This is a big surprise (not): human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural", according to the Oslo Natural History Museum.
"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear -- homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.
Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 species. However, that said, the reason that homosexuality exists remains elusive is because it appears to be a genetic dead-end.
But nonetheless, there are some hypotheses; males can sometimes win greater acceptance in a group by having homosexual contact. That in turn can help their chances of later mating with females, said Geir Soeli, the project leader of the exhibition entitled "Against Nature". Further, a study of homosexual men in Italy suggested that their mothers and sisters had more offspring. "The same genes that determines homosexuality in men could provide higher fertility among women," said Soeli.
Christian wingnuts have responded predictably;
One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition -- partly funded by the Norwegian government -- should "burn in hell," Soeli said. Laws describing homosexuality as a "crime against nature" are still on the statutes in some countries.
.
- Log in to post comments
I get the feeling that the 'phobes have some secret definition of "unnatural" that they're not sharing with the rest of us.
it appears to be a genetic dead-end.
I keep thinking about that, but I keep coming back to the fact that evolution isn't about individual, but about populations.
It may not be beneficial (from a direct, reproductive point of view) for an individual to be homosexual, but it might be beneficial for a population to maintain a small proportion of homosexuals. If so, then the population would tend to maintain genetic tendencies in the population which resulted in some amount of production of homosexual individuals. (So far, I get the impression that it's normally more developmental than genetic [though as always there might be a genetic predisposition], but in any case the notion that it's purely a "choice" seems bizarre.)
It's not a dead-end from a gene's perspective; a gene that causes men to tend toward homosexuality and women to tend toward promiscuity could wind up reproducing itself fairly often through the female carriers. Similarly, a recessive that causes homosexuality but still leaves the desire to care for young could cause homosexual creatures to care for the offspring of their heterosexual siblings, who are likely carriers of the recessive.
"I keep thinking about that, but I keep coming back to the fact that evolution isn't about individual, but about populations."
SMC and Max,
I strongly agree with that notion. Also don't forget that in many species not all males are even "allowed" to reproduce. For example, in a wolf pack only the alpha male and alpha female are allowed to reproduce. If a new alpha male is established because the old one was lost, it might actually kill any of the cubs from the previous alpha male.
My point with this is to help dispell the naive and limited notion that any behavior that restricts the ability for any particular male or female from reproducing is somehow unnatural. Again, its all about the population, not necessarily about the individual.
Regards,
Chiefley
I know this is anecdotal (can anyone indicate how much this generalizes?) but some Christians I've talked are bothered by evolution in part because it lumps us with all the other animals. They seem to see us as the pinnacle of evolution (oops! pinnacle of creation), and this has always struck me as stunningly arrogant. Perhaps they can claim being gay is "against God" if we are God's creatures and all the animals are in some other vague category?
I don't know who said it, but a favorite saying of mine:
Nothing exists that is "against nature."
I'm sure it was some scientist ... some godless pinko fag scientist ...
I understand their are fundie tour groups that go to museums around the world and lead visitors around the galleries "re-explaining" all of the science and knowledge on display from their particular religious perspective.
As for humans being the "pinnacle of creation" I think that is tremendously short-sighted. We may be the reigning champs right now, but I don't have the hubris to think that nothing better can come along. As I've said before, I don't believe in the supernatural, but I am willing to consider the superhuman.
1) yeah, populations! I consider homosexuality to be a particular case of "low-fertility workers", which would also include other miscellaneous conditions, and remove the need for any particular "purpose" of homosexuality per se.
2) Pablo: I call teleology! ;-) Humans could wipe ourselves out, or just run our civilizations into collapse, even if nothing "better" presents itself. To me, that would be even sadder than "getting beaten by something better".
"I know this is anecdotal (can anyone indicate how much this generalizes?) but some Christians I've talked are bothered by evolution in part because it lumps us with all the other animals. They seem to see us as the pinnacle of evolution (oops! pinnacle of creation), and this has always struck me as stunningly arrogant. Perhaps they can claim being gay is "against God" if we are God's creatures and all the animals are in some other vague category?"
Jeff,
You are correct about this. Yours is not a hasty generalization. In the odd fundamentalist "American Religion", there is a very strong current of Gnosticism which you could summarize much too briefly as:
God/Jesus/Heaven = perfect. World = very corrupt.
Naturally, in this formula, the notion that man is the product of the same natural process as is slime mold or something causes a lot of problem with the twisted fundamentalist theology.
Mainstream Christianity sees it very differently. They actually read the New Testament and learn to love the "world" (even in its "brokeness") as much as God says he does. Its one of the reasons why mainstream Christianity enthusiastically embraces science and ToE.
I have to chuckle whenever I see the "genetic dead end" arguement about homosexuality. It presumes, no demands a sort of pre-Kinsey view of sex that people's sexual preferences are eternal and absolute. One partner, one gender, forever and ever, amen. Saying gays can't have children is like believing that a married man is rendered sterile because his wife has had her ovaries removed. The wife has been effectively removed from the gene pool (directly) but he is free to spread his sperm hither and yon with any number of fertile (and hopefully willing) partners. Certainly back in the closeted era, many gay men had wives and children because that was what was expected. From a petri dish and a donor womb (or donor sperm) to anonymous one night stands, there are any number of ways for gays to spread there genes while maintaining their primary same-sex relationships.
It also presumes that "genetic dead end" is a bad thing. There are quite a few people who do think that way ... that we all have a responsibility to personally reproduce. (Holy men, as usual, are excluded).
Snap!!
RE : homosexuality
Homosexuality is Natural
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/10/homosexuality-is-natural.html
Also consider animals with complex social behaviours and social structure. I presume that many instances of homosexuality found in nature are infact from bisexual species such as the Pygmy Chimpanzee, where basically everybody has sex with everybody. The bisexuality probably works effectively there to connect the group and to resolve conflicts. Individuals that practice bisexuality probably gains from it not from a narrow reproductive perspective, but indirectly by increasing social status. There can also be "pure" group selection acting, but then you have to deal with the whole group-level vs individual-level controvercy.
So basically; bisexuality ~= people skills