Considering evolution and procreation of the species how is homosexuality congruent with the essence of life.?

Question

Let me preface that this is being premised purely on a scientific biological and evolutionary context and without reference to morality or prejudice. The most basic and primary biological purpose and function of every living organism being its survival, its propagation and continuance, how can a drive or sexual function contrary to that be anything but a dysfunction of biological purpose and the evolutionary process of survival of the species. Considering that the homosexual community’s platform and consensus is that their lifestyle is not a choice but a hardwired biological drive, which they do not control but follow being their natural course, would not the fate of a species be terminal if that biological programming began to permeate all of the species? If applied to the whole, any biological programming which would compromises the species procreation and survival is by its nature against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.

The preface is to the explanation, not room in the title line.

If one could and would "knock up a few chicks" (as one answer states) then isn't it a choice then and an awareness that that choice goes against the natural law of evolution and what is normal to the survival of the species.

Again, for those that want to throw eyecolor or being left-handed into the question, it does not apply in regards to evolutionary survival of the species they are but by-products and every other biological trait that is neutral in regards to it. Homosexaulity to the contrary bristles that "what is normal" or "what is natural" and that "it is not a choice". The most basic fact of biological evolution is the drive to procreate, genetic traits or habits or characteristics that would be contrary to the most basic fact of life could not be a "normal" part of it but as another answerer admitted in so many words exception to it or an anomaly of it. Granted not wrong, or right but not part of natural selection and the normal continuance of the species.

Answer 1

Homosexuality is not now nor will it ever be the DOMINANT sexual preference. It consistantly runs about 5-10% of the popultion. If it was a genetic abnormality that could be weeded out SOLELY on the suposition that homosexuals do not procreate-then logically it would no longer exist. If however you look at the larger picture and at the consistancy over history of homosexuals and bisexuals you would see that homosexuality is NOT the norm but neither is it unnatural-it is simply a minority.


From a biological stand point--

"A study published in the February issue of the journal Endocrinology demonstrates that not only are certain groups of cells different between genders in a part of the sheep brain controlling sexual behavior, but brain anatomy and hormone production may determine whether adult rams prefer other rams over ewes.
........
"Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species." said Roselli, whose laboratory collaborated with the Department of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University and the USDA Agricultural Research Service's U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho.

Kay Larkin, Ph.D., an OHSU electron microscopist who performed laboratory analysis for the study, said scientists now have a marker that points to whether a ram may prefer other rams over ewes.

"There's a difference in the brain that is correlated with partner preference rather than gender of the animal you're looking at," she said.

About 8 percent of domestic rams display preferences for other males as sexual partners. Scientists don't believe it's related to dominance or flock hierarchy; rather, their typical motor pattern for intercourse is merely directed at rams instead of ewes."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm

Answer 2

I want I had the supply for this, nevertheless it was once a college textbook (often no longer even top college), and I should not have it anymore. But they mentioned that if evolution happened as the idea states, then we might count on one style of lifestyles (say, guy) to be extra intently similar within the DNA to the style from which it developed. That is smart, and it isn't tough to scan scientifically. The reality is, nonetheless, that DNA suggests random hyperlinks. Like snake venom is concerning some thing instead of what we might count on, or mice are extra intently concerning a few style that even an evolutionist might have a tough time bearing on evolutionally. Does this make feel? I want I might don't forget the lifestyles types they indexed (however that was once greater than 10 years in the past, so provide me a holiday, k?), however the proposal caught. Now, in a few circumstances that is real. In different circumstances, it isn't. I located 2 articles that you just could desire to learn. Let's positioned it this fashion: If I confirmed you my today's Mercedes within the driveway (I should not have one, however for the sake of argument...), and also you mentioned, "Wow! How might you have the funds for this kind of high-quality automobile!" Well, feel I advised you, "Oh, I did not purchase it. I simply went down and blew up the landfill, and the entire components for the automobile simply fell in combination within the fallout, and the important thing landed proper subsequent to my ft. It was once sooooo cool!" You might marvel what intellectual medical institution I had escaped from and could also be sort ample to take me again to it! Yet that is what evolution says. If we blow up ample landfills, ultimately SOMETHING usefil will probably be created. Sure, the chances are nice, however sooner or later we're going to hit gold. It's such a lot less difficult to think in wise layout, although you do not think in God the way in which I do, than to think in a mathematical impossibility. Of path, if there is no God, there is no sin, which means that you'll do something you suppose like. That's aspect of the large enchantment of atheism.

Answer 3

Very interesting question.

I think that once human technology or human social interaction interferes, evolution of course is 'messed up' in a way. Think about it- if procreation/survival of a genetic line is the path evolution takes, then our society has actually allowed it to happen very easily. Our pressures to ignore and oppress homosexuality in the past and sometimes today leads to somewhat sham marriages and couplings that, while satisfactory to those involved, nevertheless usually result in offspring for appearance's sake or just a desire for children (especially in the past). And currently, when it is more open and accepted, we have the technology to allow reproduction without sex mattering (sperm donation, surrogate mothers, etc.). The genes survive despite the couple not actually being able to reproduce without outside help. If not for that, then it would certainly, as you say, be 'terminal if that biolgoical programming began to permeate all of the species'.

That's my take on it, at least, not being a biologist or knowing much about the subject. I still think that there's nothing more natural or normal about ANY type of sexuality, and I DON'T believe that our sexuality is genetic, but that's just me.

Answer 4

You will find that the best writing consists of using simple words where possible. Consider the first line of the most famous soliloquy of them all. 'To be or not to be, that is the question'. Eleven words, and ten of them with one syllable.

The answer to your question is that indeed, the species would come to an end if everybody was homosexual. That is obvious. But homosexuality is kept to a certain level in a population.

You are making a big leap when you start saying it is against the natural evolution of the species. Clearly that is not the case. Equally clearly, the fact that homosexuality is as common as it is indicates that in fact it serves to facilitate survival in human societies. It might not be obvious why, but it is equally obvious that it does, otherwise it would not exist.

Answer 5

Natures way of population control!

There have been studies which indicate that most occurrences of gay offspring happen in families where;

A) The mother comes from a large family with many siblings and/or aunts & uncles.

B) The mother has given birth to numerous children.

C) One or both of the biological parents is gay (however the majority of gay people that have biological offspring tend to have "heterosexual" children).

Scientific research has revealed this trate is carried foreward by the mother and based on what we know, is genetic in its entirety. Homosexuals are born as such, denying us this scientific fact is ignorance!

Answer 6

I'm not certain why homosexuality survives...It must have something positive to 'add' to the gene pool of survival..perhaps in a non sexual way it helps with the perpetuation of the species...not directly but as a party working on the sidelines...as a biologist this is a question I have often thought about.."Why am I gay and what do I contribute to the continuation of the species?"
I mean this as in what do worker ants do as individuals to the survival of the queen.....a poor example perhaps but you get my drift?.....I think because this has always been with us and has never been bred out..that it must offer something...but I'm not quite sure what that is....other than maybe contributing to some betterment of society.

Answer 7

Luckily there are more then one woman and one man on this great earth. Whoa. Makes ya think huh. Will the penguins @ the New York zoo become extinct also cause they are two males and want nothing to do with the woman? Or about the pandas who have no interest in sex. Go see what United States population and just reached about two years ago. We are not in jeopardy of extinction by any means. It just makes sense. Some studies say 1 in every 10 people is gay some say more. So the more the population continues to grow in the world. The more homosexuals you will have. Gives you something to look forward to huh.

Answer 8

You are assuming that people would be exclusively one or the other, in most Pre-Judeo/Christian cultures the norm was some form of bisexuality, according to Kinsey, it still is. In Greece a man was still expected to have a wife and family. Anthropologically it is shown that cultures opposed to homosexuality are, almost across the board, equally restrictive of other types of sexuality as well. The cultures with the highest acceptance and practice of homosexuality therefor also tend to have the highest birthrates. Your premise is in opposition to the facts in so far as they can be determined and demonstrated. Clearly we have evolved and developed, and there doesn't appear to be signs of Gays disappearing, the population is outstripping available resources, so there has been no negative impact on the birthrate.

Answer 9

socially constructed meaning to things. procreation is not the main purpose. It is just one part of the process of existence. But, humans decided to attach judgements of negative, positive, neutral, we attached meaning and power to things in order to declare that we have a grasp on the meaning of the universe and life itself. The meaning of life, is attribution, without attribution what is meaning? I think it is highly arrogant for one to claim extensive knowledge about the purpose of existence. And science is often flawed, existing within the discoursive frameworks of human limitations.

What do you know about what is natural? biological?
I ask one to consider the may clause/can clause:

the "may clause" and the "can clause"

a "may/may not" (should) clause = societal permission.

and "can/cannot" (physical ability/biology) = nature

much of what you claim is natural or biological, is simply socially constructed concepts and ideals based upon a may clause, a permission clause where humans seek to hold the power to permit or deny and call themselves spokespersons of what is "natural"

Answer 10

How can you "preface" your question AFTER you've already asked it???

"How is homosex congruent with the essence of life?"

I suppose it isn't. So what?

No matter how gay a guy is, he can still get a chick pregnant. So, if it makes you happy, I'll make sure I knock up a few women before I die. It's really not so difficult to do, even for a gay guy. Problem solved.

Love Jack