Jackson Free Press

"After I came out, I found out that my father is bisexual. My brother is gay. There's five of us that are gay in my extended family. How could that not be genetic?" asks Jayme Allen.

In the last 20 years, there has been a sea change in how scientists think about homosexuality. Previously, scientists contended that while animals might engage in homosexual behavior, humans were the only (male) animals that were actually capable of preferring members of the same sex when a female in heat was available. Scientists also maintained that humans were the only animals that engaged in anal sex. As a consequence, there was some basis for concluding that homosexuality was "unnatural."

Now, scientists have observed homosexual acts in hundreds of species. "Biological Exuberance," by Bruce Bagemihl, documents homosexual behavior in 450 species, including primates, marine mammals, hoofed mammals, carnivores, marsupials, rodents and insectivores, waterfowl and other aquatic birds, wading birds, shore birds, perching birds and songbirds. Scientists have observed behaviors ranging from same-sex parenting to oral sex to anal sex. Furthermore, there are male animals that prefer sex acts with other males even in the presence of a female in heat.

One of our closest genetic relatives, the bonobos—which so closely resemble chimpanzees that they were not identified as a separate species until the 1920s—engage in a whole host of behaviors once considered "unnatural." Like humans, ovulation in bonobos is hidden, which means that mating takes place continually. Also like humans, sex is not necessarily about "mating" for these randy apes. Instead, sex forms the entire basis for bonobo social structure, helping mediate conflicts and reinforce alliances.

As a consequence, both male and female bonobos engage in homosexual acts, including genital rubbing and oral stimulation. They also have sex in the missionary position, and it is not unusual for sex play to involve more than two members.

Whether or not homosexuality is offensive to God, there is now little question that it is natural.

Scientists have also found evidence that there is a genetic basis for male homosexuality, though this research remains inconclusive and hotly contested. Though there is not yet good evidence for a genetic basis for lesbianism, both Smith and Arnold are confident that it is only a matter of time before scientists find such evidence.

"I do think there's a genetic component," Elizabeth Arnold says. "I would not have chosen it. It hasn't been easy for me or for my family."

"I think that there is a genetic factor, and it will be found for lesbians too," Jenni Smith agrees.

Previous Comments

ID

80614

Comment

Brain: Interesting article. But I'm not sure the speculation about the future of the science is appropriate in the context of an article on the state of the science. "I think there is a genetic factor, and it will be found for lesbians too". Well maybe -- and maybe not. This science of homosexuality is really in its infancy. As you rightly note, there has recently been a paradigm shift in this area, which has openend up many new avenues for thinking and research on the subject. But there is still a lot of work to do, and the consequences of this research are so very charged, both politically and socailly. If it is genetic, does that mean it is not a choice? If it is genetic, does that mean people will start trying to select only hetero-babies for birth? The implications of the research lend to the murkiness of it, and prolong the time required for all the science to be done and the truth to out (so to speak). If I had to guess (and this is just a guess) -- I'd say there are multiple factors that go into everyone's sexuality, including genetics, environment, conditons, and, yes, life choices. I think most people are not either gay or straight, but are somewere along a continuum between those two poles. Where we are at any given time is a result of many factors. But, anyway, that's just a guess. In the meantime, on a more personal note, I think it's a mistake for me or anyone else to rely on the science to tell me who I choose to be. I've always thought that was a crazy way to live. Not just with sexuality, but with any issue. That is, don't wait for science to validate you or to limit you about anything -- you may end up waiting a very long time. Just choose how you want to live (or how you think you shoud live, depending on your beliefs) and live that way. So, anyway, that's my two cents.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-10-12T15:01:43-06:00

ID

80615

Comment

I'm so very sorry -- I meant BRIAN, not "Brain".

Author

GLB

Date

2006-10-12T15:04:48-06:00

ID

80616

Comment

I suspect he won't have a problem with that typo, GLB. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-12T15:07:26-06:00

ID

80617

Comment

GLB, Sorry it's taken me a while to respond but I was out of town. Actually, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I did not speculate on the future of science. What you quoted was a quote, and it hardly seemed right for me to edit out what a lesbian thought on the issue. For myself, I think that there probably is a genetic basis for many lesbians, but probably not for all. I think the same is true for men. I think we make a mistake when we assume that there either is or isn't a gene, and also when we assume that the answer applies to all homosexuals. I completely agree with you that there is a continuum. Like you, I am wary of looking to science for "answers" if those answers are prescriptive. For me, it's a civil rights issue regardless of whether homosexuality is "natural" or a "choice." The main point of the sidebar was to briefly present the shift in science to readers who might not be familiar with the research. As you say, it is very early. It does nettle me, however, when people declare "It's not natural" and then make all sorts of false statements about what animals do or don't do. Christians like to argue scientists with a "homosexual agenda" have pushed this research, but I strongly suspect that it's actually the opposite--the reason why this research is recent is that 50 years ago, zoologists observed homosexual behavior but were too squeamish to document it. Either way, the bonobos kick ass.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-16T19:26:04-06:00

ID

80618

Comment

This reminds me of the chatter on the other thread about "choice." I made the point there that I believe the big question of "choice" is a red herring—thrown out there by folks who want to justify their violation of someone else's civil rights by arguing that they choose to be a certain way; therefore, they don't deserve the same rights. It's ultimately irrelevant, and the only reason we even waste time on this point is to argue back against homophobes who are trying to truncate an American citizen's rights. What a waste. But we must. It is rather akin to how one feels when having to actually mount arguments against, oh, "scientific racism" or to try to prove that poverty does, in fact, have something to do with crime. If people would just think rather than succumb so easily to societal prejudices. If you don't like homosexuality, don't engage in it. Isn't that the ultimate in taking personal responsibility and letting other people live how the hell they want to. There's something rather American in that idea, if one looks close enough. Otherwise, I'd like to publicly welcome Brian back from California. Don't you EVER leave me again. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-10-16T19:34:41-06:00

ID

80619

Comment

Brian: I looked for something to disagree with in your post, but I didn't really find anything. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe the stars are just aligned this week. Or maybe the God's are malign? ( a bad Rush joke -- if you don't get it, don't sweat it) Ladd, I tihnk you are partly right. But some of the issue about choice is really an internal issue in Christinan churches that has spileled over into politics. Some of these Christians are just trying to justify their own prejudices. But some are really just having difficulties. That is, they wouldn't mind accepting homosexuality, but the Biblical texts seem to speak strongly against it, and they don't know what to do with that. The issue is compounded if it is shown that there is no choice involved in homosexuality. Then they have to reconcile themselves to the idea that God would create some people for whom there is no holy means of being sexual -- that is, none that is compatible with their desire. So it is just difficult. I know there are lots of biblical and theological debates that can spring from this very question, and I'm not trying to take the thread down this road. I am just saying that, for some people, the issue of choice and homosexuality is primarily just a part of wrestling with issues of their faith, and not an extension of their intolerance. For SOME people, this is true. For other it is about intolerance. Again, it's just complicated.

Author

GLB

Date

2006-10-16T22:29:01-06:00

ID

80620

Comment

Don't worry, Donna, I'm not going anywhere for a while. My flight was delayed, I had to stay in some crappy hotel and then ride a thunderstorm roller coaster back the next morning. Then, last night, I was mercilessly attacked by an insect or insects and had an allergic reaction that made my eye swell up, such that I would have been totally convincing yelling, "Adrian!" Obviously, I've got bad enough luck that I should just hunker down with some canned food in a bomb shelter. Can I telecommute from my mine shaft?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-10-17T23:29:02-06:00