Homosexuality and Male Superiority

If you think that homosexuality is morally justified by the widespread existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, you should also think that male domination of women is justified by natural mammalian male social and political superiority. The idea that the "male power structure" among humans is somehow socially constructed is dealt a death blow by the same argument that animates discussions of the immutability of homosexuality. (In fact, having watched my fair share of BBC documentaries, I can tell you homosexuality is far less common in the wild than male domination, despite the fact that this piss-poor Wikipedia article has been cleansed of the term "alpha male" and remains pitifully undeveloped. Compare it with Wikipedia's extensive and well-documented article on homosexuality in animals, and you have a pretty clear example of bias.) The answer is that the existence of homosexuality and male superiority among animals means only one thing: the eradication of these behaviors among present-day humans is impossible. But morally speaking, these facts are simply not relevant.

Well, not if your morals are to follow nature. And even if they are to maximize happiness, it's possible that many women are equally happy under male "domination" as under liberation (see here). I think the best case can be made for the following proposition: Women should be free to select for themselves family life or working life, because though most women probably find the former more fulfilling (in the absence of truly societally constructed "feminist" opinions, that is), many do not, and they should have the opportunity to compete as men can. Women should not be subjected to societal pressure to choose either path.

The same applies equally to homosexuality.