Monday, August 8, 2011

Darwin's Case Against Homosexuality

WARNING – there is clinical discussion of sexual terms in this post.   
One of the most boldfaced lies of the pro-homosexual movement is that arguments against homosexuality are solely based on irrational religious beliefs. Many who support traditional marriage foolishly allow the proponents of homosexuality to get away with this nonsensical claim.
But from a purely Darwinian standpoint, homosexuality is self-evidently a disorder.
Sounds crazy? Read on.
Let’s first examine Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
The University of Berkeley definition of natural selection is: “Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a population.”
Translated into simple English, this means that individuals better suited to survive and reproduce pass on their genes more readily.  In other words, from a Darwinian standpoint, individuals who exhibit a greater capacity to survive and reproduce are more “successful,” and have a greater influence on the genetic makeup of a species.  
(As a purely enjoyable aside, does this mean that traditional Catholics who do not engage in birth control are superior to those who use birth control, in Darwinian terms?)
With this definition in mind, consider these simple facts about homosexuality:
1.       Homosexual acts are medically dangerous.
This rather obvious fact is violently disputed by many in the homosexual community. But the facts are plain. Simple human biology shows that the human reproductive organs were developed to accommodate heterosexual and not homosexual acts.
There are many reasons why this is so – I will only list a few of them:
1)      The female vagina has multiple layers of protective tissue (specifically, what is known as squamous epithelial tissue) that protect against the transmission of diseases. The mouth and the anus have fewer layers of tissue that protect against sexually transmitted diseases.
2)      Ejaculation is an immunosuppressant – meaning that the immune system’s defenses are lowered at the point of ejaculation. In heterosexual relations, this allows sperm has time to enter and fertilize the female egg. In homosexual relations, ejaculation serves no fruitful purpose – and allows sexually transmitted diseases the opportunity to spread in places where there is little protective tissue.
3)      Tearing of sensitive tissue not designed to withstand repeated trauma often occurs as a result of non-vaginal sex.
(It should be noted that heterosexual acts of oral sex and anal sex, and other forms of non-vaginal sex, also carry the same risks.)
Behaviors commonly practiced by many homosexuals, such as anal sex and fisting, carry with them even more medical dangers. I have also not listed the mental issues associated with homosexuality, which are numerous and severe. See the links at the end of this article for more details.
Here are four of the many medical conditions that spread rapidly as a result of homosexual activity (I have linked to medical sites for each one. For more links to the negative consequences of homosexual behavior, see the links at the bottom of the article):  
·         Proctitis
·         Syphilis
·         Hepatitis C
·         HIV

Becuase of these illnesses, studies have shown that the life expectancy of homosexuals is lower than that of heterosexuals.
Studies cited by homosexual activists declare that homosexuals live 1.2 years less on average than heterosexuals, while other studies, most famously cited by Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute (a defender of traditional marriage), declare that homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals.
Predictably, homosexuals often claim that any discrepancy in homosexual life expectancy is because of discrimination, repression, and paranoia on the part of heterosexuals, who oppress the gay population and refuse to allow them to marry. This fails to take into account the many medical difficulties inherently associated with homosexual activity.
It is clear that people who practice homosexual acts shorten their lifespans by doing so.
2.       The Darwinian theory of natural selection argues that the test of the success of a species is to spread the species. As the Wikipedia entry for natural selection states: “Modern evolutionary theory defines “fitness” not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.” Homosexuality, from a Darwinian standpoint, is clearly a disorder. Homosexual acts cannot produce offspring – so gay men and women effectively remove themselves from the gene pool by remaining homosexual.
Many claim that homosexuality exists in animals, and cite this as a justification for homosexuality in humans. But even assuming this claim to be true, the behavior of animals is certainly no justification for homosexuality in humans. Animals which do engage in homosexual behavior cannot propagate. Animals, like humans, eliminate themselves from the gene pool if they engage in strictly homosexual acts.
Homosexuality negatively affects the survival and reproductive capacity of its practitioners. Therefore, from a Darwinian standpoint, homosexuality is a disorder, which prematurely kills off those who practice homosexual acts, and which eliminates homosexuals from the gene pool.
Note: Homosexuality was originally classified as a disorder in the original Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the official list of all mental disorders), but was eliminated from the DSM-IV due to political pressure by homosexual activists. (This, too, is disputed by the homosexual community.) Activists are now trying to eliminate Gender Identity Disorder, more commonly known as transgenderism, from the newest version of the DSM, the DSM-V, slated to come out in 2013.
Helpful links:
Homosexual sites:
Neutral site (cited by anti-homosexuals):
Anti-homosexual sites:

15 comments:

  1. Very good points. Darwin understood biology though he misconstrued it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. > WARNING there is clinical discussion of sexual terms in this
    > post.
    >
    > One of the most boldfaced lies of the pro-homosexual movement is
    > that arguments against homosexuality are solely based on
    > irrational religious beliefs. Many who support traditional
    > marriage foolishly allow the proponents of homosexuality to get
    > away with this nonsensical claim.

    If you want to eliminate AIDS then you should support gay marriage because two gay men who are not HIV+ cannot give each other AIDS as long as they are monogamous.

    > But from a purely Darwinian standpoint, homosexuality is self-
    > evidently a disorder.

    It is if you take "survival of the fittest" literally. Gay men have all sorts of disadvantages, especially if they are openly gay: openly gay men do not normally get married and other men may be reluctant to form close friendships with them. Openly gay men can form friendships with women though.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  3. > Let s first examine Darwin s theory of natural selection.
    >
    > The University of Berkeley definition of natural selection is:
    > Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in
    > a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a
    > population.
    >
    > Translated into simple English, this means that individuals
    > better suited to survive and reproduce pass on their genes more
    > readily.

    Yes. Precisely. That's the other problem: even if gay men are able to form friendships with women they are less interested in sex with women than sex with men and therefore are less likely to have children. A lot of gay men may consider themselves bisexual but any time they spend in relationships with men is a waste of time in terms of passing on genes.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  4. > In other words, from a Darwinian standpoint,
    > individuals who exhibit a greater capacity to survive and
    > reproduce are more successful, and have a greater influence on
    > the genetic makeup of a species.
    >
    > (As a purely enjoyable aside, does this mean that traditional
    > Catholics who do not engage in birth control are superior to
    > those who use birth control, in Darwinian terms?)

    Absolutely and Richard Dawkins has made this argument repeatedly. Specifically he has labeled Catholicism as a "meme" and pointed out that if Catholics have a lot of children and all there children are taught to be Catholic then the meme for Catholicism gets passed on. Thing is, the human race is not in danger of becoming extinct so there's no need for people to have seven, eight, nine or more babies. For animal species we worry about numbers but for the human race we need also consider quality of life. Happy people don't start wars.

    > With this definition in mind, consider these simple facts about
    > homosexuality:
    >
    > 1. Homosexual acts are medically dangerous.

    Anal sex is medically dangerous.

    > This rather obvious fact is violently disputed by many in the
    > homosexual community. But the facts are plain. Simple human
    > biology shows that the human reproductive organs were developed
    > to accommodate heterosexual and not homosexual acts.

    This is an interesting question: anal sex does not produce children so why do people (gay or straight) engage in anal sex? Indeed, a lot of straight men engage in anal sex with women: it isn't just gay men who engage in anal sex. Men (both gay and straight) claim that anal sex is fun and some women like it to.

    I think the problem here is that you are assuming intelligent design: you say "reproductive organs were developed to accommodate heterosexual... acts" as though reproductive organs were deliberately developed with sex in mind. The truth is that reproductive organs developed over generations and people who enjoyed sex (both vaginal and anal) were more likely to have children. Thus both vaginal and anal sex have become enjoyable.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  5. > There are many reasons why this is so I will only list a few
    > of them:
    >
    > 1) The female vagina has multiple layers of protective
    > tissue (specifically, what is known as squamous epithelial
    > tissue) that protect against the transmission of diseases. The
    > mouth and the anus have fewer layers of tissue that protect
    > against sexually transmitted diseases.
    >
    > 2) Ejaculation is an immunosuppressant meaning that the
    > immune system s defenses are lowered at the point of
    > ejaculation. In heterosexual relations, this allows sperm has
    > time to enter and fertilize the female egg. In homosexual
    > relations, ejaculation serves no fruitful purpose and allows
    > sexually transmitted diseases the opportunity to spread in
    > places where there is little protective tissue.
    >
    > 3) Tearing of sensitive tissue not designed to withstand
    > repeated trauma often occurs as a result of non-vaginal sex.
    >
    > (It should be noted that heterosexual acts of oral sex and anal
    > sex, and other forms of non-vaginal sex, also carry the same
    > risks.)

    Vaginal sex is riskier than oral sex: with oral sex you are basically eating sperm and your digestive system is designed to protect you against disease.

    > Behaviors commonly practiced by many homosexuals, such as anal
    > sex and fisting, carry with them even more medical dangers. I
    > have also not listed the mental issues associated with
    > homosexuality, which are numerous and severe. See the links at
    > the end of this article for more details.

    The mental issues associated with homosexuality are subjective. A gay man who has come to terms with his homosexuality is not mentally ill. Mental illness may result as a result of a gay man's friends and family being unable to accept his homosexuality: the gay man may feel isolated. On the other extreme is sexual addiction: rejected by friends and family, gay men may turn to strangers for intimacy. It is much healthier for gay men to be openly gay and accepted by the people around him. Instead of telling a gay man that gay sex is dangerous you should fix a gay man up with a gay man who would be a compatible "life partner": two gay men who are not HIV+ are not going give each other AIDS no matter what activity they engage in as long as they are monogamous.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > your digestive system is designed to protect you against disease

      This was a poor choice of words on my part. The English language tends to perpetuate the myth of an intelligent designer. I should have said "your digestive system tends to protect you against disease".

      Delete
  6. > Here are four of the many medical conditions that spread rapidly
    > as a result of homosexual activity (I have linked to medical
    > sites for each one. For more links to the negative consequences
    > of homosexual behavior, see the links at the bottom of the
    > article):
    > Proctitis
    > Syphilis
    > Hepatitis C
    > HIV
    >
    > Because of these illnesses, studies have shown that the life
    > expectancy of homosexuals is lower than that of heterosexuals.

    Well, sure, for many reasons as discussed above.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  7. > Studies cited by homosexual activists declare that homosexuals
    > live 1.2 years less on average than heterosexuals, while other
    > studies, most famously cited by Paul Cameron of the Family
    > Research Institute (a defender of traditional marriage), declare
    > that homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals.
    >
    > Predictably, homosexuals often claim that any discrepancy in
    > homosexual life expectancy is because of discrimination,
    > repression, and paranoia on the part of heterosexuals, who
    > oppress the gay population and refuse to allow them to marry.
    > This fails to take into account the many medical difficulties
    > inherently associated with homosexual activity.

    And vice-versa.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  8. > It is clear that people who practice homosexual acts shorten
    > their lifespans by doing so.
    >
    > 2. The Darwinian theory of natural selection argues that
    > the test of the success of a species is to spread the species.
    > As the Wikipedia entry for natural selection states: Modern
    > evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an
    > organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing.

    Not exactly: it isn't just a question of how successful an individual organism is at reproducing but how successful the species as a whole is at reproducing. There are a lot of gay men in the arts (acting, singing, dancing, fashion etc.). How does the arts contribute to the survival of the species? Why do we even have art? What is the evolutionary advantage of art? This is an unresolved question but, clearly, there is some advantage to the side-effects of homosexuality.

    Another way to look at it is in terms of the transmission of individual genes: the genes that are responsible for homosexuality are on the X chromosome; we know this because men are more likely to be gay if there are gay men on their mother's side but not their father's side. Indeed, gay men have been able to have straight boys so the genes for homosexuality are not carried on the Y chromosome.

    It makes sense that the genes for homosexuality are carried on the X chromosome: women have two X chromosomes and these chromosomes make women women; they make women feminine and attracted to men. Doesn't that describe gay men? Feminine and attracted to men? Granted, not all gay men are feminine but nor are all women. For that matter, a lot of women are bisexual. Some gay men, similarly, feel attraction to both men and women.

    One theory is that there are genes that make people, both men and women, more feminine and more attracted to men. Women who have these genes are more likely to have children but men who have these genes are less likely to have children. If the advantage of the species of having extra feminine women offsets the disadvantage of having extra feminine men then the gene will nevertheless pass on to future generations.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  9. > Homosexuality, from a Darwinian standpoint, is clearly a
    > disorder.

    Again, it depends on whether you consider the individual, the species or the individual gene. Richard Dawkins wrote a book on this called "The Selfish Gene": your genes don't care if you are happy and live to be ninety; all care about is whether you pass on your genes. You can be miserable, unhealthy and die at fifty but if you have a dozen children then according to Darwin you are "fit".

    > Homosexual acts cannot produce offspring so gay men
    > and women effectively remove themselves from the gene pool by
    > remaining homosexual.

    But men who are gay ARE gay. With women it is different: women tend to be bisexual and many bisexual women choose to be lesbians. (We know this because plenty of women go back and forth between relationships with men and relationships with women.) Gay men, similarly, can choose to be bisexual. Take for example David Bowie: rumor has it he was gay but he met Iman and liked her a lot. (His hobby has been taking pictures of her.) The fact that they got married suggests he is not exclusively into men any more. But does a gay man stop being interested in men when he marries a woman? Do straight men lose interest in other women when they get married? No, it doesn't happen. Thus a gay man cannot be considered straight simply because he has married a woman: he doesn't stop being gay and, at most, can be considered bisexual.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
  10. > Many claim that homosexuality exists in animals, and cite this
    > as a justification for homosexuality in humans.

    Wait. Why do we have to "justify" homosexuality? Do we have to justify sports? Does football or basketball contribute to our species? How? Men running around in shorts is men running around in shorts whether it is a sports activity or a gay orgy.

    > But even
    > assuming this claim to be true, the behavior of animals is
    > certainly no justification for homosexuality in humans. Animals
    > which do engage in homosexual behavior cannot propagate.
    > Animals, like humans, eliminate themselves from the gene pool if
    > they engage in strictly homosexual acts.

    And yet the genes for homosexuality get passed on. Go figure.

    > Homosexuality negatively affects the survival and reproductive
    > capacity of its practitioners. Therefore, from a Darwinian
    > standpoint, homosexuality is a disorder, which prematurely kills
    > off those who practice homosexual acts, and which eliminates
    > homosexuals from the gene pool.
    >
    > Note: Homosexuality was originally classified as a disorder in
    > the original Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
    > Disorders (the official list of all mental disorders), but was
    > eliminated from the DSM-IV due to political pressure by
    > homosexual activists. (This, too, is disputed by the homosexual
    > community.) Activists are now trying to eliminate Gender
    > Identity Disorder, more commonly known as transgenderism, from
    > the newest version of the DSM, the DSM-V, slated to come out in
    > 2013.

    Thing is, homosexuality is the inability of some men to find women attractive but heterosexuality is the inability of most men to find men attractive. You can't label homosexuality a mental disorder without labeling heterosexuality as a disorder.

    Martin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I want to respond to your argument, but a lot of it just doesn't make any sense.
      Take the point you listed: "homosexuality is the inability of some men to find women attractive but heterosexuality is the inability of most men to find men attractive. You can't label homosexuality a mental disorder without labeling heterosexuality as a disorder."
      I never argued that not having attraction is a disorder; I am arguing that anything inherent to an organism which hinders the ability to reproduce is a disorder, from a Darwinian standpoint. Homosexuality does hinder reproduction, while heterosexuality assists it.
      With respect, the rest of your posts are marred by similarly flawed logic.

      Delete
  11. >“Modern evolutionary theory defines
    >“fitness” not by how long an organism
    >lives, but by how successful it is at
    >reproducing.” Homosexuality, from a
    >Darwinian standpoint, is clearly a
    >disorder.

    Assuming that the ability to have children makes you fit, you have no proof that not having children is not fit.

    Assuming that every apple is a fruit, that means that everything not an apple is not a fruit.

    Assuming you should not believe people who do not make logical sense, all you have said is devoid of meaning. To rephrase that, since you were wrong once you are always wrong. See the faulty logic I have made in this example? Between the last example and this one, neither was a true statement that the conclusion came to. If they were, then you could say I am right and you would be wrong. You could say a banana is not a fruit because it isn't an apple.

    To give one final example of non-faulty logic,
    assuming that not having children is unfit, that does not mean that not having children is a disorder - it is, assuming no other factors such as ability adapt, simply unfit.

    The only way to make this true is if YOU assume that being unfit is only defined as not being able to proliferate and that being unfit means you have a disorder. Since you seem to be young, you probably have not have kids, and therefore you are diagnosing yourself if a disorder ^_^

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your response!
      The point I was trying to make in the statement you noted could have and should have been more clearly argued. I should have added an intermediate phrase to my argument. My statement should have read:
      "Modern evolutionary theory evolutionary theory defines "fitness" not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. The orientation of homosexuality hinders an organism from reproducing. Since this is so, homosexuality, from a Darwinian standpoint, is clearly a disorder.
      So I am not arguing that not having children is a disorder; I am arguing that anything which hinders the ability of an organism to reproduce is a disorder (from a Darwinian standpoint) - two completely different things.
      Re your final point: I am not a Darwinian; I am merely making a Devil's Advocate argument about reproduction from a Darwinian standpoint, for those who believe in Darwinian evolution.

      Delete

Rules for Posting Comments:
1)All commentary is to be respectful.
2)Foul language/crude commentary is prohibited.
3)Use proper punctuation and capitalization.
4)Keep all posts in understandable English.
5)Refrain from personal/ad hominem attacks.
6) Sarcasm, humor, and witty commentary are welcomed.
All posts that violate these rules will be removed.
And the most important rule:
7) All posts are to reflect a spirit of Christian charity.