Friday, June 19, 2009

Gay Animal Kingdom

One thing I am often surprised by is rational, evolution minded, scientists make a case for homosexuality when from an evolutionary worldview, it doesn't make sense biologically. Typically, one of the arguments used to defend their position is that we see it in the animal kingdom. I've always thought some animals mate by showing their butts to one another and/or eat their partner after sex so does that mean we should do those things as well?

Well, today I read a time article from secular source ask the same exact thing in regards to homosexuality in the animal kingdom. John Clouds writes:
What all these theories [regarding the occurrences in animals] have in common is that same-sex sexual activity is either an accident or a quirky genetic method of helping males impregnate females. Which raises the evolutionary question of why men and women who are exclusive gay and lesbian exist. One answer is that exclusive gays and lesbians are a relatively new creation: the concept of exclusive homosexuality barely existed before modernity; even a century ago, most same-sex-attracted men and women got married and had kids.
So does this mean that there should be no such thing as Gay Marriage then? If nature shows you are only going through a phase, why scientifically should we fight for this right? The author then goes on to offer this question out of another evolutionary psych book which I think is valid and could be correct:
Will "the liberation of homosexuals, which allows them to come out of the closet and not pretend to be straight" actually turn out to "contribute to the end of homosexuality?"
Just because we are born a certain way, does that mean it is correct? Could the idea of gay marriage exist in a purely scientific community without the psychological advantage of a world saturated with a Christian message of love and tolerance (since this is also absent from the animal world)? Is the relative newness because People have stopped "dancing to their evolutionary drive" in favor of something different? Would true science condone birth control because it is impeding the evolutionary process of natural selection among offspring? If natural selection has worked so well to this date, why should care about changing our biology? I've heard Richard Dawkins say that we as Humans can rise above our evolutionary desires but I wonder what right do we have to mess with natural selection?

If you cannot tell, I am fascinated by the lack of a true evolutionary worldview among those that claim that Christian worldview is false. While at the same time, these same people seem to hold to a Christian worldview tighter than some that call themselves Christians. My aim is to only point out that those that think all of this have to consider how they believe what they believe and see if they are being consistent. Could they actually be believing there is no God but living like there is? I know I tend believe there is a God but live like there is not. The difference is in the Christian worldview that is expected to happen while in the other, it is not.

No comments: