Where would Darwin be on the gay marriage debate?

**RACHEL** · 06-13-2009, 09:38 PM

Why would anyone waste their time fighting against something that really has no effect on them?

The whole world isn't gay. People are not going to go extinct due to a few homosexuals getting married. Not a big deal.

Really, people should be more concerned about important things.

**Jethro** · 06-13-2009, 09:38 PM

Based on his theories he would have to label it a sexual aberration. When I say that homosexuality is abnormal people are aghast that I would use such a word, but when I explain it in biological terms they have nothing to say.

**Ralphy** · 06-13-2009, 09:38 PM

don't feel bad, most cons are scientifically illiterate, you're not alone.

the evolution of one gene or set of genes may have negative consequences, however, if the overall consequence is positive, then it survives.

sickle cell trait causes a debilitating illness, yet it offers selective resistance to malaria. In the end the malaria resistance was more important than death from sickle cell anemia, the malaria killed more frequently. So the mutated gene that produces sickle cell anemia survives in a population

in the same regard, mothers of gay men have been shown to be more fertile than average women, therefore, a survival disadvantage survives because it also produces a survival advantage that outweighs it.

**Forget War Buy More** · 06-13-2009, 09:39 PM

Darwin would note that humans remain capable of reproduction and that homosexuality occurs in nature and has yet to be a problem for species survival.

**Seldon Surak** · 06-13-2009, 09:39 PM

darwin didn't even CONSIDER an either / or choice like you

if 10% of OUR species is gay, it is better for overpopulation concerns

or haven't you been paying attention for the last 50 years?

**scott k** · 06-13-2009, 09:39 PM

I never heard that about Darwin. But, from a reality standpoint, he would be mistaken if that were his position. Over procreation tends to have the opposite effect. Too many of the species means that the food source or other necessities will become too scarce and those species die off. He should have noted that from observing common things like lemmings.

06-13-2009, 09:40 PM

It's possible he would have considered homosexuality a genetic defect.

06-13-2009, 09:41 PM

Wow I love Darwin and Science
I'd say he'd be for gay marriage

Homosexuality is a 'back-fire' of Sexual-selection because it's a result of prenatal hormone distribution, and though it seems like a contradiction, they both compliment each other quite well.
I agree with Darwin's words that a species that has a lesser advantage to reproduce is weaker. However, there are people/animals born blind and deaf, and this is an incredible disadvantage, the blind-deaf being will most likely die in the wild before being able to reproduce. and technically your statement about encouraging relationships that result in 'mass extinction' makes no sense. If being blind-deaf serves a disadvantage to reproduction, (not that I believe in eugenics) it is more preferable for them not to pass these genes on, so you would be encouraging mass-extincting by forcing homosexuals into heterosexual relations by forcing them to pass on their genes. What makes humans different though is that we are more evolved and have higher thinking abilities than other animals this make us able to work around our disadvantages. For homosexual people, they are smart enough to know how reproduction works and can use insemination and surrogate mothering, and adoption to work around their disadvantage of reproduction. This is the same with other natural dispositions that serves a major disadvantage.