God I really need to stay out of this but I wont so hate me or call me names but here it is.
Please read both segments as they come togeather to form a conclusion. This is taken from memory regarding a peper I did on this topic about ten years back.
Biology
Homosexuality in the strictest sense is contra-survival. That does not make it bad, deviant or any other Orel Roberts catchword you might want to associate me with for making this statement.
If your sole desire is to simulate procreation with persons of your own gender than you have a trait which is contrary to species survival. Now, of course animals do it so it isn’t “against” nature in the sense that nature has examples of spontaneously ocurring homosexual behavior. But the examples of dolphins who engage in homosexual activity yet “kidnap female dolphins and force them to concieve” is faulty unless the cetaceans have developed test-tube technology. After all, they still must have a desire for heterosexual contact in order to perform the act. Also What you describe is akin to rape (what else can you call kidnapping with the intent to reproduce?)which is, the last time I checked, deviant behavior.
The statement about homosexuals only making up 5-15% of the populace (Johnson&Johnson vs Kinsey statistics I suppose) dose not make pure homosexual behavior a functioning part of natural development for a specis any more than webbed feet on an animal that does not swim. Webbed feet might not kill that animal or cause them to be a deficit to the specis but it is outside the realm of proactive genetic advancement.
If you are gay and do not desire to mate with the opposite gender then you are out of the loop. Being born with no desire to procreate in genetic abberation. Don’t get confused by the statement, it is not a value judgement it is simple science. A gamete exists to create a zygote. If you lack the desire to do so because of your genes then you are in a way a form of mutant.
None of this takes in to account en-vitro firtilization which is, in the strictest sense, not natural.
Sociology
The concept of the “gay-gene” is not really all that new. Robert Trivers wrote on this concept and is considrered by many to be the father of Evolutionary Psychology.
The premise is along these lines. The hetero animal exists mainly for the purpose of reproduction. Afterward to protect it’s own genetic line to some extent. Thus the hetero animal is incapable of something we call Altruism. The concept of selflessness is aline to it. An example of this is the North Americal Grizzly Bear which can be in such a fever to procreate that it will sometimes severly injure it’s chosen mate, often the injuries result in death to the mate.
Strict homosexual animals are free of the compulsion and are thus capable of selfless acts. Some socio scientists believe that our level of society would not be possible to maintain if it were not for altruism or slefless acts. As many other scientists agree that those who do not deisre progeny or lack the insticnt to reproduce are hte only beings capable of this emotion then it can be said that homsexual humans are nessisary for the survival of humanity, not as a specis, but as a society.
Non-procreative animals form a protector class of specis and serve to counteract the more compulsive reproductive instincts of the heterosexual members of their specis. A sort of counterbalance. For this they are treated as pariahs and outcasts in our society.
It is theorized then that while the genetic makeup of someone who has an active “gay gene” is non-standard, they do serve a purpose greater than themselves and beyond the simple genetic imperative of heterosexual animals.
Bear in mind I’m about as homophobic as the next guy but I try not to be which to some makes me worse or better depending on who you ask, but as I see it the problem comes from misunderstanding and lack of broad perspective.
IMHO: You are both right and wrong, genetically speaking strict homosexual behavior does not serve the standard imperative of passing alon ones genes. But psychologically and in regards to the advancement of our specis as a whole it DOES serve a purpose that is valuable and nessisary for our survival as a culture.
Read the science fiction book “Protector” by Larry Niven which I read after writing my initial paper and I wished I had been able to go back and site as source material for observations. I will try and dig up the paper or call my mom and see if she has it so I can give my bibliography.
