Quote:
Originally Posted by f3lix
The only legit argument against homosexuality I've seen is that since they don't reproduce, they go against human evolution, which is bad for our species.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by f3lix
human species could not go on without reproduction between a man and a woman.
|
Yes, a species cannot go on without reproduction; however, it does not require every individual in the population to pass on their own sperm or egg. All it requires is a copy of the same gene to be passed on. This is kin selection and occurs throughout the animal kingdom. The idea being that non-reproducing individuals share a proportion of their genome with the reproductively active individuals of the population. Contributing non-sexually to the success of the gene through e.g. hunting/rearing/defence indirectly increases the fitness of the shared gene.
As Mr. Blonde points out, the ‘gay gene’ or ‘multiple gay genes’ can be present in individuals without being expressed. However, the idea that these genes express themselves from time to time with neutral selection pressure is inaccurate. Random mutation of a ‘gay gene’ would occur at a lower rate than observed in the human population. This suggests that natural selection is selecting for or has been selecting for a higher proportion of gay individuals rather than selecting against or acting neutrally. This is also found in other animal species which supports the argument that homosexuality is selected for and not an evolutionary fluke or dead end.
In regards to related scientific advancements, developments in reproductive biology suggest that male x male reproduction is possible in the near future. Female x female reproduction will obviously be more challenging due to the lack of the Y chromosome. However, artificial Y-chromosomes could provide an alternate method for producing male offspring.
Edit :
I mentioned a book on this early last year
http://www.nubblies.net/forums/im-ri...ost433039.html
She's still a beauty.