Bucks Buck Bucks?

So I've been reading about homosexuality in nature, inspired by the recent livescience article and the exhibit Against Nature?, which features photos of animals "playing for the other team". While most of the articles I've encountered pretty much all say the same things there are a few worth noting.

First there are some researchers who believe that Darwin got it wrong when he posed the theory of sexual selection because it made the assumption that all sexual contact was strictly for the purposes of reproduction. This is apparently not true, as monkeys like to masturbate. The researchers claim is that homosexual relationships/behaviors are considered a deviant lifestyle that zoology apparently does not promote. In fact there are even allegations that not only are scientists misattributing homosexual action to things such as displays of dominance, but that the government is deleting recorded incidents of "deviant" sexual actions in nature from documents.

And even if our old pal Chazzy D. got it wrong, his theory has evolved over time (yes, I phrased it that way on purpose...because I live on the summit of Mt. Cleverest) as good science is oft prone to do.

So the only thing we really need to keep in mind is that nature can include all types of sexuality except metro- and retro-, because they're made up and stupid. Hell, they don't even make sense. One suggests banging all things metropolitan and the other implies you wanna do the past, respectively. Whoever coined those terms should be shot in the face with exploding nunchakus. But I suppose I'll leave that for another post.

rock.
m$