Compare opinions of world leading experts and influencers.

Is homosexuality natural?

Opponents of gay rights assert that homosexuality is a recent sickness of society that has temporarily upset our natural heterosexual state of being. Gay advocates retort that this claim is demonstratively false, since homosexuality occurs frequently in many species. Furthermore, they point out that the question is irrelevant due to the "Appeal to Nature" fallacy, which lures people into concluding that if something is unnatural or outside of the norm then it isn't good.

Implications to Other Questions

Experts and Influencers

Suggest Expert Quote (click to expand, no login required)
Experts In Homosexuality

Petter Boeckman    Zoologist
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.
23 Oct 2006    Source


Wikipedia    World's Largest Encyclopedia
Mostly Agree
The natural existence of homosexuality in non-human animals is considered controversial by conservative religious groups who oppose LGBT social movements because these findings seem to point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans.
27 Apr 2009    Source

Experts In Christianity

Luiz Sérgio Solimeo    Christian Writer
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
17 Feb 2004    Source

The Catholic Church    Largest Christian Church
[The church] must defend not only the earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to all. It must also defend the human person against its own destruction. What's needed is something like a 'human ecology,' understood in the right sense. It's not simply an outdated metaphysics if the church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.
23 Dec 2008    Source


Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)
0 Points      andis      20 Jul 2013      General Comment
firstly the only thing that dictates ANY "natural" human traits are expressed genes...period. you are blonde haired, blue eyed, 5'2" because your genes said so. the only way homosexuality could EVER be considered natural is if the elusive "gay gene" really exists. to date it has not been found so the only rational assertion on the topic is that homosexuality is 100% do to social, environmental, and other preferential factors. If one day they find the gay gene, THEN and only then, can we make a claim that it is natural.

Second to assert that just because animals exhibit homosexual behavior somehow makes homosexuality "natural" is simply ridiculous. My dog humps the couch when he gets a little excited, so now i guess we have to worry about people wanting to marry their couch because it is "natural" because animals do it...cmon. really people?

0 Points      nancy      26 Sep 2013      Stance on Question: Disagree
Eating, and pooping are natural, does that mean humans have a eating and pooping gene? Natural just refers to anything which happens or occurs in nature, so if animals hump things, then yes, the ability to hump is natural. Just because something is "Natural" doesn't mean it is good or bad. You now what isn't natural? Getting an abortion, spending billions of dollars on porn, beating your kids with a coat hanger, cheating on your wife by visiting a brothel or hiring a hooker etc. Those are unnatural things which HETEORSEXUALS love to do! Heterosexuality is more unnatural than anything else.

0 Points      Dania      05 Feb 2015      General Comment
Yes, there are genetic traits for pooping and eating. There are none for sodomy or lesbianism. Shoot yourself in the footsies there, haven't you tootsie?

0 Points      Anonymous      14 Jan 2014      General Comment
So bi women don't get abortions and gays don't watch porn, beat their children with coat hangers, cheat on their spouses, etc.?

0 Points      noella      12 May 2013      General Comment
Animals also engage in necrophilia and pedophilia. That doesn't make it natural. Homosexuality is an immoral sexual choice, nothing more. Urges don't make it natural. People have urges drink and do drugs, steal and strangle people. Urges doesn't make it normal and natural. You make a choice to be a moral or immoral person. Homosexuality in my opinion is immoral.

0 Points      Joe      26 Apr 2013      Stance on Question: Agree
Of course homosexuality is natural. It occurs just as naturally as pedophilia, zoophilia, biastophilia, emetophilia, etc. Just like bi-polar disorder, schizophrenia, etc. People don't choose to have the urges that lead to this illnesses, those urges occur beyond the person's control. The point: Just because something occurs "naturally" doesn't mean that it's a healthy lifestyle that should be accepted by society.

0 Points      Gay is wrong      30 Mar 2013      Stance on Question: Mostly Agree
Its not natural. People that write things like 'sexualevolution' are mindless.. there's no 'evolution' in being gay, if anything, its completely against evolution. Just because it exists does not mean its correct. Look between your legs, its a + or a - and it is either meant to give or receive, its pretty easy to figure that out. People aren't born gay, people are born with urges that are gay, and because we live in one of the dumbest societies history has ever seen, we say its okay to act on urges, no matter how unnatural they are, and we'll fully support and be tolerant of those urges... if you took 10 women and 10 men (who claim they are gay) and put them on a deserted island that had no means of contact with the outside world and stranded them there for 100 years, do you think after that 100 years that there would be no reproduction? Think about it...

0 Points      Sam      09 Apr 2012      Stance on Question: Neutral
Life is Life - Get over it!

0 Points      Blue Lavendor      22 Mar 2012      Stance on Question: General Comment
Homosexuality is as natural as cancer - it occurs across homo sapiens and other species!

1 Point      C. Gomes      02 Mar 2011      Stance on Question: Agree
To answer this question, let us first see how the dictionary defines the term natural: "something that exists or occurs on its own in nature, without needing to be encouraged or influenced in any way" (as per Collilns Dictionary).

Homosexuality has existed in virtually every society throughout history, despite being suppressed in most of them. Hence by the dictionary definition, it must be viewed as natural. It also is commonly observed is 100's of species of animals - where is clearly occurs on its own. Hence, homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom must be natural.

Howerver, there is a distinction between homosexuality in animals versus that in human beings, namely that human beings are the only species of animal where exclusively homosexual individuals have been observed. In all other animal species where homosexual activity is observed, individuals sometimes engaging in homosexual activity are invariably also seen to engage in heterosexual activity. Human beings are also the only animal species where individuals can choose not to reproduce, if they wish.

These are 2 most significant differences between humans and all other animals. Why this difference, and what does it prove? Animals need a heterosexual instinct to force them to reproduce -otherwise they would not, but humans no longer do because as our intelligence grew during evolution we at some point realized that old age was an inevitable reality that awaits us all and that producing offspring would ensure we would be taken care of when we grew old. Once we had a reason to reproduce, and discovered that it was heterosexual sex that made it possible, nature favoured a loss of sexual instinct in human beings so that we could gain full control of when to reproduce. Hence, unlike all other sexually reproducing animal species humans lack a sexual instinct.

However, there are universal sexual exploration behaviours children engage in that have the greatest potential to bias the development of a homosexual orientation development, over a heterosexual one - if society does not strongly promote heterosexuality and control of deter homosexuality.

For more on this theory, go to www.humansexualevolution.com .

0 Points      Dania      05 Feb 2015      General Comment
'Homosexuality' was only invented 150 years ago. It is being supplanted now by 'gayness'. Actually, it is more correct to say that sodomy was found in every society to some extent or another. Always. So has mental illness, like schizophrenia.

0 Points      Ray      20 Oct 2011      Stance on Question: Disagree
Looking at this in an honest and impartial way, which is the only way to the truth. Those who want to believe homosexuality is natural will believe so, whatever anybody says and whatever the evidence.To be natural, a thing has to be fit for purpose. It is self evident that males and females are fit for purpose, as they complement each other physically and in other ways.It is also self evident that males do not complement themselves, neither do females. The male and female relationship is also responsible for the human race, without which we would not be here !Homosexuality is rare in the animal kingdom, and tends to be transitory. Nature is not perfect and there are cases of incest, cross breeding,the killing of one's own offspring, etc, in it too."Part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic", what sort of simple argument is that ? They are fit for purpose (as stated above), and actually include the 2 sexes in one physically !

1 Point      Brianna Huber      02 Dec 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
This is an excerpt from a response I made to a Facebook poll awhile back regarding whether or not someone could provide a "logical" argument for homosexuality being "wrong." It seems applicable here.

To those of you who say it is "unnatural," there is a difference between being "unnatural" and biologically "unproductive." Homosexuality has been seen in other species, not just humans. It's obviously a natural occurrence. However, sexual intercouse between two beings of the same gender, is biologically unproductive. It is biologically impossible for a woman to have sex with another woman (or a man with another man) and produce offspring. Unnatural? Unproductive? They're different.

We as humans all know that the desire to find a suitable mate and produce offspring, and LOVE, are NOT the same thing. The mere fact of being unable to mate (and by 'mate' I mean produce offspring) with somone, doesn't make it psychologically impossible for us to romantically love them anyways. ( How else would infertile couples stay together?) It is said that hetersexual relationships are normal because the majority of them are. But that doesn't make a homosexual relationship "unnatural" or "wrong"; just unconventional, if even that.

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a biological occurrence. Homosexuals are homosexual because there is some part of their brain that is wired differently than that of heterosexuals. People can choose to suppress or deny the feelings they have due to conflicts of religion, personal morality, or anything else, but that doesn't change the fact that those feelings are still there, regardless of whether the person consciously recognizes or is aware of them. If one tries to deny innate feelings such as these, they are at high risk of ending up unhappy, and maybe not even understanding why. Personal denial of one's sexuality due to outside pressures is a common cause of suicide. To deny your own feelings is to deny a part of yourself, a part of what makes you, you. The long-term suppression of any feeling is unhealthy, this is no different. Just because you're not openly homosexual, doesn't mean you're not homosexual at all. When it comes right doen to it, you're simply living a lie. You're lying to yourself. Homosexuality and religious views can create great internal struggle within an individual, I realize this. But that is not the case in point. The mere fact that such internal conflict exists is proof alone that homosexuality is not determined by choice alone.

Again on the note of whether homosexuality is "natural", several dictionary definitions of the word state:

- "Existing in or formed by nature"
- "Growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand"
- "In conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional"
- "Happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc."
- "Not acquired; inherent"
- "Of one's inborn character"

Not one of these definitions supports the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural." It obviously occurs in nature, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. It comes from within, from a person's own internal desires. You can't 'make' someone homosexual. Although some may argue to the contrary, homosexuaity is not "unusual" or "exceptional" in the biological sense. It is only considered "unusual" by some in the cultural sense. It occurs in the natural course of events. You can't become homosexual by 'accident' or through violent means. You can pretend to be, but again, that would be living a lie.

1 Point      Tina Peters      20 Sep 2010      General Comment
For some people, homosexual behavior is as natural as breathing. They seem to have been that way before they could put together their first sentence.
But, mostly, I believe most homosexuals are manufactured. Little boys who are messed with by a trusted male friend or family member often grow up to be openly homosexual. Then there are those of this group who may choose to try to disregard having been molested and go on to attempt to live normal heterosexual married lives. And some others may choose to live reclusive lives and appear to have nothing to do with anyone at all.
Whatever the case with homosexual men who have a past which includes their having been molested, the issue must be addressed through some objective psychotherapeutic means. When it is not, and the person goes on to live what he perceives to be a normal existence for himself, there can be grave consequences for himself and any unguarded underaged male.
Concerning lesbians: I think many of them become gender confused, for any number of reasons, at an early age. Then there are those who might have been raped or abused by a male and never could get over it. And, as well, there are those dyed in the wool lesbians, so to speak, who just never had any manner of femininity about them and just never acquired an interest in the opposite sex whatsoever.
Those who are born with both male and female organs and the wrong one gets discarded..........well that's a whole nother issue!!

0 Points      Greg K      20 Jul 2010      General Comment
I'm not aware of any species in nature, besides man, that take on homosexuality as a routine and sustained way of relating to other same sex members of that species. Please show me an example where entire communities practice this behavior, over time, in nature.

I think most would be aware of the example of a (male) dog "humping" a person's leg... male & female. This same dog can be seen doing the same thing to another dog, a pole or table leg. That is likely an example of domination behavior/excessive hormones. Female animals have exhibited the same types of behavior. This behavior, while being homosexual, can hardly be onsidered validation for Homosexuality.

Homosexuality tries to seek some sense of permission giving from evolution but homosexuality flies in the face of "survival of the fittest".

The best explaination of homosexuality lies in the idea of christianity's reference to a "fallen world". Is it fair to introduce "religion" into this? I would say "yes" as it takes faith to believe in a theory (evolution) that has never been proven in the scientific sense. It IS the religion of science. Statistics favors creation or intelligent design over evolution but "science" doesn't want to be pestered by the numbers

0 Points      Shelly H      11 May 2012      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
Totally agree. This comment from 'Greg K' has made the most sense. Way too much 'OVER explaining' on the 'PRO' side of Homosexuality.

0 Points      Benja      21 Jul 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
"I'm not aware of any species in nature..."
See appealing to your own ignorance.

"Please show me an example where entire communities practice this behavior [of homosexuality as a routine and sustained way of relating to other same sex members of that species], over time, in nature..."
That's 4, maybe 5 argument fallacies in one sentence. No matter what evidence there is for homosexual behavior in animals (e.g. anal sex, same-sex courtship, etc.) you will say "oh no, that's not really homosexual behavior" (see the no true Scotsman fallacy). Furthermore, you're claiming that homosexuality isn't natural until someone demonstrates otherwise, but logically, in the absence of a demonstration, you can only logically claim that you don't know (see burden of proof). But even if more evidence is given to you, you'll just create new criteria for what counts as homosexual behavior (see moving the goalposts). Finally, the contentious claim here is whether homosexuality is natural - but you're tearing down a different, more specific, claim: that "homosexuality occurs in a routine and sustained manner over time in species other than Homo sapiens" (see strawman fallacy). Whether or not that's true - and your stance is conjecture on your part - I don't see this as particularly relevant (though it seems to imply you don't have a problem with bisexuality). Why on earth should we look to animals for guidance on what we ought to do? Why should we base morality of what is "natural"? (see Appeal to Nature).

"This behavior, while being homosexual, can hardly be onsidered validation for Homosexuality."
You're only scratching the surface of homosexual behavior. See here.

"Homosexuality tries to seek some sense of permission giving from evolution but homosexuality flies in the face of 'survival of the fittest'."
No-one has to seek permission from the laws of nature for their actions - the idea of seeking permission from a higher power or force is a religious concept. Scientists and those interested in science instead seek a better understanding of what occurs in nature because they find it both fascinating and useful, and the process can certainly challenge assumptions our beliefs are based upon. You can learn a lot about both homosexual and heterosexual behavior by studying animals.

"it takes faith to believe in a theory (evolution)"
The belief in evolution is based on reason and evidence. But it's good to see you dislike the practice of basing one's beliefs on faith.

"Statistics favors creation or intelligent design over evolution but "science" doesn't want to be pestered by the numbers"
This technique is called mirroring. It's when you reverse the arguments made by your opponents. In this case you're trying to associate creationism with statistics and evolution with faith. It's marketing 101. I've seen more subtlety in an ad for extra large condoms.

0 Points      milkfloatgunner      26 Nov 2009      Stance on Question: Mostly Disagree
Homosexuality is not natural. I believe it is affected by circumstance and is more to do with a person's psychology than genetic inheritance; it isn't a present trait at birth, instead developing in the person at a certain point in life.

0 Points      Seb      09 Apr 2012      General Comment
sexuality itself isn't a trait at birth.

1 Point      KrisB      27 Nov 2010      General Comment
It might be natural in animals but we are different from animals (or other animals) in that we have society, morals and a sense of right and wrong (what is good and bad for society.) Animals practice murder to their own species and cannibalism. If we were to promote these things society would break down. If homosexuality was promoted and most people became homosexual then people would not have children and if there was a way to have children artificially then you have same sex marriages and the destruction of the dynamic of a normal family with the role of the man and women. in a same sex marriage the women can play the role of the man and vice versa so the dynamic broken down. Just a gay sex the woman can be masculine and the man can be feminine which defuses the principles which our society has built up on over millennia.

0 Points      Adam      09 Apr 2012      General Comment
We may be different from animals, but what they do is deemed natural. 'Animals practice murder'is this not part of they're nature(the same nature that we are part of). Also er. do humans not murder?Cats don't subconsciously or instinctively sense; not to do that sort of thing because that's what dogs do. When are people going to realise that the world is a massively diverse place and stop being so obsessed with everything being the same in order to be normal. Cats are different from dogs. The Grass on your lawn is different from pampas grass, one type of stone is different from another type of stone, humans are different to other humans. EVERYTHING IN NATURE IS UNIQUE! We are all a different types of species. Such a simple truth and most of the world don't seem to get it. I suspect that all human debating is just part of human psychology. As humans we have an inherent desire to be special and to feel good about who we are, therefore pointing out the differences in others makes us feel more superior and more coherent in context with a [mass] preferred view on life. Looking at all the religions of the world you can see the pattern and similarity amongst them all. (It is said that all the major religions of the world stemmed from Zoroastrianism and yet hardly anyone has ever heard of such a religion). Perhaps religion is just the preferred human way of viewing the world. It's a comfortable and easy explanation for everything. No doubt there may be a god or indeed a force of nature that governs life (to a degree). But I can't help but sense that everything we see around us is all massively different and therefore it seems strange to even ponder a difference such as homosexuality as being something not natural. It exists in the vast world of diversity around us therefore it must be natural.

1 Point      prashant gupta      18 Jul 2010      Stance on Question: Agree
i completely agree that homosexuality is natural because it has been found in more than 40,000 species of animals including humans also and one more thing whenever u fall in love or attraction so at that time do u make a view in your mind that u will be attracted towards only a male or only a female ???????
no, we never think about it becoz the feeling of attraction is just natural it comes from inside .
so u must go home and think about it very very deeply........

0 Points      captainentropy      12 Feb 2010      Stance on Question: Disagree
Right. You BELIEVE it is not natural. You have no evidence that it isn't. On the other hand there is ample evidence that it is a naturally occurring phenomena. The evidence is there for those who want to know the facts. You clearly do not.

Could environment be a factor in utero or early childhood? Sure. But there is no evidence of that. That would be something to investigate. But whether it is or not is really irrelevant. It exists and it occurs throughout nature. Praying and beliving it isn't natural isn't going to change that fact.

0 Points      pablo casals      08 Apr 2011      General Comment
All I have to say is remember sodom and gommorrah. Where do you think the act or word sodomy comes from. Let GOD sort em out.

0 Points      Brent5      09 Apr 2012      General Comment
It came from some pious man's ideology about life (with his idea of God in it)?

0 Points      Benja      08 Apr 2011      General Comment
Heartwarming to see God helping out when Hitler isn't available.

0 Points      pianist      18 Sep 2011      General Comment
THANK YOU! Animals (for the most part) don't have the cognitive ability to discern preference among gender choices. We, as humans, make much more complicated decisions, and I think it's perfectly normal that some humans prefer their own gender and others don't.