reply to post by Bigwhammy
You know, if what you were saying were true, then the ideal family unit on a biological basis would be a polygamous one, with one male and multiple
females. In addition to the ability to reproduce en masse, this type of arrangment is ideal for children (disregarding of course the stigma attached
to such situation by our society) as they have access to the support and love of a large family and multiple adults instead of a paltry selection of
just two people. What is the governmental reason for not supporting this type of family (tax repercussions come to mind, but are easily taken care of
through the methods of dependant exemption already on the books)? Unlike homosexuality, polygamy is not
permitted. Without intention to
disrespect your opinion, attempting to justify the lack of support or endorsement by a government of a specific type of family unit on the basis of
what is biologically logical is not a rational statement, as it is clearly not true. The fact is that the "family unit" is determined by religions
of the past that have remained pervasive to this day.
What you are disregarding is societal evolution. Evolution does not only take place on an individual basis, it also takes place on a group level.
From a biological and societal basis, homosexuality is actually beneficial in several concrete ways, and possibly on some more speculative levels. In
addition to being a built-in method of population control, has it occured to you that perhaps the "defective" (note my objection to the use of that
word - lack of a better term) is not the homosexuality, but rather the homosexuality is a bi-product of the "defect?" Many genetic disorders
actively prevent the human from reproducing. Perhaps some cases of homosexuality is a side effect from nature trying to weed out other
That's pure speculation, and probably not true for the most part, however, it is a legitimate possibility on an individual evolutionary basis.
But the crux of the issue is this:
Populations of all cooperative species (those that rely on each other for survival, like humans) have natural and biological safeguards to protect not
only the individual genetic lines, but also the health of the society in general. These types of controls can include methods of population control,
and as another poster suggested with the possibility of future asexuality, links in the chain that may develop into beneficial characteristics later.
It is only our social structure that causes family units which differ from what we consider "normal" to be harmful, mostly in a psychological way
because of the stigma we have attached to those who are different.
We cannot assume that because we don't see the benefit in a traditional evolutionary sense that it is not helpful or even detrimental. Don't you
think that the dinosaurs would have treated those first species with feathers as outcasts (in an animalistic way, of course)? That doesn't mean that
the traits didn't produce something later that was useful (ie, birds).
Assuming that the trait is intended to be passed down or die off is not proper when dealing with evolutionary change on a population level. What is
good for the society may not necessarily be apparently good for the individual, but evolution, like society, tends to consider the good of the group
over the good of the one.
From a psychological and societal perspective, communities are preferred for humans, and communities in which all members are treated fairly are the
best for the good of the species as a whole. Thus, the differences inherent in us all are good for the group, as tolerance and acceptance are vital
to a cooperative society.
Perhaps it trait is neither good or bad, but rather a part of the overall balance that all species have to maintain in order to sustain themselves.