Is homosexuality bad for evolution?

Question

If everyone turned gay how would humans reproduce? If humans couldn't reproduce how could evolution take place among humans?

Answer 1

Good point. Homosexuality is bad for evolution. Nobody reproduces.

Answer 2

First off, humans don't "turn" gay. Homosexuality is seen in small numbers in many species. There is no evidence that at any time in the past or the future that humans or an other species will have a majority of homosexuals. So the species will continue to reproduce with that small number of homosexuals not reproducing.

Answer 3

That's a strawman argument, as well as a slippery slope argument, and a reductio ad absurdum argument. In short, it's very weak.

First off, we aren't all gay. Secondly, homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom and is not specific to us, meaning that, while it does not necessitate utility in order to survive, it is not counterproductive to evolution.

Finally, and this is the most important point, evolution is not about the individual. It is about a species as a whole. The sexual preference of one person does not affect evolution. Moreover, even if every single member of a species were homosexual, it does not preclude the ability to reproduce. There is a lizard (and you'll have to forgive me for not looking it up, though it should be easy enough to find) where every single member is female and, by default, lesbian. However, they are still able to reproduce asexually.

As silly as Jurassic Park is, it did get one thing right: life does find a way. It just isn't necessarily the way you presume.

Answer 4

We seem to be doing just fine with it. At the rate we reproduce now, we could probably use more gay people to cut down on the exploding population growth. At this moment, gay people pose no threat to the survival of the species, and certainly are a part of evolution, just not one that serves to increase are already expanding numbers. As there is no possibility of everyone turning gay, I wonder what is the reason for your question. I know of gay women who still go about having children, so even there being gay does not prohibit children. Why worry?

Answer 5

You have to look at homosexuality from the point of view of the heterosexual sibling. In an environment where resources are limited and population growth dangerous (e.g. the last ice age), having a non-reproducing clansman who was able to help provide food to the clan increased the relative fitness of your child. The frequency of such gene should never get so high as to cause population shrinkage. If it ever did, that line has gone extinct. Narural selection at work.

Answer 6

Ok.....

1. That won't happen. I quite like men, thanks.

2. Thats extreme and extremely ridiculous.

3. No, it's not. There are 6.5 BILLION people on this planet and it's suspected to reach 7 BILLION within the next 25 years. It's not like we're short on the number of people in the world.

What it means is that gays probably wont have natural born children and will have to adopt and given the number of children that need adoption, thats not a bad thing.

So, it prevents the desperate overcrowding, the using up of resources humanity needs to survive as a species and allows orphaned children to be adopted by loving parents.

Yes, thats so terrible isn't it?

You know, religion isn't generally right on very many things. And more people could do with thinking things through on whether they want to keep popping out those kids.

As well, does it look to you like its caused a population drop so far? Homosexuality has always been around or there wouldn't be mention of it in your bible. Not to mention animals have homosexual sex as well.

You keep grasping for straws and all you're getting is air.

Answer 7

Sexuality is becoming more and more detached from reproduction. It's especially easy for lesbians to get a child by insemination, and anyone can adopt. And why would you assume that just because some people are gay, everyone's going to become gay?

Answer 8

Actually homosexuality is a valid evolutionary process.

As the population reaches saturation levels, homosexuality serves to preserve both fertility and the mating urge, but in a way that does not produce offspring--thus slowing the population growth.

There's never going to be 100% homosexuality, and there's never going to be 100% heterosexuality.

Answer 9

This is a fantasy world. There will always be common, garden-variety mediocre heterosexuals to keep your 'all-gay' sexual fantasies from occuring.

And we have the means to reproduce in other ways other than sexually now so, no the human race would be FINE. In fact, it would be better.

Quality over quantity, and all that jazz. =)

Now go make some babies plz.

Answer 10

Seeing as how lesbians go through artificial insemination, and have children, I am assuming we could still reproduce. However, if we couldn't, the more fitting question would be, What would happen to the human race?

Answer 11

Theres a % of the population that will die from murder, a % that will die from childbirth. a % that will die from disease.before they can reproduce. a % that will die from an accident.at a early age.Etc. Etc. Etc. and a % that don't have sex with the opposite sex., but there is a % that will reproduce.we need to stop all this breeding of humans, theres way to many of us. were like parisites on mother earths skin. 3 species die off every day.on this planet. were killing the planet, stop it , stop it now Y'all.stop breeding.go gay. yes. thats the ticket.