There are a plethora of issues at stake when the topic of homosexuality is brought up in American society. Not only does the nation differ in opinion about same-sex marriage and child rearing among the homosexual community (to name only a few of the concerns at stake), but we also conflict over the very morality of its practice. There are many strong arguments attributed to the gay rights movement in favor of supporters’ beliefs that homosexuality is not a choice and doesn’t bring harm to others. In a 1991 study by Simon LeVay, a scientist in California, research was done on the brains of 41 patients who died from AIDS. The results suggested that the size of four nuclei, found to be larger in the hypothalamus of homosexual individuals, may be a key factor in determining sexuality (Diaz, 211). Opponents of homosexuality have raised some strong arguments on their side of the hypothetical trenches as well, but there are two main arguments against the basic morality of the homosexual lifestyle. These two view points are that homosexuality is morally inexcusable based on religious values and that being gay is unethical due to fact that it is “unnatural”. Janice Irvine observes the issue at the heart of this second point, “since heterosexuality is normative, homosexuality can be considered unnatural and abnormal” (192). I will not discuss the finer points of the religious view in this essay, but will focus on the strength of the natural versus unnatural debate. Is homosexuality in essence an unnatural occurrence and if it is, does that stand as a valid claim against its morality?

One part of the claim that homosexuality is abnormal comes from the observation of mating habits within the animal kingdom. Animals typically choose a mate of the opposite sex for reproductive reasons to further the continuation of the species as a biological instinct. “Homosexuality is abnormal because it is biologically incompatible with nature. There isn’t a single creature in the animal kingdom which affords reproduction between species of the same sex” (Scovel, 1); this details the basic position of those who oppose the normality of gay interactions. If one observes only the surface of this statement, it would seem to be a valid point against the practice of homosexuality. But this is simply not a true observation when one closely examines the mating habits of a variety of species in the animal kingdom. Many animals display homosexual characteristics and some would argue that it does, in fact, promote reproduction rather than hinder it, although gay interactions may not directly result in offspring. Homosexual activity can be observed in animals on a very broad level to include animals that display homosexual tendencies in mating rituals and social interactions that may not involve direct sexual stimulation which I will label as mild forms of this example.

The strong examples can be found in bottlenose and spinner dolphins, orangutans, many whale species, bison, bonobos, bighorn rams, cheetahs, lions, hyenas, and vampire bats (to name a few) that have been found to exhibit homosexuality in a stronger sense where there is direct stimulation of the genitals between males and males as well as females and females. In some of these species, full male anal penetration occurs as well as a variety of female penetration and in some homosexual mouth to genital activity has been seen (Bagemihl, 19). Furthermore, as an explanation of this behavior, Tina Adler suggests,

“Some of these homosexual activities appear to boost reproduction. Female cows often mount each other, thereby signaling any bulls in sight that they are ready to reproduce. In other cases, same-sex affairs may help reproduction indirectly, by promoting the general fitness of a group or individual. For example, in some species, animals are more willing to share food with a member of their own sex after sexual activity with him or her.” (8)

Based on these examples from nature, it can no longer be stated that homosexual activity is morally or ethically wrong due to it not being practiced by the rest of the animal kingdom, because it is simply a false observation.

The next portion of the unnatural debate can be stated thusly, “It is immoral to use an organ in a way that violates its particular purpose” (Corvino, 191).  Andrew Wilbe further demonstrates this view by describing a statement by Michael Levin as such;

“Procreation is what the penis and vagina were intended for, and using these organs in any other way is unnatural. He (Levin) uses an analogy with teeth. He says teeth were made for chewing, and to use them otherwise is unnatural. For example, suppose a man decided to take all of his teeth out, make a necklace out of them, and eat pureed food. Even if he enjoyed his necklace, we would say what he is doing is unnatural; he is misusing his teeth.” (Wilbe)

 The validity of this conclusion is also debatable for one main reason; we use many of our body parts for reasons other than what they are supposedly intended for. Our mouths are used for chewing, talking, subtle forms of body language, breathing, and kissing. If we were to follow this claim of morality based on the abnormality of a body parts function, smoking would be an immoral act because it was not what the mouth is intended for. Also, other heterosexual acts of foreplay and gratification that do not include penis-vagina penetration would also be viewed as immoral including, but not limited to oral sex. Corvino comments on this idea, “Unless opponents of homosexuality are prepared to condemn heterosexual couples who use contraception, or individuals who masturbate, they must abandon this version of the naturalness argument.” (Corvino, 191)

Lastly, and perhaps the strongest point in favor of homosexuality as being a perfectly natural and thereby morally acceptable practice in the confines of the naturalness argument is the idea that nothing which occurs in nature is “unnatural”. Many things occur in nature that can be considered unnatural, which are better described simply as deviating from the traditional view of normal occurrences.  Henning Bech, in his book When Men Meet: Homosexuality and Modernity states, “If nature is the principle governing cosmic order and at the same time dictates the regularities to which all things conform how can anything ‘unnatural’ arise?” (186). Andrew Wilbe also makes mentions this fact in his essay by writing “homosexuality does not break any laws of nature (if it did it could not occur).” (1). There are a multitude of occurrences within nature that, while they may be rare are not considered unethical in any sense. It isn’t common for babies to be born with extra or absent limbs, therefore it is unnatural, but that fact is arbitrary where the morality of the child is concerned.

Due to the refutations of various professionals to these arguments against the nature of homosexuality and what common sense tells us, these points cannot be entertained as valid. Nature is constantly surprising us with more and more variations on what humans see as an expected outcome. While homosexuals will likely always be the minority in America, we as a nation cannot morally or ethically condemn their choices on the issue of their abnormal behavior alone. There may be other reasons including, but not limited, to religion that one may feel justifies the claim of the immorality of homosexuals, but examples in nature cannot be one of them.