The oldest and perhaps most prevalent claim levelled against homosexuality is also one of the most rhetorically simple concepts: homosexuality is “unnatural.” This proposition is based upon the assumption that heterosexuality is somehow ordained by nature and that this and only this phenomenon is the sole manifestation of same-sex desires in all creation. A vicissitude born of human culture and moral decay. However, this insipid assumption has shown stark vulnerability to even minimal levels of scientific investigation. Rather than its perceived rarity in nature, sexual acts between members of the same sex have long been recorded in various realms of the natural kingdom for many years. One thing is certain: human moral codes do not begin to comprehend the diversity of sexuality in creation. If homosexuality is so rampant in natural societies, one thing clearly must be asked: What exactly do we mean by “unnatural” sexual expression in human culture?

Scientists have documented homosexual behaviours in more than 1,500 different species of animals, and the number keeps rising as the study of the topic becomes less subjective. In this case, the behaviors encompass courtship, pair bonding, sexual activities, and even parental behaviors. In addition, the behaviours are not abnormalities, which were initially depicted in captive and stressful settings by early critics. Indeed, most of the behaviours occur among free-living species and in varied habitats.

One of the best-known instances of this phenomenon is that of penguins, specifically the chinstrap, gentoo, and king penguins. Same-sex penguin partners are recognised to engage in pair-bonding, nest-building, and chick-rearing. In some instances, these same-sex partners succeed in raising eggs that had been abandoned or were orphaned. It also reported that the existence of same-sex pair-bonding penguins in colonies does not act in a detrimental manner, but is, in fact, well-integrated socially. They engage in the same social rituals, just like heterosexual pairs, meaning that this kind of activity is part of the usual social landscape, rather than something exceptional.

Swan is another interesting example in this context. Black swans, specifically, engage in male-male pair-bonds to a greater extent than any other birds. It is suggested that, in certain populations, up to 25% of swan pair-bonds are male-male pair-bonds. In an evolutionary context, such observations bring to the fore the fact that it is not necessarily reproduction that constitutes the only role of sexual behaviours among certain species. One of the most compelling examples comes from bonobos, one of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. The bonobos are perhaps most famous for their use of sex as a form of social bonding—for conflict resolution, for decreasing tension, and for increasing feelings of closeness and friendship. Same-sex sexual encounters are widespread among both males and females and are recognised as playing a prominent part in the creation and preservation of group harmony. According to primatologists, these practices are neither marginalised nor concealed among bonobos; on the contrary, they are an integral part of their culture. Similarly, one might point out that homosexuality also appears among dolphins, and same-sex pairs form long-lasting bonds. Bottlenose dolphins also indulge in same-sex sexual activities for bonding and playing. Biologists observing dolphin groups in their natural habitats have suggested that these same-sex encounters contribute towards preserving group cooperation and social cohesion in their complex societies. In each of these examples, sex and its expression are recognised as being relevant less for reproduction than for other social ends.

Within insects alone, homosexual behaviour is far from uncommon. Research conducted among beetles, fruit flies, and dragonflies has made it clear that homosexual mounting and courtship displays do occur. Among fruit flies, or ‘Drosophila melanogaster’ for short, there exist genetic variations that affect homosexual courtship behavior, which suggests that such behaviour is far from the result of genetic drift. This clearly contradicts the proposition that biological justification does not exist for homosexuality.

Yet, in light of this vast evidence, why does this “unnatural” defense remain in vogue? First, it has something to do with the manner in which human beings categorise nature. Undesirable features are termed “unnatural,” while others, despite being found in considerable numbers in nature, are merely passed over. Violence, infanticide, cannibalism, and many more practices exist in nature, but no human being would ever prescribe that humans behave in one manner due to their existence in nature or its absence. Nature, in fact, is merely an account of “what there is,” not “what should be.”

A further consideration is the historical bias within the science itself. Until the latter part of the 20th century, same-sex behaviour in the animal kingdom was often downplayed or coded in science as “dominance” or “misidentification.” Biologist Joan Roughgarden has shown how the assumption that heterosexuality was the “normal” state led to biases in what was observed and reported. As societal norms changed, the observations had been there the whole time. The “unnatural” observations seem even less natural or universal when examining sexuality statistics in human beings. The prevalence of LGBT+ in modern times has been estimated to be in the millions across the globe. The fact that “homosexuality” has been found in “ancient” and “non-colonial” cultures predates Western culture’s modern presence. If it’s so universal over space and time, how can it be said to be “unnatural”?

Ultimately, the "appeal to nature" in the discussion of sexuality tells us more about our discomfiture than about science. The sciences do not find heterosexual behaviour to be the only "natural" sexuality. The sciences find diversity in behaviour, in bonding, and in social patterns. The behaviour of homosexuals is not a human invention of the last few decades; it is not a disease of our cultures; it is not a biological error. The behaviour of homosexuals is simply another pattern in the vast repertoire of nature. So "homosexual behaviour" exists in nature, indeed, and it thrives. This unnatural biology tells us what "natural" means. And our qualms have never been with nature. The persistent error has been our reluctance to recognise what nature has consistently demonstrated.

References:

• Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin’s Press.
• Mann, J. et al. (2000). Biology of Marine Mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press.
• Science Magazine (2007). Genetic influences on same-sex behaviour in Drosophila
• Williams Institute (UCLA School of Law) Global LGBTQ+ population studies

.    .    .