NlMwl Le.

vin/,:
ual#y is avnonnal a# 1Jl1des,'rablc--i1cr/
that it is ilmnortli.l\fe1!ertheiess.
Why Is Al1l1Ormal 243
evident corollary from my view tha t homosexuality is abnormal and likely to
lead to unhappiness.
I have confined myself to male homosexuality for brevity's sake, but I
believe that much of what I say applies mutatis mutandis to lesbianism ....
2. ON "FUNCTION" A,VD ITS COGNATES
To bring into relief the point of the idea that homosexuality involves a misuse of
bodily parts, I will begin with an uncontroversial case of nlisuse, a case in which
the clarity of our intuitions is not obscured by the conviction that they are
untrustworthy. Mr. jones pulls all his teeth and strings them around his neck be-
cause he thinks his teeth look nice as a necklace. He takes pureed liquids sup-
plemented by intravenous solutions for nourishment. It is surely natural to say
that jones is misusing his teeth, that he is not using them for what they are for,
that indeed the way he is using them is incompatible with what they are for.
Pedants might argue that jones's teeth are no longer part of him and hence that
he is not misusing any bodily parts. To them I offer Mr. Smith, who likes to play
"Old MacDonald" on his teeth. So devoted is he to this amusement, in fact, that
he never uses his teeth for cheWing-like jones, he takes nourishment intra-
venously. Now, not only do we find it perfectly plain that Smith and Jones are
misusing their teeth, we predict a dim future for them on purely physiological
grounds; we expect the muscles of Jones's jaw that are used for-that are for-
chewing to lose their tone, and we expect this to affect Jones's gums. Those
parts of Jones's digestive tract that are for processing solids will also suffer from
disuse. The net result will be deteriorating health and perhaps a shortened life.
"ior is this alL Human beings enjoy chewing. Not only has natural selection se-
lected in muscles for chewing and favored creatures with such muscles, it has
selected in a tendency to find the use of those muscles reinforcing. Creatures
who do not enjoy using such parts of their bodies as deteriorate with disuse,
will tend to be selected out. Jones, product of natural selection that he is, de-
scended from creatures who at least tended to enjoy the use of such parts. Com-
petitors who didn't simply had fewer descendants. So we expect Jones sooner
or later to experience vague yearnings to chew something, just as we find peo-
ple who take no exercise to experience a general listlessness. Even waiving for
now my apparent reification of the evolutionary process, let me emphasize how
little anyone is tempted to say "each to his own" about jones or to regard
Jones's disposition of his teeth as simply a deviation from a statistical norm.
This sort of case is my paradigm when discussing homosexuality .... An organ
is for a given activity if the organ's performing that activity helps its host or or-
ganisms suitably related to its host, and if this contribution is how the organ got
and stays where it is .... This definition ... distinguishes what something is for
fron1 what it may be used for on some occasion. Teeth are for cheWing-we have
teeth because their use in cheWing favored the survival of organisms with
teeth-whereas Jones is using his teeth for ornamentation .. , .
244 CHAPTER 7: Homosex/J;1lity
3. APPLICATIONS TOHOMOSEXl1ALITY
The application of this t.o homosexuality sh.ould be .obvi.ous.
Tbere can be noreas.onable doubt that .oneollhe fUf:lcli.oUS .of the penis is t.o in-
troduce Semen jrltu tlW vagum. It d.oes this, and if:l
it d.oes this. (Sexual interc.ourse itselfeaf:lprQbaloly be expl.,inedhy the lo'v.olu-
tiof:lary value Qfbisexual.repr9duc\iQn.
in<;Te.ase gerj.etkvaxll'ty atth'i cost of hardly"ver ocCj1rxing:(seee.g"fS].l The
.n:iofile g"lIlelesseems!oac<;ount (Qr th" elJler-
genee pi bisexualr"produ(1!jl!n itself.) Nature h(>sconSe<:tuenfly made tft\suse6f
thepel1is tewarding,ltisi5learem;mgh that any protu"human males who fliund
unrewan:!ing the insertion Qf penis into vagina have left no descend.,nts. Iupar-
licuiar, .proto'human . males who enjoyed inserting their penises intQeach
other's anuses have left no descendants. This is why homosexuality is abnor-
mal! and why its (lbnOp)1ality counts prudentially ",gainst it Homosexuality.is
likely to cause unhappiness because it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately
rewarding desire. And should the reader's enviIonmentalism threaten to get the
upper hand, let me remind him again of an unproblematic case. Lackof exercise
is bad andeven ab
l1
orn;alnot only becauseit is llnhealthybut alsobecauslo'one
feels. .. N(lturemade .exer<ise Tewardingqecaus,
we after
game unrewarding were elirillriated. Laziness 1"<ives unl-eaped the rewards
turehas planted iuexercise, even if the lazy man cannot tell this introspectively
If this isa cor{ect desCriptiQnof the place of exercise in. human life, itis by the
sametoke
l1
a oftheplace ot heteruse>fuallty.
_._ It hardfy needssayi
l1
g, but perhaps i.l.anyway, tlJiI;Uhis a.l'gu,
and Generaliz"lions abouthulltlll'laf.
fairs being notoriously "true by and large and for themostpart"only, saymg
that hQmoseXuals are bound to be less happy than heterosexuals must be un-
short for "Not coincidentally, a larger proportion of homosexuals
will be unhappy than a corresponding selection of the heterosexual popula-
tion." There are, afterall, genui.nely jQUy fat m",n. TQ say that laziness le;;>d.s.to
adverse affective consequences :means that, because 91 our evolutionary history,
the odds ;;>re relatively good that a man who takes no exercise will suffer
adverse affective COrL'ltlql1ences. Obviously,flOme people "ill get away "iih
misusing -their bodily parts. Thus, When evaluating the empirical evidence that
hears on this aCCol1nt, it will be pOintless to dte cases of well-adjusted homo-
sexuals. I do not say they claim is that, of biological neces-
sity, they ar<?rare.
My argument might seem to show at most that heterosexual behavior is
(self.) reinforcing, not that homosexuality is homosex-
uals go Without the of heterosexuality, but not that homosexu-
ality has a bu\lHn punislunent This is merely vemall.
They are 1:\'10 different ways that will find their lives less
reward.ing than will if SOlne lille dem'llrc;;ted
from it vvould be irrelevant if Vi/ere all
Why HtJrnasexuality Iii Abnormal 245
happily above the line. It is the comparison with the heterosexual life that is at
issue. A lazy man might count as happy by some mythic absolute standard, but
he is likely to be less happy than someone otherwise like him who exercises.
Another objection to my argument, Of conjectural evolutionary scenario, is
that heterosexuality might have heen selected in not because it favors survival,
but as a by-product of some other inclusively fit structure or behavior. A related
suggestion is that what really has been selected in is some blend of dominant het-
erosexual and recessive homosexual genes. As for the former, it seems extraordi-
narily unlikely, given how long life has reproduced itself by sexual intercourse,
that the apparently self-reinforcing character of heterosexuality is a by-product
of some other fitness-enhancing trait. If heterosexual intercourse is not directly
connected to propagation, what is? Biologists have no trouble determining when
bird plumage is there to attract mates, and hence favors survival. It would be as-
tounding if the same could not be said for heterosexual intercourse.
The sophisticate might complain that I am not giving "by-product" hy-
potheses their due. And indeed at this point sociobiological hypotheses come
thick and fast. I will be discussing some others later in this paper, and making
some overall observations about sociobiology and homosexuality. Here it is ap-
propriate to examine one hypothesis of the "by-product" school, that of Hutchin-
son (see [11]). Fact: there can he recessive genes for a trait that inhibits the
reproduction of and even kills organisms which exhibit it, but which, when co-
occurring with the dominant trait-suppressing allele, give rise to an organism or
phenotype more inclusively fit than a comparable organism \vith two of the
dominant alleles. In such cases, the "bad" allele will be passed along in fit het-
erozygous organisms and its associated trait will occasionally surface. For ex-
ample, sickle-cell anemia persists because the heterozygote Cc (Non-sickle-cell C,
sickle-cell c) confers resistance to malaria. Perhaps a recessive gene predisposing
to homosexuality persists in this way. Organisms of genotype Hh-a dominant
allele H for heterosexuality, a recessive allele It for homosexuality-might be
most fit, and then of course organisms with hit genotype will surface with some
regularity.
Without even considering the empirical likelihood of this elegant hypothe-
sis, it is clearly consistent with my chief claim. For as it stands it represents
sickle-cell anemia and the perpetuation of the c allele as unfortunate by-products
of a process that selects in resistance to malaria; and, presumably, the same
would go for homosexuality. For what does it mean to say that sickle-cell ane-
mia is a by-product? PreCisely this: had immunity to malaria not been associated
with the Cc genotype, the "gene" for malarial immunity would have been se-
lected in anyway; however, had the Cc genotype and hence sickle-cell anemia
not been associated with malarial immunity or some other inclusive-fitness-
enhancing trait, the c allele would have disappeared. Recurring to our definition
of "function," the cause of the perSistence of the c allele and the Cc genotype,
what that genotype is for, is fending off malaria. Sickle-cell anemia is a mal-
adaptive by-product of the Cc genotype since, had it not been associated with
what is in fact the function of the Cc genotype, sickle-cell anemia would have
caused the disappearance of the Cc genotype. Nothing, not even the c allele, has
246
sidile-:celliutemia a$ its:n,fICtion. qUet>#i>ll, of course, is whether a
maladaptive by-product, so understood, is the present model, it
is Mt FOrsupppse si,kle:-<.;eLlal'rnia .could be contracted volui}tarily,Md there
was agelle whlch{a) n;ade conlractiug or becornillgvulnerablefo it reinforcing,
,vith 1UltlariaUn:tm.ullifY.A
.geneci>;j.{ers.WC)lJldso<m:heselede?put.Truereforeiisutvivingl1l1!1"\an$:who.get
$o th"."lwtero:zygotent-
.
tentl},Wm" .
.. \tomosexu<jr in1happiness.would.
sexuality is a ID<l!lid<lpllv"by-:pf9i!.uct. . . ..... . . .
i\nimportent this discuss;ion is. that a trait or
tendency maybe "in thegenes" but'itillbeabnormal.lt is normal onlyifit is in
the genes . .i.t itselfellflancesntness, not it.is associated ",ith
spmetbmg e!selhill.e,-man<:et>Jitnesso/11 ind"pend"ntgroumis. $i,kle-cellanemia
is a malfunction of its victims' blood, which WflS s"lected in. to oxygenate the
muscles. A. comparable story for homosexuality.wollld involve a gene that in-
structed its organism to make just" Httletestosterone,.This might have survival
nusingplien0typicverbalsensitivity,al1d perhaps 1O,,'testosterone is
.
.. ..
onow sodisadv<l1ilitgeousa b}'-prO&ud thatthegene was
wol1ld fllen be a cOlldi\ion for advanta-
w.ould. notJollo",thath.omosexu,aJ.j.ty ",as selectted in
ability,orf&rany"therr""sl'u:.rt W01.l.1d n<Jtl"Uow
.. t\t<ithoXn.esex;:tality the
.pricewafurepars(Ot ver-

..... Ta!k'o! what is the ob""ryationthat we
shpcild not blame homosexUals for their h6mosexuaJityif it is "111. their genes."
True enough. lndee?, since noboc!y decides what lte is go.log to fio.dsexually
"ch<Jice" is entirely a:bst;lrd. How-
ever, sos.aying is qult"consls!ent1Nith reg"rd.lnghom.osexuillity as.arnisfornme,
and taking steps-this being within the re<llm of lts loci-
dence, esp<!ci.allya,m(Jng children. CiIIlinghomosexuality in"'Qluntary doesuot
place it o.utsidethe scQpeof evaluation. Victims of 'Sickle-cell Merola .are not
blameworthy, but it is. absurd tQ pretel1dthat therels notb.lngwmng w.ith them.
HomoseXU"J.ilc!ivists are partial togeneticexplana!ions and hQsti1e tf>Freudian
enw<Jrnnenta!ism in part because they . a genetic cause as e!\empting homo-
sexl,fals fmfi\ J,lame. But surely equally bI"melt$s!t)! lodeUble trflits
acquired in ear1ychild.hood .. And anyway, con(UtlQn may stili
w.orth trying to prevent (DdeadersofhQm.osexuaIitylaar Freud at anqther level,
bemuse his account r<;moves fmm thehjologicl\lrealin llltogether
and deprivesitof whatever to what is "in oJ
that ho:mose>:uality has ba'Ume in our SlJ.10pC}se,dly over-
populated worid. is said to increase our chances by
edsing the population pressure. This observation, however correct, is irrelevant.
Even if homosexuality has lately come to favor species survival, this is no part
of how homosexuality is created. Salvation of the human species \-"Vauld be at
best a fortuitous by-product of behavior having other causes. It is not easy,
moreover, to see hO\v this feature of homosexuality could get it selected in. If
homosexuality enhances inclusive fitness precisely because homosexuals don't
reproduce, the tendency to homosexuality cannot get selected for by a filtering
process when it is passed to the next generation-it doesn't get passed to the
next generation at alL The same applies, of course, to any tendency to find
homosexuality rewarding.
The whole matter of the survival advantage of honlosexuality is in any case
beside the point. Our organs have the functions and rewards they do because of
the way the world was, and what favored survival, many millions of years ago,
Then, homosexuality decreased fitness and heterosexuality increased it; an in-
nate tendency to homosexuality would have gotten selected out if anything did.
\Ve today have the tendencies transmitted to us by those other ancestors,
whether or not the race is going to pay a price for this. That 50 years ago certain
self-reinforcing behavior began to threaten the race's future is quite consistent
with the behavior remaining seli-reinforcing. Similarly, widespread obesity and
the patent enjoyment many people experience in gorging themselves just show
that our appetites were shaped in conditions of food scarcity under which gorg-
ing oneseli when one had the chance was good policy. Anyway, the instability
created by abundance is, presumably, temporary. If the current abundance con-
tinues for 5000 generations, natural gluttons will almost certainly disappear
through early heart disease and unattractiveness to the opposite sex. The ways
in which the populous human herd will be trimmed is best left to speculation.
I should also note that nothing I have said shows bisexuality or sheer poly-
morphous sexuality to be unnatural or self-punishing. One might cite the Greeks
to shuw that only exclusive homosexuality conflicts with our evolved reinforce-
ment mechanism. But in point of fact bisexuality seems to be a quite rare phe-
non1enon-and animals, who receive no cultural conditioning, seem instinctively
heterosexual in the vast majority of cases. Clinicians evidently agree that it is pos-
sible for a person to be homosexual at one period of his life and heterosexual at
another, but not at the same time. Some statistics in [5] coniirm this. 18% of the
male homosexuals interviewed had been married; while 90% reported having
intercourse with their wives during the first year of lnarriage, 72% reported hav-
ing homosexual fantasies during intercourse, and 33% reported this "often" ([5],
tables 17.1-17.7). So only 4.5% of the sample had "reciprocal" heterosexual inter-
course. This coheres well with table 22.4 in [5], which indicates that roughly 95%
Df 111ale homosexuals in the BelI-\Veinberg sample \vere "exclusively homo-
sexuaL" But one n1ustn't move too quickly or dogmatically here. On the face of
it, telling its host body "Put your penis in any reasonably small, moist opening"
is a sufficiently adaptive gene strategy to ensconce a gene that fo11o\v5 it in the
gene pool. A body controlled by such a gene would reproduce itself and hence
the gene often enough. The tlaw in the plan is that a competitor gene might
evolve to tell its body: "Put your penis only in vaginas, i.e.; moist openings with
a certain feel and which are accompanied by such visual clues as breasts
248
.
waivingby-products'-wouldeventiially displace the first. But oUr bisexualgene

enough
.
re;tlf!S0llt.
. . ..


.. .. .. apoPulatiO:D.Ofbisex1j:illSttwo'uld.I:!lc ..
prodl.lceil&lllf a I.ittlernore s.ince ltwouldI;leVer wast.etimespikingthe
li>llusofifseoreplltitor". ... .. ' . ..... ... .
13ynQwwea",'19s! m spic1j:illtiQn. Ther"i.s.I;)owayto disprovethe
of anatdyois")(lla1
evolvecicltiSpossibli, i:>utnQ! lllce1y<mdnotsuggest'ld byanythiitg .\Currently
known, that a bisex1j:al gene has achieved stable exi"tence inlhe hurnan gene
pool.. .the virtual
nonexjgtl'nce frf polYlT!orrt;ousan.irnal sexu,iIily .m the wild/that .m'lles are
.
'UtlllftJ:l'ians' reusffaketl!e:presenti\>pluliCll1aryscenario.serlously,Th"u!il'
itariil.l;\ even if
.h.orn(Jse"llaJ.ityjsjJ;\some .

else,#ornorexu!\llty; is.asgr"at teterise)?Jlal-
.. No.f.eVel!\cautWtili1,(n haye
.
of . plea"'itre (as s()!;e .pleasl,tre . dtstretC'hing
them},1\mllit"rlim dOCIOlCwoUld ptestltnably tryr jl;(st as zealously to 'lute. disc
eaSeS degen"rativeqigellSes . ApleasU1:<.l. q,u\'ally
aSjust <mofl1"1;pleasuretQbl?
tntedvpj:ini:l'\e um,tanans have tcr*lcon with the m-

SiIllilarrell;larksal'Ply t<fJl1eqnest.\onof",hether hornosextlality is .,1 "dis-
ease."1\widely-quoted pp:m(iuncemerrtof the American Psyeh;atri.cAssoci.a-
tionruns:
a broken arm or an
vV7ty HLnnosexuality Is Abnormal 249
occluded artery. The fact that my right ulna is now in two pieces is just a fact of
natore, not a "basis for diagnosis." But this condition is a matter for medical sci-
ence anyway, because it will lead to pain. Permitted to persist, my fracture will
provoke increasingly punishing states. So if homosexuality is a reliable sign of
present or future misery, it is beside the point that homosexuality is not "by
virtoe of that fact alone" a mental illness. High rates of drug addiction, divorce
and illegitimacy are in themselves no basis for diagnosing social pathology. They
support this diagnosis because of what else they signify about a society which
exhibits them. Part of the problem here is the presence of germs in paradigm dis-
eases, and the lack of a germ for homosexuality (or psychosis). I myself am fairly
sure that a suitably general and germ-free definition of "disease" can be ex-
truded from the general notion of "function" exhibited ln Section 2, but however
that may be, whether homosexuality is a disease is a largely verbal issue. If ho-
mosexuality is a self-punishing maladaptation, it hardly matters what it is called.
4. EVIDENCE AND FURTHER CLARIFICATION
I have argued that homosexuality is "abnormal" in both a descriptive and a nor-
mative sense because-for evolutionary reasons-homosexuals are bound to be
unhappy. In Kantian terms, I have explained how it is pOSSible for homosexual-
ity to be unnatural even if it violates no cosmic purpose or such purposes as we
retrospectively impose on natore. What is the evidence for my view? For one
thing, by emphasizing homosexual unhappiness, my view explains a ubiqui-
tous fact in a simple way. The fact is the universally acknowledged unhappiness
of homosexuals. Even the staunchest defenders of homosexuality admit that, as
of now, homosexuals are not happy. (Writers even in the very recent past, like
Lord Devlin, could not really believe that anyone could publicly advocate ho-
mosexuality as intrinsically good: see [6], 87.) A conspicuous exception to this is
[5], which has been widely taken to show that homosexuals can be just as happy
as heterosexuals. A look at their statistics tells a different story-an important
matter I have dealt with in some detail in the Appendix.
The usual environmentalist explanation for homosexuals' unhappiness is
the misunderstanding, contempt and abuse that society heaps on them. But this
not only leaves unexplained why society has this attitude, it sins against parsi-
mony by explaining a nearly universal phenomenon in terms of variable cir-
cumstances that have, by coincidence, the same upshot
l
Parsimony urges that
we seek the explanation of homosexual unhappiness in the natore of homosex-
uality itself, as my explanation does. Having to "stay in the closet" may be a
'A number of authors trace the present culture's taboo against "homophilia" (Wilson's term) to the
Old Testament proscription against nonreproductive practices, and summarily dismiss it as "sim-
plistic" dnd "archaic" nonsense (see [27], 142-43; also the AppendixJ< While I have no sympathy for
theological teleology; it should be recalled that the ban on homosexuality in Leviticus is one of rust
three rules set down 35 absolutely binding. Another one prohibits the shedding of innocent blorxL
fhis prohibition against using victims for ulterior purposes is the basis for Western law
"nd mnraUty, and I trust Wilson does not find it simplistic ()r archaic.
250 7: HomasexuaY1Jf
great strain., but it does 1'\01 :aCCOU11,t ror all the miseries tha.t writers on homo-
sexuality say is the homosexual's lot
unhaF'f'iness into. the presentevolutio.nary. picturea1.so.
smoot\l.s abotherso.me ad,hocuess in so.me othen}';!se "ppea#ilga!lalyses o.f
abl;lor11\ality.Ma!ly .,,,,,itersciefineabno.rmal}tyascornpulsiveneSlj. On this
it is an
?l\au"
to.MI>looshomoSel<.>ialcomesruul;lgrlbthat,. w;:!!(;,rslikeyandenf{aagpoi!lt
. oJ.ttthati"tl'mo.se)\l1alityjs! .in.i"d,
th"tthe mquestionshecis no lighj ou why abnormal,
cop)pPlsive,traits aresuch .. TItepresentaccQunt.no.tQnly.providesacrilerion
for abn,0rmality,it encapsulatesal;lexplanatiQl1 Qf why behaviQrabnQrmalby its
lights is indeed co.rrrpuisive and bound tQ.leadto unhappiness.
One <;rucjaltest of my aCCQunt is i!sprediction that homosexuals will con,
tinueto beunhappy eyenifpeople ab&ndon their. "preju(j.ice" !'lgi'linst
homQsexuality. This predictio.n, that homosexuality being unnatUral hQmosex,
uals will still find their behaviQr self'punishing, coheres with available evi,
den<;e.It is cQnsistentwith the failure o.f other QPpressed groups, such as
American N.egrQesand European Jews, to. become warped in the. directiQn Qf
pra<;tic.e
s
comp)onin h",m9sex\1allife
a,n
obsetVeiof1i:omOsexuttlityasRechY> (l19j) that the lriui:tediate ca.\1se ofhQmo,
sexual uilhappiness is a taste fQr prQmisCUity; anonymous encoul;lters,andhu,
milj"tjQn. II is h"r4toseellP'1'suchta..s\esa", &;11\ viewsOci,,:ty
take$cl thep).Sucha reiatlon.WQuld.b<1.plausil'11e."Illy. if homQs(;,xpals(lourted
to settle
down!asQmesort Europeal;ls abhQrredJews lQl'een,
didl;lotcreatein }ews.aspecial wea!G)esstor anOnymoll!'!,
PromiSCUQllsseX. Whateverdriveq "ITIal1 away fJ:Qm wop)en, to befelI!'\ted by
as maaY different men aSPQssible, seemsmdepimdentof What.sQdetythinlcs of
such behaviQr. It is this behavior that OjCcasions misery; and we may expect the
misery nfliomosex\1<lls to. continue.
Ina 19;'", study, Weinberg. and Willjams ([25]) found no difference in the dis,
tress experienced hy hQmQsexuals in Demnar:l, and the Netherlands, and in the
U$.; where they found publk tQlerance Qf homosexuality tn be IQwer. This
WQuld confirm rather strikingly that homQsexual unhappiness is endQgenous,
Why Homosexuality Is Abnormal 251
unless one says that Weinberg's and Williams's indices for public tolerance and
distress-chiefly homosexuals' self-reports of "unhappiness" and "lack of faith
in others" -are unreliable. Such complaints, however, push the social causation
theory toward untestability. Weinberg and Williams themselves cleave to the
hypothesis that homosexual unhappiness is entirely a reaction to society's atti-
tudes, and suggest that a condition of homosexual happiness is positive en-
dorsement by the surrounding societ
y
3 It is hard to imagine a more flagrantly
ad hoc hypothesis. Neither a Catholic living among Protestants nor a copywriter
working on the great American novel in his off hours asks more of society than
tolerance in order to be happy in his pursuits.
It is interesting to reflect on a natural experiment that has gotten under way
in the decade since the Weinberg-Williams study. A remarkable change in public
opinion, if not private sentiment, has occurred in America. For whatever
reason-the prodding of homosexual activists, the desire not to seem like a
fuddy-duddy-various organs of opinion are now hard at work providing
a "positive image" for homosexuals. Judges allow homosexuals to adopt their
lovers. The Unitarian Church now performs homosexual marriages. Hollywood
produces highly sanitized movies like Making Love and Personal Best about ho-
mosexuality. Macmillan strongly urges its authors to show little boys using cos-
metics. Homosexuals no longer fear revealing themselves, as is shown by the
prevalence of the "clone look." Certain products run advertising obviously di-
rected at the homosexual market. On the societal reaction theory, there ought to
be an enormous rise in homosexual happiness. I know of no systematic study to
determine if this is so, but anecdotal evidence suggests it may not be. The ho-
mosexual press has been just as strident in denouncing pro-homosexual movies
as in denouncing Doris Day movies. Especially virulent venereal diseases have
very recently appeared in homosexual communities, evidently spread in epi-
demic proportions by unabating homosexual promiscuity. One selling point for
a presumably serious "gay rights" rally in Washington o.c. was an "all-night
disco train" from New York to Washington. What is perhaps most salient is that,
even if the changed public mood results in decreased homosexual unhappiness,
the question remains of why homosexuals in the recent past, who suffered
greatly for being homosexuals, persisted in being homosexuals.
But does not my position also predict-contrary to fact-that any sexual ac-
tivity not aimed at procreation or at least sexual intercourse leads to unhappi-
ness? First, I am not sure this conclusion is contrary to the facts properly
understood. It is universally recognized that, for humans and the higher ani-
mals, sex is more than the insertion of the penis into the vagina. Foreplay is
JThis is the impression they leave, although it is hard to find them asserting it. Thus their reviewer:
"the authors ... start the book with asserting as their creed and point of departure the 'societal re-
action theory', [and} try to minimize the issue by a modification, namely that tolerance is probably
not enough, that is to say, it is not the same as full acceptance" ([41, 339-40; most of this review ap-
pears in [21]). Perhaps Weinberg and Williams are so inexplicit because, starting from wholly
enVironmentalist premises, they reg,1rd the insufficiency of tolerance as the conclusion to b drawn
from tht:'ir data rather than as Just one hypothesis to explain them<
252 CHAPTER 7: Homosexuality
necessary foprepare the temale alld, to.a lesser extent, the rnale.Ethologists have
studiet:! the elaborate mating rituals of even relatively simple aninlills. Sexual in-
tercourse musttherefore be underStood to include th"Jciss\,!s aI\dcaresses that
necessarily precede wpulation, behawwsthat maderew.,rding.What
my view does prewct is that exclusiviO preoccup'1tioJi with
prep'1fatoryior intercours" is hlghlycotteJated wlthUJih;lppiness,4ud,sof"r as
thafsucilpr<;oCcupatlQllor e.g.,
ctmni'ingtls,.is assogated.with.pers,?>lilJjty
t:!isorders;In 1;hisoens.e, sexnal qr
l,eing; Only jf .one thi't
i'lSi,1 preludelo.lntercour""wi\li"fore-
play" that leads nowhere at all. One 1I\ight speculate on the evolutioI\ary advan-
tages of foreplay, a'!least fqr humans: by Intreasingthe Intensity a!ldcomplexity
of the pleasures .o{ intercourse, it binds the paIT!lers morefiriruy and makes them
more.fit for child-rearing. Intact, .such. analyses of sexual perversion as Nagel's
([181), which corredlyfo,uson the Interruption of rnutuality as .centralto per-
version, go wrong by iglloriug the evolutionary role and buIlt-in rewards of mu-
tuality. They fail!o explilin why the Interruption of muh.ta!ityis dist!1rblng.
It should also be clear that my argument perfi\its gradations in abnormality.
;tnt:! tbel!;'sslj.J<;ely foPeteWii!1iiI1",tbe.JTIote its
prac!cesit . Th",less1il<ely a
bel\avioilstogetselitted out; the less abnormallt is; Those of our ancestors
who found certain aspects of foreplay reinforcing mjght have managed to
reproduce.thernselvessWficiet).ily to lniplantthisstraininus. Tht;!rernight be an
equilihrium Mtwe.en. intel:CoUfseand"uc!l not t:!ir<'ctly r"prod<activepeh"Wor. It
is I1otrequir<'dthat anyb",haviotnot,urectlyl!nked to het"",,,,,,,,,al mtertqurse
the existence of tMi;.egta<!a.tions proirii:\es ..
no entering wedge for homosexuality. As no behavior !s1I\ore !i;kely t()get se-
lected o<atthan rewardinghon1osexuality-exceptpeihaps an innate tendency
to suicide at the onset homos.exuality
can now.he unconditionally reinforcing in humans to .any extent.
Nor does my position predict, again contrary to faG!, that celibate priests
will be .u:nhappy. My view is compatible ,,1lh the existence of happy celibates
who deny themselves as part of a higher calling which yields compensating Sat-
i:;;factiol'S. mdeed, the veryfa<:! that one needs to explain how the priesthood
can compensatl'! for thelackof family means that poopl" do regard heterosexual
mating as the natnral or "inertial" state of human relations. The comparison be-
tween priests and homosexuals is in any case inapt. Priests dono! i5.implygive
up sexual activity ,,1thout iU-effect; give Hup for a reason. Homosexuals
have hardly given up the use of their sexual organs, for a higher calling or any-
thing 11oe. Homosexuals continue to use them, but, unlike priests, they use
them for what they are ""Hew
I have encountered thought that by my lights female heterosexu"lity
must be apnormatsince according to feminism women have been unhappy
t!}E:ap;es. iheaattun is 10 say of-
fered no dorumentaticm for is
uSl",lly the of the in qu'esti<on and her circle of friends.
Wily HOIl1oS!'Xliality Is AUlhmnal 253
Such attempts to prove female discontent in past centuries as [9J are transpar-
ently anachronistic projections of contemporary feminist discontent onto in-
appropriate historical objects. An objection from a similar source runs that my
drgument, suitably extended, implies the naturalness and hence rewardingness
of traditional monogamous marriage, Once again, instead of seeing this as a
reductio, I am inclined to take the supposed absurdity as a truth that nicely fits
my theory. It is not a theoretical contention but an observable fact that women
enjoy motherhood, that failure to bear and care for children breeds unhappiness
in women, and that the role of "primary caretaker" is much more important for
\-vomen than men, However, there is no need to be dogmatic. This conception of
the family is in extreme disrepute in contemporary America. Many women
work and many marriages last less than a decade. Here we have another natural
experiment about what people find reinforcing. My view predicts that women
will on the whole become unhappier if current trends continue. Let uS see.'
Not directly bearing on the issue of happiness, but still empirically per-
tinent, is animal homosexuality. I mentioned earlier that the overwhelmingly
heterosexual tendencies of animals in all but such artificial and genetically
irrelevant environs as zoos cast doubt on sheer polymorphous sexuality as a
sufficiently adaptive strategy. By the same token, it renders implaUSible the
claim in [15J that human beings are born with only a general sex drive, and that
the objects of the sex drive are entirely learned. If this were so, who teaches male
tigers to mate with female tigers? Who teaches male primates to mate with
female primates? In any case, the only evidence Masters and Johnson cite is the
entirely unsurprising physiological Similarity between heterosexual and homo-
sexual response. Plainly, the inability of the penile nerve endings to tell what is
rubbing them has nothing to do with the innateness of the sexual object. The in-
ability of a robin to tell twigs from clever plastic look-alikes is consistent with an
innate nest-building instinct.
The work of Beach ([2]) is occasionally cited (e.g., in [27]) to document the
existence of animal homosexuality and to support the contention that homo-
sexuality has some adaptive purpose, but Beach in fact notes certain important
4Feminists arc understandably hostile to SOCiobiology, which offers a plaUSible theoretical under-
pinning for the observable differences between the sexes. Such being the temper of the times, so-
ciobiologists themselves get awfully cold feet when faCing off against feminists. Barash hems and
haws when considering if sOciobiology is "sexist," a word which conveys no dear sense to him or
anyone else-but whkh has eVidently acquired powers of intimidation (see my [13]), After docu-
menting the innateness of numerous psychophysiological gender differences, Wilson recommends
a systt;m of quotas and indoctrination for eliminating all consequences of sexual differentiation as
preferable to a society of free individuals in which sexual differences would naturally manifest
themselves, One would like to see a Wilsonian army take on a traditional one, like the Soviet
Cnion's, :\rfichael Ruse, a philosophical commentator, has even written a book with the astounding
title Is Science Sexist?, as if the truth about men and women might be ideologically suspect Sodobi-
tend to be braver taking ()n socialism, "vhich demands an indifference to the claims of one's
family that no gene which hoped to feproduce itself could permit. A sound point, but one \vouid
han--- socialism's absurdity required less arcane demonstration. Anyway, Wilson seems not
~ o recugnize that his egalitarian utopia would require far more interference with Dd:tural impulses
than the most authoritarian socialism,
di$aJ:\l'!logiesbetWeen manunal\al1 homosexual behavior in the wild and human
homosexuality. Citing a principle of "stimulus-response complementarity;" he
rema*stI;atamale "hil'l.'ipa]JZee "flU m.ountan6ther male if the latter emits
such,haracteristi<;ally female behavior as display ornetherparts. Male hqmo-
.. sexu(llI;!l1;l1all$' C!uthe()ther nand; are attl'"cted lC!maleness.C!re signifi",ntly;
Ifte a'lale:CI;ilJ1pall$e<"'5mOU
l1
tIng is erectiQn,throustingp" .
.. .
. may1?" it
In 6(l1. cit"s.rraletmale rap<1in
rt1.901{!ip.@rris,buth"reilieraPi$.t'sspermisdeposlW(i ill the ,,,peyie-
tim's stQrageorgans. This IS asmartevo!utionarymoveri:<minis.cent of thegnn.
spi.J<ing strategjr melltioned in al1 earlier section, but it is not comparable in its.
effects fQhQmQsexuaHty in humans .....
5. ON POLICY ISSUES
Homosexuality is intrinsically bad only in a prudential sense. It makes for
unhappiness; However, this does not exempt homosexuality from the larger
... (iutis, liabilities: .
of .
unhappilless. . . ... . . .
IfltGmosexuality.isunnatural, legislation which raises the odds that a given
chil(i.wi;l.f.becQmeI;Qmosexuaira.isesfheod(isth"the will be. unhappr'.'l'he only
gap in.tl\e:syIl9&is,n iswhetI;et l!lgisiiltio)1which
teets homos.ex\lalltvdoes.increas.e clt\ld.willbeco,nehomo-
s.exuallfsQ, objectionable: Tlteq\les!ionis net
whelherh(j)J19sexual elementilTY .scltPQ!cteachers,;Yll! In",!.s! their cltm:g!ls. Pro-
homosexUl!llegisl':'1.inn might.increasethe inddencepf in. subtler
ways.lf it.does, <>)1(i if the protection of children isaltilldamentalobligation of
society, legisJationwhichlegitimales homosexuality is a dereliction of (iuty. I am
reluctant todeplQY the langnilg" of U chil(iren's.rights/' wbich perves as
,me mope excuse to interfere with the prerogatives 9f parents. But we do have
ol>ligations to our children, and one af them is ta protect them from harm. as
some have have a right Ie protect'QnttQm a edu-
cation, they surely have aright to protection from homosexuality. So protectillg
tbem limits somebody e!se'slreedom, but we are often willing te pmtm quite
ahscure1:ights at the expense the of others. There is a
movement to han TV commercials .far.sugar-coated cereals, ta protect c!tildren
frQm the relatively tr.ivial harm of tOQth .decay. Such a han WQuid .restrict the
free(iomof advertisers, and reslrict it even ihQugh tIte last dear chance of
ingthe harm, and thus the respousihilit}j "ilb the parents who conlrQl
TV set. I .cannot see how support legislation an(i also
hQmQ5exual damage to in ex-
fer
or a hc,m,mlf,xutal to
Why Hmnose."Clulity Is Abnonnl11 255
work for the Fire Department is not a negligible good. Neither is fostering a
legal atmosphere in which as many people as possible grow up heterosexual.
It is commonly asserted that legislation granting homosexuals the privilege
or right to be firemen endorses not homosexuality, but an expanded conception
of human liberation. It is conjectural how sincerely this can be said in a legal
order that forbids employers to hire whom they please and demands hours of
paperwork for an interstate shipment of hamburger. But in any case legislation
'legalizing homosexuality" cannot be neutral because passing it would have an
inexpungeable speech-act dimension. Society cannot grant unaccustomed rights
and privileges to homosexuals while remaining neutral about the value of ho-
mosexuality. Working from the assumption that society rests on the family and
its consequences, the Judaeo-Christian tradition has deemed homosexuality a
sin and withheld many privileges from homosexuals. Whether or not such de-
nial was right, for our society to grant these privileges to homosexuals now
would amount to declaring that it has rethought the matter and decided that
homosexuality is not as bad as it had previously supposed. And unless such re-
thinking is a direct response to new empirical findings about homosexuality, it
can only be a revaluing. Someone who suddenly accepts a policy he has previ-
ously opposed is open to the same interpretation: he has corne to think better of
the policy. And if he embraces the policy while knowing that this interpretation
will be put on his behavior, and if he knows that others know that he knows
they will so interpret it, he is acquieScing in this interpretation. He can be held
to have intended, meant, this interpretationS A society that grants privileges to
homosexuals while recognizing that, in the light of generally known history, this
act can be interpreted as a positive re-evaluation of homosexuality, is signalling
that it now thinks homosexuality is all right. Many commentators in the popu-
lar press have observed that homosexuals, unlike members of racial minorities,
can always "stay in the closet" when applying for jobs. What homosexual rights
activists really want, therefore, is not access to jobs but legitimation of their
homosexuality. Since this is known, giving them what they want will be seen as
conceding their claim to legitimacy. And since legislators know their actions will
support this interpretation, and know that their constituencies know they know
this, the Gricean effect or symbolic meaning of passing anti-discrimination
ordinances is to declare homosexuality legitimate (see [26]).
Legislation permitting frisbees in the park does not imply approval of fris-
bees for the simple reason that frisbees are new; there is no tradition of banning
them from parks. The legislature's action in permitting frisbees is not inter-
pretable, known to be interpretable, and so on, as the reversal of long-standing
disapproval. It is because these Gricean conditions are met in the case of abor-
tion that legislation-or rather judicial fiat-permitting abortions and mandat-
ing their public funding are widely interpreted as tacit approval. Up to now,
society has deemed homosexuality so harmful that restricting it outweighs pu-
tative homosexual rights. If society reverses itself, it will in effect be deciding
that homosexuality is not as bad as it once thought.
CFor this general conception of the meaning of it speech-ad, see [lOt [141, and [231. For a cognate ap-
plication to political philosophy, see [241
'v'v1ty Homosexuality Is Abnormal 259
References
1. Barash, D. The Whispering Within. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.
2. Beach, F. "Cross-Species Comparisons and the Human Heritage." Archives of Sexual
Behavior 5 (]976): 469-85.
3. Beadle, G. and M. The Lmguage of Life. New York: Anchor, 1967.
4. Beigl, H. Review of [34]. Journal of Sex Research 10: 339-40.
5. Bell, A. and :\1. \-\feinberg. Humosexualities. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978.
6. Devlin, P. The Enforcement a/Morals. Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1965.
7. Dworkin, G. Revie\v of [36]. Philosophical Review 88: 66Q.-63,
8. Gary, R. "Sex and Sexual Perversion." Journal of Philosophy 74 (1978): 189-99.
9. Greer, C. The Obstacle Race. N"ew York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1979.
10. Grice, H. "Utterer's Meaning, Sentence-Meaning, and vVord-Meaning." Foundations
of Language 4 (1968): 1-18.
11. Hutchinson, G. "A Speculative Consideration of Certain Possible Forms of Sexual
Selection in Man." American Naturalist 93 (1959): 81-91.
12. Karlen, A. Sexuality and Homosexuality: A New Vie'UJ. New York: Norton, 1967.
13. Levin, M. "'Sexism' is Meaningless." St. John's RC",;iew XXXIII (1981): 35-40.
14. Lewis, D. Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.
15. Masters, VV. and V. Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective, Boston, MA: Little, Brown
and Company, 1979.
16. McCracken, S. "Replies to Correspondents." Commentary, April 1979.
17. Nagel, E. "Teleology Revisited." Journal of Philosophy 74 (1977): 261-301.
18. Nagel, T "Sexual Perversion." Journal of Philosophy 66 (1969): 5-17.
19. Reehy,). The Sexual Outlaw. New York: Grove Press, 1977.
20. Sagarin, E. "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the Gay Guys." Contemporary
Sociology (1973): 3-13.
21. Sagarin, E. and R. Kelley. "The Labelling of Deviance," in W. Grove, ed., The Labelling
of Deviance. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1975,
22. Sayre, K Cybernetics and Ihe Philosophy of Mind. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities
Press, 1976.
23. Schiffer, S. l\1eaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
24. Singer, P. Democracy and Disobedience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
25. \Veinberg, M. and C Williams. Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adaptations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974.
26. Will, G. "How Far Out of the Closet?" Newsweek, 30 May 1977, p. 92.
27. Wilson, E. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Questions
1. \Vhat does Michael Levin say are the implications of his analysis for bisexuality?
2. Is the case of Jones and his teeth a good analogy for homosexuality?
3. The author says that homosexuals tend to be less happy as a result of misusing parts
of their bodies. In what ways, if any, are they less well off than heterosexuals as a
result of how each group uses its genitals?
4. Is the author's distinction between homosexuals and celibate priests regarding the
question of happiness a satisfactory one?