Should Darwinists view homosexuality as a gene defect??

Question

For the record, I not hold this view so please withhold your venomos rage.
Here is my question: Darwinism maintains that all life is constantly evolving forward becoming more and more complex as the generations pass. Our purpose and the explanation for our behavior and actions have to do with the fact that we are hard-wired to keep our own species alive and evolving. How does the darwinist explain an offshoot that does by definition does not reproduce and help in the survival and progression of its own species? Should a darwinist encourage this lifestyle? What are they to think of homosexuals in a world of survival of the fittest?

The most common answer was that we self-regulate by "producing" more homosexuals when the population starts to over-inflate. The only problem that I have with this theory is that homosexuality is more prevalent in societies that are dying. For example, many countries populations in Western and Eastern Europe are declyning because people are not repopulating. Furthermore, we are no where near overpopulation on earth.

Answer 1

This is a very thought provoking question.....and I'm not offended by it at all....

I would have to say that I think that since all things in nature (including humans) are connected, maybe we have a role to play after all.
I have a friend, and the concept isn't too far fetched, that believes that being gay is the same as natural disasters, diseases, etc..(from an environmental stance ONLY). It is a way of keeping population under control. If we get too large, we will eliminate the food sources, and destroy our planet...like what is starting to happen now...

Maybe we are a ''new'' link in the Darwinist chain. With this theory, we are not set for individual survival, but hard-wired to help the survival of the species as a whole. Boy, wouldn't that be a kick in the pants....that would make us vital to the overall well being of the human animal.....

Just a thought....

Answer 2

Homosexuals are not an "offshoot." We are an integral part of the human population. While some of us may not reproduce, some do. Homosexuals do indeed "help in the survival and progression" of the species.

Homosexuality is NOT a "life-style" that "Darwinists" (or anyone else) need "encourage" or discourage. We live our lives just like everyone else.

As the Human Species already dominates the planet, it's homosexual element hasn't had any ill effect on it's survival. There are many successful Animal Species in which every member of the population does not necessarily breed.

"Darwinism" is a word coined by the religious right in their fight against Evolutionary Theory. Evolutionary Theory is NOT an "ism" but rather a science. Evolutionary Theory does not hold non-breeding members of an animal population to be "genetically defective".

You state, "For the record, I not hold this view so please withhold your venomos rage". But you have not told us what view you do hold. However, from the overall tenor of your question it is evident that you hold both Homosexuals and Evolutionary Theory in very low esteem.

Answer 3

You asked this in the incorrect communicate board, it is going to have been in the biology area, yet i think of i will answer a number of it. a whilst returned, some learn did do a assessment of the gay physique as against the heterosexual physique. some learn got here across genuinely not something amiss, whilst others got here across elementary discrepancies between the genome and a few neurotransmitters. i can not, regrettably, cite those immediately as that's been approximately 3 years on the grounds that I study them. Now observe, for a 2nd, that i did not say illness, I stated discrepancy. this elementary means "some thing distinctive" in the way they are made up. It means that confident, there is a few thing surely distinctive between homosexuals and heterosexuals, notwithstanding it does not advise they are broken. A gay purely feels a enhanced sense of attachment and charm to their very own intercourse. Humankind is relatively the only species in the international that has the luxurious of dissimilar sexualities, because of the fact we've the skill to reason and subsequently procreation is way less of an argument with us. in certainty, i'd pass so some distance as to declare that homosexuality is an evolutionary step that makes the human gene greater adaptable as as social animal, and that bisexuality is the place the two meet. there is not any illness, and calling it that demeans people who're the way they are from delivery. there is likewise no "scientific care," and there should not be because of the fact there is not something incorrect. Oh, and that i'm very a lot so immediately, thank you.

Answer 4

Many pack and social species have non-breeding members of the population. Mercat, Lions, Wolfs, Ground Hogs elephants, are just some quick examples.

These non-breeding members guarantee that there is ample food and protection for the next generation.

It is quite possible that homosexuality is the means in humans for this very trait. By have a small percentage of the populations not actively engaged in reproduction, you have a group that is always "available" to care for the next generation, be it in producing a surplus of food, providing extra soldiers to defend against outside threats or providing a couple willing to foster abandoned or orphaned children.

There are current studies out that show many strait couples benefit by the friendship of homosexuals, they contribute to a greater understanding of life and offer a social network that is based on more "Adult" needs.

Sop really it is quite arguable with our unrestricted breeding cycle and overly long growth cycle, that homosexuality in the general population is the most "Fit" solution.

Answer 5

Keeping one's species in a mode of survivablility invovles much more than procreation. It involves making contributions to that species' survival in many ways. Even in the hunting gathering period survival depended on more than having children. Gay people make contibutions in every aspect of society including research, science, medicine raising children, and the arts. All of these have an impact on our survivability. Thus, gay citizens do indeed play an important part in the continuation of species.

Answer 6

many have stated that homosexualty rises when there is over population. darwinism agrees that over population means death for many and inadequete supplies for those whom survive. homosexuality could offset over-population

..... there are also reports that homosexuality is caused by stress on a woman during pregnancy. maybe homosexuals are here to tell people to be nice to pregnant women, they are doing a lot of work.

...... people also have said that the more older brothers a boy has the more likely he is to be gay. once again this could be population control.

Answer 7

I'd imagine an intelligent 'Darwinist' would view homosexuality as a natural variation which has no significant impact on species survival.

Answer 8

Darwinism makes room for population control when a species has defeated most or all of their natural predators but has not figured out to stop having so many kids.

Answer 9

We should only be worried about this if their is 5 people in the world...The fate of the worlds population does not stand in the hands of gay people. So no I dont see this as a deffect. For every Gay person there are nine people that are straight. Deffect sounds like a reject and anybody that looks as somebody as a reject by birth or default is just shallow and needs to be more openminded about science and life....

Answer 10

Who gives a care what some school of thought supposedly thinks or doesn't think.

I'm here, I'm not some genetic defect. I'm perfectly human in my own right. and I don't need some psuedo-intellectual overanalyzing life to come up with some sort of self-promoting explanation to tell me something about which they know nothing.