A user named celticwitch left the following comment on CNN.com:
Why all this fighting? Homosexuals make up only 4% of the world's population. That number has not changed in 20 years. Why? They cannot reproduce as easily as heterosexuals. Unless we evolve into an asexual species, their numbers will continually decline. It only seems like it's growing because fewer people are hiding their anomaly. In reality, they are a very small minority.
Long ago, the haters claimed that only 2% of the population was homosexual. Celticwitch doubles that estimate, which is better, although no one really knows the actual number, and it is dishonest to claim in certain terms that the population is known. I am interested in this idea that before caring what happens to a group, we must count the numbers. Unless there is a majority, who cares? Stuff them in ovens and scatter their ashes. Is that the underlying logic?
Now the evolutionary argument is attempted, which is a new development that I did not encounter decades ago as a gay teenager, reading the angry thoughts of homophobes in my town's newspaper. So, we are on the way out? Gays will be eliminated by evolution? Should I be concerned? Not really. I could care less. However, I am interested in this idea of evolution eliminating homosexuality.
Indeed, why do homosexuals exist at all? According to the theory of evolution, we should be eliminated, no? I have several thoughts regarding that puzzle. The more I consider the question, the more factors become apparent. It is not a simple case of an individual failing to reproduce and his or her trait becoming extinguished in the next generation. If things were that easy, then many traits would be extinguished by now, such as multiple sclerosis. One factor is that traits are interlinked with other traits, rather than carried in isolation. Another factor is that homosexuality is much more diverse than an ignoramus like celticwitch could ever dream. There are as many variations to homosexuals as there are to heterosexuals. Bisexuality is one such variant.
Ironically enough, homophobia encourages homosexuality to persist by pressuring gays to pretend to be other than what they are and to procreate. When society tolerates exclusive homosexuality, then homosexuality may actually decline, assuming that homosexuality has primarily a genetic or prenatal component, which I think has been established. (It used to be that arguments would rage over whether homosexuality was learned behavior, but this is seldom a point of debate anymore, and even celticwitch avoided that line of argument.)
The concept of reproductive success is misunderstood by celticwitch. Genes are reproduced, not individuals, at least until such time that scientists perfect a technique for human cloning. The genes are shared among many family members and dispersed throughout the human race. Therefore, any consideration of reproductive success must also take into account entire families and also the wider community, because traits are shared universally. To consider only an individual is to mistake the tree for the woods.
Male homosexuality is best understood as a love and admiration for the male sex. When the same trait manifests in women, reproductive benefits may accrue. A woman with enthusiasm for men will be likely to have more children and to enjoy a passionate, healthy relationship with her partner. Thus, traits associated with male homosexuality may result in greater reproductive success much of the time, only incurring a penalty when arising in the male gender.
Another factor to consider are the contributions that a homosexual makes to his tribe when allowed to do so. There are many historical examples of homosexuals that made important contributions in the fields of science, medicine, art, literature, politics, philosophy, and even war. Many names will never be certain due to the secrecy that attended homosexual relations in earlier times. To ignore documented and undocumented contributions is to imagine that humans live in perfect isolation from one another in some kind of artificial laboratory environment. In reality, everyone exerts a certain amount of influence upon others, sometimes a very great influence.
It may be that homosexuality is necessary for the survival of the species, because the general trend for men has been to war with one another. A trend where men do something besides fight is not such a bad thing. Homosexuals tend to increase the peace by transcending races, cultures, and classes. Their intended role is that of peacemaker. It is no coincidence that evil-doers around the world oppose homosexuals, even going so far as to impose the death penalty. Evil-doers favor war and wish for the world to end in fire, and so they always oppose those perceived as agents of a different plan for mankind.
Even if homosexuals were on the way out, the thought would not trouble me, because I identify with the larger group, H. Sapiens, more than the subset, homosexuals, except when observing homophobes that want to make a divisive issue out of sexuality. I would be concerned if compassion were extinguished from the race, because that would result in a diminishing of our race into brutish savages.
As to the subject of the CNN post above, concerning whether Elton John should or should not play at Rush Limbaugh's wedding, I don't have an opinion. Celebrities do not interest me that much. I have to agree with other commentators that Elton is a minor deity. His transgression would have to be severe indeed to fall from grace in the public mind. Perhaps Elton is privy to secret information that is not available to the media or the general public. He may have his reasons, and I for one would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm surprised to read in the CNN article that Rush Limbaugh supports civil unions for gays, but I wonder what that means? For my part, I don't care what the procedure is called, as long as the legal rights become available and are comparable to marriage. I find a pragmatic approach to be acceptable.
The last time I tuned in to Rush, about twenty years ago, he had nothing positive to say about gays or civil rights for gays. I remember him standing up and saying something foolish to the effect that all real Americans play football, and any high school student that didn't play football and do "American" things wasn't a real American. That is when I made up my mind that Rush was an idiot. Since that time, he has called for longer sentences for drug offenders, when he himself was a drug addict. Instead of prison time, he received the finest medical care for his addiction. It is typical of conservatives that they want harsh punishments for poor people that have problems, but for themselves, only the easy road. I doubt he's changed his tune that much. If he really does support civil unions, then he should discuss the issue in depth on one of his shows and call some of fellow conservatives to task for playing the bigot.
No comments:
Post a Comment