Home Page

Homosexuality: A Paradox of Evolution

By Preston Hunter, 1994.


This paper examines homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The seeming paradox of the existence of homosexuality is delineated. The observed reality of animal homosexuality is described through examples as well as evidence for its biological causes. Possible theories of how homosexuality could have evolved and how it might be adaptive are examined.

Introduction: The Paradox

Sex is important but very inconvenient. Biologically speaking the word "sex" has two important and distinct meanings, one for each of the fundamental requirements of sexually reproducing species. Sex is a state: the separation of a species into two distinct genders, male and female (thus "hetero- sexuality"). Sex is also an action: the combined behavior of both a male and a female individual which results in the combination of genetic material from both.

While some plant and animal species produce both asexually and sexually, many species dispense with sex altogether and are strictly asexual. Through asexual reproduction organisms essentially clone themselves. All individuals in a population share an identical genetic makeup. This form of reproduction has a variety of advantages: It's behaviorally, physiolocally, and morphologically simpler; therefore there is less that can go wrong. Asexually reproducing organisms that are well-adapted to a particular environment need not dilute their adapted genes with from a potentially less-adapted other parent. Asexual reproducers don't have to expend the energy to search for, attract, and couple with a mate. Nor do they need to evolve specialized behaviors and physical features for doing so such as massive antlers, complex bird songs, or intimidating growls.

For reasons such as these Ridley (1993, p. vii) called the very existence of sex a "profound puzzle" which most creatures would be better off without. Why? Because sex makes possible the perpetual recombination of genetic codes that drives evolution. While evolution is the foundational force of biology, sex is the mortar that holds that foundation together. So advantageous is sex that despite the high biological cost of sex most macroscopic animals, including 99% of all vertebrates, reproduce sexually (Sites, 1993).

It is because sexual reproduction is so indispensable and so zealously selected for that the existence of homosexuality is a paradox. Homosexuality would seem to be the antithesis of sexual reproduction, the enemy of evolution. One must wonder: why wouldn't evolution quickly select against behavior which diverts an animal from sex and reproduction?

Yet despite seeming unlikelihood homosexuality does exist. Moreover, homosexuality is more than an insignificant quirk in one or two animal species and a social aberration in humans. It is widespread in animals. Why?

Homosexuality Defined

To answer why homosexuality exists we must first identify it. "Homosexuality" has two principle meanings which are distinct but related. Homosexuality is sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender. This includes same-sex coitus or genital contact, whether ventro-ventral, dorso-ventral, or otherwise and whether male-male or female-female.

Homosexuality is also the innate sexual preference for one's own gender or the biological urge for same-sex coitus. While much is said about the distinction between homosexual desires (or innate sex drive) and homosexual behavior in humans, this distinction is of limited or negligible significance in non-human populations in which we infer "desire" (be it instinctive or learned) primarily from behavior. The distinctive gulf between human desire/biological impulse and behavior (Marmor, 1980) is attributed to human social mores and cultural constraints (Dickemann, 1993), which epigenetic forces can also be accounted for with biological/evolutionary explanations (Alcock, 1984, pp. 522 & 524).

In summary, homosexuality is both the biological drive for same-sex coitus as well as the performance of same-sex coitus. Homosexuality (as defined by both definitions) has been observed in both males and females in both human and non-human populations. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate innate urge from action in non-human animals, the distinction between these two definitions will be important later as we discuss possible evolutionary explanations for homosexuality.

Homosexuality Denied

We will refer here to non-human fauna simply as "animals," in keeping with the human use of the word in this context. Human familiarity and understanding of the importance of heterosexuality renders the notion of animal homosexuality counterintuitive. Even today many who oppose human homosexuality on religious or other grounds call it unnatural, citing the animal kingdom as evidence. This is not a new argument. Some lines from Ovid's ninth book in the Metamorphosis (first century B. C.) contain these observations:

Cows do not burn with love for cows, nor mares for mares;

The ram is hot for the ewe, the doe follows the stag.

So also do birds mate, and among all the animals

No female is seized with desire for a female (Boswell, 1980).

Early Greek writers who defended homosexuality responded with pride in their supposed difference from the animal kingdom, saying, "All irrational animals merely copulate, but we rational ones are superior in this regard to all other animals. We discovered homosexual intercourse. Men under the sway of women are no better than dumb animals" (1980). Despite their differing philosophies, both sides of the debate were equally unaware of homosexuality among animals. This popular unawareness has continued to this day, (Paul, 1980; Weinrich, 1982) as characterized by a Thirteenth Century denunciation of homosexuality which stated flatly but falsely that, "No dumb animal is drawn to this evil" (Boswell, 1980).

In modern times, with science in high regard, some people use a variety of biological and evolutionary concepts to "prove" the unnaturalness (and, by implication, the invalidity) of homosexuality. The ultimate source of these arguments is social tradition and "religious precepts" (Weinrich,1982) rather than observable data. In truth, homosexuality occurs naturally and can be explained through evolutionary principles.

Homosexuality Observed

In modern times the scientific community has observed and thus become aware of widespread non-human homosexuality. Animals from "throughout the animal kingdom" have been observed engaged in same-sex courting and same-sex copulation (Alcock, 1989, p. 525) and "apparent homosexual behavior increases as we ascent [sic] the taxonomic tree toward mammals" (Denniston, 1980) and then towards primates.

  1. Primates: Not surprisingly many observations of non-human homosexuality have been of our fellow primates. Homosexual mounting is, in fact, "common in monkeys" (Edwards & Todd, 1991) and has been described in detail in many species, including rhesus monkeys, stumptail macaques (Mitchell, 1979, pp. 134 &142), Japanese macaques (Mehlman & Chapais, 1988; Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) and others. In a study of stumptail macaques in captivity, 23 of the 143 sexual encounters observed by Chevalier-Skolnikoff were female-female, often resulting in orgasm (Small, 1993, p. 141).

    While comparatively less common in "higher" primates (Edwards & Todd, 1991) homosexual mounting has frequently been observed. Male-male mounting in the great apes has been described in chimpanzees, bonobos, mountain gorillas (Wrangham, 1986, p. 367; Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992; Edwards & Todd, 1991) and pygmy chimpanzees (Savage & Bakeman, 1978). Male-male mounting in lesser apes (siamang and gibbons) has been observed in Hylobates syndactylus and Hylobates lar (white-handed gibbons) (Edwards & Todd, 1991).

    In many primate species same-sex mounting is far more than incidental and should not be dismissed as an unimportant aberration (Small, 1993, p. 143). Female bonobos have been observed to choose genital-genital rubbing with another female over copulation with a male. During one season in which 58 bonobo females were observed, 45 "engaged in homosexual activity" and some were exclusively homosexual (1993, pp. 144-145). Yamagiwa observed 98 homosexual mountings in male mountain gorillas; these were both ventro-ventral and dorso-ventral encounters (Yamagiwa, 1987).

  2. Other Mammals: A proclivity for female-female mounting in cattle has been noticed by dairy farmers who watch for one cow to mount another as an indicator of estrous (meaning the cow is in heat). This technique is called "bulling" (Short, 1984). Burros are known for frequent homosexual mounting (Flinders, 1993). Male-male mounting is typical behavior in mountain sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980). Homosexual behavior has also been observed in giraffes, rats (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982), dolphins, dogs (West, 1977, p. 116), female red deer (Short, 1984), donkeys, cats, rams, goats, pigs, antelope, elephants, hyenas, rabbits, lions, porcupines, hamsters, mice, and porpoises (Weinrich, 1982).

    Homosexual play is probably a universal in juvenile mammals. "Play" activities are normal for juvenile mammals (important in learning and preparation for adult behavior) and "almost all mammals" are "quite indiscriminate as to" sex when they practice sexual mounting (Denniston, 1980). Certainly adult homosexual activity is more pertinent to the possible alteration of actual reproductive success, but the juvenile behavior could be indicative of the innate nature of the sex drive.

  3. Birds: Homosexuality, both male and female, is present in birds also. Homosexual female pairs are sometimes observed in colonies of Western gulls as well as ring-billed and California gulls (Weinrich, 1982; Davies, 1991; Denniston, 1980). In budgerigars (also called undulated or shell parakeets) homosexual female pairs will court and mimic all the behaviors and rituals of typical male-female courtship and copulation except for sperm emission (Kavanau, 1987, pp. 41 &119). Young mallard ducks in contact only with other males during the imprinting period grow up to be exclusively homosexual (West, 1977, p. 43). Among wild zebra finches sexually frustrated males show "female receptive behavior after thwarted copulation attempts and long, intense courtship" (Denniston, 1980). Such mimicry of the stereotypical sex roles and copulatory behaviors of the opposite sex has similarly been observed in other birds, as well as fish, reptiles (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980) and mammals (especially primates, including humans).

  4. Reptiles: Homosexual behavior is not uncommon in reptiles. Female homosexuality is engaged in by the American chameleon Anolis. A male lizard of the genus Teiidae can copulate, by inserting his hemipenes into the cloaca of a receptive partner, equally well with females or males. "Homosexual copulation stimulates the passive male, so that he may change roles with the previously active male and complete a copulation in turn Among the Iguanidae, ten of twenty-one observed copulations were male homosexual" (Denniston, 1980, p. 31). The purpose of homosexual behavior in some lizards may be territorial (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982). Males may mount other males as a show of dominion over a breeding area in order monopolize the chance to reproduce with females.

  5. Fish: Male guppies will court "each other for weeks while confined in a one-sex group." Their homosexual behavior includes the "nipping of the genital area" typical of male-female courting. Male ten-spined stickleback fish will compete with females to mimic the female role in copulation with dominant males (1980).

  6. Etc.: Brief mention should be accorded the invertebrates: Although it is quite beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail, many "lower" vertebrates, especially teleostean fishes, (Chan & O, 1981) and invertebrates (such as marine snails and annelid worms) are neither male nor female when younger and/or are hermaphroditic as adults (meaning individuals switch between being biologically male and female or are both at the same time). Coe wrote: "numerous representatives of nearly every phylum of invertebrates and of every phylum of plants are functionally hermaphroditic" (Denniston, 1980; Dickemann, 1993).

    So despite popular non-recognition of the phenomenon, natural history observations have revealed a wide range of homosexuality -- both same-sex genital/sexual interaction as well as sexual preference -- throughout the animal kingdom.

Homo Homosexual Biology

To account for homosexuality (or any phenomenon) using evolution it is necessary that it be natural, i.e it must occur naturally without human influence. Thus far we have only used animal behavior to illustrate the naturalness of homosexuality. In essence: there are homosexual animals in nature; therefore homosexuality is natural.

That homosexuality is biological and natural in origin is further demonstrated by knowledge of the biological causes of homosexuality in humans. Human homosexuality was long ignored by biologists and relegated almost entirely to study by psychologists and social scientists because it was considered primarily a human and "unnatural" trait. Study has now spread to the realm of physical science and biology, as researchers probe the biological, developmental, and even genetic causes of human homosexuality.

The current openness and frequency with which homosexuality is discussed is a recent development (brought about by the discovery and rapid spread of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS) (McWhirter, 1990), Human homosexuality is not so new. Human homosexuality has existed in every time and culture we have record of (Bullough, 1990) and people have long wondered about its causes.

Until recent decades homosexuality was widely considered a psychological illness. In the 1860's Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was one of the first scientists to formally postulate biological causes for homosexuality, positing the idea, based partially on his own firsthand experience, that homosexual instincts are inborn and therefore natural (1990). Ulrichs called homosexuals a " 'third sex'--a woman's mind in a man's body, and vice versa for women" (Rist, 1992). Sigmund Freud advanced theories of latent homosexuality (Bullough, 1990), but homosexuality was labeled an abnormality and mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973, when the APA dropped it from its official disease list (McWhirter, 1990). But despite the ideas of Ulrichs and a few similarly minded early theorists, homosexuality remained largely in the realm of psychology until only recently.

Early in this century biological causes for human homosexuality were speculated -- perhaps "some combination of body chemicals"(Broderick, 1977) -- but the idea that there could be biological causes was generally balked at. People wondered (as some still do), if a person's biology is tied to his genetic code, wouldn't this mean that homosexuality has genetic causes? The words of one skeptic are not unusual:"From a population-genetics viewpoint, the idea of a gay gene is a bit ridiculous. If there is a specific gene or set of genes that predisposes one to homosexuality then, assuming that homosexuals reproduce at a lower rate than the population in general, the gene would slowly disappear from the population. Since there are thousands of years of documented human homosexuality, a gay gene seems very unlikely" (Dave J727, 1993).

This opinion, though very popular, fails to take into account the following genetic principles and observed phenomena:

  1. Homosexuality doesn't prevent reproduction: Homosexuals reproduce and would therefore be able to pass on a genetic propensity for homosexuality, or "gay genes," to use the skeptic's term (GregBear, 1993). This is shown by sociological studies and surveys. A Kinsey Institute study supplies one source of hard data about the propensity of homosexuals to engage in heterosexual sex which could result in offspring: "Of 262 self-identified lesbian women, 75% had had sex with men since age 18 and 43% of those who had always identified themselves as lesbian had done so (Sanders, Reinisch, & McWhirter, 1990). It is not uncommon for gay men and lesbian women (often for religious or social reasons) to marry into a heterosexual relationship and sire children (Jones, 1978).

    2. Perpetuity of deleterious genes: Being maladaptive or nonconducive to reproduction does not ensure that a genetic trait will disappear. Even fatal diseases caused by recessive alleles, such as sickle-cell anemia in its homozygous form, are not eliminated from the human gene pool. (And, remember, homosexuality is not fatal, and homosexuals often reproduce.) Deleterious heterozygous traits are maintained at low frequencies because if heterozygous, they are not expressed, and can be passed on perpetually, only causing problems when matched with another heterozygous genotype as a homozygous allele. Furthermore, natural levels of mutation offset the natural slow decrease in frequency through natural selection. Thus, if the frequency of such a disease is only one in ten thousand, to reduce the deleterious allele just tenfold would take 500 generations, or about twelve thousand years in a human population (GregBear, 1993; Fairbanks, 1993).

    3. Twin studies: In multiple similar studies pairs of twins have been compared for sexual preference. A strong positive correlation between relatedness and similarity of sexual preference has been identified. Identical twins raised apart, for instance, are more likely to both be homosexual as adults (if one is homosexual) than fraternal twins, and both are more likely to share sexual orientation than genetically unrelated siblings raised together. Some twin studies have shown concordance rates as high as 100% (Friedman, 1988, p. 27). Based only on the data from these studies genetics can account for 31 to 74 percent of sexual orientation (GregBear, 1993; UPI no author, 1993; CNN Health Works, 1993; Bower, 1992; Puterbaugh, 1990). Based on such evidence Richard C. Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine declared said, "Male sexual orientation is substantially genetic" (Bower, 1992).

  2. An unchosen preference: There is no evidence to suggest that the sexuality of the majority of people, homosexual or heterosexual, is a result of a conscious choice on their part. Despite the frequently heard popular assertations that homosexuality is a choice (De Witt, 1992), the overwhelming majority of homosexual males and females indicate they never chose to become homosexual, but that they are that way innately (SteveD41, 1993, "Evidence"; GregBear, 1993). Those who would dismiss this point make the untenable mistake of believing in synchronized mass dishonesty, rather than accepting the stated feelings of homosexuals as indicators of (at least partially) natural biological drives.

    Statistical information gathered from interviews with large numbers of American homosexuals and heterosexuals reveals a quantitative presence of feelings of difference in pre-homosexual children. Children who mature into adult homosexuals are behaviorally different from their pre-heterosexual counterparts in many ways, exhibiting "gender nonconformance," a refusal to act out traditional gender roles, from the age of 2 or 3 on, as well as a number of other developmental differences (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981). The innate sex drive of homosexuals is so powerful a determinant of their behavior that many choose to respond to it, even while facing intense social and cultural pressure not to. Said one homosexual male, "our need to love others of our gender is innate. There is no choice involved" (Anecdotal accounts include: Leavy, 1993; Alex, 1993; SteveD41, 1993, "God made ").

  3. Physical differences: Recent physiological studies have demonstrated physically detectable differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Simon LeVay's hypothalamus study (1991) found that the hypothalamus, "a part of the brain that helps regulate sexual behavior, was smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men; it was equivalent to the dimensions seen in heterosexual women" (Angier, 1992).

    A second anatomical difference was subsequently discovered by Dr. Laura S. Allen and Dr. Roger A. Gorski of the University of California at Los Angeles. Allen and Gorski found that another brain structure, the anterior commissure, a "cord of nerve fibers that allows two halves of the brain to communicate with one another, is larger in homosexual men than it is in either heterosexual men or in women." LeVay said of he Allen-Gorski studies: "'I think the work is very good, and I think it's correct It's such a clear result, and in a sense it's more important than my own finding" (1992).

    New findings support "a neuroendocrine predisposition for homosexuality" (study by Dr. Gunther Dorner and associates, as reported by Ellis, 1992). Other studies indicate hormonal differences in homosexuals (West, 1977).

    Even with the increased number of studies being conducted, the "question of the basic origin of fixed homosexuality remains controversial" (Ellis, 1992). The trend is towards identifying biological factors which may lead to a predisposition for homosexuality, while leaving the door open for environment and experience as determining factors in individual behavior.

Because "essentially every type of human homosexual behavior also occurs in animal[s] " (Weinrich, 1982), and because those animals represent the source of humankind's genetic inheritance, we can apply knowledge of human homosexuality to our understanding of animal homosexuality and vice versa. The physical, chemical, genetic, and biological studies of human homosexuality join with ethological observations of non-human homosexuality to synergistically illustrate the central role of nature, and thus the implied force of evolution, in the origin of homosexuality in both humans and other animals.

Having illustrated the existence of general animal homosexuality and the practicality of biological/hereditary explanations, it is now possible to discuss what evolutionary mechanisms might account for this seeming paradox.

Homosexual Evolution

From the existence of homosexuality in nature and from its frequent taxonomic clustering (i.e. more closely related organisms display increasingly similar homosexual behavior) we can infer that homosexuality has evolved. But because no one has been able to observe the evolution of homosexuality first hand we can only theorize as to how it happened. Based on behavioral studies of homosexuality in humans and animals a number of models and explanations have been proposed for how this seemingly gene-stopping practice has evolved.

There are two main types of explanations for how and why homosexuality has evolved in animals:

  1. Homosexual behaviors (such as same-sex mounting and cross-gender mimicry) are non-functional but not particularly harmful side effects of adaptive behavior. Homosexuality is thus unintentional (meaning the animal has no drive for same-sex copulation).

  2. Homosexuality is adaptive , amplifying an organism's ability to pass on its genes. Homosexuality is thus intentional (meaning the animal has a specific drive for same-sex copulation).

    Biologists, usually studying a limited range of animals, have gravitated to either one or the other of these two explanations and sometimes extrapolated their theories to broadly explain animal homosexuality. However, when evaluating the wide spectrum of various homosexual behaviors in the animal kingdom it becomes clear that homosexuality has evolved both as a side effect and as an advantageous adaptive behavior.

Homosexuality the side effect: As Alcock describes (1984 & 1989) the side effect model of the evolution of homosexuality proposes that homosexuality is a result of the intense drive to have sex. The workings of this model have much to do with the principles of heterosexuality. In mammals, females must carry their young through pregnancy, thus limiting their potential number of offspring. Males need only contribute sperm, however, and may have no additional cost or time investment in their offspring. Males can produce sperm effectively endlessly and father many offspring. A male mammal's reproductive success is enhanced as it inseminates more females, thus ensuring a larger number of offspring. A female can't produce a higher number of offspring through increased copulation so it is of no benefit for a female to increase her number of sexual partners. A female increases her fitness through selecting the best possible father for her offspring, thus increasing the fitness and chance for survival in her young. Much of the difference between male and female sexual behavior in mammals can be explained simply by the fact that females are taken out of the gene-mixing loop while pregnant.

Through evolution males have acquired behavior compelling them to compete with other males for wider, more frequent copulation and thus greater reproductive success. The side effect model of homosexuality proposes that "hypersexuality" has consequently evolved in males which causes them to strive for a maximum number of copulations with a wide range of partners and that their imperfect sex recognition when in such a state of heat leads them to mount males as well as females.

This theory is well-supported by observations of sexual behavior in the animal kingdom. As Denniston points out (1980), animal "homosexuality" is a misnomer, and really refers to bisexuality or"ambisexuality," or the behavior of mounting with animals of both sexes. Only in a few isolated species are any animals even occasionally preferentially homosexual (as in some primates, including Japanese macaques; see Small, 1993, p. 145; West, 1977, p. 116). The side effect model of homosexuality can explain many same-sex sexual behaviors, such as male mallard ducks and stickleback fish courting each other when deprived of females (West, 1977, p. 43; Denniston, 1980) and the frequent homosexuality in all-male groups of mountain gorillas (Yamagiwa, 1987). This model, suggesting evolution has favored a greater sex drive in males, is supported by observed masturbation rates: There are no known human cultures in which females masturbate more frequently than males. The same is true for non-human primates. Rhesus monkeys raised in isolation from their parents (to prevent learned behavior) showed higher masturbation rates in males, suggesting an innate difference in sex drive (Green, 1978).

The side effect model also helps explain why animals can be observed attempting copulations outside of their species, such as the European toad photographed clasping a "human finger as it would a female of its species" and an Australian beetle observed attempting copulation with a beer bottle (Alcock, 1984, p. 352). In captivity animals deprived of their natural mates will seek to copulate with unusual partners, such as the male brown hyena observed to frequently copulate with its water bowl, the chimpanzee which formed "a sexual relationship with a cat, and an immature female gorilla [which] showed pseudomale behavior toward a dog (Grier, 1984, p. 626). Animals clearly have powerful sex drives which may cause their copulatory behavior to be somewhat indiscriminate, an understandable side effect because animals don't copulate having made a conscious decision to pass on their genes.

The side effect model is inadequate for explaining many other homosexual behaviors, however. This model predicts that "the value that males place on sexual variety for its own sake [to ensure multiple copulatory partners, should] be absent or much reduced in" females (Alcock, 1989, pp. 525-527). Female homosexuality in animals is certainly not "absent," as has been illustrated with many examples above, ranging from gulls and budgerigars to cows and primates. To what degree (if any) homosexuality is reduced in females is debatable.

The side effect model also has diminished applicability in non-mammal vertebrate species. Because these do not generally incubate offspring internally during pregnancy females can potentially increase reproductive success through multiple matings (as is the case with polyandrous phalaropes and Galapagos hawks). While it is true that biological cost is still associated with mothering (if only to produce eggs), it is evident from both non-male and non-mammal homosexuality that the side effect model does not fully explain general animal homosexuality.

Homosexuality the adaptive behavior: One reason the side effect model is inadequate by itself is that homosexual behavior is clearly intentional for adaptive reasons in some animals (not merely accidental during the fervent reproduction-maximizing pursuit of partners as the side effect model suggests). There are various reasons suggested for intentional homosexual behavior. Many have to do with an organism's reducing the copulations and gene dispersal of competitors, to ensure that a greater proportion of the next generation will be its own.

Male-male homosexuality in non-human primates is frequently "seen in the context of dominance rank and high social tension or stress than in a sexual context" (Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992). This has also been described as the reason behind male same-sex mounting and copulation in mountain sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980). Dominating other males through homosexual coitus could be akin to the typical nonsexual aggression used against other males to decrease their share of the females.

"Surrogate sexual satisfaction" is another form of intentional adaptive homosexuality. This is the practice of copulating with an individual of one's own gender to cause that individual to be satisfied, so it won't seek other partners. This appears to be a motive for female-female copulation in langurs (Small, 1993, pp. 146-147) and male ten-spined sticklebacks fishes (Denniston, 1980).

Other possible explanations of how homosexuality could be advantageous include: Long term male-male and female-female homosexual relationships in primates such as Japanese macaques (Mehlman & Chapais, 1988), mountain gorillas (Yamagiwa, 1992), and gibbons (Edwards & Todd, 1991) result in lower stress and tension and/or better grooming for the individuals involved, all of which would positively influence an organism's health and prolong its chances for reproduction.

Homosexuality can also serve to make and maintain beneficial social alliances between individuals, such as in primates (Small, 1993, pg. 147) and gulls which typically mate for life but have lost a mate and need another one, even of the same gender, to safely raise their young (Davies, 1991).

In many species (such as tree shrews, squirrel monkeys, and many types of macaques; see Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) females engage in homosexual copulation when "they are in a new environment or undergoing stress." This could be an innate mechanism for limiting overpopulation or wasted energy on reproduction and fetus-production when environmental conditions make survivalship unlikely. One difficulty with applying the "density dependent population control" theory more broadly is that under "conditions of high density the frequency of any gene disposing toward homosexuality would be drastically reduced, since individuals bearing it would not breed. Consequently, the representation of such a gene would decline in subsequent generations," diminishing its effectiveness as a selected-for population control mechanism (Kirsch & Rodman, 1982).

The theory of kin selection has been cited by many. Kin selection theory explains why some animals will display "altruism," such as squirrels which give warning cries of predators to help their relatives even while endangering themselves or unmated birds which help rear their younger siblings. Close relatives such as nieces and nephews also carry on an individual's gene line. This theory has been applied to homosexuality and it has been argued that homosexuals can help tend and see to the survival of their close relatives such while not having to undergo the disadvantages of parenthood themselves, thus increasing their close relatives' survivalship and offsetting their own non-parentage (Ruse, 1981; Denniston, 1980; Kirsch & Rodman, 1982). One problem with this theory, however, is most animals which engage in homosexuality do quite well meeting their quota of heterosexual sex, and may even enjoy greater than average dissemination of their genes for some of the reasons discussed above.


Perhaps because of its history of being socially objectionable in human culture, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is poorly recognized and understood relative to its actual frequency. Relatively recent is the scientific understanding that homosexuality is (a) present -- even widespread -- in the animal kingdom, (b) it has biological causes, and (c) it can be accounted for by evolutionary theory.

Animal studies can do a great do much to illuminate the human condition and vice versa,but sweeping parallels cannot be drawn between man and animals. Our unique social complexitites create such an ocean of differences that direct comparisons and conclusions about human behavior are impossible. Whatever we learn about animal behavior or biological causes of human behavior, our possession of consciousness gives us a certain indemnity from behaving for purely biological reasons. The studies and conclusions discussed in this paper indicate nothing about the appropriateness of any behavior in humans.

Exactly how widespread homosexuality is in the animal kingdom is still unknown. Researchers have usually not looked for it or they have dismissed it as an aberration when they encountered it. The relatively shallow pool of knowledge pertaining to animal homosexuality makes it difficult to arrive at solid conclusions about how it evolved and exactly what adaptive functions it plays in animal populations and reproductive success. As complex an issue as all sexuality is, however, the factors causing and governing homosexuality are doubtlessly complex and many.


Custom Search
comments powered by Disqus


Alcock, John. Animal Behavior: An Evolutonary Aproach, Third Edition. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1984.

Alcock, John. Evolutionary Behavior. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 1989.

Alex, Ian. "Another for Joseph..." Born Gay? folder, Community Forum Newsroom, Gay & Lesbian Forum. Posted 93-01-18 06:55:17 EDT. Downloaded from America Online computer network 5 April 1993.

Angier, Natalie. "Researchers Find a Second Anatomical Idiosyncracy." New York Times. (1 August 1992) p. A7.

Bell, Alan P., Martin S. Weinberg and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith. Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1981.

Birke, Lynda I. A. "Is Homosexuality Hormonally Determined?." Journal of Homosexuality . Vol 6 (4), Summer 1981, pp. 35-48.

Boswell, John. "Theological Traditions." In Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Bower, B. "Gene influence tied to sexual orientation." Science News. Vol. 141, January 4, 1992, p. 6.

Broderick, Carlfred B. "Homosexuality." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1977. Vol. 9, p. 275.

Bullough, Vern. "The Kinsey Scale in Historical Perspective." In David P. McWhirter, Stephanie A. Sanders, and June Machover Reinisch (eds.) Homosexuality/ Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Chan, S. T. H. and Wai-Sum O. "Environmental and Non-genetic Mechanisms in Sex Determination." In C. R. Austin and R. G. Edwards (eds.) Mechanisms of Sex Differentiation in Animals and Man. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

CNN Health Works (television program), 27 March 1993.

Dave J727 [This is an online (computer network) name. Dave, who is gay, uses a pseudonym to protect his identity.] "What Evidence." Born Gay? folder, Community Forum Newsroom, Gay & Lesbian Forum. Posted 93-01-20 at 15:41:49 EDT. Downloaded from America Online computer network 5 April 1993.

Davies, Nicholas B. "Mating systems." In J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies (eds.) Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (Third Edition). Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991, pp. 263-294.

De Witt, Karen. "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology." The New York Times. Monday, September 14 , 1992, p. A17.

Denniston, R. H. "Ambisexuality in Animals." In Judd Marmor (ed.) Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal: A Modern Reappraisal. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1980, pp. 25-40.

Dickemann, Mildred. "Reproductive Strategies and Gender Construction: An Evolutionary View of Homosexualities." Journal of Homosexuality . Vol 24 (3/4), 1993, pp. 55-71.

Edwards, Anna-Marie A. R. and John D. Todd. "Homosexual Behaviour in Wild White-handed Gibbons (Hylobates lar )." Primates. Vol. 32 (2), April 1987, 231-236.

Ellis, Albert. "Are Gays and Lesbians Emotionally Disturbed?" The Humanist. (September/October 1992) p. 33.

Fairbanks, Daniel J. Lecture. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 25 March 1993.

Flinders, Jerran T. Abbreviated interview. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1 November 1993.

Friedman, Richard C. Male Homosexuality: A Contemporary Psychoanalytic Perspective. New Haven and London: Yale University, 1988.

Green, R. "Sexuality and Aggressivity: Development in the Human Primate." In D. J. Chivers and J. Herbert (eds.) Recent Advances in Primatology: Volume One: Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

GregBear. [This is an online (computer network) name. Greg, who is gay, uses a pseudonym to protect his identity.] "Poor understanding of Genetics." Born Gay? folder, Community Forum Newsroom, Gay & Lesbian Forum. Posted 93-01-21 at 10:03:15 EDT. Downloaded from America Online computer network 5 April 1993.

Grier, James W. Biology of Animal Behavior. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing, 1984.

Harrison, Barbara Grizzuti . "Are some men born to be gay?" Mademoiselle Vol. 98, No. 1, January 1992.

Jones, Clinton R. Understanding Gay Relatives and Friends. New York: The Seabury Press, 1978.

Kavanau, Lee. Lovebirds, Cockatiels, Budgerigars: Behavior and Evolution. Los Angeles, California: Science Software Systems, Inc., 1987.

Kirsch, John A. W. and James Eric Rodman. "Selection and Sexuality: The Darwinian View of Homosexuality" In William Paul & James D. Weinrich (eds.) Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982, pp. 183-195.

Leavy, Christopher (Online name: "RhubarbCub"). "Subj: Joseph." Born Gay? folder Community Forum Newsroom, Gay & Lesbian Forum. Posted 93-01-18 03:12:34 EDT. Downloaded from America Online computer network 5 April 1993. Leavy lives in Springvilleboro, Missouri.

LeVay, Simon. "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men." Science. Vol. 253, 30 August 1991, pp. 1034-1037.

Marmor, Judd. "Epilogue: Homosuality and the Issue of Mental Illness." In Judd Marmor (ed.) Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1980, pp. 391-401.

McWhirter, David P. "Prologue." In David P. McWhirter, Stephanie A. Sanders, and June Machover Reinisch (eds.) Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Mehlman, Patrick T. and Bernard Chapais. "Differential Effects of Kinship, Dominance, and the Mating Season on Female Allogrooming in a Captive Group of Macaca fuscata ." Primates. Vol. 29 (2), April 1988, 195-217.

Mitchell, G. Behavioral Sex Differences in Nonhuman Primates. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1979.

Paul, William and James D. Weinrich. "Whom and What We Study: Definition and Scope of Sexual Orientation." In William Paul & James D. Weinrich (eds.) Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982, pp. 23-54.

Puterbaugh, Geoff (ed.). Twins and Homosexuality: A Casebook. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.

Reverne, E. B., Rachel E. Meller and A. M. . "Dominance, Aggression and Sexual Behaviour n Social Groups of Talapoin Monkeys." In D. J. Chivers and J. Herbert (eds.) Recent Advances in Primatology: Volume One: Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Ridley, Mark. Evoluton. Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1993.

Rist, Darrell Yates. "Are Homosexuals Born That Way?" The Nation. October 19, 1992.

Ruse, Michael. "Are There Gay Genes? Sociobiology and Homosexuality." Journal of Homosexuality . Vol 6 (4), Summer 1981, pp. 5 - 34.

Sanders, Stephanie A., June Machover Reinisch, and David P. McWhirter. "Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: An Overview." In David P. McWhirter, Stephanie A. Sanders, and June Machover Reinisch (eds.) Homosexuality/ Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Savage, Susan and R. Bakeman. "Sexual Morphology and Behavior in Pan paniscus. " In D. J. Chivers and J. Herbert (eds.) Recent Advances in Primatology: Volume One: Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Short, R. V. "Oestrous and menstrual cycles." In C. R. Austin and R. V. Short (eds.) Hormonal control of reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Sites, Jack. Lecture. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 15 October 1993.

Small, Meredith F. Female Choices: Sexual Behavior of Female Primates. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1993.

SteveD41. [This is an online (computer network) name. Steve, who is gay and lives in Reston, Virginia, uses a pseudonym to protect his identity.] "Evidence." Born Gay? folder, Community Forum Newsroom, Gay & Lesbian Forum. Posted 93-01-21 21:55:09 EDT. Downloaded from America Online computer network 5 April 1993.

Steve D41. "God Made Me Gay." Born Gay? folder, Community Forum Newsroom, Gay & Lesbian Forum. Posted 93-01-17 19:27:31 EDT. Downloaded from America Online computer network 5 April 1993.

United Press International (UPI). "Study Indicated Lesbian Women More Likely to have Homosexual Sisters." Chicago: United Press International, 1993. Downloaded 5 April 1993 from America Online.

Weinberg, Thomas S. "Biology, Ideology, and the Reification of Developmental Stages in the Study of Homosexual Identities." Journal of Homosexuality . Vol 10 (3/4), Winter 1984, pp. 77-84.

Weinrich, James D. "Is Homosexuality Biologically Natural?" In William Paul & James D. Weinrich (eds.) Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1982, pp. 197-208.

West, D. J. Homosexuality Re-examined. London: Gerald Duckwort & Co. Ltd, 1977.

Wheeler, David L. "A Researcher's Claim of Finding a Biological Basis for Homosexuality Rekindles Debate Over Link Between Brain Morphology and Behavior." The Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 38, No. 2, September 4, 1991, p. A9.

Wrangham, Richard W. "Ecology and Social Relationships in Two Species of Chimpanzee." In Daniel I. Rubenstein and Richard W. Wrangham (eds.)Ecological Aspects of Social Evolution: Birds and Mammals . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press: 1986.

Yamagiwa, Juichi. "Intra- and Inter-group Interactions of an All-male Group of Virunga Mountain Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla beringei )." Primates. Vol. 28 (1), January 1987, 1-30.

Yamagiwa, Juichi. "Functional Analysis of Social Staring Behavior in an All-male Group of Mountain Gorillas." Primates. Vol. 33 (4), October 1992, 523-544.