Just need to talk?
UK: Childline on
0800 1111
US: Trevor Project on
866 488 7386
|
Blog Entry: Being Gay V.S. Evolution
Entry
Being Gay V.S. Evolution
If I offend anyone I'm sorry, that was not my intention. Please read the whole thing and at the end if you still feel like telling me off,go right ahead.
I got to thinking the other day about evolution and how certain traits in a spevies are weeded out in order to make the species as a whole stronger. In order to contribute and make your species stronger you would have to produce offspring.
Then I thought, no matter how hard you try a man can't get another man pregnant (you could have fun trying though). Then wouldn't you think that would be the proof needed to say that being gay is wronge in the sense that it doesn't contribute to evolution? You can't produce offspring (naturally that is) therefore you can't aid in the evolution of your species.
Being a gay man myself I thought that there must be some middle ground. Someway that both are true.
We as human beings are no longer out in caves and hunting with spears. Since the dawn of civilization we as a race lost the need to evolve. Using technology and modern medicine we can do stuff that our bodies by themselves cannot. With all the medicine, plastic syrgery, and prenatal care we litterally took evolution into our own hands. We do not need to evolve so the need to create offspring to further evolution ceases creating the possibility of a person being gay.
Like our our pet dogs have lost their abilities to hunt in the wild due to man kind taming them and providing all life needs, we have gained the possibility of being gay. Thats just my theory, let me know what you think.
views: 1389 responses: 15 posted by Edward1389 on Friday 3 February 2012 at 6:40AM
BlogResponse
 |
 |
|
the world has enough useless traits, money, a lifespan above 35, many of them... what's another to the list?
it will be alright in the end, and if it's not alright, it's not the end yet.
|
|
Post: #613450  , Fri 3 Feb 12, 9:49AM |
|
|
I sort of see where you're going with that, but not completely. I mean, sure, gay men can't get each other pregnant, but neither can men with dead sperm. Plus, with gay men who want to have children, sometimes they go with surrogates. They're still pro-creating, just not physically with each other.
It's kind of like saying lesbians don't aid it, either, because we can't get each other pregnant. Lesbians still have eggs, gay men still have sperm. Pro-creation still happens, just in other ways.
|
|
Post: #613460 , Fri 3 Feb 12, 10:52AM |
|
|
:: grum
:: QA Staff (Founder) | |
Evolution is related to hereditary genes and homosexuality clearly isn't hereditary.
Such diversity will always exist.
When I was young / I didn't know if I was better off asleep or up
Now I've grown up / I wonder what was that world I was dreaming of? Nada Surf
|
|
Post: #613532 , Fri 3 Feb 12, 6:21PM |
|
|
What about all the other gay species that are gay though? They can't build! Dang, they nowt even have hands some of them!
http://www.queerattitude.com/i...14933/19875.jpg
Never click links from The Panda! - Zenyetta95
I am THE PANDA! :D
|
|
Post: #613533 , Fri 3 Feb 12, 6:44PM |
|
|
I'd also like to add that if you're saying that being queer has no biological imperative or evolutionary purpose, you could argue exactly the opposite. You could say that humans have evolved to the point where the expansion of the queer community aids evolution by decreasing the rate of the population growth, thereby ensuring that the population doesn't outstrip the natural resources of the earth. Not that I fully believe either way, I'm just throwing that out there.
You also have to keep in mind that being gay doesn't prevent people from raising kids with their own biology. It's a little trickier for gay men than it is for women, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you mean that it can't happen "the natural way," excuse me while I go throw up in a trash can. XD
That is all.
|
|
Post: #613534 , Fri 3 Feb 12, 6:45PM |
|
|
:: lena
:: QA10 Community God | |
There's actually a pretty good explanation of homosexuality with evolution (if you want to go that rout).
Basically human children are (and were) so weak, that the more parents they had taken care of them, the greater chance they had a survival. Let's say (in caveman times), Bob and Marry had a kid. Now Bob has a gay brother, Tim. Tim doesn't have kids, so he can use his energy to take care of his nephew. Because this child has the protection of 3 adults instead of 2, the child has a greater likelihood of survival.
Tim's genes weren't passed directly, but Bob and Tim share some genes, and Bob's genes (and therefore some of Tim's genes), were passed on through Bob's child.
Through this argument, families with a higher occurrence of homosexuality would do better in the long run, so homosexuality makes evolutionary sense.
I've been thinking about hell, and it's got to be a much nicer place than heaven... all the gay men are down there. You KNOW it's well decorated.
If being gay is a disease, lets all call in queer to work. "Sorry, cannot come to work today, still queer".
Real Lord of the Rings fans know it's not a trilogy.
|
|
Post: #613535 , Fri 3 Feb 12, 6:55PM |
|
|
Uhmmm, the world doesn't need more children dude. The Earth is going to be overpopulated soon enough. If anything, gay people are slowing down the process.
Besides, if we really needed to, we could still reproduce, whether it's through surrogacy or actually having sex with the opposite sex.
|
|
Edit: Skybound, Fri 3 Feb 12, 7:23PM
Post: #613538 , Fri 3 Feb 12, 7:21PM |
|
|
:: Jaden
:: QA8 High Householder | |
I figure it goes with the "it takes a village to raise a kid" side of things.
The more people you have to care for, teacher, ect a kid the more they can learn, the more then can bring in a productive sense to the world, the more room there is for people to evolve into grander things. Or so one could assume possible.
|
|
Post: #613562 , Fri 3 Feb 12, 8:26PM |
|
|
I love all your theories! I just wanted to make you guys think and in the process if that made you consider things you havn't consdiered before then thats great. If you disagree with my theory and it in turn stregnthened your resolve to another possibility then thats great as well.
|
|
Post: #613695 , Sat 4 Feb 12, 2:12AM |
|
|
Oh, wait, yeah I see where you're coming from. I think homosexuality is just now beginning to flourish because we don't need as many children as we used to. Maybe homosexuality is actually evolution at work to slow down the rapid increase in population, because if a place is too populated (like china), disease, pollution and other factors kill a lot of people. (assuming homosexuality is genetic)
I'm probably wrong but it's possible... kinda..
|
|
Edit: Skybound, Sat 4 Feb 12, 2:18AM
Post: #613696 , Sat 4 Feb 12, 2:17AM |
|
|
I think everyone is born with the possibility of being gay. Look at the straigth guy who had a stroke and woke up gay, his brain turned off one switch and turned on another (Of course this is very controversal but many so it is possible). If this possibility is passed on to everyone of course we would not see it as hereditary. Thats like saying have skin is hereditary even though the genetic makeup of one's skin is passed on.
|
|
Post: #613705 , Sat 4 Feb 12, 2:38AM |
|
|
Homosexuality can't be an evolutionary response to overpopulation because "evolution", such as it is, has no way of knowing that the problem even exists, much less to correct for it or how. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution which a lot of people make, that it acts towards goals or is somehow capable of foresight.
So as for my theory:
Think about male nipples. 
Now quit thinking about nipples for a minute and let me ask you, what is the use of a male nipple? It doesn't do anything! Mine itch from time to time but they aren't really useful when it comes to propagating my species. Why do we have them then? Because females have them and "there has been no pressure for the sexes to evolve separate developmental pathways and 'switch off' nipple growth in males."#
I feel you can think about homosexuality the same way. There's little to no significant selective pressure on homosexuals so evolution simply, in a manner of speaking, "ignores" it.
our home which defines
us is elsewhere but not
so far away we have
forgotten it:
this is just a place.
|
|
Edit: Joe5150, Sat 4 Feb 12, 6:01AM
Post: #613739 , Sat 4 Feb 12, 6:00AM |
|
|
Yeah but the thing with the male nipple is that all though it diddn't aid in the advancement of the species through natural selection it didn't hinder it either. It never was the cause for genes to not be passed on because it had no bearing on a persons survivability, therefore we'll always have the male nipple.
|
|
Edit: Edward1389, Sat 4 Feb 12, 5:34PM
Post: #613811 , Sat 4 Feb 12, 4:27PM |
|
|
So maybe homosexuality doesn't actually hinder evolutionary processes. We have no reason to believe it does, and evidence is stacking up which shows that it's a neutral variation in most species and is actually beneficial in some. There clearly hasn't been significant evolutionary pressure for humans to adapt to not be gay; had there been it would have gone the way of tree-dwelling and tail-having long ago.
You seem to believe that evolution requires all genetic variations to confer some kind of advantage to an organism. That's not true. Some genetic variations are neutral and are preserved because they have no effect on the propagation of a specie (e.g. ear lobe attachment). Some mutations are actually detrimental in some way to an organism and are preserved because side effects of the mutation confer an advantage in specific circumstances (e.g. the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia also causes those afflicted to be resistant to malaria).
But all of this argument is ignoring that fact that human homosexuality, specifically the exclusive variety most of us practice, isn't necessarily "natural". The fact of homosexuality in nature is likely genetic but how humans deal with same-sex relationships has a significant psychosocial component. In other species, exclusive homosexuality is quite rare. Most animals that have homosexual relationships still breed with opposite-sex partners. Humans are perfectly capable of doing this as well, but we chose not to. And there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of what we do is in spite of how we should behave if we are to be optimal Darwinian baby fabricators. Sexual monogamy of any kind, celibacy, social stigmas toward having dozens of offspring. These are things a lot of people consider normal, but these are things humans have chosen to do in order to build and preserve values-based societies.
our home which defines
us is elsewhere but not
so far away we have
forgotten it:
this is just a place.
|
|
Post: #613845 , Sat 4 Feb 12, 6:01PM |
|
|
There are many reasons that could contribute. Like others have said, population control, helping to take care of children, or maybe it's just neutral and has been "left", so to speak, by evolution. I've also heard it could be about social cohesion and bonding. I remember reading a while back about how bonobos are bisexual. They have a matriarchal society where they use sex to dissolve conflict and substitute for violence, and the females especially, use sex to strengthen their female solidarity and keep the males "in line", so to speak. They are our very close relatives, which seems to make sense, as we also integrate sex into social bonding a lot more than many other animals. The bonobos are amazing: they even have sex before meals so that they'll be more relaxed and likely to share the food fairly.
To only consider reproduction is quite a narrow way of looking at the evolutionary functions of sexuality. There are so many other things it can do for us. And even if homosexuality didn't serve any evolutionary purpose, so what? Gay sex is certainly natural, even if not usually done exclusively, and homosexuality doesn't harm evolution either. It's certainly not like we're in desperate need of more people in this world. Nature isn't against us at all; we've just been made to inerpret it that way by human prejudice. I also think that the fact that homosexuality has "flourished" in recent times may not be so much about the lack of a need for reproduction, and more about society becoming more accepting. I mean, maybe more people aren't gay, maybe there have always been more gay people than we thought and more are just willing to come out now.
|
|
Edit: pigeon309, Sat 4 Feb 12, 6:22PM
Post: #613846 , Sat 4 Feb 12, 6:06PM |
|
|
 |
 |
LIKE THIS PAGE
|
Who's Online
Last 15 mins: 16 guests, 8 members: HeroicRower, charles5611, Indefenso_101_, Paralon, alex_is, Embraceurself, Karma, razrsharp QA Ethos
Above all else, QA should be a friendly community. Contact us when our Terms are broken.
Events and promos
Check out
The Official QA Blog
|
Milwaukee Pride 2013
Dying my hair!
Lily Helena Knight
Things that grow
My new life
Trust no bitch.
Weird Weather, News, and Random stuff
The Homophobic Me
![PandaBubbaXx is unsure about how they feel for a while [Avatar]](images/?img=avatars/14933wee.jpg?i=6){kind=small}
