Best animal behavior & communication books according to redditors
We found 77 Reddit comments discussing the best animal behavior & communication books. We ranked the 8 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
THe book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" is what you need.
https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536733270&sr=8-1&keywords=Biological+Exuberance%3A+Animal+Homosexuality+and+Natural+Diversity.
It lists over 190 in chapter 2 alone and states that Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been documented in about 500 species as of 1999, ranging from primates to gut worms. Across all the chapters, it compiles
more than two centuries of observations of homosexual behavior, pair bonding, and coparenting in more than 400 species.
All the peer reviewed statistics and data sources are included in the book for those skeptics.
(Though let's face it, if Anti-vaxxers can ignore hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific documents and focus on the one discredited idiot who stated that vaccines cause autism, then people will cherry pick from this too).
>Metropolitan Anthimos of Thessaloniki, Greece’s second largest city used his pulpit just days before the vote in Greek parliament to suggest that “not even animals” have these tendencies.
Too bad "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" hasn't been translated into Greek. Because this person needs to read it...
https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X
> Make no mistake, the gay community needs to file for divorce with the trans community. They are no longer working toward the same goals ... Unlike members of the trans community, who are working against their biology and trying to change who they are physically, gay or lesbian people are trying to be nobody but themselves. They are not seeking surgery or hormone treatments. They love the same gender; they don’t want to be a different gender.
This. This so much.
We have biological evidence that throughout the animal kingdom homosexuality and bisexuality are totally normal and seen in a variety of species. https://www.amazon.ca/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/031225377X
While Bruce Bagemihl also writes about and catalogues evidence of transgenderism in the animal kingdom in the sense of gender-non-confirming behaviour in animals as well as evidence of intersexuality/hermaphrodism. Exact gender roles and expression of those roles vary in species as well as in individuals, but all animals have to accept that biology is immutable. Sexual reassignment surgery is cosmetic and doesn't change one's gender. By being in denial about biology, this current wave of trans identity politics is essentially butting heads with reality. It won't end well.
A) homosexuality has been common in our species long before overpopulation was an issue
B) same sex sexual activity is common among mammals, reptiles and birds as well as many arthropods. Source Its prevalence seems to be uncorrelated with population density of any species.
> Tuntuu kuitenkin, jopa tästä kirjoituksesta, että on painetta painottaa esimerkiksi sellaisia väitteitä, joissa homoseksuaalisuus olisi adaptaatio, eikä esimerkiksi patogeenin aiheuttama.
Todennäköisemmin syy etsiä adaptaavista selitystä homoseksuaalisuuteen tulee siitä, että homoseksuaalisuutta on havaittu käytännössä kaikilla tutkituolla selkärankaisilla.
Lisäksi, jos havaitaan että homoseksuaallisuus on perinnöllistä tietyissä suvuissa, ja tämä on havaittavissa niin eläimissä kuin ihmisissä, niin evoluution teorian perusteella voidaan tehdä hypoteesi, että tällä ilmiöllä olisi jokin suvunjatkamista edistävä ominaisuus, vaikka se silloin tällöin johtaisi geneettiseen umpikujaan yksilöiden tasolla. Samalla tavalla kuin sirppisoluanemien kohdalla. Sirppisoluanemie johtuu yhdestä pistemutaatiosta, ja jos henkilöllä on kaksi kappaletta näitä geenejä, hän todennäköisesti kuolee jo lapsena (kyseessä on resessiivinen geeni). Jos yksilöllä on vain yksi vioittunut geeni, hänellä on tavallista parempi vastustuskyky malariaa vastaan. Tästä johtuen tämä sirppisolianemiaa aiheuttava geeni on päässyt yleistymään etenkin Afrikassa, mutta vain alueilla joissa esiintyy malariaa.
Onko kyseessä siis adaptaatio vai patogeeni? Joissain tapauksissa tämä voi johtaa yksilön kuolemaan (geneettinen umpikuja), mutta jos geenin antama hyöty populaatiolle ovat suuremmat kuin haitat, se voi silti levitä populaatiossa ja olla näin ollen adaptiivinen alleeli. Käsitykseni mukaan homoseksuaalisuus on samantapainen tapaus. Homoseksuaalisuus on haitallista yksilön geneettiselle jatkumolle, mutta sen aiheuttama(t) geeni(t) voivat olla populaation kannalta edullisia.
Potholer54 teki asiaan liittyen erinomaisen videon, joka kannattaa ehdottomasti vilkaista, jos et ole sitä jo nähnyt:
How to confuse a creationist -- Homosexuality, Evolution and the Bible
>Why do you think homosexuality exists?
Simple. Humans are animals. Animals have an urge to hump things.
Although, it could be have a social role in nature.
>What caused the writers of the Bible to hate on homosexuality?
A lot of misunderstanding about the universe, such as hyenas used to be thought to be able to change sex.
>Is there evidence that there were homosexual cave men and women?
It is very difficult to find evidence of social behavior in cultures without writing.
---
I have no problem with homosexuality or transgender issue, mostly because I am not religious. However, because of Christian Dominionism (think Sharia Law for Christians), this has become a bigger issue that it needs to be.
>Exclusive homosexuality does not exist outside of humanity
This is a myth that has perpetuated because naturalists have not wanted to pit themselves against homosexual prejudice.
There is a good book on the subject:
Biological-Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality & Natural Diversity
Quote in the review:
>most scientists have thus far studiously avoided the topic of widespread homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom--sometimes in the face of undeniable evidence
https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1542602162&sr=8-1&keywords=biological+exuberance
It's likely.
It's not more common now than it was 500 years ago. We just happen to have a huge population in which the trait can show itself more often. Check out a book called Biological Exuberance by Bruce Baghemihl it does an excellent job telling of the frequency homosexuality is seen in many species.
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291778199&sr=8-1
See the book "Biological Exuberance" for dozens of examples of long-term same-sex relationships in the animal kingdom. The name of the book is the code phrase used by researchers to mean "gay" back in the dark times when being gay was considered a mental illness.
https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X
>1.8% чистиx гeїв сeрeд чоловiкiв в США.
Это чистых геев, только среди мужчин, только в религиозно покусанном США, да. Но вот всех ЛГБТ в США - таки 3.8%.
Иллюстративно распределение по штатам, низкие 1.9%-2.9% в правоверных мачожопенях типа Северной Дакоты, Теннесси, Миссиссипи; высокие 4.9-5.1% в расслабленных местах типа Орегона, Вермонта, Гавайев (10% в Коламбии, но там чисто один город, популяция ЛГБТ нетипично высока).
А теперь возьмем сводку по недавним опросам по ряду развитых стран. Просто просмотрите. Франция, Великобритания - около 6% опрошенных говорят, что они ЛГБТ. Бразилия и Польша Вас очень порадуют.
В среднем получаем примерно 6% ЛГБТ (~3% чистых геев/лесбиянок и ~3% би) при отсутствии сильного культурного прессинга.
P.S. Точные цифры так легко пристрастно выдирать из контекста и презентовать в гордом одиночестве. По-аглицки то, что Вы делаете, называется cherry-picking. В статистике и науке за это бьют подсвечниками. Правильно смотреть на сводки множественных опросов, и на всё распределение данных.
>Майжe нiякиx пiддтeрджeнь гомосeксуальної оріентаціі серед тварин немає. Є деякі моменті, коли тварини однієї статі одна з іншою бавяться, але це не означає, що їх протилежна стать не цікавить. Вони вважають, що всi отi корови, що у стадi друг на друга залaзять - вони вжe лeсбiянки.
Ловите 450 видов животных. Не знаю, есть ли перевод. Да, речь очень часто идёт о долговременных отношениях (где в небольшом, где в большом % особей).
>Цe маячня в кубi та нeрозумiння що такe норма.
Если важно, норма или нет, то про бимодальные и мультимодальные распределения слышали? Какого пола нормальный человек? Или норм может быть больше чем одна? 6% это много, если что.
Вообще не должно быть важно, норма или нет, если поведение не нарушает прав и свобод других граждан. "Права не видеть как праативные целуются" в нормальных (скорее вменяемых) государствах нет.
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398/
Many, many animals engage in behavior that is divergent from "standard" heterosexual interactions.
Yeah... thankfully, no one has done any studies on the subject since then.
Either way, Desmond Morris was a zoo director observing animals in captivity who then drew parallels to human social constructs. He was not observing animals in the wild, and his statement should be taken as someone reflecting the common belief at the time, not as an expert with hard data to back him up.
I suppose we better start "conversion therapy" on the entire animal kingdom (768 pages of unnatural goodness).
Humans are pretty fucking dumb when it comes to shit they don't understand. More often than not they will simply try to kill it. Religion simply tends to reinforce this idiocy.
Not to instigate an argument, but it's kinda sorta common. Or at least more common than I originally thought. Definitely still a minority though. Good book on the subject.
Biological Exuberance
Not sure about the number, but lions are totally gay. It's probably a lot more than 8%. This is from the book biological exuberance
> The only times homosexuality has been observed in non-Homo Sapiens animals are when such animals are IN CAPTIVITY
Wrong, one look at the Wikipaedia article on this shows multiple examples of homosexual behaviour in the wild. Further examples here and here and an article on Fox news that specifically acknowledges it. Also for specific examples- gorillas, sumatran orangutans, gibbons
Ant then theres a book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity which lists another 450 species in which it has been observed in the wild. I have that book
There's a generally well liked book on this subject called "Biological Exuberance". I thought it got a little creepy at times, not in content, but tone.
When my ex-husband came out, his mom was worried about how his elderly Midwestern grandmother would take it. She needn't have been since what grandma said was "oh please, I grew up on a farm! Spend some time with barnyard animals and you'll never doubt that homosexuality is a natural variation."
I knew I know that face from somewhere.
Homosexuality among animals is well documented. If you're too snooty for Wikipedia, try a book: https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398
Although I can find no source definitely documenting "homophobia" in humans alone (which would be difficult as -phobia indicates emotion/feeling, and we can't really evaluate the emotions and feelings of non-speaking animals)
To add another dimension to /u/franlyfran's "joke gift" idea. Is it possible to think of shows, scenes, sketches, stand-up specials, skits and stuff you like that involve the toy in question? And then to say that you and this "friend's" shared appreciation for [insert thing] provided the context for which it would be sort of funny but not sexual, for the "friend" to give you such a gift.
This idea only came to me because a friend of mine gave me this book on animal homosexuality, a friend with which I share such a bond (which is a love of all things Gervais) that makes it OK! Although, as nosy as my mother is too, she's yet to find it!
Hope it works out.
Not in any orifice.
My two favorites, for understanding the general ideas of ecology without memorizing the nitrogen cycle, are Reading the Forested Landscape and Tracking and the Art of Seeing. Those are the books that convinced me that I wanted to study ecology in graduate school.
FWIW, I also enjoy memorizing the nitrogen cycle.
Pro tip for anyone taking pictures of tracks: If it's possible, take a picture of the entire series of tracks so we can see its gait and how it walked/trotted. With all that snow, you probably could've got a good picture with a lot of tracks visible. That is a huge clue when looking at canine tracks. A domestic dog will usually wander around most of the time and will be noticeably more clumsy and inconsistent with its gait. A wild canine will usually know where it wants to go and it will be nearly a straight line with one foot in front of the other.
Anyone that thinks they can positively ID that track from that picture is only fooling themselves.
That being said: According to the book Tracking and the Art of Seeing: How to Read Animal Tracks and Sign by Paul Rezendes, a wolf's front track will be between 3 7/8" to 5 1/2" long by 2 3/8" to 5" wide. The rear track will be 3 1/8" to 4 3/4 long by 2 1/4" to 4 1/4" wide. An eastern coyote's front track will be 2 7/8" to 3 1/2" long by 1 7/8" to 2 1/2" wide. The rear track will be 2 1/2" to 3" long by 1 5/8" to 2 1/8" wide.
According to that, a big coyote and a small wolf will come within 1/8" of overlapping in the size of their paws. And now add in that soft snow will splay out their toes and the fact that when snow melts even a little, the track expands.... and you have yourself quite the dilemma on what you're looking at.
Edit: I swear I'm not making a sales pitch, but that book was a great purchase. http://www.amazon.com/Tracking-Art-Seeing-Animal-Tracks/dp/0062735241
Hm.
Toss in something about homosexual animals...
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X
There are virtually no attributes of humans that are not shared to some degree with animals, which is unsurprising since humans are animals. I have no idea whether human homosexuality is one thing or many, but as exhaustive studies have shown, it's a trait shared by animals. See Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity . It's thought that having non-reproductive males in a group assists its survival, and those males pass on their genes by proxy, as they are near relations with other other members of the group.
Homosexuality is well documented and been known for a long time (source: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions (Paperback)) https://www.amazon.com/dp/031225377X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_prkBDbH4HMXTB ).
The problem is (and I speak on both sides of the political spectrum) people only care about the statistics that support what they already want to believe.
Actually, homosexuality absolutely is natural. It's not a matter of politics, and hasn't been for a long time. It is a fact.
Homosexual behaviour is documented in hundreds of animal species, including guinea pigs (my own pets actually did this... or at least, one did it to the other), bonobos, several species of dolphin (who fuck each others' blowholes), hedgehogs, penguins, ducks, sheep, cassowaries, sunfish, char, salmon, etc. I could go on for a long time and mention animals you've never even heard of.
There's actually a delightful book on the subject that I'd recommend to anyone with a slightly unhealthy interest in it. It even has lovingly-drawn illustrations of lesbian hedgehog cunnilingus!
need is very hard to prove. it's hard enough to show that it's a vital thing for humans.
however, there are critters that are known to masturbate in a recognizable way. both varieties of chimp, dolphins, other primates and supposedly dogs.
now, the bonobo chimp is much more known for their sexual behavior and it is certainly a huge part of their social structure. they're not just close to humans genetically, their sexual behaviors mirror ours very closely. enough so that I would call their masturbation a necessary part of their life.
but the more standard chimp also masturbates. and it seems to fill a similar role as their smaller cousins and ourselves.
all species of ape have been observed masturbating, depending on exactly how tightly you define it. ejaculation isn't always involved for males, and orgasm isn't always visible if it's happening for females. but the behavior is there.
the same can be said of pretty much all the monkeys as well.
so for primates, I feel confident in saying yes, they do need to masturbate and appear to enjoy it.
dolphins are hard to peg down. without hands, their masturbation isn't what we would normally recognize as such. but they do engage in auto erotic behaviors. they'll also pretty much hump anything they want to lol. is it masturbation? I'd say so. it seems to be done for pleasure and can involve orgasm/ejaculation. I exclude their habit of trying to have sex with other species and only invoked the "humping"of inanimate objects. I've heard that some professionals consider their proclivity to hump other animals a form of masturbation rather than a true sexual attempt though.
dogs though. they're more difficult. the behavior seems to be limited to males for one thing. and it's pretty much oral only and doesn't involve ejaculation. there's also no conclusive way to say it's done for pleasure, and it doesn't involve ejaculation. so, is it masturbation? myself, I say no. but there's disagreement about that even among real experts.
beyond that, there's a few types of avians that seem to do things that might be masturbation. I haven't seen any research into that part of things though.
if you check out Biologic Exuberance you'll find some info on masturbation like behaviors. it's not the actual purpose of the book, but it covers some relevant data.
as far as I know, there aren't any easily accessible books on the subject as a whole. you'd have to dig for publications by specialists doing studies on the various genera and species. it's out there to be sure, but it's almost always buried under other information. masturbation isn't really something that most scientists are going to put forward as a significant data point when they publish. so you'll find maybe a line or two where they mention genital self stimulation and that's all.
I guess to sum up, I'd say that when a species does masturbate, it seems to be a fairly important part of their behaviors.
In addition to the fine books recommended here already (especially Wildwood Wisdom), I also liked:
Tracking and the Art of Seeing: How to Read Animal Tracks and Sign
Finding Your Way Without Map or Compass
And, oddly enough, The Journals of Lewis and Clark (free for kindle) is pretty awesome when considered from an outdoors/bushcraft point of view.
There is actually a book documenting all kinds of same sex relationships in the animal kingdom.
Bam
There are a plethora of books on consciousness.
From the science side of things the neuroscientist Antti Revonuso has a book "Consciousness: the science of subjectivity" which has a good mix of the philosophy and science of consciousness. Christof Koch, probably one of the leading neuroscientists who study consciousness, has a few books as well. The Quest for Consciousness is one of his, which has lots of neuroscience particularly visual neuroscience in it. That is mainly science, not much philosophy. Another neuroscientist who studies consciousness is Stanislas Dehaene who wrote a good book Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. Click on the image of each book on the left in amazon (which opens up a preview) and scroll to the contents page and see if any of these books are the kind of thing you are looking for.
From the philosophical side there is (among many others) Susan Blackmores "Consciousness: An introduction" (an introductory book David Chalmers recommends) and William Seagers "Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction and Assessment". There is also a great book that has short (5-7 pages) sections on philosophers and neuroscientists and their respective theories of consciousness by Andrea Eugenio Cavanna and Andrea Nani called "Consciousness: Theories in Neuroscience and Philosophy of Mind". The first half of Michael Tye's book "Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind" is great for an overview of 10 philosophical problems of consciousness. It is very accessible and there are summaries of each problem provided. There are also great resources online such as Van Gulick's SEP article on consciousness, which would actually be a great place to start, and use it as a place to lead you to areas you are most interested in. Here is also a brief introduction to the philosophy of mind (the main philosophical discipline that deals with consciousness).
So there's a few links to some books and online articles, which should be more than enough to get you going.
By the way, there is a free masterclass on consciousness with Christof Koch on the World Science U website. You may also be interested in that.
Additionally you may like to check out the subreddit /r/sciphilconsciousness, which is all about the sharing and discussion of content related to the science and philosophy of consciousness.
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity Christ, I love Ricky Gervais.
Oh man... that kind of tracking takes a looooong time to get any good at, and is honestly beyond the reach of most sane people. At least, being able to do it in a timely fashion. Not to mention, if your friend has a paintball gun and is hidden somewhere in the woods... blundering around looking for his tracks is a really good way to get your ass shot.
If you really want to get the drop on him, read up on still hunting and learn how to really keep your eyes and ears open. Keep still more often than you move, and learn how to read good cover in the landscape. Especially this: keep still, keep low, and look for movement.
Deer know what's up: if they sense danger, they freeze in place and go on high-alert. Moving things are easy to see, still things are not. Don't run around like Rambo moving from tree to tree if you plan on sneaking around at all (although honestly, if you're playing around with paintball guns it will rapidly devolve into this).
If you want to pursue tracking, read these books for starters:
In my teaching I talk about this a lot! Same-sex sexual behavior is REALLY common in non-human animals (common meaning seen in a lot of species; there are not as many, but still quite a few, species where it is commonly seen among populations). Check out Biological Exuberance for a VERY long laundry list of species where these behaviors have been observed.
I make it a point to lecture on this in my classes because it's a topic that's always of interest, and it's an interesting case study in the limits of scientific inquiry and evolutionary thought (how does something evolve if it potentially limits reproductive output? how do we come up with a biological definition of same-sex sexual behavior that can be systematized for genetics/cognition/etc?).
When people say that homosexuality is not "natural", I generally ask them what they mean by "natural", and then go from their own definition to break down the misunderstanding. If it's based on the idea that animals don't do it in nature, I gladly give them a small sampling of the laundry list :) It's been observed in so many natural populations (including humans! we are still existing in nature, even if modified!) that this argument just doesn't hold water.
Well, as far as the core evolutionary theory goes, the only thing that's really provable are variables that would apply in the animal world. As soon as you start mentioning things like "status" or consumer goods you've exited the biological world and entered the social one which means now you're in muddy waters and left with only speculation and weaker, less rigid methodology.
I don't think you can really connect social motives with evolutionary ones unilaterally because the latter are too simplistic and rudimentary to explain a wide range of human behaviors. As I already stated, entire human civilization is pointless from an evolutionary perspective, so it would be far fetched to assume that humans have created it just for reproductive purposes (when it doesn't in fact increase those). (i could go on in great detail about this, but here is not the place)
On the other hand, alot of behavior is learned, net genetic, so various forms of learning (like classical and operant conditioning) play a big role too. So certain behaviors are more likely to be conditioned rather than programmed.
After you read the Selfish Gene, you could also read 'the Meme Machine' form Susan Blackmore. It's related to the content of SG and also very interesting.
Also I like this textbook about animal behaviour.
Homosexuality has been observed in over 450 animal species. Homophobia has only been observed in 1. So tell me now, which is more unnatural?
Your reaction is totally normal. Pretty much everyone in the LGBT world has gone through a period of self-loathing. Society tells us we're worthless, but those claims are based on fear and ignorance. All evidence points to the fact that our sexuality is innate... and there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with you! Don't beat yourself up for your mere capacity to love someone of the same sex. If there's anything the world needs more of -- it's love!
Have patience, LOSTnhope! There are lots of us out here rooting for you in your long, tough road of self-discovery. hugs
should try and read the book then;
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X
how does the nurture theory explain the homosexuality documented in hundreds of other species?
edit: pick up Biological Exuberance for a thought provoking read.
As someone that lived in Utah valley at the age of 14-15, let me tell you that reality is very different there then Mormons anywhere else in the world. I'm sure you are familiar with the cliques that form to show how righteous they are. I really got tired of people thinking it was the most righteous place on earth. (Even more so than SLC because of the worldly influence there).
The reason why I bring this up is anyone accepting you as you are has to admit there is a flaw in Mormonism. Since one of the basic premises of Mormonism is that the prophet can not have any flaws, you must be wrong. They will try to change you to save their own faith.
I say this with the idea that you already recognize that there is a discordance between what you have been taught and your own personal reality. So let me introduce you to the concept of religion and the concept of church. For example, it is OK to be Catholic, but think the Pope is wrong. You can believe in the religion and disagree with the church, in the same way that you would not worship the UPS man for delivering you something you really wanted.
(As a side note, there will be people that tell you that you are not natural, and your feelings are not natural. The perfect rebuttal is to mention that the rate of the population that show homosexual tendencies is 1.5% to 3% across all mammals. Here is the reference Mormonism says animals can not sin - therefore being gay can not be a sin.)
tl;dr God created gay animals, therefore you're normal, Utah Valley isn't
I'll leave this here for you. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00846WZ5A/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1504649525&sr=8-2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=natural+exuberance
From the cover of the book 'Superdove' by Courney Humphries.)
Homosexuality is documented in other animals as well. So yes, it is
> normal like today's society is trying to make it seem
Why are we any different?
Pretty easy to tear down.
First it's always good to start a debate knowing what your arguing against, So the first thing to ask is what their definition of "Natural" and "unnatural" is, The typical definition and the way the word "Natural" is commonly used is:
>Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind
If their definition significantly differs to that then you're arguing against a claim that doesn't follow our languages usage or definitions of common words in which case you're just going to end up wasting your time arguing over definitions, So long as their definition fits this criteria you can move on.
Based on that definition all you need to do is prove that homosexuality occurs "naturally" i.e. "without human intervention"
Which oh boy, we already can, You can point them towards This Wikipedia Article or alternatively they can read up the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" written by Canadian biologist Bruce Bagemihl which shows homosexuality occurring in hundreds/thousands of species other than humans.
​
Alternatively What I like to do is to humor their initial claim that "Homosexuality is unnatural" and see where that assertion leads.
So for the discussion we can establish a hypothetical scenario in which they're right and that homosexuality only occurs in humans making it for all intents and purposes "unnatural".
Now that we've created our hypothetical scenario what other conclusions can we draw from that information?... The answer is none, Because neither "natural" things or "unnatural" things have any other inherent qualities or properties that you can make assertions or draw conclusions from, The only question you've answered is whether it occurs with or without human intervention...
The argument that "Homosexuality is unnatural" is typically coming from the Naive perspective that "All unnatural things are inherently bad!" which is obviously nonsense because I doubt these same people making this same stupid argument are going to be the ones denying their children life saving medications because the meds are "unnatural" or refusing to drive to work because cars are "unnatural"
​
Just maybe: http://www.amazon.com/The-Territorial-Imperative-Personal-Property/dp/1568361440
Pretty much. This sucks. We are agreeing too much to get the feeling. Except: Up and down are not ingrained in the fabric of the universe. There is no up and down except as perceived by someone. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know this, just chose a bad example.
Here's a non-philosophical book about it. I read it a long time ago and don't recall what field he called it, but it's basically about animal behavior. He describes the territorial behavior of all sorts of animals, from the tiniest to the biggest. Interesting stuff.
---
Another nitpick =>
> The instinct to defend ones own & respect others territory ...
Actually, respecting others territory is learned. If someone has something you want, the instinct is to take it unless it's current controller can stop you. Children naturally steal and have to be taught not to. Just a quibble.
The news article linked by OP is a much more current example, but it is worthy to note that a book was written on the subject as well. It's by a Canadian biologist named Bruce Bagemihl:
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Yeah, I think it will shut them up. Another study I saw suggested that the effect was particularly strong in people who had experienced strict, authoritarian parenting so bring that up if they are conservatives.
Edit: This is a major work on animal homosexuality.
Dr Joan Roughgarden is another expert in this field.
It seems to be the norm and not an exception
I read a book on pigeons called Superdove back in 2008. It was a decent book, a history of pigeons.
They're not so bad and I like the nickname.
woops. That's totally the mobile site. My bad.
regular link
If you haven't already, definitely check out this book, by far the best I've seen on the topic (for animals), and I've read a bunch. This one is another great one.
Remember this from that Ricky Gervais special?
In addition to what LordSariel mentions, there are books and sites you can use to back up your claim. An example of one book that covers animal same-sex behavior is "Biological Exuberance", by Bruce Bagemihl. Also see Wikipedia's article on Homosexual behavior in animals for more references.
Word of caution about this: See NARTH's response for potential refutes to the argument.
Uh homosexuality is completely normal, it exists all over nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Yes.
Too many examples to mention but the most talked about examples online would include Bonobo Monkeys and Giraffes. If you want more info on the topic I would suggest the book "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl Dont let the title fool you. It covers much more than homosexuality.
> Biologically, homosexual relationships don't work to further a species.
Yes they do. Two male geese, as an example, are far better at raising a brood than a male/female are.
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1/187-8590692-7268402?ie=UTF8&qid=1382549797&sr=8-1&keywords=biological+exuberance
It's a misinterpretation to think that the only purpose of sex is child production. Sexuality is a form of communication for many animals, including humans--and from what we see elsewhere in the animal kingdom, heterosexuality is not necessarily the default. Many other species exhibit bisexuality and homosexuality, and while such individuals may not go on to reproduce, they will continue to benefit their social groups and rear their offspring.
Consider bonobos, one of our closest relatives on the evolutionary tree, and a species which engages regularly in bisexual orgies as a means of social discourse. In comparison, our strict monogamous heterosexual ideals may be the more "unnatural" of the two lifestyles.
Suggested reading, if you're still curious: Sex at Dawn and Biological Exuberance.
Well heres a book by a scientist about it https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall-ebook/dp/B00846WZ5A