Gay Marriage is Natural

Co-Written by Ken Grimes

The California Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriage was greeted with both joy, and indifference. Joy from the gay community, where some couples had waited over quarter of a century to officially affirm their bonds. And indifference from much of the rest of California, including the anti-gay-marriage lobby.

But, is there any science that can help shed light on gay marriage? We are wary that past scientific 'contributions' have added at least as much heat as light to the debate. Now, lets provide new insights into the brain mechanisms that support same-sex relationships.

Much of the anti-gay-marriage argument rests on two commonly held assumptions: Life-long exclusive mate-bonding for purposes of rearing joint offspring is natural, and homosexuality is unnatural.

Both assumptions have little basis in fact.

Homosexual acts have, in fact, now been widely documented across a range of mammal species (that's right -- we're 'outing' mammals!), including our closest relatives, apes and monkeys.

Research published this week in the journal Public Library of Science ONE showed that one reason that male homosexuality has survived (even though gay men produce fewer offspring than straight men) that the 'gay gene' must be somehow beneficial to women, or it would have been eliminated from the gene pool.

Meanwhile, there seems to be nothing particularly 'natural' about marriage. Only about 3% of mammal species are monogamous -- meaning they cohabitate -- and few of these species mate for life. And nearly each partner in these 'animal marriages' engage in extra-pair mating. Lifelong sexual loyalty in nature is, it turns out, a vanishingly rare commodity.

It turns out that both marriage and homosexuality are, in fact, both common for our species. As research at Center for Neuroeconomics Studies in California has shown, human attachment behaviors depend on the same 'bonding' molecule called oxytocin, also found in other mammals. When the human brain releases oxytocin, we immediately begin to care about those around us: family, friends, and even complete strangers. This effect is so unfocused, that we also care about nonhumans, too, including dogs, cats or stranded whales. We name our cars, and cry when we sell our houses.

Oxytocin is also the basis for virtuous behaviors towards strangers. Researchers in my lab have shown that in humans, oxytocin promotes trustworthiness, generosity, and empathy. These virtues make the free societies we live in possible -- without oxytocin we would need Big Brother monitoring every human interaction to eliminate crime, cruelty, and selfishness.

Because the oxytocin attachment system is a blunt instrument, it is not surprising that we see long-term same-sex partners. Our highly evolved, inherently flexible, human attachment system allows us to have a morality -- a love beyond the self -- that far exceeds anything found in our mammal relatives. So, long-term attachment between genders and within a gender should be viewed as natural as the care and affection we quite easily show to those around us.

Paul J. Zak is Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, CA. His new book is Moral Markets: The Critical Role of Values in the Economy, published by Princeton University Press. Ken Grimes is a writer based in London, UK.

Comments

[Grissom1001]

Uhh No it's not.
While I may agree with civil unions to say that gay marriage is natural is not the thinking of the majority of the citizens in this country. Natural is a man and woman and try as you might to change hundreds of years of natural tradition,,,,, it just isn't going to happen.
Your welcome to your opinion and I to mine but blanket statements should never be allowed.

[Whatevah]

It is natural because it exists in nature among many species. Disagreeing is like claiming you are entitled to your own opinion about whether the world is flat. If the majority disagrees, it's because they are just uninformed. Facts are facts, regardless of opinions.

[PennP]

This oxytocin sounds neat, although I have no idea what it has to do with a discussion of civil and religious institutions. Maybe my problem is that I keep reading it as "oxycontin." But it your oxy is really that good at inducing compassion, I respectfully suggest that you stop blogging right now and hightail it to Washington with a truckload of the stuff, and get it into the water supply before another vote goes down on the Hill.

[ThePeacemakers]

First of the all the desire to have children and the desire to have sex are two different things.
Most people who consider themselves heterosexual don't have sex to have children the majority of the time any more than people whow consider themselves homosexual.
Second, just because someone prefers to have sex with members of the same sex does not mean their reproductive organs don't work. Hence, the reason you have people who engage in homosexual behavior and have children.
Third, I don't buy any type of "gay gene" BS. Nobody is born homosexual or heterosexual. All this research into "gay genes" is really just a way to try to alive fears of heterosexuals - who want to greatly believe their choice is natural, as if that's what makes it better. No, I can be heterosexual quite comfortably without believing I was born that way.
Most are born with the ability to reproduce, but anatomy does not equal destiny.

[JimR]

"I don't buy any type of "gay gene" BS. Nobody is born homosexual or heterosexual."

I think it's a little of both. One theory makes total sense to me, that sexuality is a spectrum. On one side is completely heterosexual, on the other side is completely homosexual, and we are all born somewhere in between the two. So some sort of attraction is built in. Whether or not you act on that attraction is your choice.

[Whatevah]

And where did you earn your degree in genetics?

[BaltimoreSteve]

I agree that conventional marriage between a man and a woman may not be "natural". Procreation is though, and that could only occur naturally between a male and a female.
I am for gay marriage as much as I am for hetero-marriage, but to say it is natural is not a very good argument.

[CitizenFace]

Huh? The author was offering a refutation of the notion that homosexual relationships are "unnatural." I don't see what procreation has to do with it.

[dulcis]

homosexuality occurs naturally, in nature, so how much more "natural" can it get? The author didn't start this silly argument, it is what you see all the time from people who profess to know what is natural and what is not, and his response makes a lot more sense than most I've seen.

[RepublicanBrain]

I've read the article, but I still don't think your position is adequately explained. You state that the hormone oxytocin helps promote a caring response when it is secreted, however, that doesn't state anything about homosexuality. The relationships that would result from things like this are not sexual by default. You have stated it yourself, people cry when they sell their houses, name their cars, and care for pets.

Furthermore, you state that homosexual acts are done in mammals, but this does not necessarily imply "natural" or anything of the sort. If the act is done, but the creature does not pass on it's material, then it is not necessarily "fit" no? Further, since we don't know the purpose behind such an act in mammals, it's hard to say what it's for.

I'm not for or against gay marriage (honestly, I don't care. It's the business of whoever issues the licenses) but this argument needs work.

[moAb]

In fact such "homosexual" behavior among some mammals is in fact simply a form of establishing dominance i.e. Bighorn sheep. We anthropomorphize and inject (bad pun) the issue of genetic transmission into the discussion about other mammals. There have also been studies years ago that showed that rats (yes, little white lab rats) became "homosexual" when population density reached a critical threshold.

[Whatevah]

This is exactly opposite of the scientific consensus. This sounds like the crap propagated by the right wing. Do everybody a favor and don't spread this nonsense farther.

[ToeJamSam]

If marriage is viewed as an act of love and commitment to providing children a happy, decent, safe home then I don't care who the hell two decent adults marry. If they don't choose to have children, okay. Just be happy and as good as they can be.

[anon004]

I was raised a Catholic, and left because I came to the conclusion that the Church viewed women as little more than breeders of the next generation of Catholics (so much easier for the celibate male hierarchy than having to explain your theology to people you hoped to convert). We were taught that the primary (sole?) purpose of sex was procreation. I later learned that wasn't even true of microbes, let alone animals with large brains, like primates. So, any time anyone tries to tell me that the primary purpose of monogamous sexual relationships (i.e., marriage) is procreation, I simply dismiss it as either bad science or bad theology. Human beings are much too complicated to be reduced to rutting rams and calving wildebeasts (and those animals are much too complicated to be reduced to mere breeders either). Not to mention the fact that no one is their right mind can argue that the ability to parent is confined to the heterosexual members of our species.

[CanadianAmerican]

Thanks for the interesting article. Sadly, it seems to me that most of those who oppose gay marriage have little interest in science. Incredibly, they believe they take their instructions from God.

Also, here's the PLoS ONE article for those who are interested: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002282. (By the way, it does not "SHOW ... that THE 'gay gene' MUST BE somehow beneficial to women, or it would have been eliminated from the gene pool" (my emphasis). Here's a better summary: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/618/1.)

[vladseventysix]

So what if the Institution of Marriage has something to do with the perpetuation of the human species? Any particular heterosexual relations may or may not perpetuate the human species. If homosexual relations were allowed to be married they would just be in the may not category with many heterosexual relations. That homosexual relations can never get into the may category well so what? Many heterosexual relations will not or can not get into the may category either. On the face of it there is absolutely no difference whether the Institution of Marriage has anything to do with the perpetuation of the human species or not for allowing homosexual relations to be married. So why do homosexual marriage advocates INSIST that the Institution of Marriage has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species when if it makes no difference?

[CanadianAmerican]

Say what? I'm not sure I understand what you wrote, but where in the article does the author "INSIST that the Institution of Marriage has nothing to do with the perpetuation of the human species?" But I agree that it should not be used as an argument against gay marriage.

Anyways, it seems that as long as there are people or, better, couples (of any orientation) willing to rear children, there will be no lack of fertile heterosexual couples (well, the male doesn't necessarily have much to do with it - just the sperm) willing to produce them for adoption. Therefore, homosexual couples CAN help perpetuate the human species (as if that were in jeopardy). (There's a lot more to perpetuation than sex, pregnancy, and giving birth.)

[RepublicanBrain]

Well, these are certainly sexist comments. The male's contribution to rearing children is "just the sperm."

[bgregs]

Um.... .Perhaps you should go re-read the article..... Long term monogamous marriage is NOT essential for the perpetuation of the species. In fact, all that is required for the perpetuation of the species is for men and women to have sex.

Marriage was created by men who wanted to keep other men away from their property, INCLUDING their wives (yes, I meant that as plural!) Having said that, I love my wife, and the social mores that I learned while growing up mean that I am NOT willing to share her, and I get jealous.

[vladseventysix]

Question: Why can't homosexual relations be marriage even IF the Institution of Marriage DOES have something to do with the perpetuation of the human species? Answer: There is NO reason why homosexual relations can not be marriage even IF the Institution of Marriage DOES have something to do with the perpetuation of the human species. So, why do homosexual marriage advocates INSIST that the Institution of Marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with the perpetuation of the human species when either way homosexual relations can be marriage?