Let’s assume the truth of Darwinian evolution for the sake
of argument:
According to Darwinian theory, we are the products of a long, gradual process. This process included genetic variation acted upon by natural selection. Species that are the most fit will on average produce more offspring, and so will tend to spread throughout a population. At any given time a species will generally be populated by the most fit individuals, although a population is always changing.
That Darwinian process has produced males and females for each
species that reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is the process selected by nature for getting these species' genes into the next generation. These requirements for producing children have been dictated by nature.
Many species that reproduce sexually will mate but then only one of the parents will remain behind to raise the offspring. Additionally, some species will mate, the mother will lay her eggs, and then the progeny are on their own to face a harsh predatory world. More rarely, mom and pop will mate and then both will stick around to handle the parenting duties.
Human beings have historically shown themselves to be in this third category. Cultural studies ranging over the world and throughout history have demonstrated that men and women make long-term pairing
to raise their children. Human children are notorious for taking so danged long to develop. The complexity of the human species with physical, emotional, and cognitive needs probably tended to require more than just what a mother or father could alone provide. Also the length of time required for human maturation would have tended to encourage both mating partners to contribute to the raising of their children.
That this is the case is easily explained by evolution. Nature must have selected for this long-term-pairing trait. By definition the dominant trait in a species is the most beneficial for survival. Therefore we should follow what is best for our survival and maintain our traditional marriage model. Anything else will just weaken our survivability on average.
What do you think? Given Darwinian evolution, does this argument work?
What do you think? Given Darwinian evolution, does this argument work?
Darwinian evolution fails to adequately explain sex at all. It is a process which must be in place, in two distinct portions of a species, all at once in the beginning, which is contrary to the entire idea of evolution. The fact that we find it in so many species makes the issue MORE difficult to explain, not less.
ReplyDeleteHowever, once you move past that point and accept sex as a fact, the homosexual perspective becomes far more bearable. Several species engage in homosexuality, not just humans. If those species were in decline, we could make the Darwinian argument that they are being phased out, but they are not. Certain species of Bats, for example, have rampant homosexuality among them. If those bats were in decline, then we would have a case. The fact that they are not, I think, is the strongest argument against what you propose.
Keep working on it, though... you've got some great ideas!!
A.J. Bernard
One thing to be careful of AJ is interpretation. Certain animal species do engage in what we would call homosexual behavior, but not out of same-sex attraction. Some animals have instincts to reproduce and will engage in reproduction-type behavior even with members of their same gender given the right pheromone conditions. Others will use sexual activity as a form of dominance. But neither of these is homosexuality as we conceive of it.
ReplyDeleteBeyond those considerations, though, my argument isn't based on the passing (or not passing) on of homosexual genes (if they are ever shown to exist). So the genetic basis for homosexual behavior is tangential. I am simply saying that since humans have naturally been forming long-term heterosexual pairings, then on the Darwinian view, this must confer some survival advantage. It would be unwise to go against our evolution, would it not?
in this case, going against the Darwinian perspective in a behavior which does NOT promote reproduction means that something in nature is trying to remove your genes from the gene pool. It's survival of the fittest, and the homosexuals are not reproducing... so they are not surviving, in a sense.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that perspective on animal homosexuality, though! That casts it in a much better light!