Homosexuality and evolution

[nebula]

No need to shout, old man.

Gauntlet . . . please take a look at my profile.

[nebula]

It's a leading question, thats the problem.

Loaded? Why? Because it admits that homosexuality is against what is natural, what benefits the survival of the species, etc?

Here is your answer again though:

If homosexuality is genetic, and thus homosexually inclined members of a species reproduced much less often then other members of that species, then the result would be homosexuality being limited perpetually to a small percentage of the species over all population.

But you are avoiding addressign whether or not homsexuality is beneficial or not to the survival of the species.

[Believer1997]

and because you are courageous enough to admit to some ideation, it's pretty clear that you made a choice.

I never made a conscious choice between homo and heterosexuality. I've always been attracted to the opposite sex, ever since I can remember. I come from a stable two-parent family. Had I not had the benefit of a strong father-figure during my formative years, who knows?

I just wanted to clear that up.

I know a lot of people who come from two parent families with strong father figures who... are gay. One person in particular showed tendencies as a toddler of being very effeminate.... this isn't isolated and a lot of "good" and Godly 2 parent homes have raised children who are gay. I don't know what the answer is, but I also know a lot of single moms who have raised straight sons and daughters and single dads that have done the same - so that kind of shoots the theory of the "stable 2 parent family" in my opinion.... Blessings.

[Gauntlet]

and because you are courageous enough to admit to some ideation, it's pretty clear that you made a choice.

I never made a conscious choice between homo and heterosexuality. I've always been attracted to the opposite sex, ever since I can remember. I come from a stable two-parent family. Had I not had the benefit of a strong father-figure during my formative years, who knows?

I just wanted to clear that up.

I know a lot of people who come from two parent families with strong father figures who... are gay. One person in particular showed tendencies as a toddler of being very effeminate.... this isn't isolated and a lot of "good" and Godly 2 parent homes have raised children who are gay. I don't know what the answer is, but I also know a lot of single moms who have raised straight sons and daughters and single dads that have done the same - so that kind of shoots the theory of the "stable 2 parent family" in my opinion.... Blessings.

And then there's the whole "female brain in a male body" thing. If the hormones in utero are out of whack, the baby is born with homosexuality already pre-wired. But then what is the cause of the prenatal hormones being out of whack in the first place?

[Believer1997]

and because you are courageous enough to admit to some ideation, it's pretty clear that you made a choice.

I never made a conscious choice between homo and heterosexuality. I've always been attracted to the opposite sex, ever since I can remember. I come from a stable two-parent family. Had I not had the benefit of a strong father-figure during my formative years, who knows?

I just wanted to clear that up.

I know a lot of people who come from two parent families with strong father figures who... are gay. One person in particular showed tendencies as a toddler of being very effeminate.... this isn't isolated and a lot of "good" and Godly 2 parent homes have raised children who are gay. I don't know what the answer is, but I also know a lot of single moms who have raised straight sons and daughters and single dads that have done the same - so that kind of shoots the theory of the "stable 2 parent family" in my opinion.... Blessings.

And then there's the whole "female brain in a male body" thing. If the hormones in utero are out of whack, the baby is born with homosexuality already pre-wired. But then what is the cause of the prenatal hormones being out of whack in the first place?

I am sure if someone on the planet had the answer to that question.... they'd be real rich and real famous and the question of transgender junk would just go away... I do not know ..... I used to think that people CHOSE their "orientation" - after working with a lot of people who have the issue - I'm not too sure that was right. I do know that I've known parents for years and years who were wonderful and were exemplary Christians and had loving children and 2 out of the 4 were gay... (one a girl and one a guy). I do not understand it. It hurts my heart. I pray a lot for these people because many of them are in serious emotional and spiritual pain. I also have a friend who has been in a 36 year marriage to a minister - who has left her for a man. They have 5 children ... he said 'he's always been "this" way'..... She and their family are devastated. It'll be one of those things I'll talk to God about when I'm before the throne... God Bless.

[forrestkc]

But you are avoiding addressign whether or not homsexuality is beneficial or not to the survival of the species.

The answer is obvious. Of course it would not be. Just like sexual frigidity would not be beneficial to the survival of the species. Anything that has the potential of reducing reproductive rates in most cases would not be beneficial unless the species is over populated.

[nebula]

Thank-you Forrest.

If I may divulge further....

Scientifically, does homosexuality have any benefit to the species

[Murse32]

I was wondering from those of you here who are more science-minded.

Would you say that homosexuality makes evolutionary sense, or that its prevalence would lead to the end of the species?

What I mean is - if an isolated population of a species had more same-sex coupling than heterosexual, how long would this population survive?

For the same-sex couples would not be reproducing. And the number of child-bearing animals would be less. So, how many generations would it be before there are not enough descendants to keep the population going?

From this I will state two things first. One, I am by no means a "science-minded" individual, though I do love science. two, I'm not exactly sure of the answer being sought out.

With that said. From what I believe you are asking, I don't believe homosexuality has anything to do with an "evolutionary" stand point as much as it does a "adaptive" stance. Many people often confuse "evolution" and "adaptation". Many see evolution as a spawning of occurances for NO particular reason. Adaptation, though, does have it's purposes. If evolution is correct, we can only imagine how man was before the flood. These people had to have been so wicked, that it caused God to claim He was sorry for creating them. Noah, on the other hand was righteous before God. Being that God caused this great flood to destroy all those on the earth would have halted an evolutionary progress. Righteousness would have conquered. Yet, after the flood, we go to Sodom and Gomorah...we see once again, wickedness has reared it's ugly head. This shows adaptation at it's finest. Humans are naturally sinful. We don't seek the ways of God. We become enthrawled in our sinful natures. We become numb. We begin to adapt to that which encompasses us.

If I am way off base with the question you meant for...I do appologize.

[forrestkc]

Thank-you Forrest.

If I may divulge further....

Scientifically, does homosexuality have any benefit to the species

Doubtful, unless the species is overpopulated. However, assuming there is a genetic predisposition for it, its not the only trait present in man that is not beneficial to us. For example, we crave sweets and salts. Those were in short supply on the African Savanna and thus those cravings were beneficial. However, they are not beneficial at all to us since we transitioned to a agricultural society around 10,000 years ago. Our feet, in fact, our entire muscular skeletal system is designed for running, much more so than most species. Thats a trait that was very beneficial to humans while we were hunter gatherers on the Savanna, yet is not nearly as beneficial today (it doesn't hurt, its just under utilized).

Basically, we spent around 200,000 years as hunter gatherers, and only 10,000 years or so growing our food rather than always having to hunt for it. We have yet to evolve sufficiently to this change in lifestyle, and are still largely programed genetically to be hunter gatherers. Thus our food cravings, how our body repairs itself, our activity needs and so on are not from an evolution standpoint adapted to our current habitat, diet, and lifestyle. This puts us at a disadvantage currently. One only has to look at the propensity of diabetes, obesity, and muscular / skeletal problems that we as a species are plagued with to see that.

[MorningGlory]

Thank-you Forrest.

If I may divulge further....

Scientifically, does homosexuality have any benefit to the species

Doubtful, unless the species is overpopulated. However, assuming there is a genetic predisposition for it, its not the only trait present in man that is not beneficial to us. For example, we crave sweets and salts. Those were in short supply on the African Savanna and thus those cravings were beneficial. However, they are not beneficial at all to us since we transitioned to a agricultural society around 10,000 years ago. Our feet, in fact, our entire muscular skeletal system is designed for running, much more so than most species. Thats a trait that was very beneficial to humans while we were hunter gatherers on the Savanna, yet is not nearly as beneficial today (it doesn't hurt, its just under utilized).

Basically, we spent around 200,000 years as hunter gatherers, and only 10,000 years or so growing our food rather than always having to hunt for it. We have yet to evolve sufficiently to this change in lifestyle, and are still largely programed genetically to be hunter gatherers. Thus our food cravings, how our body repairs itself, our activity needs and so on are not from an evolution standpoint adapted to our current habitat, diet, and lifestyle. This puts us at a disadvantage currently. One only has to look at the propensity of diabetes, obesity, and muscular / skeletal problems that we as a species are plagued with to see that.

You're correct that modern humans are built for running; I assume this would be to outrun predators or to be able to travel great distances quickly. We do crave salt and sugar and we are not adapted to our current environment either. I'm of the opinion that we will never be because either:

1. We need to retain those things because of the future ahead of us or

2. We will not be residing in this world for much longer.

Man has not evolved at all and will not; we are created beings, as put forth in Genesis.