The Natural History of Homosexuality

The historical record also shows that attitudes toward homosexuality have little to do with whether people believe it occurs in animals or not, and consequently, in its “naturalness.” True, throughout much of recorded history, the charge of “unnaturalness” —including the claim that homosexuality did not occur in animals—was used to justify every imaginable form of sanction, control, and repression against homosexuality. But many other interpretations of “naturalness” were also prevalent at various times. Indeed, the very fact that homosexuality was thought to be “unnatural” —that is, not found in nature—was sometimes used to justify its superiority to heterosexuality. In ancient Greece, for example, same-sex love was thought to be purer than opposite-sex love because it did not involve procreation or “animal-like” passions. On the other hand, homosexuality was sometimes condemned precisely because it was considered closer to “nature,” reflecting the base, uncontrolled sexual instincts of the animal world. The Nazis used this reasoning (in part) to target homosexuals and other “subhumans” for the concentration camps (where homosexual men subjected to medical experiments were referred to as “test animals”), while sexual relations between women were disparagingly characterized as “animal love” in late eighteenth-century New England. The irrationality of such beliefs is highlighted in cases where charges of “unnaturalness” were combined, paradoxically, with accusations of animalistic behavior. Some early Latin texts, for instance, simultaneously condemned homosexuals for exhibiting behavior unknown in animals while also denouncing them for imitating particular species (such as the hyena or hare) that were believed to indulge in homosexuality.⁷⁵

In our own time, the fact that a given characteristic of a minority human population is biologically determined has little to do with whether that population should be—or is-discriminated against. Racial minorities, for example, can claim a biological basis for their difference, yet this has done little to eliminate racial prejudice. Religious groups, on the other hand, can claim no such biological prerogative, and yet this does not invalidate the entitlement of such groups to freedom from discrimination. It should be clear, then, that whether homosexuality is biologically determined or not, whether one chooses to be gay or is born that way, or whether homosexuality occurs in nature or not—none of these things guarantees the acceptance or rejection of homosexuality or in itself renders homosexuality “valid” or “illegitimate.”

The debate about the “nature” and origin of homosexuality often invokes seemingly opposite categories: genetics versus environment, biology versus culture, nature versus nurture, essentialism versus constructionism. Indeed, the very categories “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are themselves examples of such a dichotomy. By using these categories, biologists and social scientists hope to discover what aspects of homosexuality, if any, are biologically determined. Yet by framing the debate in terms of such categories, it is easy to forget that more complex interactions between factors must be considered. For example, most research shows that both environment and biology are relevant in determining sexual orientation in people (and probably also animals). Some individuals may have an innate predisposition for homosexuality, but the right combination of environmental (including social) factors is required for this to be realized. And how meaningful is it to talk about a culture-nature distinction when, as we have just seen, some animal species have themselves developed forms of cultural behavior? Similarly, by focusing attention on the “causes” of homosexuality, the determinants of heterosexuality are considered irrelevant—or, alternatively, heterosexuality is assumed to be inevitable unless something “goes wrong.” And not all sexuality fits neatly into the categories of exclusive homosexuality or exclusive heterosexuality—the large realm of experience that involves bisexuality is easily glossed over in discussions about the origins of homosexuality/heterosexuality. So, too, with the question of whether homosexuality is “natural” and what its occurrence in animals can tell us about this: things are considerably more complicated than they initially appear.

What is remarkable about the entire debate about the naturalness of homosexuality is the frequent absence of any reference to concrete facts or accurate, comprehensive information about animal homosexuality. Those who argue against the naturalness of homosexuality assert with impunity that same-sex behavior does not occur in nature (like the man quoted above) and is therefore self-evidently abnormal. Those who argue in favor of a biological origin for homosexuality often ignore the complexities of animal behavior arising from social, protocultural, or individual life-history factors (relying on the behavior of laboratory animals injected with hormones, for example, instead of long-term studies of animals interacting in their own social groups or communities).⁷⁶ This is because naturalness is more a matter of interpretation than facts. Now that the widespread occurrence of animal homosexuality is beginning to be documented, little if anything is likely to change in this discussion. More information about same-sex activity in animals simply means more possible interpretations: the information can be used to support or refute a variety of positions on the naturalness or acceptability of homosexuality, depending (as before) on the particular outlook of whoever is drawing the conclusions.

As James Weinrich points out, the only claim about naturalness that is actually consistent with the facts is the following: homosexual behavior is as natural as heterosexual behavior.⁷⁷ What this means is that homosexuality is found in virtually all animal groups, in virtually all geographic areas and time periods, and in a wide variety of forms—as are heterosexuality, divorce, monogamy, and infanticide, among other things. Conversely, heterosexuality is as “unnatural” as homosexuality is, since it often exhibits social elaboration or cultural “embellishment,” as well as many of the “unacceptable” features stereotypically associated with same-sex relations, such as promiscuity, nonreproduction, pursuit of sexual pleasure, and interactions marked by instability, ineptitude, and even hostility.⁷⁸ But whether this means that homosexuality is “biologically determined” and/or “socially conditioned” —and by extension, (un)acceptable in humans—is largely a question of interpretation. Of course, from a scientific perspective, the sheer extent and variety of homosexual expression in the animal world reveals an aspect of nonhuman biology and social organization that is unexpected—one with far-reaching (perhaps even revolutionary) implications. It demands careful consideration and suggests a rethinking of some of our most fundamental notions of environment, culture, genetics, and evolutionary and social development. But to automatically conclude that because homosexuality occurs in animals, it must be biologically determined oversimplifies the debate and does an injustice to the facts.

For most people, animals are symbolic: their significance lies not in what they are, but in what we think they are. We ascribe meanings and values to their existence and behaviors in ways that usually have little to do with their biological and social realities, treating them as emblems of nature’s purity or bestiality in order to justify, ultimately, our views of other human beings. The animals themselves remain enigmatic, mute in the face of this seemingly endless onslaught of human interpretations of their lives. If this were merely a matter of debate among people, it could perhaps be put in its proper perspective as simply yet another human folly. Unfortunately, the interpretations applied to animal (sexual) behaviors by people are far from innocuous: they can have grave consequences, or even be a matter of life or death—for both humans and animals alike. When a gay man or lesbian is assaulted or murdered because the attacker thinks that homosexuality is “unnatural,” for example, or when politicians’ legislative and judicial decisions concerning homosexuality are coded in such terms as “crimes against nature,” much more is at stake than the scientific interpretation of animal behavior.⁷⁹

The moral value ascribed to animal sexuality can also impact directly on the welfare of the creatures themselves. In 1995 a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service briefed Senator Jesse Helms’s staff about the value of saving an endangered bird, the red-cockaded woodpecker, which lives in the southeastern United States.⁸⁰ His presentation stressed the supposed “family values” of the species, referring to the birds’ monogamous and relatively long-lasting heterosexual pair-bonds. In other words, the right of this species to exist—as determined by legislators voting on the Endangered Species Act—was predicated not on its intrinsic value, but on how closely its behavior could be made to resemble what is currently considered acceptable conduct for humans. And this is most definitely a case of presenting an idealized “image” of the species: the red-cockaded woodpecker’s “family values” are in reality far more complex, messy, and “questionable” than what the politicians were told.

True, this species usually breeds in long-term, monogamous pairs, but its social life is replete with variations on this theme, some of which Senator Helms would have found downright horrifying.⁸¹ Many family groups in this species are unstable: one six-year investigation found that only six out of thirteen breeding pairs remained together, while studies of the species in Helms’s home state of North Carolina revealed that nearly 20 percent of females in this population desert their mates and switch family groups. Males sometimes leave their partners as well, and the overall (species-wide) divorce rate is about 5 percent; nonmonogamous copulations also occasionally occur, with slightly more than 1 percent of nestlings being fathered by a male other than their mother’s mate. Red-cockaded woodpeckers also frequently live in “stepfamilies” or “blended families”: more than a quarter of the younger birds who live in breeding groups and help with parenting duties may be related to only one parent, and 5–11 percent are related to neither. Some of these “helper” birds engage in decidedly un-family-like activities, such as ousting a parent from its group or even committing “stepfamily incest” by mating with the remaining parent. Incest involving full or half siblings, though rare, also occurs. Other helpers forgo reproduction entirely (continuing to live with their parents as adults for several years), and there are also solitary nonbreeding birds in the population, as well as all-male groups. Some red-cockaded woodpecker groups may also be polygamous or “plural” breeding units, with two females both breeding (or trying to breed) at the same time.

Would the red-cockaded woodpecker be considered less “deserving” of protection if Senator Helms and his staff learned that these birds participate in nonreproductive sexual activity (mating during incubation, or long before egg-laying), or siblicide and starving of offspring, or infanticide and chick-tossing from the nest? All of these behaviors have been documented in this species, yet none were included in the scientific presentation to the politicians in whose hands this bird’s fate rests, for they would shatter the illusion of its “family values.” Homosexual activity has not (yet) been observed in red-cockaded woodpeckers, although it does occur in related species such as Acorn Woodpeckers and Black-rumped Flamebacks. Should such behavior come to light, one can only dread the consequences for this, or any other, endangered species whose survival depends on human assessment of its “moral conduct.”

Homosexuality has a “natural history” in every sense of the term: that is, it has both biological (“natural”) and social or cultural (“historical”) dimensions that are interconnected and inseparable. It is not a uniform phenomenon in either animals or people: it takes many forms, and it exhibits numerous variations and idiosyncrasies. The interplay of biology and environment in shaping these features—and indeed, the very definitions of what is “cultural” as opposed to “biological”—is far more complex than polarized debates would have us believe. Because the discussion is often framed in terms of misleading dichotomies such as “nature versus nurture” or “genetics versus environment,” the possibility that both are relevant (and can influence one another) is repeatedly overlooked, as is the possibility that sexual behavior in some animals has a significant sociocultural component. Yes, homosexuality occurs in nature and apparently always has. But does this make it “natural” or simply “animalistic”? The answer to this question is entirely in the eye of the beholder, rather than in any inherent quality or context of the phenomenon itself.