Christian and an Ally | Why Being Gay is Okay ✓

Isn't Same-Sex Attraction and/or Behavior Unnatural?

My next few chapters will address some of the other things that anti-gay people use to argue against homosexuality. These arguments are used both by people who are religious and people who aren't. The first, and most common, argument is that same-sex attraction is "unnatural."

What exactly do anti-gay people mean by "unnatural"? The first thing we need to do is define it, because we can't get anywhere without knowing what it means.

Merriam-Webster defines "unnatural" as such:

❝1. not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events;

2a. not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior;

b. lacking ease or naturalness;

c. inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected❞

So, is same-sex attraction and behavior "unnatural" in the sense that it is not in accordance with nature? Not in the slightest! In fact, homosexual behavior has been recorded in as many as 1,500 different species, with new discoveries happening all the time. The animal kingdom has many uses for homosexual behavior, from community bonding (such as with dwarf chimpanzees, lions, and dolphins) to lifelong partner bonds (such as with geese, ducks, and black-headed gulls). About four to five percent of goose and duck pairs are homosexual — single females will actually lay eggs in their nests for them to raise — while up to ten percent of black-headed gull couples are homosexual. Even fish, reptiles, insects, arachnids, and worms have been documented to engage in same-sex behavior. Not only can animals have lifelong homosexual bonds, but same-sex behavior is far from "unnatural," according to the first definition!

A similar argument is that reproduction is the sole (or most important) purpose of sex. As an extension, since same-sex couples cannot physically reproduce together, then same-sex behavior is "unnatural." But is the continuation of the species the only reason for sex, or even the sole reason?

Of course not! Once again, humans have sex for other purposes than just reproduction, and so do the other members of the animal kingdom. As I have mentioned before, dwarf chimpanzees use sex as a way to bond with each other and resolve fights; sex between members is so important that they are considered a bisexual species. Similar bonding occurs in lions, where male lions have sex with each other to strengthen loyalties between leaders of the pride. Many animals have sex for pleasure, including dolphins, bats, apes, elephants, and giraffes.

Meanwhile, countless studies have documented the many benefits of sex (both hetero- and homosexual). These benefits include improving one's ability to deal with stress; boosting one's immune system; reducing the chance of a heart attack and other diseases, like cancer or Alzheimer's; deepening intimacy and trust; increasing one's lifespan; and alleviating pain, including arthritis and period cramps. Sex has been documented to have so many benefits that I can't list them all here.

Another important thing to note is that humans are much less fertile than most other animal species; even young newlyweds having frequent sex without contraception have a mere 28% chance of conceiving per menstrual cycle, and by the age of forty-five, most women are infertile. Couples who are too old to conceive continue having sex long after they stop being able to have children, and infertile couples engage in sex, too. If anti-gays truly believed that the only purpose of sex was reproduction, then they would prohibit the infertile and the elderly from having sex, too, but they don't. Saying that reproduction is the sole or most important purpose of sex is false and is used to unfairly target the LGBTQ+ community.

One more common use of the first definition of "unnatural" is to make the claim that there is no evolutionary purpose for homosexuality, or that if everyone were gay, then the species would cease to exist. First of all, duh to the latter point — if everyone was gay, yes, we would cease to exist. But how is this relevant? Only 4% of the US population considers themselves to be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, and this statement includes all non-straight sexualities and people who are asexual, transgender, and intersex, too, not just gay people. Considering that 96% of the US population identifies as straight and cisgender, we needn't worry about humanity ceasing to exist because of homosexuality.

What about the evolution piece of the argument? Is there an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality? Scientists think so. For example, females with a gay male relative are generally more reproductively successful than their counterparts. On a long-term scale, especially in social animals such as humans, non-reproductive couples help with raising children, gathering food, and contributing to the overall success of the group. All of these things are an evolutionary advantage. But even if homosexuality doesn't have a direct evolutionary purpose, it doesn't mean that it should have disappeared from the gene pool over time as some anti-gay people suggest; it just means that it would be generally less common than heterosexuality, which it is.

So, what about the second definition? Is same-sex attraction and behavior not in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior? Well, if "normal" is defined as the average behavior, then homosexuality would be abnormal in the sense that a minority of people are gay in comparison to the rest of the population. If "normal" is defined as the expected behavior, then once again being gay would be abnormal in the sense that our current culture expects people to be straight, but that hardly tells us anything.

However, same-sex attraction and behavior ARE normal for humans in the sense that humans have exhibited it ever since they could be classified as human. Homosexual, transgender, and "two-spirited" people were common in many Native American communities before the brutal conquest by European colonists, and this practice continues on a smaller scale to this day. Same-sex behavior has been recorded since antiquity in Mesopotamia, China, Japan, Thailand, Greece, Rome, Italy, England, Germany, most of the Middle East, India and much of South Asia, Egypt, and parts of Africa. And as I've said before, animals had homosexual sex long before humans did, evidence that it evolved with us.

What about the third definition? Is same-sex behavior "lacking ease or naturalness"? Well, it certainly would be unnatural for someone who is heterosexual! But for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or pansexual, same-sex attraction is perfectly natural. In fact, one could argue that trying to fit into society's heterosexual expectations would be "lacking in ease and naturalness" for someone who is not straight. If someone is following their natural sexual orientation, then that is what is natural for them, so this definition isn't useful.

And finally, is same-sex behavior inconsistent with what is "reasonable or expected"? In today's society, it is unexpected, yes. But in many ancient cultures, same-sex attraction and behavior was normal, and we are coming full circle with the legality of same-sex marriage and the rise of the LGBTQ+ community in the US. Other countries are ahead of us (the Netherlands, Argentina, South Africa, Canada, and Portugal, to name a few) while many more are unfortunately very anti-gay (Russia, Cameroon, Iran, and Nigeria, to name a few). Still others are showing positive improvements towards LGBTQ+ equality and acceptance, such as Uruguay, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Malawi.

So, is same-sex behavior and attraction unnatural? No, it is not. None of the "unnatural" arguments hold water when we delve deeper into them. The "unnatural" claim is just another way that people justify discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.