Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
Oh bull. The appendix is probably a biological error but no one gets persecuted for it. Homosexuality, if indeed it IS biological, IS a biological error. Homosexuality detracts from the survival of the species because the survival of the species depends upon procreation. It IS deviant because deviant is defined as being different from the majority.
Where people screw up is when they say that this biological error means that the person is bad/morally corrupt, etc. A siamese twin is deviant and is a biological error, but no one runs around saying they should be persecuted.
The truth is that words such as "biological error" and "deviance" have been assigned a negative connotation where none actually exists.
Now, I'm sure I'm about to get flamed left and right for saying that homosexuality is a biological error, but anyone that does so is frankly displaying their ignorance as to what "biological error" actually means.
|
From an evolutionary standpoint you're probably right.
But here's an idea I've been kicking around.
For most species total population goes in a cycle. When it gets too high, resources deplete, and the population decreases to a point where they can be restored. Think predator-prey model.
If population gets too high too fast, the restoring element will force the species into extinction instead of low population. Hence the logic of "thinning out the numbers" of some overpopulated species.
From this standpoint having a certain percentage of a species be homosexual would prevent population from getting too high. The rate of homosexuality in a given species could even be evolved to match their vulnerability to overpopulation.
For all we know (because I don't think you could prove it), homosexuality could be not error but biologically evolved for the survival of the species as a whole.
EDIT:
Another idea.
Consider ants. The vast majority of individuals in that species are unable to reproduce, yet to label that "biological error" ignores the way the species as a whole has evolved to survive.
The problem then with labeling homosexuality as "biological error" is that although it does reduce the evolutionary fitness of an individual, it could still benefit the species, which is the true measure of what is "biological error." Perhaps having less offspring in a species allows its members to invest more in them, enhancing their survival.
In the end, the issue is that we cannot prove what exact features and events have led species to survive in the past, and hence it is difficult to establish with certainty what is an error for that species. In addition what is an error now could provide an advantage for a species in the future as environmental conditions change.