Intelligent Design Theory of Homosexuality: Is God Gay?

[BurtWorm]

http://www.alternet.org/story/22039/

Then there's the question of male homosexuality. From a Darwinian perspective, it's a puzzle. The theory of natural selection should guarantee the disappearance of males that don't reproduce. But they keep hanging around, in considerable numbers, in every culture and every era.

Evolutionists have their theories. Psychologist Louis A. Berman argues that it has to do with embryonic development. Medical doctor Lorne Warneke suggests that homosexuality actually offers a natural advantage. Homosexuals instill a more cooperative impulse that helps perpetuate the kinship group and tribe.

A good science teacher will follow the school board's guidance and propose intelligent design as an alternative explanation for male homosexuality. Could there be an intelligent power that has created and nurtured male homosexuality? Does that mean God is gay?

[knowbody0]

1. of course God is Gay

we all are

[ArkDem]

11. Not me! I've been clinically depressed for five years.

[doubleplusgood]

2. one evolutionary theory

I heard this a while back somewhere: an evolutionary advantage to having a small percentage of gays in a population could have been that they provided additional food-gathering capabilites to a small tribal unit while being less likely to add extra mouths to feed in the form of children.

[BurtWorm]

4. That's a very interesting idea.

It doesn't quite explain why homosexuality is at least as prevalent if not moreso in urban societies, though. The fact that humans aren't the only species that reproduce a fairly stable population of homosexual individuals from generation to generation suggests that there's a deep evolutionary reason for it.

[doubleplusgood]

5. urban societies provide more anonymity

than smaller, rural areas. I guess that there are just as many gays out there in non-urban areas...they are not "out" for obvious reasons.

[elehhhhna]

40. correctamundo. exhibit A; texas

[mondo joe]

8. That has to do with where adultgays in current society choose to

live, not the historic conditions that would favor its selection.

The theory rests on kin selection - basically the notion that one way for genes to succeed is not in direct reproduction but by favoring near-relatives.

So in hunter gatherer cultures with gays you have more adults contributing to the welfare and genetic success of their nieces and nephews than in those with no gays, so the gay family had an advantage.

[knowbody0]

19. also in conflict resolution

[Beetwasher]

3. Shouldn't It Be Called the "Interior Design" Theory of Homosexuality?

God created gays because the Earth needed some sprucing up and more color. :evilgrin:

[Inland]

6. Ba-dum-dump. nt

[BurtWorm]

7. God created gays on the seventh night

three hours before last call.

[soleft]

9. I always wondered if it was nature providing population control

Cause there will always be a significant number of homosexuals who won't be reproducing, myself excluded

[mondo joe]

12. I think population control doesn't make sense because in

most populations there would be no benefit from FEWER offspring. It's only recently that population control has been an issue for humans - and even then your genes don't much care one way or the other if someone doesn't get enough food, so long as it's not YOU.

Kin Selection is by far the more viable benefit, IMO.

[shockra]

10. Well, yes.

Patriarchal religions are so homoerotic that they have to bend over backwards to try and prove that he isn't. Like the idea that God impregnated a human woman and had a son. Why else but to try and "prove" God is heterosexual?

[kenny blankenship]

13. Like a palm tree full of parrots!

In answer to your question.

[Terran]

14. This is why fundies keep insisting that we all choose to be this way.

Because if we're born this way, then the only alternative is that God made us this way, and God loves all his/her/its creations, no?

:sarcasm:

Anyway, I don't think I buy the idea that homosexuality exists so that we can help gather food without making new mouths to feed; that seems overly complicated and requires a degree of conscious direction from some source in order to work. And I'm not sure about the population control idea either, especially since it doesn't appear to have worked very well.

I think that homosexuality is probably, mostly, a harmless random mutation that has spread throughout the human genome--indeed, the mammalian genome. For some carriers it's recessive and doesn't manifest, while in others it's dominant, which explains why it continues to manifest in every generation even though the dominant carriers don't reproduce, for the most part (although please note that an awful lot of GLBT people do indeed reproduce some time in their lives; the fundies don't seem to have figured this little fact out).

Homosexuality doesn't hurt any species' ability to perpetuate itself, so it continues to exist. And by now it is so widespread that it would be impossible to eradicate.

[BurtWorm]

16. That's the most intelligently designed response to the question yet.

;)

[Terran]

21. LOL, thanks!

[mondo joe]

18. No conscious direction needed.

"Anyway, I don't think I buy the idea that homosexuality exists so that we can help gather food without making new mouths to feed; that seems overly complicated and requires a degree of conscious direction from some source in order to work."

Just want to say this theory actually doesn't require ANY conscious direction from some source -- just plain old natural selection.

[Terran]

20. No, I disagree

Natural selection is a process that benefits organisms that have special traits that enable *them* to better survive. When the special trait is difficulty in reproducing, that carries no benefit, biologically, for the organism that carries that trait. From an evolutionary standpoint, an organism that will never pass its genes on is a waste of protoplasm.

The proposition here is that the special trait carried by some, i.e., homosexuals, actually benefits those who don't have the trait, i.e., heterosexuals. That appears to fly in the face of natural selection. I'm no expert, but I think it's unlikely that such a mechanism can be demonstrated anywhere else in the animal kingdom. To cross that boundry, where natural selection in one group actually benefits a different group in ways that have nothing to do with biology and everything to do with culture, seems well beyond the scope of natural selection. If there were some kind of direct biological link between those who reproduce and those who don't, I could see it; but there is no such link proposed here.

[mondo joe]

22. Please allow me to explain Kin Selection

Natural Selection is not the process that benefits organisms that have special traits to help THEM to better survive but that benefits GENES that reside in those organisms.

And Kin Selection does just that.

You suggest this cannot be demonstrated in the Animal Kingdom, but it can be done easily: Look at bee hives - most of the bees do not reproduce. But their work benefits their near relatives who share their genes.

Similarly, among some canines only the Alphas breed. But the pups are nonetheless bearers of the genes of those who toil to feed and protect them.

Here's a model for gays: Imagine two primitive families with more or less equal numbers. We'll call them Fam A and Fam B.

Fam B has a quirk - one of the men has no interest in sex with women so he does not reproduce. Like everyone else he works to protect and feed the family.

Fam A has more children in the coming generation than Fam B.

But during the winter more children in Fam A die than in Fam B. Fam B has an extra adult hunting and feeding the kids.

After some years the kids in Fam B are more prosperous than those in Fam A. They are better fed, better protected, better nurtured. They go on to have more children (and more successful) children than those in Fam A.

And they have one more thing: inherited from their mother is a little cluster of genes that expressed itself in their uncle, whose genes they share. As a result some of their kids or grandkids will likewise be homosexual and give their families a benefit.

Like all natural selection this does not require Anny sort of conscious direction - just a model that successfully delivers those genes into the next generation.

[Terran]

28. Well, that's compelling

You may have changed my mind on this point. I certainly didn't think of bees when I said there were no other such examples.

I think that, if this is correct, then it must require that homosexual behavior among humans would have to predate sentient humans (which is no big stretch, really, except I imagine a lot of homophobes woud find that idea impossible).

Thanks. Do you work in field?

[mondo joe]

29. Oh I'd fully expect it to predate sentient humans.

I don't work in the field but it's a major interest of mine.

The thing you need to remember - and it takes getting used to - is that it's not about the individual surviving, but ther genes.

You are, in effect, a very expensive car for your genes to drive around in to create more generations of genes.

[Terran]

32. Yep--I'm familiar with that idea, actually.

Years ago I read a sci-fi story that proposed that our genes are actually sentient alien viruses that have guided natural selection to produce a species that could get them back to their home planet eventually. So maybe they really are driving the car!

I do think there's more to life than just self-replication, but that's another discussion.

[antigone382]

34. Homosexuality is found among monkeys and apes.

I'm not an expert, but I've read a few anthropological books that touch on primate behavior as it relates to human behavior, and homosexuality is definitely manifested in their populations. However, as I recall, for the most part individual animals do not necessarily exhibit either homosexuality or heterosexuality, but engage in both behaviors at different times.

[dsc]

36. While I tend to think that it is more likely

a model like sickle cell anemia or cystic fibrosis where having one gene gives a person an advantage (in sickle cell's case it is immunity from malaria and in cystic fibrosis' case it is increased lung power) while having both genes causes the disease. I figure we will find out that having one gene for homosexuality bestows an advantage on the person while having both does lead to a being way less likely to reproduce.

I do admit you give a compelling argument.

[dummy-du1]

37. Good Explanation

The University of Padua has recently found a possible resolution of this paradox for male homosexuality, which is based on kin selection. The female relatives of homosexual males, seem to be more fertile than the average, which leads to a higher reproduction success and therefore explains the inheritance of the gay genes. So even if you aren't into gay men, it's perhaps a good idea to check out their sisters and mothers, at least if you're planning to have a big family. ;)

More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html

I always wonder, why everyone, who has heard about this strange evolution theory, thinks he can spot errors without bothering to study the topic for at least a few decades. Why don't they bother to find errors in quantum electro-dynamics? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

38. I think many just think it's about PERSONAL survival rather than

genetic survival.

For that matter, people often think evolution is more deliberate than it is.

In fact many people (though not most) are born with conditions that TEND to result in not reproducing. But no one is foolish enough to argue these conditions can't be genetic just because they are unlikely to be passed on directly.

[Terran]

39. As Spock would say...

"Fascinating." That really would tend to support the kin selection theory.

[fob]

15. Doesn't the "Immaculate Conception" at least shed some doubt on

his sexuality? I mean what did he find so disturbing aobut the female "naughty parts" that he didn't want to get his groove on with Mary? Did he not want to get a Scarlet A or does he fancy a "hot dog in a bun" every now and then?


NOTE: For those with TRULY religious belief, the above is SATIRE and bad satire at that

[northzax]

35. Gay? a single, never married older gentleman

who wanders around half dressed to show off his physique and spends more of his time on interior design and landscaping?

gee. why would he be gay?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Don't know. But, he's always broke according to the preachers.

Must be a lot of upkeep on those streets of gold and pearl encrusted gates. All those cute angels to feed. And, cherubs.

Wait a minute! Pearly Gates. Streets of Gold. Angels. Cherubs. God is Michael Jackson!!

[OxQQme]

23. Are we humans then devoid of free will?

Without choice.
"Follow along now. Nothing you can do here to alter your fate. Your genes dictate your essence."
If there is a 'grand plan' then there is no free will.

[mondo joe]

24. Could be there is no free will.

I know that thought may be appalling.

But it may be so, anyway.

[Karenina]

25. Some things, mebbe yeah.

Other things, mebbe not. :evilgrin:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Next time you have diarrhea try stopping it with willpower.

[kenny blankenship]

31. can you will yourself not be red/green colorblind

if you are red/green colorblind?

Can you will yourself to a math whiz if you always test better at verbal skills than math?

Can someone with a classic "wrestler's physique" train themselves to become an Olympic class sprinter, or a professional ballet dancer?

No of course not. These things have to do with physical capacities some which are obvious to the naked eye like the non-transferability of raw talent between wrestling and sprinting, some which command immediate assent like the red/green colorblindness question, and some like the math skills question which will prove true on reflection or after the collection of statistics "from the field".

Some things are subject to human volition and some just aren't. Pretending that everything is a choice, and so deductively sexual orientation must be a choice too, is just as absurd as saying nothing is a choice. Sexual orientation and attraction is pretty basic and preconscious, and it doesn't have to be determined by one gene or solely genetically in order to qualify as determined and not subject to volition.

Telling yourself I choose to be gay when you have actually been straight all your life, or vice versa, will work about as well as telling yourself "I find that person totally unattractive" when in fact, at the very first sight of them, your heart careened madly up down, your knees turned to columns of jelly, and you felt you were asphyxiating because you had had to stifle a gasp of awe.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. Well, the Holy Ghost is at least bi...

Be fruitful AND multiply.

Think about it.

[dave29]

30. Everybody knows God is a Jazz Musician

who started a Big Band Improv about 13.7 billion years ago

[RalphReedsWreckedEm]

33. I am NOT Gay

But I love all my children, gay and straight, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.

Thanks for wondering, though.

Now, get back to your lives!

Oh, I almost forgot - I command you to fight against Republicanism with all your heart and soul, and I will reward you.