Last week, the New York Times (Mooallem, 03.29.10), published an article entitled "Can animals be gay?" which discussed biologists' recent and past discoveries of same-sex animal behavior, how biologists have recorded this behavior (or not), and how various members of our society have reacted to its publication.
In brief, there are a multitude of species in the animal, insect, and marine world that exhibit behavior different than what we might expect if we thought that nature was purely about male-female mating patterns. In other words, there are a host of examples of same-sex pairs of animals copulating and/or raising young together.
Because it is their function to study and record behavior in nature, biologists don't (or at least shouldn't) weigh-in on what this behavior may mean. To the scientist, the behavior simply exists, and they may be interested in how and why (How does a female albatross in a female-female lifelong pairing lay a fertile egg? What if both females do - which egg stays in the nest?) but unless the biologist is homophobic and lays a human cultural context on animal behavior, there is no meaning given to these acts.
For we humans, however, these actions are laden with meaning. Historically, there are many cultures that have decided, at different times, that it is "unnatural" for same sex pairing to occur amongst us. Thus the terms and labels we use such as "gay," "straight," "homosexual," "heterosexual," "lesbian," etc. These terms are used to define behavior as fitting within a certain category, defined and presumably understood. And then used as a tool to oppress or marginalize. Homosexuality was a disorder at one point in the DSM. Now no mental health professional would consider it a disorder.
So when the biologists discover it amongst animals, it poses a conundrum about what the word "natural" means. It also makes it difficult to know whether something is biological or based in choice, and what it might mean either way. If an animal is compelled to pair with an animal of the same gender, this animal doesn't question whether the urge to do so is biologically driven or if they are making a conscious choice, it happens because they are compelled to do it. Yet for us, because society has deemed certain behaviors acceptable, this question becomes paramount. Like the question of "natural."
Labeling also places definition upon something that may not be, ultimately, so easy to define. Like the question of race, it may be that we are attempting to define something that is more elusive and indefinable. When do a female pair of albatross or bonobo become "lesbian?" Is it after they achieve orgasm together, or is it related to raising a family together? What if two same-sex animals only raise young together but never copulate? What if they only copulate but never raise young? In the article, a female albatross was discovered to be mating with a male (the question of conception answered) before returning to it's mate, a female. How do we classify this behavior?
In the course of the lifetime of a human, these neat and tidy classifications often break down as well. There are often many types of pairing (intimate friendships, partnerships, marriage, co-parenting, travel mate, etc.) or not (celibacy) that meet different needs and thus the definition of one's "orientation" becomes more elusive and fluid. Like race, for some people definitions might be very clear for themselves and part of what makes them feel comfortable or empowered. For others, these categories don't come close to describing what their experience is.
These issues are especially relevant in today's society as the question of what defines marriage makes it's way towards the supreme court. In answer to the New York Times, the author may not be asking the right question. Perhaps it is not "Can animals be gay?" The more relevant question may be if humans are "gay" or "straight." Perhaps instead we just are.
