Is being gay another mistake in nature?

[_Enigma_]

Quick disclaimer: I don't care if I hurt anyone's feelings, I am looking at this objectively. and if you get offended by something you chose to read, you have issues you need to work out. I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay in a morale sense, I am looking at this objectively.

Life is complex, and generally the more complex a thing is, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. We see this with people that are born with missing or deformed limbs, people who are born retarded, etc. These are clearly not intentional, as they only make survival harder rather than easier, and the same can be said about being gay.

There is no advantage to being gay. You cannot reproduce with the same sex, which would only lead to extinction if a large majority of a species decided to be gay suddenly as they would not be reproducing. There is no benefit to being gay that I can see, but maybe I'm just not looking hard enough.

So if there is no advantage to being gay and it's only a detriment to survival, then could it simply be a mistake due to how complex life is, especially given that there are plenty of mistakes in nature, so it's not as if I'm suggesting something wild?

@InfoBot I would like to see what your opinion on this is.

Updates

+1 y

Yikes, didn't think I was going to survive GAG moderation! We got through though. That was a close one.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

You aren't actually looking at this objectively - you're injecting your own subjective viewpoints into this. For instance:

"the more complex a thing is, the more likely it is that something will go wrong" -- the definition of "wrong" is subjective

"These are clearly not intentional" -- the idea that there is intent behind it is subjective

"which would only lead to extinction if a large majority of a species decided to be gay suddenly" -- this is hyperbolic as it has never happened and is extremely unlikely to ever happen in the future.

"there is no advantage to being gay and it's only a detriment to survival" -- since we're being objective, let's look at this logically. You assert that being gay is a detriment to survival. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that homosexuals have an evolutionary disadvantage. However, we know that homosexuality has been a thing since at least ancient times (the past 3,000-5,000 years). And, since we see it in other species it's prudent to assume it's been with us before we adopted social adaptations such as religion and language. So, it's highly likely there have been homosexual humans for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore, it's obviously not an evolutionary disadvantage.

The reason for this, in my mind, is that having an orientation in which you are only aroused by the same sex doesn't preclude mating with the opposite sex for the purposes of procreation in any way, shape or form. Throughout history, gay men and women have managed to procreate regardless of their orientation and the fact that we have a large global population of homosexuals right now is evidence of that.

[_Enigma_]

That's all fair enough, except that last bi there. There are and have been people born with deformities, animals are not always born as they should be. By this logic, since they have also been around for a long time, is that also advantageous? Is there an advantage to being born with deformities, mental handicaps, etc?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Not advantageous per se, but also not a disadvantage. A lot of folks who are born with abnormalities still manage to reproduce.

[_Enigma_]

Yes, they can, but it can also have an impact on your ability to survive. Modern medicine obviously helps a lot, but animals do not have that luxury, and they too are affected by being born with abnormalities.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Yes, and that's why most anthropologists (if not all) consider human evolution to be different than other species in that we experience "bio-cultural" evolution. It's dependent on both our biology and our sociology. People with abnormalities don't suffer the same evolutionary disadvantages that another species might because humans are social animals and we take care of one another. You see similar effects in other primates and in some canine species.

[_Enigma_]

That's fair. I haven't heard of this "bio-cultural" evolution before.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I guess it's called "dual-inheritance theory"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_inheritance_theory

[_Enigma_]

Interesting.

[curiousnorway]

I don't think homosexuality have to be a mistake from the nature's side. It may have a function like to avoid overpopulation. Overpopulation can make problems too like under population. I doubt natural catastrophes etc. is the only things to keep the population balanced.

Morally I thinks relationships between consenting adults are fine regardless if they're straight or gay.

[_Enigma_]

Natural disasters happen because the world isn't perfect, and humans have contributed a lot (global warming mainly).

Every species, other than humans, have a predator. That's how things stay balanced, homosexuality just seems like a mistake like being born with abnormalities.

[strangytie]

No, plenty of other species are gay, like Octopi that are too smart to “mistake” a smaller male or larger female for the opposite sex. If you view a species and conclude its only purpose is reproduction then being gay would be disadvantageous for the survival of the group but not the individual, as males in a species generally do not go into heat but females do which means that it’s not as “important” to a male to produce offspring. Think, if a species similar to us began to exhibit more gay males that mated with other men and some androgynous people, then females would begin to evolve to look more ambiguous or male-like, so a male couldn’t tell the difference. There really aren’t mistakes in nature. We see babies born with disabilities and malformations still because we have modern medicine so they won’t die naturally. And many heterosexuals will die before reproduction, the same could be said about being single.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think it might be a mistake of nature.
But - if people are gay, there is nothing wrong with that.

''Becoming'' gay though might be for another reason though.
Interesting question, love evolution, genetics and everything like that :D

[Saccharissa]

By that logic, no, there's nothing wrong with it, as you can't have mistakes where there is no purpose.

[Cammy137]

Consciousness was the real mistake

[InfoBot]

One theory is that the same group of genes that are responsible for sexual productivity are also responsible, in higher doses, for homosexuality. So, in smaller doses those genes improve your chances of reproducing and continuing the species and in higher doses they result in being homosexual. While the latter does not promote the continuation of the species the former does and the former is the more common event meaning that the net gain for the species is positive rather than negative. If the theory proved sound then we are receiving an advantage towards continuation of the species that is occasionally too highly concentrated in certain individuals. That would still place homosexuality as a genetic trait and not a simply lifestyle choice.

It is for the very reason that homosexuality would seem to fly in the face of Darwin's theory of evolution that such theories have been proposed on the back of a lot of studies, although the majority of studies have been carried out on homosexual males rather than lesbian females and there may yet be a lot more to discover.

[ZanyInternetName]

I think that you are correct in that being gay is not an advantage for the individual.

Yet, I wouldn't call it a mistake. A mistake implies purpose and, I know some will disagree with me on a philosophical level, I do not believe nature to have a purpose for anything.

[_Enigma_]

That's a far point. The use of the word "mistake" may be slightly misplaced, but it's the best way I can think of to word it.

[SgtStraf]

It is a biological dysfunction, if you look at it objectively. Yet it's not immoral or amoral to be gay.
But yes, humans are supposed to procreate, and for that, we're all supposed to be heterosexuals.
But since there's no shortage of heterosexual humans, our species aren't in any danger

[Fauzillic_Bolt]

Don't get offended if members condemn it either. There's immature people here who blocks people just for calling homosexuality a wickedness too.

Jesus is the only way that a person can turn completely from their homosexual ways without having the desire to go back towards it.

We're living in 2018. People need to get over this silly little crap like is homosexuality normal. They know it's not normal and they know it's wrong. They just want people to rub them on the belly, pat them on the back and hold their hand. They should do the mature and responsible thing and give their burdens to Jesus. He can handle that while they have a chance to be cleansed of their wickedness.

[_Enigma_]

I'm not religious, and I really can't be bothered to get into a religious debate right now, but I don't think it's wrong to be gay. I don't care who you fuck, and humans have adoption centers so it's not like we are going to die out from it, I just think it's simply another mistake due to the complexity of life.

[Eckyx]

Many species have reproductive limits built into them. Overpopulation can be just as bad as underpopulation. Offhand I couldn't tell you why it exists, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a real purpose I'm just not aware of yet.

[WiggleWasser]

Gay is an evolutionary dead-end, so yeah, it's a mistake in nature

[That2kKid21]

Yes it's a mistake (IMO)... But who knows, maybe the human race did this automatically because there are too many humans on the earth. Who really knows though.

[cancan73]

The human race isn't under threat because of homosexuality so not a mistake but more of an evolution

[_Enigma_]

But evolution happens because is a species is under threat, so it has to evolve so it can better cope with the threat. Is being born with missing or deformed limbs a evolution? A mistake is just that - a mistake. If I make an incredibly complex machine, there will most likely be mistakes, things will go wrong. Life is very complicated, so given that there are other mistakes in life such as still borns and being born with deformities, surely gay is just another mistake as it provides not advantage? I'm not attempting to demonise it, just curious on what peoples opinions would be.

[cancan73]

I see your point but you are looking at evolution from one angle cause that's how it's always been, life was a struggle so things evolved to make it easier but humans have recreational time and create things to make our lives easier/enjoyable. Would it be thinking so far outside the box to suggest humans are evolving for self gratification instead of survival?

[velker]

Yupp, its weird and for sure a mistake in the cycle of life and modern medicine.

[luvnfam]

Yes they need irradiated

[Anonymous]

It is a genetic dead end so yes it is a mistake.