Evolution - how does homosexuality fit in with 'survival of the fittest'?

Question

Not interested in queer-bashing, thanks.

Answer 1

Well it doesn't of course. But then much of human behaviour doesn't. We keep people with illnesses alive, we support and nurture the disabled, we make places in our society for people who contribute little or nothing.

That's because human society is geared to allowing everyone to achieve their potential, to odd concepts such as 'wealth' or 'nation' or to activities such as exploration or leisure. In other words, humans have largely developed beyond 'survival of the fittest' and have created societies which place importance on more than mere biological factors.

Who knows, it might be the death of us all in the end. But for the time being, while homosexuals can contribute just as much as anyone else to what society considers important, 'survival of the fittest' is as largely irrelevant to them as it is to the rest of the human race.

Answer 2

With every day pass, our country is getting into more and more trouble. The inflation, unemployment and falling value of dollar are the main concern for our Government but authorities are just sleeping, they don’t want to face the fact. Media is also involve in it, they are force to stop showing the real economic situation to the people. I start getting more concern about my future as well as my family after watching the response of our Government for the people that affected by hurricane Katrina.

According to recent studies made by World Bank, the coming crisis will be far worse than initially predicted. So if you're already preparing for the crisis (or haven't started yet) make sure you watch this video at http://www.familysurvival.tv and discover the 4 BIG issues you'll have to deal with when the crisis hits, and how to solve them fast (before the disaster strikes your town!) without spending $1,000s on overrated items and useless survival books.

Answer 3

There's always the argument that in the past homosexuals have been forced into heterosexual partnerships and parenthood, conserving the 'gay gene'.

I'm not convinced by that, and I don't think homosexuality is entirely determined by genetics. I'll buy that there might be a genetic component, but I'm sure there are more complex environmental components too.

As far as explaining how any genetic component could be preserved, I'd tend to favour the explanation that many people are neither exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, and pass on their genes. I'd also tentatively be inerested in the idea that homosexuals add to the fitness of their siblings so the putative gene is conserved through inclusive fitness.

Answer 4

Homosexuality may be considered a taboo topic in today's society, but homosexuality in the animal kingdom has always been. As for survival of the fittest [& without "queer-bashing"], the only way I can see that it would fit in is given that homosexuality is considered a deviation & that homosexual couples cannot reproduce together, it cancels out that gene or characteristic. On the other hand, given that these couples cannot reproduce together the "survival of the fittest" mechanism maybe that they donot contribute to over population. I really don't think that there is a sensitive answer to this question, or a true/right answer. & I really don't see why there still needs to be the labels of homosexual/hetrosexual, a couple who loves each other is a couple in love. That is a great thing.

Answer 5

The evolutionary model shows that if an individual member of a species survives to maturity so that it reproduces it's genes, those genes along with everything they encode in the individual and that species will survive.

The creation model shows that male and female members of a species sexually unite to reproduce. This is why "God created them male and female", according to Genesis.

In either case, homosexuality does not comfortably fit. Without medical intervention, or a relaxation of the homosexual moral code, their genes cannot be passed on and they cannot reproduce.

This would seem to suggest that homosexuality (not homosexuals themselves) is at best an evolutionary mistake, at worst scripturally immoral conduct. Honestly, I cannot think of how homosexuality would fit with evolution or creation, but I would be interested to find out what other people think.

I am not gay-bashing. You have a right to be be treated with utmost civility and respect, whatever lifestyle choices you make.

Answer 6

This made me cringe when I re-read it, and the spell check function stopped working. Hope this helps, at least to some extent.

1. Homosexuality maybe a natural state
It seems that animals have practised all types of sexual behaviour that we would consider deviant. Including what we would define as homosexuality. This would suggest that homosexuality is more natural that most people would realize and perhaps it is repressed in some human societies and cultures for a variety of different reasons. In the West, particularly, cultural and religious values such as Christianity have discouraged homosexual conduct. This may have been due to homosexuality being viewed as malproductive behaviour for any number of reasons by the early Semites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_practicing_homosexual_behavior


2. Homosexuality is part of a wider pleasure seeking experience.
It maybe that homosexuality is not natural as outlined above. But a gentic kickback from the animal kingdom to create pleasure. Suggesting that there is an instinct to seek sexual arousal and satisfaction - instead of one instinct to solely reproduce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_homosexuality


3. Diversity
Firstly, Darwinism aims to create as much diversity in any given species to ensure at least some of the species would survive due to illness or external catastrophies. It maybe that homosexuality maybe a Darwinian way to create as much diversity in society - sexual diversity.

4. The Darwinian Concept of 'Survival of the Fittest' may not be completely right
So the idea, that the strogest survive, or there is an instinct to procreate maybe wrong. There maybe an instinct to seek pleasure sexually and procreation is a big part of this, and that the 'strongest' animal of that species, just may seem to have a better opportunity to do this. However this is not always the case as there are many species that mimic female behaviour to successfully reproduce, not necessarily being the strongest at all, but the most successful in their species.

As a hetrosexual male, it seems to me hetrosexuality is natural, though this may not reflect the bigger picture. What we consider to be scientic evolutionary fact maybe more complicated. And gay guys provide less competition for us with the ladies....Damn their camp 70s disco music and obssession with fitness.

Answer 7

Some non-Western cultures, particularly some tribal cultures, as well as some ancient cultures, include periods of homosexuality as part of a normal life.

In ancient Greece, pedastry was practiced by some men. A man would adopt a young boy just entering puberty and have a homosexual relationship with him. The boy would be learning sexual skills, relationship skills etc. during this time. When the boy became an adult, his older partner would then be influencial in helping to choose a wife for him. In that scenario, the homosexual relationship led to patronage by a more powerful member of society as well as the acquisition of useful skills.

In some tribal societies, high levels of homosexuality can be observed in the pubescent and young adult populations, with heterosexuality emerging in later years of life. While the logical conclusion is that those transiently homosexual people would be less successful (fewer years in a potentially reproductive relationship), it is actually seen that they subsequently form more stable relationships with the opposite sex than do their peers who remained entirely heterosexual.

The transiently homosexuals are observed to have better communication and relationship skills than their entirely heterosexual peers. It is thought that the homosexual relationships during youth allow a chance to develop such important skills without the pressure of offspring resulting.

In a species like H. sapiens where few offspring are born, it is important that one chooses the best mate possible with which to produce offspring. Having sub-optimal offspring decreases the chance of the baby surviving, so is a waste of effort for the parent if it doesn't survive. Therefore, one wants the best quality mate... but if socially and physically immature, it's likely that the mate will be taken by a stronger member of society (possibly injuring the individual in a mating fight), or the relationship will break down before the child is successfully raised.

Therefore, having a homosexual period in life allows further physical development (a 20-something is better equiped physically than a teenager just entering their teens) and a chance to develop important social skills.

Answer 8

I don't think that being a homosexual means you are not fit. Many hetero or bisexuals are so unfit they wouldn't be able to survive in the wild...BUT I think it's more like nature's way of protecting the Earth from over-population. Nature makes some men/women homosexual who will then not mate and produce offsprings (well, that's the original idea but then again, there's IVF treatment these days etc.). I don't think it is genetic either so it's not something nature would want to get rid of.

Answer 9

The nature of your question assumes that all outcomes are superior to earlier ones and that everything in the world is the result of a battle to survive and multiply. As we know very little about plants, insects, birds, fish, etc. it (Drawinism) is a useful theory, but it does not explain human nature - our urges, our tendencies to be intellectual in arts, our choice in entertainments, in deed it does not explain the human world.
(It also does not explain why millions of very different species of lifeform coexist on a planet with 2-10 climate zones and 2-5 soil types and with deadly bacteria, ...)

Evolution theory does not explain why things often go backward, the rise of obesity & malnutrituion, company reforms that make things worse for the company, the loss of experience & knowledge, and the arbitrary scattering of war zones and peaceful countries around the world.

Changes are often or generally/usually context dependant rather than evolution-related, and gayness is just as unexplainable today as are the myriad of sex fantasies we all share.

Answer 10

Since homosexuality is not a genetic trait that can be passed to kids, it doesn't really deal with survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest deals with traits that can be passed on to offspring.