posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:42 AM
Alex is someone who has very little credibility with me, however he does have or could have an interesting point here. As other posters have said,
there are many unknown factors to the chemicals we are being exposed to and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the consequences to some of these
chemicals altered our sexual orientation. I am a firm believer that environment variables could be at play to decide whether one becomes homosexual or
heterosexual, variables that are out of control of the person in question. Homosexuality seems to be an unnatural defect, at least according to
evolution, as being gay actually goes against our natural desire to spread our genes.
Think about it for a minute... The reason that we have evolved to enjoy sex, is because we want to spread our genes, though homosexuality goes against
that desire. The general consensus is that males and females both find that opposite sex attractive, according to the variables that will ensure
healthy off spring. Good looks and physical fitness for instance are traits that imply good health. Such attraction ensures the viability of our
species. Generally speaking, males want to spread their seed as much as possible to ensure that his offspring has a better chance at surviving and
multiplying, while females look for a dominant, strong and healthy male that will ensure that her offspring is of the best "caliber".
The same thing with the rest of the animal kingdom (with a few exceptions, of course). Take lions for instance, where the female lions will mate with
the dominant male, who is bigger and stronger than the rest of the males. If a male lion reaches the maturity level and size to be the alpha male,
then this means that his genes are usually if good stock, as he has obviously lived long enough to get to the size and strength needed to be an alpha
male. The same thing goes for most other mammals too. The female will look for alpha male (bigger, stronger, wiser and thus attractive) to ensure a
better offspring, while the male will simply try to spread his seed as much as possible to better the odds that his genes will continue on. This is
most likely the reason that men seem to cheat more than women.
So, if sex and sexual attraction are based on the natural need to ensure our genes continue on after us, then homosexuality would fly in the face of
that notion. This is not even mentioning the fact that homosexuality being a genetic condition is highly unlikely, seeing how most homosexuals don't
We then have to ask ourselves, "what causes homosexuality?" What are the factors that lead us to go against natural evolution?
With that being said, it's hard to believe that homosexuality is derived solely from these chemicals, as homosexuals have been around long before
these chemicals were synthesized or common. Before Christianity, homosexuality wasn't really looked at in a taboo manner as it is today, at least in
certain time periods or civilizations. Both the Greeks and pre-Christian Romans were known to dabble in homosexuality. Alexander the Great, for
instance, was a known and recorded homosexual and he lived in the fourth century BCE. Even still, environment variables could have played a role in
chemical imbalances or natural deformities in the human brain, to manipulate a person's sexual orientation.
Could this mean that civilization itself, the process in which we no longer live in the wild and base our lives around fundamental survival concepts,
could have allowed us to evolve in a manner that homosexuals are just as natural for the very idea of evolution? Maybe, as it could be nature's way
of weeding out the less desirables, considering that civilization interrupts that process to begin with.
With civilization, the weak no longer die out due to hunger for instance. This allows genetic defaults to multiply in human beings, where they
wouldn't be allowed with animals that aren't civilized. In the wild, if a human or other animal was too weak or sick to hunt or gather food, he
would die, thus preventing those weak genes from multiplying and putting the species as a whole in danger of extinction. Civilization has allowed even
the most faulty of genes to multiply, which ultimately contaminates the gene pool of our entire breeding population, unlike all other animals whose
genes constantly improve to adapt to the ever changing conditions of Mother Earth. So, while the animal kingdom's genes become more efficient to deal
with nature, the Human species genes are not.
Could homosexuality be nature's answer to evolution's problem of civilization? Maybe, though I still think that Alex has a point (wow, I can't
believe I'm saying that) with these chemicals or other unnatural environment variables.