That's kind of reductive, and I wonder if you read the article. The goose example is a long-term pairing and not just a roll in the hay. Some people might find your comment a bit offensive.
Actually "many" animals aren't choosy, having no problem jumping on the same sex or even corpses or non-living objects, and don't make long-term unbreakable bonds. There are enough links here in responses.
Honestly, have you never had a male dog trying to copulate with your leg?
Having trained my four dogs I do not have this issue. I believe they are not copulating but, trying to establish dominance. I'm not sure that particular behavior is proof that they will hump anything. My friend had a female poodle who used to hump furry toys and she wasn't rubbing her parts on it. I think she was small and felt like a boss in doing it.
What happens when they aren't trained against? How far would they go? I claim the untreated and unneutered males would actually ejaculate.
Do people in these situations let dogs do this as long the dogs would prefer is the real question.
Note that you just discarded a honest sex act of a dog as just "rubbing genitals"? So when is a sex act sex act and when it's "just rubbing"? Is licking genitals, what dogs do, a sexual act? Was Clinton actually right, what he had with Monica was not even sexual?
sigh..
That isn't what the post says. The post says, literally:
[Why Are So Many Animals Homosexual?] "Because some animals fuck anything that moves and doesn't".
Meaning homosexuality is a symptom, consequence or by-product of "fucking anything".
As to what you said:
> you can find any imaginable sexual behavior in the animal kingdom, and even what you would never imagine, don't project to animals human constructs.
If we can find any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) in the animal kingdom, how is any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) a "human construct"?
No, literally, you've cherry picked the part, the post is much more nuanced:
"Because some animals fuck anything that moves and doesn't, including dead animals[1] and other species[2]. Not sure if applying human categories such as "homosexual" to non-human animals is helpful, though."
> If we can find any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) in the animal kingdom, how is any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) a "human construct"?
The behavior is of course not a human construct. Using animal behavior to prove any human practice is, because any practice can be supported that way. Just like the post you didn't quote fully also tries to suggest and exactly what I attempted to summarize, even if it can be better worded, for what I'm ready to apologize.