexual” as a person is a relatively recent concept. What he means is that sexual acts have long been recognized but it was only in the nineteenth century that homosexuality became an all-encompassing social marker. Instead of simply preferring sexual activities with someone of the same gender, people became entirely defined by this act. Not that people like Dani would buy any of this…
13 October 2006, on 12:53 pm
“Queer Steers”.
Holy shit, that’s funny.
13 October 2006, on 1:03 pm
Lol, I guess the old Army Basic Training phrase, “Only steers and queers from from insert place name here >. Which are you boy?” doesn’t have much meaning there, eh?
Revenant
13 October 2006, on 1:08 pm
LOL. So, it’s no longer either/or — as in “There are only queers and steers in (fill in name of state), and I don’t see no horns” — it can be both!
13 October 2006, on 1:15 pm
Revenant,
Although King Retard has already addressed your question, I’ll add that an extensive study of sheep showed some rams to be exclusively homosexual and others not. In the case of a couple of captive, male, bottlenose dolphins, they “performed” for a mirror (animal vouyeris and maybe even porn?)in studies attempting to determine their level of self-awarness. In the wild, dolphins and sperm whales frequently use sex as a social bond, not just for reproduction.
From the studies I have read, more and more it appears genetics are the main factor in sexual orientation. The fundies really hate this and will even claim something as ridiculous as that “gay” animals are evidence of how man’s sin corrupted the world. Of course, if you don’t believe in science, evidence, reason and objectivity, one made up explanation is as good as another. Thank Odin I got out of that fucked-up fundy world when I was young. I have a gay brother and I still can’t believe he didn’t go insane living in our strict, fundy (dad minister) home.
13 October 2006, on 1:20 pm
Stardust, the fact that your dog was spayed meant that she wasn’t experiencing any biological drive to mate, so the humping wasn’t sexual in nature. It was likely a dominance thing.
This isn’t the first such study to reach this conclusion:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
13 October 2006, on 1:21 pm
Well, Angus cattle are a breed that grows no horns but they certainly grew “wood”… As to what state they were from I think “state of confusion” may have applied to these steers- I also watched them eat jalepeno peppers and run around the barnyard kicking their hooves and bawling for and hour…
13 October 2006, on 1:30 pm
Thanks Kings Retard and Spirula. I remember this one male dog in the neighborhood where I grew up in Virginia, used to try to hump anything, male, female, dog, human, didn’t matter.
I’m not anti-gay or anything, but thinking logically, if it were genetic, and inherited, it wouldn’t live beyond a single generation, for obvious reasons.
13 October 2006, on 1:34 pm
I really want to know how the apologists are going to square this one with the belief that gawd made all the animals, meaning gawd made gay animals too.
13 October 2006, on 1:53 pm
Stardust, the fact that your dog was spayed meant that she wasn’t experiencing any biological drive to mate, so the humping wasn’t sexual in nature. It was likely a dominance thing.
Julie, Why did the other two female dogs my mother had afterwards not exhibit this dominance thing as Pooky did? I should point out that all were mutts of the same sort of terrier-labrador, mix, if that matters.
13 October 2006, on 2:05 pm
Revenant says: thinking logically, if it were genetic, and inherited, it wouldn’t live beyond a single generation, for obvious reasons.
Well, I’m certainly no biologist, but not all genes are necessarily dominant. Just because a few animals/humans exhibit homosexual behavior, doesn’t mean the whole species does, nor that it will “die out” because a few exhibit such behavior. Not all offspring within the same family would exhibit homosexuality. Some offspring would still “be fruitful and multiply”. Besides, we need a little population control, don’t you think?
In the case of humans, there are additional scenarios. One example: My sister and her same-sex partner often traveled to Mexico with friends. The partner had sex with one of their male friends. As far as I know, it was planned, with the consent of the friend, so that they would have a child to raise. They both wanted to do it.
Another thing, I think about, is if a gay gene were ever to be discovered, what in the world would fundies do? What a dilemma! They are so anti-abortion that they won’t even allow a blastocyst to be “hurt” or destroyed for stem-cell research. What if a pregnant fundie xian woman were to discover that her offspring is going to be gay? An abomination before gawd? Will these crazies then reconsider abortion rather than bring an abomination into the world? Or will they just send the child off to a hetero conversion camp when he reaches adolescence? Either way, poor child.
13 October 2006, on 2:06 pm
Reverant,
The comment to the effect of “if it were inherited and genetic it would pass out of existance quickly” is a common mistake made by many who do not understand the concept of recessive traits, polygenetic inheritance, neutral traits or the tendancy for natural selection to favor the heterozygous. I don’t want to go into great detail, but bear in mind, if it is inherited (which I believe the evidence strongly points to), it was passed to the child by heterosexual parents (there is no evidence that either parent has to be bisexual). In addition, there is evidence that birth order (at least in male children) may contribute as well (by mechanisms not understood). Studies have shown that homosexual males tend to be farther down the birth order. In short, genes in population that are not heavily selected against, will pass on to further generations, even if it means some of the combinations of those genes will produce individuals that will not reproduce.
13 October 2006, on 2:23 pm
It’s Revenant, btw ;).
Thanks for the info. I certainly don’t understand those concepts, not having had any biology since high school, almost 30 years ago. Makes perfect sense.
Revenant
13 October 2006, on 2:49 pm
Julie, Why did the other two female dogs my mother had afterwards not exhibit this dominance thing as Pooky did? I should point out that all were mutts of the same sort of terrier-labrador, mix, if that matters.
Dunno. But humping as a sign of dominance/rough play/excitability is pretty common in many species. We see it, and it looks funny, and we make our own interpretations. In reality, though, dogs generally hump during what behavioralists call “arousal,” which has nothing to do with sexual arousal, but their emotional state. They get worked up, excited, and hump. There’s some debate about the dominance thing among the experts. It was the major explanation years ago, but now there’s a lot of disagreement about whether or not that’s the case.
But the fact that she was spayed meant that her body was no longer set in “mate-mode.” She didn’t feel sexually-inclined, toward any gender.
13 October 2006, on 2:50 pm
Revenant,
Sorry for the misspelling (and especially after getting it right in my previous post). I taught college biology classes for 7 years and would run into that very misconception, virtually every semester. It always made me wonder how in depth the high school biology genetics lectures were.
13 October 2006, on 2:54 pm
But the fact that she was spayed meant that her body was no longer set in “mate-mode.” She didn’t feel sexually-inclined, toward any gender.
Julie, thanks for the info…we always wondered about that over the years. She really looked like she was enjoying herself though, especially with the pink furry stuffed poodle which was her very favorite thing to “dominate”.
13 October 2006, on 3:16 pm
This all only goes to show the importance of preaching the Gospel to animals as well.
13 October 2006, on 3:22 pm
Now, of course, it’d be Brokeback Pasture.
I’m wondering how much longer it’ll be before Rick Santorum starts bleating about the inevitability of man-on-penguin sex.
Gotta admit, those tuxes do make ’em look classy.
13 October 2006, on 3:33 pm
We’ve got a troll on the thread “Renewed Energy and Tired Arguments”.
13 October 2006, on 3:47 pm
I saw. Ouch.
13 October 2006, on 4:06 pm
*lol* “Queer steers!”
13 October 2006, on 4:16 pm
No problem, lol, I’ve been called worse.
I’ve always been interested in biology, even read Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker, but that doesn’t mean it all sinks in and gets properly retained
I’ll be sure to pick your brain!
Revenant
13 October 2006, on 4:35 pm
The mechanism spirula is referring too is a female linked trait, that basically creates some form of antibody response to male fetuses, sort of like the rhesus factor reaction with each consecutive positive foetus. “Genome” by Matt Ridley has a whole chapter on it. Basically it renders male offspring sterile (not that homosexuals are sterile, but likely will not breed). However, his sisters and aunts will breed, and carrying this trait will create many a gay uncle but it will certainly not die out. Entire bee colonies are sterile workers, but they are working on the procreation of sister bees. The homosexual and lesbian might have a similar function, to help raise offspring. Basically the same can be said for old people. They aren’t reproducing, they take resources so technically any society that supports them should have failed, but their added aid in raising children and collecting food benefit the society as a whole.
Aside from that, the whole “naturalistic” thing is bunk. Lets say homosexuality isn’t natural, who cares? Central heating isn’t natural either but I’m not calling a Christian a sinner for turning on the thermostat.
13 October 2006, on 4:43 pm
RELIGION isn’t natural. Since when did a hummingbird ever go to church on Sunday?
13 October 2006, on 4:57 pm
Matt, some hummingbirds might be caged and forced to go against their will, like these poor creatures.
13 October 2006, on 4:59 pm
Then they could pray the gay out of the animals.
13 October 2006, on 5:02 pm
Warren,
“Now, of course, it’d be Brokeback Pasture.”
Too damn funny! Would there be a ranch brand to go with that - Bovine 69?
King Spirula,
Recently saw a theory about why more gay men are 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. children in the family. It had to do with a hormone that gestating mothers produce too little or to much of (I can’t remember which). I wish I could say where I saw this study as well but I’m drawing a blank on that as well. Maybe somebody else saw the same study????
Julie,
The dominant thing with my Boxers is a hoot to watch as well- My Alpha female humps my Alpha male (her son) and then occassionally my Beta female tries to hump my Alpha male when he is playing with me. Fortunately, none of them hump me or any other humans. At least they are not species-confused….. although the cat does seem traumatized lately….
13 October 2006, on 6:23 pm
This is old news. Every male dog I have ever known has homosexual tendencies. Heidi (our currant dog) is not only bi-curious, but she also practices oral sex on herself quite extensively, apparantly she’s in a hurry to get into doggy hell.
13 October 2006, on 6:42 pm
Does it mean I’m gay if I have a tendency to cull a ram from the flock- more often than a female, when it’s time for “Hide the Vienna Sausage”? Er..I mean…if, um, a friend of mine did so?
13 October 2006, on 7:11 pm
I have… a friend with those same tendencies. Yeah, a friend… That’s it, a friend.
13 October 2006, on 7:12 pm
Just a quick comment on the idea the homosexual individual ‘not-breeding’ itself out of existence:
Echoing Richard Dawkins: It is the gene that is surviving from one generation to the next, not the individual. Non-reproductive individuals are fully capable of improving the chances that genes shared with other members of the brood/pack/family will survive to the next generation. (Ant colonies provide a stunning example of non-breeding individuals in action.)
There are a great many phenotypical expressions in the natural world that defy our immediate understanding. Compared to the reproductive wonder that is the peacock’s tail, the notion that homosexuality has a genetic component, (or even a reproductive ‘purpose’), is almost mundane.
…Unless, of course, you believe in the utterly unnatural occurrences of virgin birth and crucified undead.
13 October 2006, on 7:41 pm
In a related vein, I remember sitting in my ex-wife’s Baptist church in her hometown in Louisiana listening to the pastor ramble on about how people who cross-dress, pierce themselves, or do other body modification, etc. are guilty of “unnatural perversions”. My ex-wife had, prior to our trip to LA, just showed me her biology textbook all about inherited genetic disorders, etc…some of it really freaky and tragic; Remembering that, I got very incensed at this man’s sermon in particular and bitched about it to my ex-wife later (we were still married at that point). What astounded me is that my ex-wife was pre-med, but because of her fundie upbringing, fell back into the trap of religion (the divorce was a whole lot of fun, lemme tell you…fundie wife battles staunchly atheist husband–thank goodness there were no kids caught in the crossfire)…and actually DEFENDED the pastor’s sermon, saying all those genetic disorders, etc. in her textbook were evidence of the work of “evil” in the world. I told her that explanation was indefensible, utter bullshit and she of all people ought to know better. The first of many arguments where she began in earnest to try to “save” me. She lost. It was a little akward, being the Liberal Arts-backgrounded one in the marriage, sticking up for Reason, science, the scientific method, etc, while she, the ostensibly sciences-backgrounded person, embraced all this religious hooey…she was the first in her family to go to college; her mom had only a high school education and was 100% devoutly fundy (and divorced, though her divorced husband, my ex-father-in-law, was just as religiously batshit insane and a closet KKK’er to boot.)…I had hooked up with her partly to help her with her “deconversion”, to show her, by example, that it could be done–but ended up getting burned as she chickened out and “reconverted”.
I still fondly remember having fabulous, partly clothed, flagrantly premarital nookey on her mom’s bed–RIGHT BEFORE VISITING THEIR CHURCH.
{they had gone on ahead of us for Sunday School, which my then girlfriend-fiancee declined to attend). I had a smirk on my face during the whole service. I think my ex had to re-learn how to feel ashamed about sex again when we split up, since she was seemingly very sexually liberated with an atheist partner, even when we were still “living in sin”, as her mother put it.
Being able to call something “unnatural” requires, as a prerequisite, that one actually understand nature….fundies clearly do NOT.
13 October 2006, on 9:22 pm
I recall Carlin’s hilarious routine about how his dog (male) jumps on his cat (also male) & starts plugging away. Meanwhile, the cat has this “is it over yet?” look on its face. He talks about how they made it their xmas card that year. “Lost a lotta friends on that 1.”
& then he SHOWED THE PICTURES at the end of the routine.
Wish I could find it on youtube. Utterly hysterical.
13 October 2006, on 10:10 pm
I found this on YouTube
Lesbian Humping Dog, Tami
(The other dog is like, WTF?)
and for KA - Dog and Kitty sex
There must be a million videos of kinky animal sex on YouTube…holy jeebus!
13 October 2006, on 10:30 pm
Julie said:”Dunno. But humping as a sign of dominance/rough play/excitability is pretty common in many species. We see it, and it looks funny, and we make our own interpretations. In reality, though, dogs generally hump during what behavioralists call “arousal,” which has nothing to do with sexual arousal, but their emotional state. They get worked up, excited, and hump. There’s some debate about the dominance thing among the experts. It was the major explanation years ago, but now there’s a lot of disagreement about whether or not that’s the case.”
You are right, but there is a little more to it as well. Like humans, dogs emotions are closely tied to their sexuality. Being spayed or nuetured doest always stop the erge to mate or relieve themselves. Stars horny little puppy was finding ways to deal with her anxiety and like humans sexual release tend to do the trick. Of course not all dogs will handle their anxieties the same, just like not all humans do. It is a common behavior proplem and can be easily fixed with plenty of exercise and corrections.
13 October 2006, on 11:42 pm
On this topic, I recommend the reading of “Evolution’s Rainbow”, by Stanford’s biology professor Joan Roughgarden. It includes a long, detailed list of “non-traditional” behaviour in animals related to sexual practices, sexual orientation, gender identity, and even transgenderism. Many of these non-traditional activies have a social role of various types. Her explanations are enlightening. And it is a science book full of science references, of course.
14 October 2006, on 12:40 am
Most of the xians who cannot accept gays and lesbians as healthy, normal, equal humans, do not believe in Evolution. They don’t see humans as cousins to such animals as bonobos who enjoy sex with just about anyone in the troop. So one would think they would be less interested in such research than appears to be the case from the vehement criticism. In the past I have mentioned this common animal homosexual behavior to xians and was promptly “informed” that “humans are not animals and should not engage in animalistic behavior.”
I suppose it is true we don’t behave like animals in a great many ways since we started walking upright so perhaps the relevance of such research to human homosexuality is limited. But even if there was no sign of homosexual behavior anywhere else than among humans it does not automatically make such behavior unnatural or inappropriate. We enjoy many freedoms that our animal cousins are unable to enjoy in their primitive societies. Driving a polluting, rusty metal box around on pavement at 65 miles per hour is hardly “natural” either.
14 October 2006, on 2:40 am
HAIL KING RETARD! excellent post, with a very classy picture.
WARREN - I’d like to commend you on the referral to “man - on - penguine sex” you beat me to that one, bud
14 October 2006, on 2:43 am
Does anyone know the address to the pornsite where female chimps wearing strapons fuck football players in the ass?
I’ve seen female deer go at it before… though it twas in a zoo… I sure I hope I shoot a female deer this hunting season, the fun I could have with that carcass…
14 October 2006, on 2:45 am
“The gay animals are not being sexy but being dominate”
Since when was sex something completely distinct from dominance??? I’m not gay, but when those two guys blew me in front of their girlfiends it was about dominance.
14 October 2006, on 7:47 am
I’ve always wondered why the Roman Catholic Church says that homosexuality is “unnatural” when nothing could be MORE unnatural (against nature) than celibecy!
14 October 2006, on 11:16 am
Isn’t it possible those animals are all “criminals against nature?”
Seriously, the conservatives are still nuts, but the museum consciously put themselves in the path of controversy–check their press statement if you have doubts.
14 October 2006, on 12:42 pm
All this talk about sex…
“Sex, Sex, Sex…”
reminded me…as is my wont…of the Cleese/Python Sex Education scene.
Most of you have seen this…but, it ‘bares’ another look?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aaeACilspE
14 October 2006, on 3:03 pm
ChuckA
Thanks for that. It brightens my day.
14 October 2006, on 6:00 pm
Stardust:
Thanks for the video, but I was kinda hoping someone could come up w/the Carlin monologue. I could only watch about 30 seconds of that, as I…prefer watching consenting homo sapiens (snicker, snicker).
14 October 2006, on 11:53 pm
Candice,
That’s not the only thing that’s “unnatural” either. Here’s a list of things that I use that are unnatural in the animal kingdom.
Computers, clothes, medicine, hair ties, shampoo, lotion, eyeglasses, toothpaste, beer, shoes, chocolate, T.V., cars, toilites…..and that’s just a few!
The Roman Catholic Church wants to be “natural”? They can strip down naked and cast themselves into the wilderness. I’ll give them a week.
15 October 2006, on 12:11 am
but the museum consciously put themselves in the path of controversy
Do you have a problem with the museum doing this, Chris? Anyone conscious enough to enter a museum would have to know that the exhibit was going to be controversial. I’m sure they anticipated the fundie reaction and, as usual, decided truth was more important than religious delusions.
15 October 2006, on 1:50 pm
Advisor Moppet, don’t forget that religion is completely unnatural.
No animal believes in a god, therefore atheism is actually more natural (is that even a possiblity?) than religion.
15 October 2006, on 3:25 pm
Man, do I sound like a party pooper. There is a part of me that does think it is funny to see dogs hump the shit out of anything and anybody, but the profesional side of me says thats not healthy and can be fixed.
When I was a teenager we had a little male toy poodle that humped everything and our male sharpe. My mom got him a stuffed lassi dog and called it his bitch. So, when winston developed a bald spot on his back leg where alex humped she would yell at him to “stop it and go get your bitch. It was funny and its still funny, but its not healthy. lol
16 October 2006, on 9:21 am
Hmm, what’s a “sharpe”??
16 October 2006, on 9:40 am
Revenant - I think SNTC meant sharpei or shar-pei. Those are the dogs with too much skin for their bodies and it falls in folds all over them. They are really cute, though.
16 October 2006, on 9:42 am
ChuckA:
Thanks for the hysterical video.
“Before we stamped towards the clitoris!” Snort. Chuckle.
16 October 2006, on 10:00 am
Stardust, yeah I figured that was it, lol, I was being a little facetious. I used to own a Shar-pei.;)
16 October 2006, on 10:35 am
Revenant,
Frankly, I find Richard Dawkins’ books tedious, even though they are insightful. He runs every rabbit-trail to cover himself from the “quote mining” and “gap” creation crowd. I understand why he does this, but it slows his books down (at least for me). He is far more compelling in his speaking and I am glad he is getting more public exposure in this forum. I find David Quammen and Carl Zimmer to be much more readable, while still getting to the gist of the science.
And stampeding toward the clitoris is not nearly as frightening as a clitoris stampede. That way lies madness. Or something.
16 October 2006, on 10:58 am
It was a dry read, no doubt, Spirula. I’ll have to look up the others you mentioned.
lol, not sure what prompted the Python reference. Though I must say for sheer anti-religious satire, Meaning of Life can’t be beat.
Revenant
16 October 2006, on 11:49 am
Revenant,
Quammen’s “The Song of the Dodo” is great. Carl Zimmer’s “At the Water’s Edge”, “Parasite Rex” and “Evolution” are all very good, readable and compelling, as is his guide book on human evolution.
17 October 2006, on 5:01 am
Someone won an Ig Nobel Prize for studying just this in 2003, the award was for “Documenting the first scientifically recorded case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck”.
http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2003
I remember hearing an interview from the researcher, it was quite funny, he was just researching the ducks in general, and then he noticed one of the males was having sex with one of his dead friends.
20 October 2006, on 4:12 pm
I’m with you, Lynda; I think museums have a duty to present actual researched scientific fact, whether the disclosure will be popular or not. In fact, controversy may help bring more visitors in, which is a good thing in my opinion; we need more people learning and thinking in museums than sitting on their duffs in churches.
25 October 2006, on 3:23 pm
[...] I’m a little behind in my reading. There are a lot of good blogs out there. One of my favorites is God is for Suckers. Here’s a post from two weeks ago about animal homosexuality. Here is the original news article. [...]