Copyright: Anand Buchwald, eMail: und


An argument that is often used when agitating against Homosexuality says that it is 'against nature'. This argument is often stressed when it is suggested to gays to deny their nature. In a subliminal form there is often implied an appeal to commit suicide, because, of course, one is a development gone wrong, a mistake. It certainly is one of the great riddles of this world why especially professed and first of all militant and fanatic Christians on behalf of Homosexuality deny their central religious dogma (with other religions it is probably similar - but I do not know enough of them). Anyway, many people use this argument, but certainly none of those who have given this subject some deeper thought.

The easiest way to undo this argument naturally is through biological-zoological-social facts.

There are several investigations regarding Homosexuality in the realm of animals - and these show, on a purely scientific level, that Homosexuality among animals seems to be something that takes place quite regularly, and it can be noted that animals do not seem to know this specifically Human behaviour of stigmatising this variation. It seems, that in this case animals are the better men. There are even investigations which explain Homosexuality as a mode of behaviour that makes sense in the ways of evolution. In this context one might ask oneself why nature hasn't abolished Homosexuality a long time ago if she really finds it that wrong. With all these clues and scientific findings nothing remains from this 'against nature' argument. (A thought just in passing: If one argues with this superficial understanding of nature - that is: 'Nature is everything and is always right' - one could have every right to regard man himself as a development gone wrong that should vanish as soon as possible from existence so that nature can return into her natural virgin state.)

But one can also look at this nature-thing from another point of view. If one rejects something or turns something down because it is 'against nature', we can find implied in this rejection the idea that nature is better than man and that the ways of nature are always right and that nature should more or less function as an example for us. If man does everything in the way nature shows, he will find the way back to the roots and will become an inconspicuous part of the great whole.

Well, what about nature? What do the animals do?

Naturally, animals are not civilised, exactly because they are animals, and therefore they don't use clothes or toilets. They run around naked and shit and pee wherever they stand. Well, for all those 'natural' people this could be a very simple first exercise in being natural. The more natural stone age people surely were still capable of this.

Or lets take the male, faunic courting behaviour patterns. If a male feels the urge for sex it really cannot say NO. So it goes searching for a female. But as there are usually several males at the same time who desire a female and the female usually is somewhat indecisive, the males have to push out one another (sometimes in a bloody way), and the female gets the winner. The conclusion for humans: A man should not try to get to know the woman that catches his eyes and to get closer to her, but start a knife fight with his rival. If in the end someone survives or is unwounded the woman has to give him her YES. More isn't for her to say, instead she has to raise the children.

But this is a case, where the deciphering of nature's will begins to become a difficult thing, as there are some females that kill the males after mating, there are others that drive them away, some males vanish voluntarily, while others take part in the care for the offspring. Here it becomes difficult to draw clear conclusions on the 'natural' ideal behaviour of the human being.

If one looks at this whole mess rsp. at the manifold variety in nature, it will become very clear, that this many-cited nature can hardly be used as an example for man and that there is no such thing, that could be called an absolutely 'natural behaviour'.

There is a behaviour, which is typical to a species, which can change with changing environmental influences. Within this behaviour, that is true to a species, there is a statistical behaviour which is based upon the very limited individuality of the animals, that means upon the interaction of experience, environment and genetics. The stronger the individuality presents itself, the wider is the variety in behaviour. So you cannot expect a great variability in ants, but you can expect it in apes and dogs.

As man is the most individualised creature on earth, his variety of behaviour patterns is also the widest, as it were in accordance with nature's lines of development.

If we proceed further with this thought we might observe that those who are loudest in their 'righteous anger' also are those who contradict their own believes the most. Just think about it: What do those people intend, who stand up against Gays and Lesbians or against those who have different religions or political believes, or in earlier times against the longhaired youngsters ...? They intend to make the graph of statistical behaviour steep and narrow by removing always more colours, starting from both ends (which would, by the way, lead to a most 'unnatural' statistical graph). If they would succeed in removing Homosexuality from society (something the Nazis already have tried in abundance, and not only with the Gays) then sooner or later all those would be stigmatised and prosecuted who do not perform sex in the popular 'missionary posture', because every other posture is of course 'against nature'...

Seen in this light also all those wars of religion and faith are the expression of the endeavour to stop humanity from developing by fighting the symptoms. This symptom is variety and variety is an expression of individuality. Individuality leads to a broad spectrum of behaviour, which is something like a gauge for evolution. To narrow the spectrum of behaviour therefore is something like an effort to create a kind of ant-society (the great political endeavours in this direction have either died or were made dead) and to turn an evolution into an involution.

But maybe the case against Gays and Lesbians is not 'against nature', but 'against evolution'?

As already shown earlier the argument isn't valid as there arise evolutive advantages from Homosexuality, not to mention the fact that undoubtedly Homosexuality wouldn't exist on such a comparatively large scale it it would impair the evolutive process. Quite on the contrary it would be rather helpful for the general survival of mankind if Homosexuality would spread everywhere like an explosion, in order that earth's total population would reduce itself in the course of time to an ecologically sane number (and maybe with reduced competition among men there would be less risk of new wars).

But this is only a look at the side. What is much more interesting is the position of Homosexuality in the evolutive development of mankind.

Let's first have a view on the relation of man to his evolution. Man knows from science that there is such a thing as evolution and that he is the result of an evolutive development. But for him this belongs to the past, and that is something that does not concern him. For most men evolution ends with their birth, if not earlier. Evolution has separated the lines of development of man and ape, has brought about the primeval man, the stone age man and finally the Homo sapiens. Period. Afterwards it was only necessary to make the needed inventions, so that today we can have a comfortable life.

If one could ask a primeval man how he expects the future to be, or the development of his species he would certainly point to the greatest, strongest, most cunning and maybe nicest man of his time. And basically it is quite the same today.

The possible development that we can imagine - and which the geneticians already work for - is strength, health, height, intelligence and beauty in uniform pure and unadulterated form. The horizon doesn't reach any wider.

And why should it? Basically man is finished - seen evolutically. Period.

Therefore there are hardly any men who harbour thoughts on the human line of evolution, apart from the biological evolution up to now. But evolution proceeds on several levels. The physico-biological live is only one of these.

If one looks at the human evolution up to now, one thing seems to be apparent: The development of man is a development of growing distance to the animal.

On the biological level this means the development of the upright posture and walking, an enlargement of the brain mass, a change in the bodily proportions, increase in height, decrease in body hair, the formation of an increasingly harmonious, nice and clear expression. This development need not necessarily have come to an end. That we become ever larger since the middle ages may be based on the fact that we could optimise always more our circumstances of life and so have the possibility to unfold our genetic potential. But probably there is also a parallel development, because it will hardly be possible to explain on the grounds of an unfolded genetical potential that man gradually becomes more beautiful. For the future we can expect that man will increasingly loose body hair and become more beautiful and expressive, maybe even more androgynous. Maybe also the growth in height will proceed for some time. But somewhen the possibilities of development that are provided for by the human form will have come to an end.

In order that there will not arise any stagnation, the body would have to change basically, possibly towards greater plasticity and adaptability to keep pace with the comprehensive development instead of becoming a burden for the mental, intellectual being, because evolution isn't a biological matter exclusively.

The biological body lives, and life also is subject to evolution. Life - this means life-force, instincts, initiative and inner drive.

To most important impulsion, besides nourishment and self-preservation is sex. While with the animal sexual acts usually are bound to procreation and maybe in part to the population density, with our nearest relatives it also clearly shows social functions as a ceremony of reconciliation. With man sex was disentangled at a very early stage from procreation and since then serves as an instrument of power and enjoyment. By the way, there are certainly still cultures and areas where the connection between sex and pregnancy is unknown.

Those men who call Homosexuality as 'against nature', often add to this that sex is only for procreation purposes and therefore only permissible between man and woman (without explaining why sex cannot be enjoyed independently of procreation). Basically this argument means the invocation of involution, back to the roots, back to animal. But almost none of them act accordingly. Because this would mean: Sex is only allowed with the immediate intention to father a child, of course only on those days that promise quick and sure success, in order not to be forced to have too much sex, and then no sex after the beginning of pregnancy until the next wish for children arises. (And then there is this important question: What do those people do who are infertile? - Because they certainly can't claim to be occupied with the fathering of children!!!) Well, in daily practice it seems that children rather are a thing risked so that one can have the desired sex (sometimes with a bad consciousness). Out of this clerical, non-christian attitude prevention is declined and all those are condemned that do not at least every now and then try to give the appearance to eventually intending to father a child: the Gays and Lesbians.

They continually demonstrate that it isn't the only function of sex to father children like with the animals, but above all to have fun and to have experiences and nice encounters with other people.

One can also look at the general subject of sexuality and procreation in the evolutive way. As with the animal, the population was repeatedly and continually reduced by natural enemies; this is called natural balance. In Australia the natural balance was turned upside down after rabbits were released into the wilderness, where they have no natural enemies.

Meanwhile it is similar with men. He has no natural enemy (other than himself) and becomes ever more successful in eliminating all factors that could cause an early death. This results in over-population and finally self-destruction.

It's interesting to note that the highest birth rates seem to coincide with the most narrow sexuality consciousness and a low educational level. These are countries in which sex education is very rudimentary, if it exists at all, and where there is no developed, visible and ascertainable sexual culture. Sexual life takes place in the area of conflict between unrestrained and unconscious sex urge life and a repressive atmosphere of hiding, repression and tabooing. As the aim of human evolution cannot be self-extinction by the means of over-population, it can be followed, that the sexual evolution will develop in these directions: reduction of the domination by one's physical urges, cultivation and refinement of sexual life and the development of an open, joyful and wide sexual consciousness. And a part of this is the exploration, recognition and realisation of desires, movements, attitudes and inclinations.

Sex does not solely consist of the inside-out-game in missionary posture, this is the original form, still actual but modernised with enlarged foreplay and an extensive repertoire of postures and still capable of development. There is more to sex than the fathering of children.

There is for instance this emotion of joy which it brings about. Joy is no feeling that is directly caused by orgasm, but it is something of a side effect. Joy shows the character of warmth, wideness, openness. It arises from the feeling of self-forgetfulness and from giving, but also from receiving and from surmounting borders and expanding consciousness. For all these sex can be a help - especially the gourmet sex variety instead of gluttony sex. And the evolutive development of sexual desire and expression tends to gourmet sex and should therefore increasingly be freed from darkness and filled with conscious effort. There is still hidden in sexuality a great potential that awaits unfolding and flowering: communication, expression of emotions, decrease of tensions, exchange of energy, experience of others, conveying of nearness and trust, expansion of consciousness through manifold relations, receptivity. Ultimately the development will probably tend towards a surmounting of the gulf between man, not in the direction of an anarchic horde consciousness but rather towards a higher community consciousness. And of course this doesn't mean that a man will develop this consciousness only towards women, because this would result in the fan-principle as the evolutive direction: one man and many women relating to him - and all this forming an isolated mini-society, where it would be the women's task to create a web between many mini-societies and with the remaining men. This might be a dream of many men, but a realisation would quickly grow into a nightmare, because all of a sudden essential elements would lack in his continuum of relations. A higher community consciousness would rather mean the realisation of the net principle, which has a far wider reach and which also is more robust. Even our brain is built and grows according to this principle: Each with everybody. Until then there is still much effort necessary to weaken out of date structures of thought and behaviour and to arrive at a together which is joyful and free of tensions. And if Homosexuality were present in social and cultural life in a degree which is true to fact and would express its innate possibilities (which would mean not as isolated as now) this would be of great help in the evolutive development.

So much about the desire life. Apart of this in the lower nature of man there is also the instinctive life. If we take a look far back, rsp. into our vaster relatives we find of course in the women the predominant mother scenario, the defence of the offspring, a certain sticking together in the female society and a rather social tendency. Of course this image brings the philosophers of nature and the nature oriented Christians to say that a woman's place is by the hearth and certainly leads to a more or less ignorant attitude on female sexuality. If one proceeds with this picture and the nature-philosophical conclusion, the following results: man joins with other men for hunting's sake (if he isn't a lonely hunter) and in the context of aggressive communal efforts is a social being and capable of collaboration. Otherwise, in what remains of life, he is socially indifferent, if he isn't just occupied with biting work for a higher place in the hierarchy of power. And if the subject of sex turns up, he puts aside every restraint. Then he tries to be impressive at any cost, and every other man will be regarded as a rival in a rather violent way. To live thus in unison with nature instead of 'against nature', man has to continue cultivating his unsocial character, he has to always live in competition with other men, always being their competitor - and if there is such an absurdity like friendship it must necessarily end - at least temporarily - if matters turn to money, power or sex. This kind of philosophy once was promoted very much: in the Third Reich. Homosexuality was and is presumably persecuted because it doesn't fit into the innate to acquired instinct patterns of some Hetero heads. It is a fracture in the instinctive nature of man that is so distinct that it is a source of problems in men that are governed by instinct.

But what is the nature of this fracture? A source material of the evolutive development is the instinctual rivalry especially between males. In the course of evolution this rivalry, because of social necessities, was rather put aside or bound and harnessed instead of really erased. As an an unwanted element it has retrograded and has vanished beneath the surface. Under the evolutionary pressure a social development has taken place, a social evolution. Man has developed the ability of friendship,which has no real place in natural philosophy. In the relations between the sexes and under the influence of the sexual instinct out of this love has developed, sometimes more, but mostly less pure. But as the instinct of rivalry subliminally still exerted a distinct influence, with the same sex relations there arose something like a barrier or a filter, that only let pass emotions that were true to instinct or that coloured the emotions true to instinct - which resulted in the glorification of the famous male-male friendships. Therefore the same-sex relation, especially with men, is a rather deficit matter. The gays have, if not in every single case, yet principally, balanced this deficit. With their existence they show to the average straight guy his potential slumbering within, where he can find the fracture, he has to build a bridge across, and the direction the tendencies of development point to: The perception of the human as a human being instead of a primarily sexual being.

But for this development to succeed, the remaining instinctive nature must be reduced. The instincts presently are still there, but in a more weak form. They have been reduced in the course of development because they were needed less and less, especially because of the mental development. Instinct for things that could be safely eaten was hardly needed as one could judge from experience and tradition what was edible and what was not. And if one went hunting after dangerous animals flight instinct would eventually be disturbing if not itself dangerous. So instinct vanished rsp. decreased in favour of mental development rsp. was under increasing instinct-control which finally was more and more furthered by religions. As together with this many useful powers of perception retired, now instinct in the progressing development has to be substituted by something new. And at first sight this is the mind.

To be better able to judge the mental development one has to inquire after the reason of mind which basically is unique in nature. We have already had a first view in its role in the instinctual being. This instinctual being belonged to the unconscient or subconscient part of human nature. The evolutionary development indicates a detachment from the basements of nature. The mind is an instrument for getting something like a grip on the in/subconscient. But the mind's ability of gaining knowledge is somewhat limited, despite all scientific successes. Therefore the mind cannot be a substitute for the instinctual being. If one forms a picture of this in the mind, one can find down below the instinctual being with its in- and subconscient protuberances reaching into the mind. And from above the mind is reached by protuberances from the intuitive realm. As the instinct isn't qualified for being an instrument of gaining knowledge and the usual mind doesn't suffice as a substitute, if you only take a look at its capacity, the development must find its continuation in the development and unfolding of intuition as a higher means of gaining knowledge, while the gravitational centre of consciousness shifts further upward, as is the continuing case from the beginning of mankind. Another alternative for the consciousness is the possibility of a movement within, towards the soul, which is its cause, and towards the unfolding of the soul-being. But probably both movements will go together as they complement each other. But in any case, the mind will increasingly occupy its true function - that of an executing instrument.

Regarding the function of the mind in the transition from the instinctual to the intuitive being there also exists another point of view. As is obvious and already indicated, the human development points away from the animal. The animal kingdom displays a certain lack of individuality, although there individuality is more defined than in the vegetal kingdom. Animals are embedded in a kind of group consciousness with kind of ritualistic behaviour patterns, a strong dependence on instinct and a small range of individuality. with progressing mental development in modern man this embedding into the group consciousness drifts more and more into the background, although every now and then it is still very easily activated, e. g. at Hitler's mass-meetings, at demagogic stagings that appeal to original instincts, but also at those 'harmless' sport events. Instead of this the evolution, the 'natural' development, leads to the formation of increasingly distinguished characteristics of personality and in growing measure to the formation of a real singular being that later on very consciously will join into a new kind of group consciousness that at present could be attributed as conscious or enlighten or multiplying. Well, the way is maybe still far, but it goes through the effort to become a real individuum, that rises well shaped from the swamp of the in- and subconscient, drains and cultivates it as a fertile arable land for rich harvesting, as a secure basis for further ascent.

This means in other words that one explores, with the light of consciousness, all 'natural' parts of the lower levels of consciousness and erases these parts as the need arises or adapts, transforms and/or integrates them. And the same applies to the manifold personalities and personality components one houses. The richer the variety the more expressive the individual will become, that arises out of it. And as from this quite a number or processes of becoming conscious will result, one will also have to deal with various strings of personality that touch on sexuality.

The strings that originate from the biological/evolutionary/instinctive nature of man have already been discussed in brief. What remains is the mental-social nature.

Formation and expression of personality result from the interplay of genetics, environment and soul. As environment neither supports nor promotes Homosexuality but rather condemns it, as its origin therefore remain a genetic disposition and a psychic choice or necessity; in other words, it is a gift of nature. And therefore it cannot be 'healed' or 'therapied', as is demanded, promoted and tried by certain elements without conscience. Heterosexual behaviour in people who are not meant for it can only be brought about by brainwashing - and this fact alone should be a sufficient indication of the senselessness and nonsense of such an endeavour.

Now in nature there usually are no sharp borders. The severe distinction between good and bad, black and white is a purely human invention in the same way as the distinction in 90-95 % heterosexuals and 5-10 % gays. Science has discovered long ago how nature works in such questions: statistically. This means, that there is a small number of extremes on the edges with the variety becoming wider towards the centre which usually results in in a so called Gaussian Graph. In the sexual universe this means that a small number of gays are to be expected, a small number of Heteros and a broad majority of people who bear within them both extremes in differing shares. This point of view is supported on one side by psychological interrogations and on the other side by scientific inquiries that in an impressive way substantiate an old popular saying: The more you argue against something, the more of this you have in yourself. To put it more concretely there was an investigation about people tending to anti-gay violence. The investigation came to the conclusion that those people who were the most aggressive Homophobes also had the highest quota in gay personality parts, which generally were higher than average.

If this and the statistical standards mentioned above are put together, the following conclusions can be drawn: There is a small portion of people who do not have any problems with gays. These are either purebred heterosexuals or else they have only small gay shares or they have come to terms with their gay parts. Then there is a small number of people who are purebred gays, who know this and act accordingly. And there is a great mass of people who carry in themselves both modes of behaviour, but only accept their heterosexual string.

This last point should meet our attention. So far we have before us a natural disposition which doesn't originate from the environment and which can only superficially be impeded by it in its expression. What is generally thrust aside or disregarded is the fact that the environment by all means has a definite influence on the marking of the personality by hampering unwanted and furthering wanted behaviour by the means of defining social standards. As a consequence only people with a strong individuality or a high share of unwanted behavioural patterns preserve their nature despite social pressure. This means, that many of the gays and lesbians that 'out' themselves either are a strong individual personality or are more or less purebred Homosexuals of both. But those who have a weak nature or only small to average gay shares will run with the tide and play, consciously or unconsciously, the good family man. Now and then there are even cases of men who have never even thought about Homosexuality, who have been good boys and have married, as it was expected from them and who were never really conscious of the possibility of being gay, simply because in their social and media environment it never was a real topic. Maybe being a fivefold father the became aware of what was the matter and why they never really enjoyed marital life. At this moment they already have become very unhappy - and their partners also.

This practice of society is something I would rather call 'against nature', a rape of the human nature and of man's developing personality. From this one can deduct what is necessary for man in order to live in accordance with his inner nature and so more or less happy: one point is that school and education should not work towards a good, uniform recipient of orders, which is poor in fantasy, but to encourage everyone to unfold his individual flower of personality and never to cease in the effort to become increasingly sincere in front of oneself. (This also is, by the way, an absolute necessity when a growing number of people has to live in shrinking space: because who understands himself will also better understand his fellow man - and I think that this is the central topic of Christianity and also a deduction from the commandment of charity.)

This point is supported by a second necessity: an increased gay and lesbian presence in all media, not especially emphasised but rather as a matter of course. This may cause some sniffing from those who are to old to think things over anew (that sometimes is already the case in puberty), but for the processes of self-finding and development as well as for social peace of the following generations gay and lesbian idols would be a great support. Everyone could quite naturally and without fear unfold and live his homo- as well as heterosexual shares and would be able to accept others without wrinkling their noses or missionary zeal. Social contacts would become more intimate, more ready to help, more human, and competition would give way to collaboration. And some abilities would not have to be suppressed together with sexual tendencies. For this, sexuality in itself would have to be taken from its shadowy existence and messy image into the light of the consciousness as a self-evident part of human life that can be a topic as easily as e.g. breakfast.

If we return to the concept of evolution we have now not only arrived at the evolution of consciousness (because sincerity, the search for truth and the kindling of light in the depths of the subconscient are necessary steps in the ongoing evolution), but also at the till now more or less unnoted social evolution, that works closely together with the evolution of consciousness. Growing individualism and increasingly complex structures of personality have to go along with a growing together of the human community on an inner level. This is an inevitable stage of social evolution. We can leave this task to nature and wait many thousands of years more - if we survive that long - or make it our own endeavour.

In all these considerations one aspect has, at least superficially, not appeared. So far we have looked into the evolution from animal to man, from the biological to the social being. This is the range of common argumentation. But the actually most important aspect that secretly supports human evolution is the development of the psychic and its highest for of expression: love.

If we follow the line of development again from this point of view we can get a somewhat more complete picture. As there are no testimonials from prehistorical times we can only work with interpolations and approximations.

As the prehistoric man was still very near to the animal we can deduct that the relationships of prehistoric men were dominated nearly exclusively by instinct and pheromones and the selection of a mate was more determined by genetical influences than by sentimental ones. The relation between instinct and sentiment (or animal and soul) then shifted towards sentiment, although the beginning mental development often enough put a spoke in it. For example, parents have for wide spaces of historical time arranged marriages for mental and political (=influential) reasons. And in newer history also (about the last few millenniums), when there as talk (or writings) of intense and ardent affairs, nearly always the image of sexual passion and unrestrained desire arises before the inner eye. And the common expressions of today for sex (to love, to make love) also indicate, that love and sex in former times have been synonymous - and they still are in broad parts of the population. this slow ascent of love is reflected also a little bit in the religions. While the old religions were more occupied with the regulation of our animal ancestry, the idea of obedience and with the regulations of relationships (rights, duties), the Buddhism already has compassion as a central point, and the succeeding Christianity centres around the thought of charity, although not very successfully.

Meanwhile we find ourselves at the beginning of a new millennium and the idea or emotion of love finds access into an increasing number of hearts, and if one takes into account the development of say the last millennium, one could state that this happens like an explosion.

Now sex and love are - even if the words are still used synonymously sometimes - different things. In its essence sex is an expression of instinctive nature and love is an expression of the soul, and one can very well have one of them only without the other. As it is sex will only rarely lead to love (though possibly to understanding, if one puts enough consciousness in it) but as a well of fun and joy it has its own legitimation. Whereas love will more often lead to sex because it can use it on the bodily level as a means of expression (which is even supported and furthered by social formations) and in a limited way a means of communication with the partner.

Love is the expression of the soul. During the process of evolution the soul has made efforts to free itself from the claims of the animal heritage and to unfold its own nature, which is the proper nature of man, as a foundation for his further evolution. So one can say that love is the inner nature of man.

But when one says that a man is only allowed to love a woman and vice versa then the human being will be limited in its nature - and he will be limited to a biological function.. And especially to those who call themselves Christians (religious or political ones) can be said one thing: the central statement of Christianity is: Do love your neighbour. (This already comprises the Buddhist compassion for all beings.) Whoever loves - and it doesn't matter whom - expresses in this love the Christian ideal and also his soul. And whoever tries to keep somebody from love and its expression acts in an unchristian way. It is not important who decides with whom to share his bed; valuable is only the emotion of love and its expression.

But with this the commandment of charity isn't yet fulfilled. There is not only one neighbour, there are by now about 6 billions (at least on this planet).

One characteristic of the soul and of love is wideness. He who loves wants to embrace the whole world. But custom, habits, formations and laws and the small-family-isolation as well as jealousy have a very hampering effect.

Viewed in this way the commandment of charity is an important item for the social evolution in the beginning millennium. Man will become freer and richer in the expression of his love, less bound by overcome standards and with an urge towards the formation of larger communities than the petty 3-person-household.

Oct. 11, 1999


Zurück / Startseite / Über den Autor