Language, tools, taboo, ritual—each of these is part of a larger puzzle or matrix of cultural development that is traditionally seen as distinct and distant from sexuality. Nevertheless, the occurrence of a number of remarkable primate behaviors revolving around homosexuality and nonreproductive heterosexuality suggests that these domains are much more intimately associated than previously imagined. Sexual gesture systems, masturbatory tools, homosexual incest taboos, and ritualized same-sex “oath-taking” offer extraordinary juxtapositions of culture, biology, society, and evolution. Primate (homo)sexual behaviors such as these exemplify both cultural traditions and evolutionary inheritances. In turn, they may have contributed to the development of some of the most hallowed and cherished landmarks of human cultural history as well.71
Unnatural Nature
Animals don’t do it, so why should we? Can you even imagine a queer grizzly bear? Or a lesbian owl or salmon?
—from a letter written to Dean Hamer, coauthor of
The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the
Biology of Behavior72
Many people, such as the man quoted above, believe that homosexuality does not occur in nature and use this belief to justify their opinions about human homosexuality. In fact, rarely is homosexuality in animals discussed on its own: inevitably, cross-species comparisons are drawn to ascribe moral value to the behavior—both positive and negative. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the notion of “naturalness” and the entire complex of animal-human comparisons that this problematic term evokes. The prevailing view is an overly simplistic one: if homosexuality is believed to occur in animals, it is considered to be “natural” and therefore acceptable in humans; if it is thought not to occur in animals, it is considered “unnatural” and therefore unacceptable in humans. The debate seems clear and the lines of distinction inviolable.
Any careful consideration of the logic behind the equation occurs in animals = natural = acceptable in humans will show, however, that this line of reasoning is flawed. As many people have pointed out, humans engage in a wide variety of behaviors that do not occur in nature, from cooking to writing letters to wearing clothes, and yet we do not condemn these activities as “unnatural” because they are not found among animals. As author Jon Ward explains, with regard to a friend who asserted “You can’t argue with biology” (believing that homosexuality was “unnatural”):
Has he never fried an egg? The whole of human history is an “argument with biology.” The very civilization which the most homophobic ideologues are eager to defend is the antithesis of nature: law and art.73
We also use our biology and anatomy in ways that “nature did not intend for them to be used” without ascribing a moral value to such activities. As James Weinrich observes, the tongue’s primary biological purpose is for the act of eating, yet its use in acts of speech, bubble-gum-blowing, or kissing is not therefore considered “unnatural.” In addition, many things that do occur spontaneously in animals—diseases, birth defects, rape, and cannibalism, for example—are not considered to be “natural” or desirable conditions or behaviors in most humans. Weinrich aptly remarks, “When animals do something that we like, we call it natural. When they do something that we don’t like, we call it animalistic.”74
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.