The biological imperative fascinates me.

I was going somewhere totally different with this post, about how all of us are slaves to our biology, but a recent conversation at work opened up my musing-channels.

One of the girls I work with ended up talking to me about homosexuality the other day.

First, she was saying: “God, I just don’t want to SEE that, ya know? I don’t want to see two guys grabbing and groping and making out with each other.”

And I have no problem with her feelings there. I respect them. I even understand and agree with them, to a degree. But for me, it’s got nothing to do with sexual orientation. I don’t want to see ANYONE doing that. I don’t want to see a tarted up girl wearing a mini-mini-mini-skirt and a transparent tube-top grinding on her boyfriend in public JUST as much as I don’t want to see a guy in a mesh tee-shirt and leather hotpants groping his boyfriend.

If I want to see overtly sexual stuff (and sometimes I do!) I know where to go. Online, and in real life. But walking through the park with children in tow? No thank you.

Public displays of affection? Awesome! Rock on! Spread the love!

Public displays of foreplay? Take it somewhere private and/or appropriate. Immediately.

So, anyway, I was on her side about that. If she doesn’t want to see overtly sexual displays in public? I personally think she shouldn’t have to.

BUT… Then she moved onto the “And besides, it’s unnatural… It’s just WRONG!”  argument.

And that one bothers me.

It bothers me from an ethical standpoint, a moral standpoint, a logical standpoint, a political standpoint, a humanitarian standpoint, etc. etc. etc. It just BOTHERS me.

But I’ve noticed no one feels the need to listen openly to those standpoints of mine, unless they happen to already agree with me.  They do, however, feel the need to argue with those standpoints.

But, surprisingly, I have managed to see a LOT of positive, open-minded responses when I speak from a scientific standpoint.

(Provided of course the person is not a taking-the-Bible-literally type. No offense to them, but we disagree on some GIANT fundamentals that make more intricate scientific discussions impossible. For instance, I am confident the planet Earth is over 6,000 years old. Most science-related conversations with people who disagree with me on that issue are going nowhere, and getting there at light speed.)

Back on track… I engaged this co-worker in conversation. The beginning of this, and most conversations I have like this, look about like this:

ME: “Well, what would you say is the overall biological goal of any and every species?”

HER: “Reproduction.”

ME:  “Sort of. I mean, yeah, obviously a species needs a way to create new versions of itself or it just dies out.  Reproduction is key. But it’s a second-level objective. The primary objective is survival of the species.  So, yeah, reproduction is key… to that ultimate goal.”

HER:  “And obviously gay people can’t have babies. So being gay IS backwards, unnatural.”

ME:  “What’s funny is it’s not, actually. It’s specifically designed FOR survival of the species. In Nature’s opinion, it’s completely necessary.”

HER:  “How?”

ME:  “I mean, okay… If you had to guess, where would you say the highest rates of homosexuality are for humans – in the rural countryside, or in the cities?”

HER:  “Cities, for sure.”

ME:  “Exactly. Obviously, we can’t explain WHY that is just by knowing it is higher there. We just hear that higher rates of homosexuality and urban environments are correlated.”

(Editor’s Note: I’ve studied statistics, and here the girl and I went off into a discussion of “correlation does not infer causation” and we talked about a bunch of possible reasons, and possible confounds in the situation. Obviously, there are MANY.)

Then I explained more of what I thought… To do it with fewer interruptions, I’ll say it out of the context of conversation:

It’s obvious no one can claim urban environments “breed” homosexuality. No one can say being in an urban environment causes higher rates of homosexuality – just that they are correlated.  But even if it can’t offer explanation, it’s interesting. Not on its own, but because of how the animal kingdom mirrors the trend.

I’ve heard there are studies showing that in certain animal populations, when they reach a critical population density – like a ‘city’ of animals – a few types of behavior go on the increase, simultaneously.  Two of them are filicide (the killing of offspring) and homosexuality. Why? Because at a critical population density, life SUCKS. Disease spreads rampant in close quarters with waste piling up. Resources run dry. Fighting ensues, territories are encroached upon, competition soars within species instead of between… The Biological Imperative – Survival – becomes threatened.

So, Nature aims to restore order, and there is an increase in behaviors designed to save the species from total annihilation. Two of those things are killing offspring, and the pairing of same-sex animals. 

Homosexuality appears to be a means of natural population control by coupling individuals incapable of reproduction; a natural means of helping ensure that the biological imperative is met.  It is a necessary component of most, if not all, species, and it appears the prevalence may increase or decrease depending on certain environmental factors.

I read a “letter to the editor” saying this very thing in the Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide from 2008. The letter-writer, a Mr. David Williams, as a homosexual male, offered the same opinion I have just stated, and also mentioned:

“Some gay and lesbian activists may read this and feel sickened that this concept reduces our entire lives to a purely biological function.”

I don’t know why it should offend homosexuals exclusively – but the letter was written about homosexual behavior, so it was a natural thing to say.  But I’d offer the corollary that we are ALL slaves to the biological imperative, regardless of sexual orientation, so there would be no need for anyone to feel sickened – unless all humans should!  All humans are driven by their hormones, their biology, their genes, and survival of the species.   These drives push us in so many ways we aren’t even conscious of a fraction of them. 

I am fascinated by studies that focus on this phenomenon.  I am fascinated by how all-encompassing it is, I am fascinated by the exceptions to the “rules” and I am fascinated by my entirely insignificant personal place in the world of humans. 

I don’t find it offensive to study our place in the infinite sets of “natural orders” that rule life here on Earth.

I realize, however, that some people might find it offensive to think their sexual identities or preferences are dictated in large part by biological imperatives.  I’m just not one of them.  It’s a reality I accept, embrace, and enjoy pondering and researching. I’d never get up in arms about it. But now I’m curious if anyone will get up in arms about this post.  It’s all about open minds though, so bear in mind I will always try to have one!

Back on track…  AGAIN…

Sometimes my discussions of the science of homosexuality take a turn.  The person I am speaking with will become accepting of the premise of homosexuality being natural. And then they’ll do the “Kay-fine, BUT” and ask if homosexuals aren’t “supposed” to have babies, as is judged by Nature Herself, shouldn’t gays not be allowed to adopt?

This sends me explaining that I’ve heard it is common in avian species (specifically those birds that form life-long bonds), for females (who have lost their male mate) to lay their eggs in the nests of male-male couples who will fertilize the eggs they themselves are unable to produce, and raise the chicks themselves. And, though I don’t think it’s been sufficiently substantiated, it has even been suggested, that male-male pairs are “better” at raising the babies than the average female-male couple.   So who knows about the “who is BETTER” situation.

So as I understand it, Nature never said homosexual couples can’t raise children. Nature just says they can’t personally contribute to the population – reproduction is not naturally possible with same-sex pairings. According to Nature, they can raise children, and raise them very well. Granted, animals have fewer social constructs and constraints to take into account – but this is a very ‘state of nature’ type musing/discussion.

Anyway… After talking, my coworker said: “That’s actually really interesting. I didn’t know any of that. I’m going to have to go look it up.”

YAY!

My mission is not to convert or bully or even to change minds.  I never even said I was SURE of any of this stuff – and I’m not – just that I’ve read about it, heard about it, and looked up articles.  It’s science, so I’ve seen evidence, not proof.  I’m interested, not asserting.

If I can speak to these ideas as truthfully as I am able with the information I have available, and as a result someone is willing to go research something on their own, willing to ENTERTAIN the notion that they might not have ALL the information?

That’s a wonderful thing in my world.

I mention this just because I have had SO many fruitless and irritating conversations with people about the moral and political sides of various homosexuality issues. And I’m tired of them. I’m tired of not getting anywhere. I’m tired of being asked why I even care, being as I’m about as heterosexual as one can get. I’m tired of it feeling like a fight, rather than an intelligent discussion. I’m tired of the anger and hate that so often go into defending religion and politics and ethics.

I prefer the uneven and ever-changing grounds of science. We are not all on equal footing, nothing is 100% certain – but most people who believe in the power of human intelligence and discovery are willing to talk from an observational and scientific point of view, without too much animosity. 

For the record, I believe – very deeply – that my morals are sound, and that my politics are on course with a better future for all mankind. But those political or ethical discussions do not seem to engender positive and open-minded responses NEARLY as often as the scientific conversations.

And no wonder! Have you watched politicians? Religious leaders? Moral advocates? Have you watched YOURSELF (or me!) argue on those grounds? Have you seen how all of those people, yourself and myself included, differ from scientists?

Well… I have.  But I can’t say it any better than Carl Sagan did in 1987, so I won’t try:

In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.

(Carl Sagan rocked, btw.)

I don’t know what it says about me… But I have taken to appealing to the scientific minds of my friends, while trying to be utterly free of condescension, when it comes to these issues simple because it’s more likely to engage someone, rather than antagonize them.

And I don’t know what it says about people in general… But for some reason saying, “I’ve heard studies/science have/has shown,” works a million times better at getting people to simply say “Huh. I want to look into that,”  than saying, “Know love no hate.”

Maybe it’s just easier to google a peer-reviewed scientific journal article these days than it is to google a moral compass?