It is true that others can't conclude the credibility of my evidence based solely on what "I" saw, but you didn't ask me to provide such evidence, you merely asked how "I" came to that conclusion.<quoted text>
Well, for one, how could someone conclude the credibility if your "evidence" because you've "seen examples of it." And two, I also have access to Google (like God, is also a proper noun)."The term 'homosexual' was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex attraction and sexual behavior in humans. It's use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have and remain poorly understood, and the term 'homosexuality' has strong implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans. Such behaviors by the animals studied include courtship, sex, affection, pair
bonding, and parenting. Although such behavior is common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting disposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such things in animals, seems to be a rarity," according to geneticist Simon Levay. I am sorry to say I trust his conclusion more than yours.
Also, I'm glad you trust Levay's conclusion, as it helps prove the point that homosexuality DOES happen in nature. The concept that animals are "rarely" exclusively homosexual implies that some animals ARE. Perhaps you, having failed to convince humans of your bogus belief that such behavior is an immoral and unnatural disease that is an affront to gawd, should hunt down these animals and spew your hatred and intolerance of them by letting them know just how unnatural it is for them to suffer from their disease.