Does Darwinism implicitly suggest that homosexuals are inferior?

Question

They cannot naturally reproduce and pass on their traits.

I'm not baiting Darwinism or homosexuality, actually. I'm just curious how this could be intelligently answered. Thanks for you ideas.

Answer 1

Darwinism does not address homosexuality at all. You bring up a good point, however I do not know how to adequately argue one side or the other. I would imagine that Darwin, being the forward thinker that he was, would simply claim that homosexuality is a cultural trait and defined within a cultural context and since most populations have a very low number of homosexual people (around 4%) would never claim that homosexuality was a genetic defect, but more of a personal choice. Remember that he was highly criticized (and still to this day) for his theories and probably would not condone others that "thought ouside the box."

Answer 2

Homosexuality, though is NOT genetic .Its less nature and more nurture.In a way homosexuality could be viewed as a weakness as most species are, in Darwin's theory are upon the Earth to reproduce vigorously.
In the 1960s homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness.

If the species did not reproduce it would not exist. Reproduction is important.

There are inferiority's and superiority's in nature . Alpha males and females in wolf packs.

Answer 3

interesting question. It depends on what homosexuality is caused by. Is it purely genetic? Is it a result of hormones in the womb? We're not really sure yet. I would say that perhaps homosexuality has some adaptive value or it would be completely gone. Look at the greeks, they reveled in homosexuality yet managed to keep procreating. Maybe it helps some males bond? Some individuals are able to forgo procreation to keep some community bonding? I'm just throwing ideas out here...

Now that it's more reviled it's not much of a help, but way back in the day, there might not have been such hatred towards them.

Answer 4

Homosexuals are indeed "inferior" from an evolutionary standpoint. Some scientists believe that certain genes produce a predisposition for homosexuality. If this is true, since homosexuals are less likely to have children(some opt for a surrogate mothers, others for adoption or not at all), these genes are less likely to be passed on. Additionally, children of homosexuals have a higher likelihood of being homosexual than children of heterosexuals, but this does not translate well, because again, homosexuals do not as often raise children.

Answer 5

Many people take the theory of evolution too literally. Reproduction is the most important aspect of human life, obviously, but just because homosexuals can't reproduce it doesn't mean they are inferior. Evolution is a blind process, it has no destination, it has no plan. It is said that eventually the Hispanics will dominate the US. Wouldn't that make them superior to us? Reproducing in our society does not make someone superior to another. There is no inferior or superior status in nature, things are what we make them.

Answer 6

unquestionably, the APA states that homosexuality is organic AND known, nevertheless a minority. undecided the place you get carry of the concept that scientifically that is declared to be incorrect, that is not. the only those that somewhat are anti gay are non secular conservatives, to which i do no longer even could respond to. they are going to die out quickly sufficient, and the subsequent technology will upward push up. the object you published interior the added information sickens me. at first, all of us makes damaging possibilities. the object suggested satisfaction parades, which i'm against. that is an excuse for homosexuals to flock to a minimum of one area and bypass around and act like complete slutbags. it is so embarrassing. additionally, I dislike how stereotypically gay men are seen as all slutty. There ARE extra down-to-earth gay men obtainable. i assume you may remember that repressing your sexuality for years, especially situations even a protracted time, does have a brilliant consequence on you. that does no longer propose I approve of that life type, although. Propagation of the species? i did no longer be attentive to I had to try this. in case you haven't any longer observed, the Earth is overpopulated sufficient as that is. Heterosexuals that use start administration or condoms are not doing lots propagation the two.

Answer 7

Evolution and natural selection do not "suggest" inferiority or superiority. The fact that homosexuality has survived as a genetic trait shows that it is part of the nature of things.

Answer 8

That's actually a good point. I have nothing against homosexuals, but when considered through Darwinism they are inferior.

Answer 9

No. In fact, if you look at it that way, you might say homosexuality as a trait has superceded evolution. But I think what will eventually be found is that homosexuality is a recessive trait, meaning you have to inherit from both your parents. People who only inherit from one go on to have children, who have the trait, and pass it on to their kids.

Answer 10

No, but their siblings can. They come from the same genetic stock and recessive genes are recessive genes. In my own way, given the condition of the planet and the knowledge that they aren't able to contribute to the growing population problems, I would say they are superior. There is something that is unaddressed in Origin of the Species, and that is what happens when the fittest of the species saps the resources of the planet to the point that they kill it, what happens then? Evolution, and genetics are more complicated than I think you are allowing for, which I might add is why so many people don't understand them.