The article doesn't even mention them having sex. I imagine theres something different between goose pair bonding and human romantic relationships that makes the homosexual label technically accurate, but not suited for equating to human homosexuality.

Excatly, I feel the same @goda90

Don't know who down voted you, but I also want to know.

Where do you draw the line between friendship and homosexuality in geese?

Is there physical sexual interaction between male/female geese, or are they only labeled homosexual/gay because they choose a same sex partner?

So the article doesn't really mention sex but, I wonder. When my neighbors two male dogs do the deed daily in my front yard and never with the female dog are they just friends? If only they could talk.

Seems to me they're at least friends with benefits, but I'm not a canine sociologist.

used to be this was stated as being a dominance issue within a group of any animals. however the nature of discussions on the subject seem to get a bit silly when trying to defend a position that really doesn't need a defense.

I find it hilarious that the author continued to use a term that is, by definition, only applicable to humans. I'd think if they were going to put so much time into the article they'd at least have the presence of mind to use the correct terminology. Based on the wording used I'd say the author had an agenda.

It's "homo" as in "homogeneous" not "homo" as in "homo sapiens"...

It's not only applicable to humans, by definition. It's applicable to anything that reproduces sexually.

Fair enough, I'm an idiot sometimes. o_O