Sunday, April 27, 2008

Homosexuality And Darwinism

The other day I was thinking of how homosexuality came into existence, and whether or not homosexuality might be genetically influenced. The idea is that if homosexuality was nothing more than an anomaly, you would expect it to vanish, or at least be a very rare case. But the matter of fact is that homosexuality is common, and it would be very hard to suggest that it's an anomaly.

One idea that came through my head was that social pressure was probably a very influential factor that sustained homosexuality. Thats to say, social pressure exerted upon homosexuals forced them to undergo the process of reproduction, and hence that anomaly was sustained through human generations. Following this line of thought, it seems that the easiest way to eliminate homosexuality is to allow guilt-free homosexual activity, since this would simply decrease the survival value of the homosexual "gene".

But again, saying that homosexuality is an anomaly might not be wise. Much evidence shows that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Those animals probably don't face the same kind of social pressure that humans exert.

This evidence has challenged Darwin's "sexual selection" theory [NOT "survival of the fittest"]. Darwin simply viewed sexuality to be motivated by reproduction. But strong evidence shows otherwise. The truth is, as humans, most sexual encounters are not reproduction related, and don't fit Darwin's description. Consider this:
Darwin had very specific sex roles for males and females. He wrote that females are docile and dainty and always prefer mates who are attractive and vigorous. But the world doesn't work like that. A quick look at humans tells you that women don't always prefer musclebound models. It's really obvious, but women choose all kinds of men as mates, and very rarely do those choices have to do with exhibited traits, like the peacock's tail or a stag's antlers, that Darwin thought represented "good genes."

In fact, the whole good-gene idea is suspect. The idea that a female could look at a male and tell by his appearance how good his genes are and how those genes are going to play out in 20 years is extremely far-fetched. Scientists have been trying to prove this idea experimentally, and it never bears out. It doesn't bear out, because not even supercomputers can offer that kind of predictability. (source)


In short, I think anyone who would say that homosexuality is an anomaly, or would think that homosexuality has no survival value, is shown to be incorrect by evidence from our reality. Homosexuality has gained ground in many aspects of life, including the political arena... This can't be an anomaly that we are talking about! Homosexuality should have a function in humanity that caused it to have such strong presence, and denying that is being blind to the fact of its influence...

PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted

12 comments:

James said...

"The idea is that if homosexuality was nothing more than an anomaly, you would expect it to vanish, or at least be a very rare case."

Really? like diabetes? depression? breast cancer? and other genetically influenced human conditions? if you want to argue for something, make sure you have a good argument.

Foofoo said...

>>> Much evidence shows that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior.

And just like humans, animals get sick too. they have mental illnesses and physical illnessess.

What's your point? that if an animal gets sick with cancer, that makes cancer something good and normal?

Devil's Mind said...

Good point James. Some hereditary disease exist, and are common like diabetes. [Note that your argument wouldn't hold for breast cancer, AIDS, or infections]

Diabetes is not a terminal disease, and hence has been able to survive. Homosexuality would be terminal. Hence in the second paragraph I said: "social pressure exerted upon homosexuals forced them to undergo the process of reproduction, and hence that anomaly was sustained through human generations."

Anyways, I will reconsider your argument later.

And foofoo, I mentioned animals because they have different type of social pressure than humans. The idea is that homosexuality is not caused by an "infection", or radiation as in the case of cancer. So it can't be that homosexuality spread between species. So it is really interesting that many different species share the diversity of sexual orientations.

me said...

>>> it is really interesting that many different species share the diversity of sexual orientations.

we share criminal tendencies too. not to mention all sorts of abnormalities that are not infectious but hereditary. you need a more coherent argument than what you have offered.

Devil's Mind said...

Criminal tendencies are important to our survival. Thats how we live in a world with limited resources, we fight each other!! We we cannot say that crimes are an anomaly, they are a necessity.

I see that what you are trying to say that sharing certain traits doesn't make those traits good or bad. Its irrelevant. And I agree with you on that...

Anonymous said...

i like it when people actually worry about stuff that probably isn't gonna affect their lives, i mean where do i begin with u ppl?
*foofoo:
"And just like humans, animals get sick too. they have mental illnesses and physical illnessess.

What's your point? that if an animal gets sick with cancer, that makes cancer something good and normal?"
unlike what you would like to think homosexuality isn't a disease it's just a matter of choice...if u cant understand that then it's your problem...
*me:
unless u are a certified specialist in genetics i don't think that you should rule out heredity, but in your favour i would agree that homosexuality can be a learned behaviour suggested by the surrounding environment like religion and language.
*and a message for all the others, please guys keep an open mind and be subjective, remeber that these are human beings that we're talkin about and just because they chose different doesn't make them bad people...free your mind and get rid of religious none sense and cultural stereotyping that is trying it's best to get u thinking that those folks are mentally ill or are sex offenders, any man who is deprived of his basic needs because of social pressure could try to fullfil these needs in some way or the other but that is very rare. remember that different does'nt always mean worse!
*devil's mind:
a nice idea that pops to mind might actually be different than what you have suggested is that the homosexual state of mind was intentionally created by nature to keep things in equlibrium, after all humans have reproduced so much that theres too much on one side of the equation that needs to be balanced and hence the homosexual "gene" if u would call it that, will not seise to exist untill the number of human beings is diminished...just a thought!

The Observer said...

I once read, and not sure how legitemate is the study, that the sisters of a gay man are more active sexually and drawn to men than the average women.

The explanation is that if there is a gene related to homosexuality, then it is the gene that dictates the strength of attraction to men, which affects both women and men in the same family. For women, it would be a good thing, having more seeds, while for men, it means being gay.

So even if gay men don't procreate like the average straight man, their sisters make up for the shortage by procreating more and passing the gene.

It is a rational explanation of how homosexuality never fade out. What do you think?

Devil's Mind said...

Observer: If there is really such a "male-affinity" gene, the explanation would make sense. So if the initial assumption is correct, the rest follows nicely from there. It would be good if you could find where you read about that gene, so as to increase the credibility of this argument.

Anonymous:
Thank you for pointing out what the post is trying to say, that homosexuality might be existing for a specific reason.

As for James, Foofoo, and me, I guess they have valid concerns. For a post to be effective, it should present convincing arguments. The idea came to my head, and I published it on my blog. But the arguments in their current form are not sufficiently convincing, and those commenters are pointing out the deficiencies in the arguments. So we need to address those deficiencies in an objective manner in order to have convincing arguments.

a different perspective said...

I know I'm very late. I was just thinking that if we assume being gay is hereditary and we assume that gays had no social pressure and did not reproduce, it would be like a hereditary infertility condition.
It still exists and it can be passed on as a recessive gene in a sibling or something. For example, you can be infertile like your uncle, or be gay like your uncle.
Just a thought.

Devil's Mind said...

Born Gay is an article that holds preliminary findings about the homosexuality and its genetic influence.

In short, in one study it was found that male homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual mother, and that female homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual father.

PS: I posted about this article here

A person preferring to be anonymous said...

Check this link when you're free out there.
http://www.harunyahya.com/en.m_categorie_76.php

Read the contents with intense concentration.

Solving for X said...

@ James

Homosexuality would directly impact whether or not your genes would be reproduced, if you were homosexual, most likely not.

Genetic conditions such as depression, diabetes, etc, often do not hinder one's ability to pass on their genes.

Therefore they are not comparable.