For apparent reasons, homosexuality has been an object of taboo for thousands of years. From the distinction of being unnatural in human reproduction—based in part from the stereotypes that such people may bolster, to religious values, to general uneasiness from the lack of exposure of such a prospect in human sexuality. While it is deemed unnatural to mammals of our kind, those mammalian species of domesticated dogs and cats (including cheetah and tigers), elephants, marmosets, rats, bears, buffalo, dolphin, bison, caribou, and racoons have been subject to an examination, and some animals from the listed have shown homosexual behavior - and what is surprising is that these animals aren't nearly all that have been put through such tests. The list continues with wallaby, foxes, gazelle, orangutan, warthog, porcupine, kangaroo, moose, chimpanzees, brushtail possums, spermwhales, sheep, rabbits, goats, gorillas, monkeys, zebras, Tasmanian devils, macaque, mice, reindeer, grey wolves, and antelope. What's even more surprising is that the entire list has barely begun in this explanation.
How does one deem this kind of behavior (if one could call it a behavior rather than a genetic trait) unnatural if all of those animals have been proven to have members of their respective categories engage in homosexual acts, tendencies, and, in some cases, desires? And while on the subject, mammals are certainly not the only creatures in nature to have displayed one or more of these same-sex mannerisms: the list continues further with birds, insects, invertebrates, reptiles, fish and amphibians. Chickens, gull, emu, penguins, ostriches, owls, parakeets, shelduck, heron, raven, swallows, hummingbirds, domesticated turkeys, geese, swan, storks, lorikeets, bluebirds and finches all have engaged in homosexual behavior and tendencies. This, again, is barely scratching the list of all of the birds that have been exposed to scientific study.
Would you like more examples? Weevils, beetles, flies, mites, butterflies, ants, cutworms, bees, wasps, crickets, stink-bugs, moths, spiders and milkweed bugs fit into this category. So do the desert toad, mountain dusky salamander, Appalachian woodland salamander, and black-spotted frog. And I'll be sure not to leave out the gecko, anole, whiptail lizard, bearded dragon, tortoise, wood turtles, snakes (including the red diamond rattlesnake, water moccasin, western rattlesnake, common garter snake and speckled rattlesnake). And we can't leave out the fish, which include the grayling, char, jewel fish, houting whitefish, least darter, Amazonian molly, blackstripe topminnow, salmon, platyfish, mouthbreathers and green swordtail.
With all of these in mind, I defy you to tell me that this kind of thing isn't natural.
"But is homosexuality a choice or are you born with it?"
That is something that has, I'm sure, baffled many people who claim to be attracted to the same sex. And while this could be argued in many ways, allow me to present one argument that I find particularly interesting: Homosexuality as a genetic defect. We receive hormones from each column, male and female, and which become dominant determines what gender we will become. As a person is born a transvestite, what if this mental tendency to be attracted to either sex is determined by what sex you
become, during conception inside your mother? What if this idea of homosexuality (which also encapsulates lesbianism) is a defect of sorts like transvestitism? For you to subscribe to this notion, it would have to assume one thing: that sexual orientation isn't a preference that we come to make in our lives, but what we are born with.
Another theory I find interesting is that the likelihood of you becoming homosexual depends on how many brothers you have had that suceeded you. The theory is that the sperm from a male (that is particularly virile, I suppose) fertilizes the egg of the woman, and the woman's body releases antigens toward the blastocyst because it doesn't know how to respond to it at first. What it comes to mean is that the more children a woman has, the more her body becomes adept to
handling it, of sorts—and thus, the more estrogen-enriched a successive brother becomes, the more chance it has of becoming a homosexual. For example: If you are a first-born child, you have the least likelihood, depending on the substances involved. If you are the last-born child from, say, a sibling chain of two or three, you have the most likelihood. Another study shows that the sexual orientation, among other things, of the child depends solely on the raising of the child. Some argue that if a person grows up from, say, a neglectful father and an overcompensating, but loving mother, that they will become homosexual. I have nothing to add to this assertion because that's basically all there is to it.
What do I believe? Simple. That every human decides what they will become from their own accord—but this decision is also influenced by things such as (and as I've mentioned before), religious indoctrination, the background of which you live, your peers and society around you in general, the acceptance of said peers and your family (but mostly the people who raised you), among other things, I'm certain. My belief is that we are not chosen to be anything in life, and that, as life tends to be a random thing in general, that we come to accept what best suits us. Consider: do people who have an attraction to children come into life born that way? Do people who have an attraction to animals? Do people who have attractions to
themselves? For you to say you don't believe people are born in these fashions, you must also reject that people are born gay or straight—and for you to do that, you would be affirming my point.
Everyone is decidedly different, and everyone has a different preference. I believe there is no status quo of what sexual orientation one is supposed to adhere to, because, as everyone is different in their own ways, even orientation is a matter of preference. Before I end this post, I know anyone could argue "but if homosexuality is a matter of preference, how come those animals you mentioned engaged in it naturally?" And for someone
to argue this, they would confirm that
is a natural process, even disagreeing with my position. Humans have both of the virtues of reasoning and introspection. The study of animals proves that the homosexual process is a natural event, but to say that they prove homosexuality is a trait that one is born with admits one thing: that being gay is something out of the control of someone else. As this argument compares animals to humans, you cannot assume one over the other: either I'm wrong and homosexuality is an innate characteristic, thereby absolving any who is one of any judgment—or I'm correct and animals engaging in such acts is a natural thing, observed on the basis of nature itself, and that the entire orientation comes from a personal preference.
Either way, should gays be discriminated against?
