Thursday, May 21, 2009


(Isn't she fucking hot?!?!)

Here is a problem that I've been wondering about lately. I hope my readers (if any) will pardon my ignorance on the topic. If I state something out of place, it was not done intentionally.

Let's talk about sex. Or even more specific, homosexuality.

The debate: choice or born that way? I would have to say that I think personally, that they are born that way. I mean, if I had to make the choice between making love to a man or a woman (being a man myself) why in the hell would I choose a man?

That being said, here's the problem... if homosexuals are born that way, there must be a gene for it. If there is a gene for it, then it must have somehow evolved. So that leaves me asking the question: What is the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual?

As far as I can think, there is none. It would seem to me that natural selection would favor heterosexuals. I mean, a homosexual couple is obviously unable to produce offspring, thus halting the passing of the homosexual gene.

It doesn't work on the creationist view either. If god created people and doesn't want them to be gay, then obviously he wouldn't have given some of them the "gay" gene.

I've got no doubt that it's not a choice and yet my logic tells me that it's not nature either. Input anyone?


Lyman said...

It's nature. Read this book:
Specifically, the chapter on homosexuality.

If there is one group of people in the world that I feel are being treated unfairly it's homosexual members of the LDS church. They are told that who they are is fundamentally unacceptable in the eyes of god. The official church stance is that if a homosexual member represses his/her sexual urges for their whole life, god will change them in the hereafter. In other words, heaven for a gay mormon involves a change in who the person is! Not much of a heaven.

Mormon411 said...

Thank you, Lyman, for that insite. I'll check out the reference you provided.

Anonymous said...

well, the biological purpose should not be looked at in terms of couples only. Most evolutionary developments are done in retrospect to the entire group. Gay couples can't produce children, thus they are able to care for other children when others are unable to do so. They are able to contribute to society and "pick up" after the heterosexuals. They are also a population limiter and support. A kind of human buffer.

Mormon411 said...

Yes, that could very well be a big part of it. But that is more of a cultural thing rather than evolutionary. It still doesn't explain how/why homosexuality is present in our genes if we did not inherit it from our heterosexual parents.