Homosexuality In zoos

[foz]

I can't help thinking that this issue is more about humans and their cultures and attitudes than about animal behavior or biology. Is same sex pairing in animals really what we know as homosexuality? Zoos may or may not want to present info on same sex pairings among animals, but does it add to our understanding of wildlife or of ourselves? Or both? Or neither?
So if this question is worth much discussion, then we might add the question; What would be the purpose of adding signage about same sex pairs among animals?

Very interesting post.

Clearly the subject of animal homosexuality is relatively and much understudied. I think the question is how is our understanding of human homosexuality different to animals dispalying the same behaviour?

One could argue, following this logic, that is animal breeding pairs different to human heterosexuality?

 

[Chlidonias]

Excellent!
And yes, they are recruited by other gay animals

I suspect that's why nocturnal animals don't display well in zoos; they are missing the "real" night-life

(with reference to my post before, I like the Simpsons episode where there was a religious movie called "Left Below" and a man being swept up in the apocalypse was lamenting "oh why did I choose to be gay?")

 

[Zooplantman]

I refer to my above post - maybe I'm being idealist and have watched one too many episodes of QI (QI - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but I tend to find the idea of any information not being worth sharing fairly odd.

I'm not advocating against it, I'm pondering what the goals would be.

To change public attitudes about gays and lesbians is important (and well worth our efforts!)... and it would be one of the rare uses by zoos of animal behavior education to affect human social attitudes (other than conservation) so that would be a huge step for zoos, don't you think?

 

[Shirokuma]

I can't help thinking that this issue is more about humans and their cultures and attitudes than about animal behavior or biology. Is same sex pairing in animals really what we know as homosexuality? Zoos may or may not want to present info on same sex pairings among animals, but does it add to our understanding of wildlife or of ourselves? Or both? Or neither?
So if this question is worth much discussion, then we might add the question; What would be the purpose of adding signage about same sex pairs among animals?

I would say that what we know today as homosexuality isn't a cultural construct, it's essentially birds and bees, a biological urge which is probably present in all or many species and in all cultures.

Being gay - and particularly as a social identity - is more of a cultural construct. As indeed is being straight.

I think discussing it in animals is important as long as there are people who argue that homosexuality and by extension identifiying as being gay is a choice and therefore has moral (or immoral) values attached to it.

It isn't a choice and being present in multiple species shows it to be 'normal' and a natural part of the human experience - despite the protestations of the lovely Melanie Phillips and company.

And yes, I have twelve pairs of shoes very neatly arranged at the bottom of my wardrobe .

 

[Maguari]

I'm not advocating against it, I'm pondering what the goals would be.

To change public attitudes about gays and lesbians is important (and well worth our efforts!)... and it would be one of the rare uses by zoos of animal behavior education to affect human social attitudes (other than conservation) so that would be a huge step for zoos, don't you think?

Absolutely - wouldn't need to be a huge-scale thing either. In fact, in some ways, the lower-key and more matter-of-fact it is the better (something I think also applies to the conservation message, for the record!).


Just to prove zoos do sometimes draw positive attention to homosexual animals: http://www.zoochat.com/1092/story-ben-jerry-arundel-wwt-13-a-136489/

(Interestingly, that's my second most-viewed photo on here)

 

[Sun Wukong]

Do you really think that highlightening homosexuality among animals in zoos will educate visitors and change their attitude torwards homosexuality among humans?
I seriously doubt that.
The religious hardliner among the visitors might interpret it as another proof that homosexuality is a primordial and bestial thing the modern, pious human must leave behind. Uptight & square people, who are already uneasy about the heterosexual mating of animals in front of children, will wrinkle their noses in disgust and for certain protest, often rather aggressively. The average "political correct" redneck will just find it highly amusing: "Haha, those [swearing] monkeys are [swearing] faggots!" And the majority of the visitors will ignore the signs, as it always does...
Homosexuality among zoo animals (and its presentation in the zoo) can be a political (or at least pseudopolitical) topic, also in regard to the location of the zoo. A zoo openly highlightening this aspect in the Bible Belt, orthodox parts of Israel, or in the Iran? You can already imagine the mail bombs arriving at the zoo mail office...
Even in "progressive" western societies, some people feel offended, others addressed by the subject. May it be "Dashik and Yehuda", "Roy and Silo", "Bremerhaven's Gay Penguins", "Gay Poznan Elephant"...pro- and anti-gay activists try to use such examples for their agenda. The involved zoo might get some publicity out of it, but I don't know any zoo management that would deliberately seek such attention...

@Chlidonias: What about the dark rooms in the average nocturnal house?

 

[Maguari]

Do you really think that highlightening homosexuality among animals in zoos will educate visitors and change their attitude torwards homosexuality among humans?
I seriously doubt that.
The religious hardliner among the visitors might interpret it as another proof that homosexuality is a primordial and bestial thing the modern, pious human must leave behind. Uptight & square people, who are already uneasy about the heterosexual mating of animals in front of children, will wrinkle their noses in disgust and for certain protest, often rather aggressively. The average "political correct" redneck will just find it highly amusing: "Haha, those [swearing] monkeys are [swearing] faggots!" And the majority of the visitors will ignore the signs, as it always does...
Homosexuality among zoo animals (and its presentation in the zoo) can be a political (or at least pseudopolitical) topic, also in regard to the location of the zoo. A zoo openly highlightening this aspect in the Bible Belt, orthodox parts of Israel, or in the Iran? You can already imagine the mail bombs arriving at the zoo mail office...
Even in "progressive" western societies, some people feel offended, others addressed by the subject. May it be "Dashik and Yehuda", "Roy and Silo", "Bremerhaven's Gay Penguins", "Gay Poznan Elephant"...pro- and anti-gay activists try to use such examples for their agenda. The involved zoo might get some publicity out of it, but I don't know any zoo management that would deliberately seek such attention...

I don't say you're wrong, but that's rather a cynical view. Isn't it, perhaps, worth a try? Albeit maybe not in Tehran just yet.


(idealist streak coming through again, I'm afraid!)

 

[KCZooFan]

Do you really think that highlightening homosexuality among animals in zoos will educate visitors and change their attitude torwards homosexuality among humans?
I seriously doubt that.
The religious hardliner among the visitors might interpret it as another proof that homosexuality is a primordial and bestial thing the modern, pious human must leave behind. Uptight & square people, who are already uneasy about the heterosexual mating of animals in front of children, will wrinkle their noses in disgust and for certain protest, often rather aggressively. The average "political correct" redneck will just find it highly amusing: "Haha, those [swearing] monkeys are [swearing] faggots!" And the majority of the visitors will ignore the signs, as it always does...
Homosexuality among zoo animals (and its presentation in the zoo) can be a political (or at least pseudopolitical) topic, also in regard to the location of the zoo. A zoo openly highlightening this aspect in the Bible Belt, orthodox parts of Israel, or in the Iran? You can already imagine the mail bombs arriving at the zoo mail office...
Even in "progressive" western societies, some people feel offended, others addressed by the subject. May it be "Dashik and Yehuda", "Roy and Silo", "Bremerhaven's Gay Penguins", "Gay Poznan Elephant"...pro- and anti-gay activists try to use such examples for their agenda. The involved zoo might get some publicity out of it, but I don't know any zoo management that would deliberately seek such attention...

@Chlidonias: What about the dark rooms in the average nocturnal house?

For once, I agree with you 100% Sun Wukong

 

[Javan Rhino]

I agree with Sun as well on this one, although it would be a great world where everybody is accepting of each other, and just sees individuals rather than social tags, I can't see it happening soon. Sun's example of 'those monkeys are faggots' is the reaction I can imagine many average zoo-goers going for.

Just want to take this topic onto a different branch of discussion for a moment, what do people think of alleged 'forced heterosexuality' in animals? I use the most recent story I heard of a few months back as an example, where a zoo held a pair of male vultures (can't remember zoo or species unfortunatly) - I assume they must have been an endangered species, or a genetically important pair. They had shown nesting behaviour with one another, and they were labelled as 'gay vultures' by some.

When the time came when one of these birds was wanted for breeding, the zoo took some almighty criticism from pro-gay activists, stating it was unfair to split the pair up as they were in love, and that it was wrong to make him breed with females since this was a gay vulture. That story is from memory, so if anybody could provide any links to the whole story then that would be appreciated

Anyway, my point is if a zoo has a 'gay couple,' should they still be sent for breeding or not? Does the animal care, or does it just have biological urges that end up used on whatever individual of that species is available. For example, was the vulture 'gay' or did it just have an urge to nest, and the other vulture happened to be the same sex. Would he just as readily nest with a female given the chance, or would being 'gay' be something that stayed, thus resulting in a refusal to nest and breed with a female? I've probably over-complicated that, but I hope everybody understands what I mean

Zoos are after all, first and foremost, a place for conservation and breeding of endangered species. If zoos let their endangered animals be 'gay,' then are they doing their job properly? Of course, my opinion is it depends on the need to breed - I would be pretty peeved if a zoo held the only viable pair of males in captivity and refused to send them to females for breeding because of their sexuality - however, if the species is firmly established then maybe having the 'gay' pair stay together would at least avoid any criticism from the pro-gay groups.

Just seen Maguari's link - there were only 2.1 of the ducks, so should they have tried to breed the gay pair with the lady?

 

[Sun Wukong]

Unfortunately, my view is not cynical, but mainly realistic.

Isn't it, perhaps, worth a try?

Why provocate people?

Given that zoos are nowadays aimed to be centres of family-friendly and, in particular, child-friendly entertainment, one might wonder where homosexuality (or sex in general) should fit into that concept? Don't get me wrong; tabooing sex is imo the wrong way. However, quite a bunch of(in particular religious) parents might think otherwise-and might avoid a zoo that emphasizes the existence of its gay flamingos and penguins.

@Java Rhino: You're sure you're not referring to said "Dashik and Yehuda"?
Actually, a world where everybody is accepting of each other would be horrible. There would be no progress, as nobody would dare to utter constructive critique or would thrive to be accepted, and all kinds of political and/or religious fanatics would be given leeway...(shudder)

 

[Javan Rhino]

@Java Rhino: You're sure you're not referring to said "Dashik and Yehuda"?
Actually, a world where everybody is accepting of each other would be horrible. There would be no progress, as nobody would dare to utter constructive critique or would thrive to be accepted, and all kinds of political and/or religious fanatics would be given leeway...(shudder)

I could be thinking of those, I'm pretty sure it was a German zoo if that helps - after some searching on facebook I found a link to this page about it (Gay vultures split up by zoo to make babies | Metro.co.uk) - but it doesn't mention the names.

I can see there is need for debate in the world to advance and to look at your own opinions from other view points, and when I say accept I don't mean agree. I'm struggling to put into words what I mean so I won't even attempt it

 

[foz]

Do you really think that highlightening homosexuality among animals in zoos will educate visitors and change their attitude torwards homosexuality among humans?
I seriously doubt that.
The religious hardliner among the visitors might interpret it as another proof that homosexuality is a primordial and bestial thing the modern, pious human must leave behind. Uptight & square people, who are already uneasy about the heterosexual mating of animals in front of children, will wrinkle their noses in disgust and for certain protest, often rather aggressively. The average "political correct" redneck will just find it highly amusing: "Haha, those [swearing] monkeys are [swearing] faggots!" And the majority of the visitors will ignore the signs, as it always does...
Homosexuality among zoo animals (and its presentation in the zoo) can be a political (or at least pseudopolitical) topic, also in regard to the location of the zoo. A zoo openly highlightening this aspect in the Bible Belt, orthodox parts of Israel, or in the Iran? You can already imagine the mail bombs arriving at the zoo mail office...
Even in "progressive" western societies, some people feel offended, others addressed by the subject. May it be "Dashik and Yehuda", "Roy and Silo", "Bremerhaven's Gay Penguins", "Gay Poznan Elephant"...pro- and anti-gay activists try to use such examples for their agenda. The involved zoo might get some publicity out of it, but I don't know any zoo management that would deliberately seek such attention...

@Chlidonias: What about the dark rooms in the average nocturnal house?

I must disagree. As institutes of science and education are you honestly telling me that a zoo should CHOOSE to ignore a behaviour on par with nesting, hunting etc, for the sake of fear of upsetting some?

Surely you could extend your argument could be extended to oppose the teaching of evolution in zoos for fear of upsetting those religeous groups against it.

I think that the publicity a zoo gets would depend on how sympathetic the country is; I saw nothing but positive exposure for Arundel over the Ben and Jerry story.

One could argue that the entire issue is based on what role people ebelive zos play. As centres of science and education they must surely be open to homosexuality in the same way they use evolution. As places of entertainment then clearly there is less of an argument for displaying homosexuality..but at the same point is there isnt an argument for education at all.

In terms of how they affect breeding plans then I must say that the same - sex couple should be abolished for the sake of an entire species.

 

[Shirokuma]

Surely you could extend your argument could be extended to oppose the teaching of evolution in zoos for fear of upsetting those religeous groups against it.

I agree, scientific institutions shouldn't avoid controversial subjects if they are dealt with in a serious and sensitive manner and after all, surely we are just talking about a paragraph or two on some signage, not renaming of parks as the big gay Judy Garland memorial zoo...

 

[foz]

I agree, scientific institutions shouldn't avoid controversial subjects if they are dealt with in a serious and sensitive manner and after all, surely we are just talking about a paragraph or two on some signage, not renaming of parks as the big gay Judy Garland memorial zoo...

Now that is an idea

 

[Maguari]

Just seen Maguari's link - there were only 2.1 of the ducks, so should they have tried to breed the gay pair with the lady?

I understand they did, but the males just weren't interested. And there's no way of asking them to 'Lie back and think of New Zealand' for the good of the species!

Unfortunately, my view is not cynical, but mainly realistic.
Why provocate people?

You'd have got on great with Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks. 'People will always be racist, Martin, I wouldn't bother about this dream of yours...'

Actually, a world where everybody is accepting of each other would be horrible. There would be no progress, as nobody would dare to utter constructive critique or would thrive to be accepted, and all kinds of political and/or religious fanatics would be given leeway...(shudder)

There's a world of difference between accepting people's views and accepting their nature. Sex, race and sexuality are part of people, and they should not be disadvantaged by these as far as possible. Religious and political views are things you form for yourself and a different kettle of fish altogether.

I must disagree. As institutes of science and education are you honestly telling me that a zoo should CHOOSE to ignore a behaviour on par with nesting, hunting etc, for the sake of fear of upsetting some?

Excellent post. Agree entirely.

I agree, scientific institutions shouldn't avoid controversial subjects if they are dealt with in a serious and sensitive manner and after all, surely we are just talking about a paragraph or two on some signage, not renaming of parks as the big gay Judy Garland memorial zoo...

Exactly - just a couple of paragraphs along the lines of the Blue Ducks sign. Not everywhere and every time but here and there. Though a large part of me really wants to see what the Judy Garland Zoo would be like...

In any case, this can't be more controversial to others than the appalling 'why gibbons aren't like people' sign at Noah's Ark is to me (and that has nudity, as well!).

 

[Maguari]

From the financial point of view, don't you valiant fighters for homosexuality acceptance forget that "some" upset people are also part of the paying public? Something most zoos need to exist? People pissed off => not going to the zoo => zoo losing income => less/no more modernisation of exhibits, no rare & delicate species acquisitions/keeping, less/no money for the dedicated staff...

And these people will be put off by that blue duck sign, will they? That will ruin their day with its leftist propaganda and sour them against the zoo for ever? I suspect not.

It's just one part of the picture that can added to education material. No-one is suggesting anything more.

 

[Sun Wukong]

I got the impression that some posters here don't think "that blue duck sign" will be enough, but suggest indeed more; and that might in fact sour quite a bunch of people against the zoo, I suspect.

 

[foz]

I got the impression that some posters here don't think "that blue duck sign" will be enough, but suggest indeed more; and that might in fact sour quite a bunch of people against the zoo, I suspect.

I was geniunly thinking along the lines of the 'blue duck signs' I really cannot think of any other appropriate ways. I really dont think anyone wants a 'gay zoo' but just wants more recognition in the wider zoo community via the subtelties of signs.

...(unless of course the Judy Garland zoo is still on the cards )

Equally I would like to see evolution shown in such zoos as Noah's Ark zoo.

 

[Zooplantman]

Anyway, my point is if a zoo has a 'gay couple,' should they still be sent for breeding or not? Does the animal care, or does it just have biological urges that end up used on whatever individual of that species is available.

Do we assume that "gay" animals are doing what they do out of desire or biological urges? Do we know where the behavior comes from or only that it does happen?
I suspect we are projecting human sexual politics on the widdle bitty penguins.

...not renaming of parks as the big gay Judy Garland memorial zoo...

Dammit!

 

[Maguari]

Following your logic: should I thus accept a paedophile? A sadist? A sociopath? A rapist? After all, they just follow their nature...

No, because these forms of behaviour involve directly causing harm to others, in a way being a gay or black individual doesn't. I admit I didn't spell this out, but I think you could have taken it as read.

This is way off-topic, however.