Homosexuality

[DemPGH]

Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity. 

[DemPGH]

Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity. 

What is interesting is how unwilling people are to subject heterosexuality to the same scrutiny; i.e the idea that homosexuality may not quite be genetic (so let's not be too hasty in the whole 'rights' thing) yet heterosexuality somehow is, yet both as you say are observed patterns of sexual behaviour in nature. Understanding one is the key to understanding the other.The very fact that same sex behaviour is exhibited by me and by a seagull, despite several hundred millions years of evolution between us and there continues to be same sex orientated seagulls, cats, whales, monkeys and humans despite each successive generation dying off suggests it is a genetic trait. Indeed it occurs in every observed animal species that reproduces by procreation (which as a group of living things is coinicidently in the minority), and procreation is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. So it's interesting.

Yeah, I agree with you. Many times the erroneous view is taken that because a behavior is exhibited by the minority and because it's a behavior that the majority cannot relate to, it's somehow not normal. Which is simply not the case. Example: while it's much more overtly genetic, nature produces a small minority of green-eyed people. The vast majority are blue-eyed or brown-eyed, but nature produces green eyes. I think sexuality is a bit more complex than just genetics, but I think that's an appropriate analogy. Nature certainly produces homosexuality. The "it's a choice" argument reduces sexuality to something like, what do I feel like wearing today? And it's much more complicated than that, tied closely to the fiber of an individual's being.

At any rate, here's an interesting National Geo piece on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's pretty interesting:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

[DemPGH]

Why do Darwinian arguments always focus exclusively on the individual? We don't live in a vacuum, and neither did our ancestors. Societies must be equally fit or individuals will not survive. Perhaps the gays are a force that makes society stronger. It makes a lot of sense to me that it's good to have a small part of the population who is unemcumbered by the need to care for children and are, therefore, able to attend to other matters.

Not sure I completely follow your line of thought, but if Darwinians focus on the individual it is because individuals drive evolution within a population. As in, an entire species just doesn't evolve. Individuals drive that process over a very long period of time within communities, which makes sense when one considers the wide degree of variations within species.