Do You Think Gay Marriage Goes Against Darwin's Principle Of Evolution?

Question

that says a specie must reproduce in order to thrive?

Answer 1

Marriage is not part of reproduction. Animals do not marry. Perhaps it is part of evollution because then gay people will not be marrying straight people. Perhaps everything is for a reason, but marriage is an instution and reproduction is part of science, so I do not think darwin considered marriage into the factor. Cave people did not get married.

Answer 2

No. You're not thinking about this thoroughly enough. Gay people obviously have some workings switched around in their brian that makes them attracted to those of the same gender. When they get together and mate, no offspring are produced. This is a perfect example of evolution, because for a species to thrive, it must reproduce, and reproduce those genes beneficial to the replication of the species. Gay people do not pass that trait directly to their offspring through natural means, because they do not naturally reproduce, which would in a natural setting weed them out. The issue with evolution is that humans can change their environment to suit their needs, so we really have nothing to prevent the species as a whole continuing on, other than suicide cults and natural disasters. Our population trend has reached a J curve and now the only thing that's going to effect us is limited resources.

Answer 3

Absolutely not. And here's why: According to Darwin, we are just chance creatures; results of chemical reactions and millions of years of striving to survive. With this line of thinking, there is no right and wrong but what you want it to be...because there is no God, only us. Therefore, any man can do whatever he deems right...be it gay marriage or whatever. After all, he might think to himself, there are plenty out there already reproducing the race. However, gay marriage is indeed against God. In fact, it's what is known as a misnomer. If some civilian picked up a gun and said "I'm in the military," it wouldn't be true, would it? He had a gun, he called it military, but he didn't fit the description i.e. one who had actually joined the military. It doesn't matter what you call it. God instituted marriage as the term applied to a man and a woman coming together to form a family unit. Therfore, we conclude, evolutionary thinking facilitates gay activity, while God's way is in direct opposition.

Answer 4

I think evolution is totally invalidated in this day and age for people. Darwinian principles imply that the most fit leave more offspring. If you define fitness by today's standards - success and presumed intelligence - then Darwin's principles are not working, as "successful people" are choosing to have fewer and fewer children. If you consider society by original Darwinian standards - pure survival skills, lasting long enough to breed, etc, then also no. Virtually anyone and everyone can have children, thus eliminating selective advantage and evolution. So bottom line - there doesn't seem to be any selective force in our society, thus evolution is not occurring and being gay or not a moot point.

Answer 5

If a species over populates an area and runs out of food(resources), then that species will go extinct. C.J.Jung proposed that homosexuality could be the answer to the over population of the planet.

Also not so much related to this, but I do no notice that more an more women no not want to have children so that they can attend to their careers. So would you consider this against the principles of Darwin's theory?

Answer 6

Not at all. There are plenty of couples who are either too old or are infertile that still marry with no hope of producing offspring. Darwin's theory of evolution has no bearing on a happy marriage and neither should having children, some people just don't want kids, nothing wrong with that.

Answer 7

No. Because not everyone has sex and not everyone reproduces.

As long as the species as a whole continues to reproduce, and many gay couples do with the help of technology, there is no evolutionary issue.

Your question also ignores the fact that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. It's just either a religious or legal status that conveys certain benefits.

Answer 8

Actually it fits in nicely with Darwin's theories. In nature when a species lives in a remote area (an island, or a plot of land cut off by the sea and mountains...you get my drift) and becomes overpopulated, homosexuality tends to rise.

It is part of nature's way of controlling population growth.

Answer 9

well if you're going by darwin's theory.. then yeah it does but i don't think anyone should not get married because of they're the same gender.. I know of bi sexuals who marry one gender and date the other gender.. so they can still reproduce..so just because two people of the same gender marry.. doesn't mean they always end up not finding a way to reproduce.

Answer 10

I’d have to say yes or at least it goes against nature. Grant it not everyone reproduces wethter they a. don’t want to have children or b. they cant because they have something wrong with them.

A gay couple on the other hand has no chance at all of having a child together, unless they adopt, seek a sperm donor or surroagte