Jungle to Jacksonville? (Class Discussion 1)

Nature provides mankind with a chance to examine the behaviors of species similar to ours and to use those observations in our own world. In fact, the characteristics of several animals, particularly apes, have opened up our eyes to previously ignored human behaviors. Animals have shown us that we are not always as unique as we believe ourselves to be in areas such as communication, but have also illustrated just how different our species is from others when it comes to phenomena such as homicide. It is this very practice of comparing apples to oranges that has led researchers to claim that homosexual relationships are both “natural” and “unnatural.”

Recent studies conducted on the practices of animals have illustrated just how diverse the sexual practices of animals truly are. As Jeffrey Kluger plainly puts it in his article “The Gay Side of Nature,” “What humans share with so many other animals, it now appears, is freewheeling homosexuality” (Kluger 337). Kluger goes on to site the various species that have been show to have homosexual trysts and relationships: Giraffes, bonobos, elephants, rodents, macaques, graylag geese, and the list goes on and on (Kluger 338). The homosexual activity between these species does not necessarily end with the sexual act, but many of these animal couplings form long-lasting relationships and some even bring up their offspring in same-sex relationships. Thus, the argument for the human practice of homosexuality being “natural” is able to assert that numerous members of the animal kingdom engage in similar acts, making such pairings part of the norm in the animal world. In their eyes, if the animals can do it why can’t we?

However, Kluger also points out some of the flaws of using such an argument. The main reason that it is difficult to use such a simple correlation is that while the animals may be engaging in the physical act of homosexual relationships, no one knows what they really mean. For instance, in the animal kingdom sex plays several different roles than it does in our minds, “In species that lack sophisticate language—which is to say all species but ours—sex serves many nonsexual purposes, including establishing alliances and appeasing enemies, all things animals must do with members of both sexes” (Kluger 339). Thus, those who assert that human homosexuality is “unnatural” are able to claim that the reasons behind such relationships for animals are completely different from those of people.

There are several other human behaviors that can prove just as paradoxical to validate based on animals. One example is the common practice of infidelity in the animal kingdom. In fact, when it comes to animals, life-long monogamy is the exception to the rule and is rarely found in nature. Thus, one may attribute people’s struggles with monogamy to “nature” while another can claim, much like those who oppose the idea that homosexuality is “natural”, that animals have different reasons for their philandering ways than mankind does. As it stands now, without an animal-to-human dictionary we may never be able to rightly claim correctness for either side, thus continuing this old argument.