"That's Not Natural." Guess Again.

Driving home from school on Thursday, I listened to an AM talk show debating the same sex marriage issue. When one of the two hosts asked callers to identify why they were opposed to same sex marriage, the answer was often the same. Callers usually said something close to the following: "Homosexuality isn't natural. We don't see homosexual behavior in animals. Animals engage in sex is for the purpose of procreation. Oh, and the Bible condemns homosexuality."

Maybe I've been a bit ahead of the curve (I'd like to think so), but I've known for over a decade that animals do engage in homosexual activity. A piece in the New York Times points out the following:

Then in 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" (St. Martin's Press), one of the first books of its kind to provide an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Mr. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species. (Homosexuality, he says, refers to any of these behaviors between members of the same sex: long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays or the rearing of young.)

Let me emphasize this again: 450 species. Homosexuality, it appears, is a very natural act.

The debate regarding same sex marriage and homosexuality has frequently been situatuated within a natural vs unnatural context. Using the same logic presented by opponents of same sex marriage, the logical syllogism fleshes out something like this:

A behavior that isn't found in nature is unnatural.
Homosexuality isn't found in nature.
Homosexuaility is unnatural.

However, given the new scientific findings, the syllogism plays out as follows:

A behavior that isn't found in nature is an unnatural act.
Homosexuality is found in nature.
Homosexuality isn't unnatural.

As I've been arguing all along, this entire debate has nothing to do with science or logic. When you get right down to root of this debate, it's all about religion.