Atheists and Christians: Shouldn't Atheists be against homosexuality and Christians for it?

Question

Actually the question is more specifically for evolutionists and creationists as opposed to atheists and Christians. But since evolution is about adapting and survival of the fittest, isn't the rise of homosexuality contrary to that concept, since it most definitely would *not* lead to survival of the species?

Steve: so you're saying homosexuality is a choice? most others are saying that people who are homosexual are born that way and that is it not a choice

Why do you assume I'm a Christian attack me? The question was addressed to both evolutionists and creationists indicating that perhaps they both should be on the other side of the fence.

Obviously my wording could have been a little better here. By "against" and "for" I did NOT mean "against the homosexual lifestyle or relationship". I simply meant whether or not homosexuality supported or countered your philosophical position on evolution vs creation.

Jared: same thing as my edit to Steve. Is homosexuality a choice or are people born that way?

Answer 1

Everyone thinks that survival of the fittest is about the individual. It's not necessarily so. Natural selection isn't concerned about individual fates, but the fate of the species.

Homosexual activity doesn't lead to reproduction. This is a good thing when your population is high and the local environment is straining to support it. (Side note: there's a study that indicates that the more older brothers someone has, the more likely they are to be homosexual. This actually ties in to this in two ways: first of all, lots of brothers means big populations, and second of all, those other brothers mean that the family genes will still be passed on even if the gay brothers don't reproduce.)

Homosexuality can, however, lead to pair-bonding as strong as that between a heterosexual couple. Such a pair is likely to have more resources available to them since neither of them will get tied up with bearing a baby for months on end and then tending that child for years. Those resources mean that if someone's child is orphaned or their parents simply have too many, a homosexual couple could afford to support someone else's child, like a nephew or niece, thereby supporting the continuation of the family's genetics.

Now, if everyone was homosexual, that would be a disaster for the species, but there's no danger of that. There's only about 10% of the population that identifies themselves as exclusively gay, which leaves the other 90% of us to spread our genes around.

Answer 2

What did christians do? - Well I'm constantly being looked down on and told I'm going to be tortured forever. I have been alienated by friends in family. Christians have pushed their agenda into politics, and in America it is almost impossible to become a politician as an atheist. In the past we have been jailed, beaten, or worse. But the past is not the only place where atheists experience hostility from, christians. Why do we care if you hate gays? - Actually not all of us care (I personally do, but I know many atheists that are indifferent). The reason I care, is because it's such a needless hate. Being homosexual does not affect anyone except people who are homosexual and the people they are with. I also don't want people to be hated for being black, being autistic, playing yugioh, or enjoying my little pony. I'm just not a fan of senseless hate. I can't speak for other atheists, but that's how I see it.

Answer 3

In nature, there are some species where some individuals don't reproduce, but instead help raise the offspring of their siblings' children. Since one's siblings have a genetic pattern very similar to one's own, by helping a sibling's offspring to survive and reproduce, one's own genes, (or rather extremely similar genes), are successfully propagated. This would explain why such behavior would continue to appear in nature.

This type of behavior is known as "kin selection", (see the link in the source section).

Homosexuals may actually be the human equivalent of this phenomenon. Many homosexuals sort of tend to have a "nurturing" nature. In earlier times, they may have routinely played a role in helping to ensure the survival of their extended families. They probably still do this type of thing when they have families that are supportive and excepting of them. This would be especially true in cultures that place a higher value on extended family relationships.

It would be interesting to note if homosexuality became more common in areas that have high population pressure. In such an environment, such behavior could make a critical difference in the successful propagation of a genome. If homosexuality is more common in high population areas, (which it seems to be, in my opinion), this could indicate that the kin-selection process is involved.

Answer 4

There is no reason that homosexuality goes against survival. Viewed from the standpoint of the heterosexual sibling of a homosexual, you have a non-reproducing adult who can help in food production, defense and all other "adult" tasks that raises the fitness of your children. If homosexuality is genetic, the frequency of the relevant alleles should fluctuate inversely with the beneficialness of population growth.

Further, evolution is the reason we have the ability to make moral choices that may reduce our personal or short term benefit, in favor of a more global or long term benefit. It is not a blue print for morality.

Answer 5

Survival of the species will continue whether or not their are homosexuals in the world.

There are many ways that homosexuals contribute to our society, and they are just as capable as heterosexuals when it comes to raising children.

There are enough orphaned children in this world (sad to say), that homosexuals would be more than capable of raising, if society would let them.

There is no reason for orphans in this world, except the restrictions on adopting them. Let's make adoption free, so money is not an issue, and hetero's and homosexuals of all income classes can adopt, once the home inspection is passed, of course.

Homosexuality is not anything that needs to be judged, by anyone.

Answer 6

There is variation in all species. From an evolutionary standpoint, sometimes they can bring change to the species as a whole, sometimes not. But any species can continue with gay behaviour within the group so long as there are also breeding pairs, and the group is large enough. It's all part of evolution.

Answer 7

I don't think the species is in any danger of dying out from lack of reproductive success. There is homosexual behavior in every species, so it is obviously pretty consistent with survival.
Christians can't be for it since their holy book is against it. Although modern liberal Christians weasel their way out of it by ignoring or reinterpreting the book, which is pretty unequivocal (Leviticus 20:13 etc)

Answer 8

It would only be a problem if nearly everyone was homosexual and there were enough producing couples.

I do remember reading somewhere that there is a higher incidence of homosexuality in places with overpopulation - so it could be an evolutionary mechanism -resources are infinite

Answer 9

Why should Atheists take one view or another.

We are free to hold whatever views we want, without having some book tell us what our opinions are.

As for the Evolution argument, well done for proving you know nothing about the subject.

Evolution is based on genetic changes ..... homosexuality is due to genetic causes ..... it also does not get passed on (in most cases anyway) ..... therefore evolution IS still working by not having many homosexuals reproduce

Answer 10

I am a christian and I have nothing against homosexuality. It is mostly that catholics that have a big problem with it (i am also a catholic). All christians are not that uptight about the issue at hand, however the ones that are have a validation for their belief. They feel that God gave specific instructions and guidlines that men should be with women (vice versa) for procreation.