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

Should gay and straight couples have the same legal benefits?

Experts and Influencers

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

Agree

Experts In Homosexuality

Petter Boeckman Zoologist

Agree

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.

Edit Pitches

23 Oct 2006 Source

Encyclopedia

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.

Edit Pitches

27 Apr 2009 Source

Disagree

Experts In Christianity

Luiz Sérgio Solimeo Christian Writer

Disagree

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.

Edit Pitches

17 Feb 2004 Source

The Catholic Church Largest Christian Church

Disagree

[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 It's not simply an outdated metaphysics if the church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.

The Nature Pitch

Edit Pitches

23 Dec 2008 Source

Comments

Add Your TakeOnIt (click to expand, no login required)

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 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.

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.