....Craig, all I can say is where do you get the idea that the "majority" of science, that not easily revised, takes the miniscule role? That's not how I read it.
But what I am reading is a blind reluctance to acknowledge a reasonable and observable fact and a bunch of dancing and twisting to try to explain it away. Does that remind you of anyone?
No danc'in around for me cback. I fully agree that there are scientific studies showing various non human organisms attempting to mate or court.
I don't think I'm off base at all assuming that there are mountains more studies, facts, history, etc., etc. showing the typical way to propagate a species is through heterosexual reproduction.
I'll repeat what I think is interesting. What you see as my blind reluctance and dancing around is curiosity. What causes folks to conclude that spotting a minuscule fraction of a percent of homosexual behavior in the animal world is proof of normality.
It's a big wide animal world out there, that may be proof enough that heterosexuality is the norm. How again do tiny fractions of a percent of observable animal behavior equate to the proof that all humans should accept human homosexuality without question. That seems more of a reach, dance, skip and a hop.
Really doesn't matter to me. Live and let live in the privacy of ones own affairs. But, how does catching two male dogs humping on video equate gay pc influence. Heck I know there're a bunch of leg hounds out there, that doesn't make the unlucky recipient an advocate for beastiality.
