Are you part of nature’s population control mechanism?

From time to time posts appear on gay blogs countering the idea that homosexuality is “unnatural.” These posts sometimes justify homosexuality on anthropological grounds as nature’s population control mechanism.

I certainly sympathize with the desire to explain homosexuality as a natural condition (Any gay man who has been in love with another man, and has been loved in return, has no doubt as to the naturalness and “rightness” of his condition. But this is, of course, an emotional, and not a rational explanation.) I do, however, have doubts as to the function of human homosexuality as simply a population control mechanism.

The problem lies in the mistaken linking of human sexuality too closely, or too narrowly to reproduction. Let’s look, for a moment at the possible functions of sexuality in general.

Why, for example, are people still sexually active not only past the age of female fertility but also past the age in which their offspring would need the protection of parents? Obviously, this sexual attraction that exists frequently overtly, but always subliminally, in geriatrics serves simply to keep people together. Once the children are no longer dependent on their parents, the bonding of post- menopausal parents that is helped, or even caused by sexuality, can only be an end in itself.

Moreover, this social function of sexuality seems to be a uniquely human phenomenon. Although homosexuality exists in other animals, sexual attraction with other animals seems to be more clearly linked to reproduction. In other mammals, the female is attractive to the male and accepts him only during the fertile days of her cycle. Humans have long broken free of the fertility link to sexuality.

Because of the narrow linkage between sexuality and reproduction in other animals, one could possibly accept the population control explanation of homosexuality for them. But in the case of humans, where sexual attraction is so clearly free of having a simply reproductive function, this explanation simply won’t wash. An anthropological function of homosexuality in humans, therefore, doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Moreover, when Mother Nature wants to remove a certain percentage of a species from the gene pool, she is generally quite brutal about it, not caring about the sexual fulfillment of those removed. She simply renders them sterile, impotent, frigid, or sexually repulsive to the opposite sex. Why bother making them homosexual?

In addition, homosexuals don’t seem to be carrying genes that would act to the detriment of the species. When they have children, their children are of the same genetic quality as those produced by their straight counterparts. In general, according to Darwinian evolutionary theory, when Mother Nature wants to remove a group from the reproductive pool, there is a genetic logic behind her decision. The link between homosexuality and (non) reproduction, however, is really quite unclear.

It is a generally accepted thesis that we all are, to one degree or another, attracted to both sexes. The question as to whether one defines himself as, and acts as, a homo- or a heterosexual depends upon the degree to which that type of attraction is active within him. He has, however, no choice in the matter; he naturally is bound to his dominant sexual orientation.

The thesis continues to posit that since sexuality is an essential part of all human relationships, it is still a factor even in our relationships to the sex to which we are not primarily attracted. It posits that without a certain amount of sexual attraction, affection or even friendly relationships to people to which we are not overtly sexually attracted would be impossible.

This thesis seems to be borne out by vague feelings of sexual attraction that most gay men can admit to having had at least once in their lives towards a woman. Most lesbians have had some attraction to a man, and many have actually had heterosexual contact. It is necessary also for male bonding among straight men, and its suppressed version is generally credited with causing homosexual panic and even homophobia in essentially straight men. Also, when straight men are deprived of a heterosexual outlet, many have no problem in opting for a homosexual alternative (prisons, puritanical societies that allow no contact between sexes before marriage).

It is clear, then, that our sexuality serves a function quite above and beyond simple physical reproduction. Dr. Freud perhaps overestimated the role of sexuality in informing a large part of our lives not directly related to the sex act itself, but in humans it obviously plays a role much greater than that of the physical continuation of the human race. It perhaps would not be an exaggeration to claim that it is the mortar that holds the building blocks of society together.

I would, moreover, suggest that the need for a procreative (or even population control) explanation of sexuality is a manifestation of general discomfort with sexuality in general. Why must we justify it any further than accepting it as a natural mechanism allowing us, even commanding us, driving us, if you will, to love each other?

But what about the question of why some people are gay and some straight? Ah, sweet mystery of life!