When it comes to gay rights, penguins are an example for humanity: certain species sometimes form same-sex, monogamous partnerships. In 2004, two male penguins in the Central Park Zoo were given a fertilized egg from a heterosexual couple. They cared for the egg and raised it as their own. This story was picked up by most media outlets, re-igniting a long-standing debate about gay partnership. In the field of genetics, there is a related million-dollar question: is there a gay gene?
This proposition could prove to be watershed issue for certain groups. If it turns out that homosexuality is entirely determined by one’s genes, it may lead to genetic screening and possibly selective abortions in a worst-case scenario. Gay rights groups already grapple with Evangelical Christian organizations such as the infamous Exodus International, who treat homosexuality as something that should be “cured” by the almighty power of Christ.
Research on the topic is hard to decipher. In the battle between nature and nurture, the outcome seems to be a tie. In studies using identical twins (to control for the influence of genetics, as their genes are identical), both genetics and the environment have approximately equal influence on an individual’s sexual orientation. If one identical twin is straight, the other has a roughly 50 per cent chance of identifying as a homosexual later in life. Fifty-fifty probabilities are a gambler’s dream—but also a frustrating answer when it comes to this long-standing debate.
The outlook becomes increasingly cloudy when one considers the prevalence of homosexuality in nature. It occurs in many animal groups, particularly in social animals. Many species of monkeys and apes display homosexual behaviour in various forms; it is well known that the amorous Bonobo chimpanzees use homosexual sex as a way to peacefully resolve conflicts between males. Observed in over 1,500 species, it seems unlikely that homosexuality is a negative side effect of natural selection. Rather, it serves in binding social groups and reducing aggression between members of the same species.
Defining homosexual relationships as an anomaly is a fallacy. Rejecting the influence of human evolution and replacing it with the edicts of conservative religions and societal norms automatically marginalizes those who break the mould. If the freedom of choice we’re given in the Western world affords us liberties ranging from free speech to the right to carry weapons, surely we can allow ourselves a choice of spouse that comes without conditions?
The idea that same-sex marriage is a danger to the traditional family model and erodes the sanctity of marriage is ludicrous. Although evolution dictates that only heterosexual partnerships can result in fertile offspring, this is no reason to expect all members of society to subscribe to the heterosexual, monogamous model.
At either end of the spectrum, finding an answer to the gay gene question is problematic. If homosexuality is determined to be a genetic difference in one subset of the human population, it is all too easy to erroneously describe homosexuality as a disease. If we move to the opposite side of the debate and consider homosexuality a choice, “curing” people of homosexuality—treating it like an addiction or worse—unfortunately gains traction.
Homosexuality, for better or worse, is most likely a combination of environmental and genetic cues. There is much evidence indicating that brain structure and response to hormones may affect one’s sexuality. What bearing this has on one’s sexual orientation may never be absolutely certain.
When it comes to societal pressures dictating a response to same-sex marriage, the proof is in the pudding: only Spain, Norway, and Canada give same-sex couples the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. The various statuses afforded to same-sex couples form a patchwork quilt across the American states—unsurprisingly banned in the unflinchingly socially conservative Bible Belt, but allowed in “dangerously liberal” California. But the battle is seemingly unending. Proposition 8, which passed on Tuesday’s ballot, will ban gay marriage on a state constitutional level if a court challenge doesn’t put a stop to it.
Surely, if a couple of flightless birds have figured out same-sex partnerships, we can too.
