the Global Observatory

Homosexuality in humans is a matter of choice – such sexual orientation may be natural or genetic, as some people claim, but the decision to act upon it is a matter of choice.

As Stephen Covey says, “we are free to choose our actions”; all our actions. Engaging in any kind of sexual relationship, whether hetero- or homo-, is a matter of choice. Humans do not have to do anything because of our superior intellect and reasoning. Humans do not have to have sex of any kind.

Apart from bodily functions, such as breathing or micturating, which cannot be considered “actions,” everything else a human does is a matter of choice.

Humans do not engage in  any kind of sexual behavior to further their species, race, family or any such attributes, as animals do. For us humans, it is a matter of choice, and mostly for pleasure. With a population of 6 billion and enough fertile men and women, there is no shortage of pro-creating couples.

We are not yet at Children of Men when pro-creation becomes a matter of “need” rather than choice.

Yet, heterosexual relationships are natural and allow continuation of the human race. The other kind do not. Homosexual relationships lack the ability to directly and naturally pro-create. Test tube babies or adopted children do not help the human race. The former is an expensive process that can hardly be justified by evolution. The latter is, of course, for the benefit of society to the extent that an orphan is given the opportunity to better his situation. Yet, having two mommies or daddies is not an ideal situation for any child.

Animals do not have the ability to make any such choices. Their entire life is devoted to survival and reproduction. Any action that is detrimental to either does not figure in their daily routines. Homosexuality, which does yield any apparent benefit to animals, therefore would be an exception not the rule.

But, ladies and gentlemen, we now have a study claiming that “homosexual” behavior is common among animals:

The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species… the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.

They found … almost a third of the Laysan albatross population is raised by pairs of two females because of the shortage of males…Other species form same-sex bonds for other reasons, they found. Dolphins have been known engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding while male-male pairings in locusts killed off the weaker males.

A pair of “gay” penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers.

What I don’t quite understand is how same-sex pairing for a specific purpose, such as child rearing or species protection, can be classified as homosexual behavior. That is simply expanding the definition of the term to an extent that any relationship between 2 people of the same sex would be considered “homosexual.” Such a broad definition makes the very term “homosexual” completely meaningless. Two brothers playing golf, two friends watching a movie, two friends room-mating would all be considered homosexuals, for Pete’s sake!

Let’s look at the actual definition of the term, courtesy M-W:

1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

The instances of same sex pairing in the animals above shows no “sexual desire” among them. They are not shown to engage in “mounting” or “sexual intercourse” of any form to lead to the conclusion that their relationships are indeed “homosexual.”

The situation of the albatross is very similar to that of humans in hundreds of Asian villages, where males are forced to live in cities to earn a livelihood and the women band together to raise their children back home. Are these women all homosexual? Some might be but not all. Their relationship is not overtly, explicitly or even implicitly, “homosexual.”

Dolphins engage in “same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding”? Does hanging out with your male friends bowling or watching football, all human versions of “same-sex interactions,” classify you to be a homosexual? The so-called “gay” penguins aren’t gay at all; just freaks.

…Dr Nathan Bailey … said previous studies have failed to consider the evolutionary consequences of homosexuality… [and that] homosexual behavior was often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species.

But, for God’s sakes, none of the above mentioned behavior is even remotely sexual. How is it even remotely homosexual?

“Same-sex behaviours – courtship, mounting or parenting – are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations,” he said. “But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviours might act as selective forces in and of themselves.”

It is all well and good to claim that something is shaped by “natual selection,” but how does any form of homosexual behavior, specifically mounting, yield any form of evolutionary advantage for animals? If there is no evolutionary advantage, there is no “natural selection.” If your species dies out because of lack of pro-creation resulting from homosexual behavior, where is “natural selection”?

Furthermore, Bailey fails to explain how same-sex relationships among animals as shown by the examples, without any implicit or explicit sexual underpinning, can be classified as homosexual?

Interestingly, even Wikipedia’s article on List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is almost entirely dependent on 2 primary sources  – Bagemihl (Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, 1999) and News-medical.net (2006) – giving an impression of authoritativeness while being very narrowly justified.

Bagemihl is a linguistics expert and his PhD thesis was on “Alternate phonologies and morphologies.” His book is nothing short of controversial and can hardly be considered authoritative. The good doctor has written on “subjects ranging from zoology to cognitive ethnomusicology to queer theory.”  That’s more like a journalist than a subject matter expert. How does Bagemihl suddenly become the go-to-guy for animal homosexual behavior? How does homosexuality relate to linguistics?

Way to go boys.