This was written a couple of days ago, but before it was published the electricity went and the UPS was drained out. So re-wrote the whole thing again.
Got thinking about homosexuality while reading Sex and the City one night. Not in terms of me embracing lesbianism, but on the lines of its evolution. Goats do it, apparently so do giraffes, birds and dolphins, too. I have seen female star-shelled tortoises mount each other and there are plenty of reports of the phenomenon occuring in primates. Bonobo chimpanzees perform homosexual acts, but it seems that it cements social bonds. Does this mean that it may apply to human society also?
It has been claimed that evolution could not explain homosexuality. For a trait (behavioral or genetic) to set into a population it has to be beneficial to the individual (or in some cases, the group), what ecologists call "individual fitness". In simple terms, unless the trait enhances reproductive success, it has no place in evolution. But homosexuals do not reproduce, they may have children, but reproduction ...... not always!
As far as I knew homosexuality was a behavior, but it does seem to have some genetic connection. Apparently, some scientists have been able to identify the region for sexual orientation on the X chromosome in homosexual men, but the particular gene has not been isolated. In an article published in a 2004 issue of the journal Biological Processes, a group claims that "homosexuality in men enhances fertility in women". Ok, so we know that it might be possible for sexual orientation to be passed on genetically, but then we know of cases where the children of homosexuals are heterosexual. A case of the perfect chiasma formation? Mixing of the genes, genetic variation? Hm!
Most men get turned on by images of two women "going at it", gentlemen, do correct me if I am wrong. But the thought of two men seems to be too dry. Threesomes are acceptable (so who said three is a crowd?) but somehow that is not really classified as homosexuality. They seem to fit into a category of their own called fantasy.
There is a popular belief, though quite far-fetched, that homosexuality is nature's way of controlling the human population. Sex and the City mentions it and so does Imre Loefler in his article. Sounds good to me, but then in the animal kingdom there are other measures that control the population, so this explanation seems to fit only human society.
Why am I writing about this? Frankly I have no idea. I just cannot understand the attention the concept of homosexuality gets. Conservative Christian fanatics say that homosexuality is against nature. But with the phenomenon being so popular through the natural world, where does it go against nature? What is the problem if an individual chooses to follow a particular sexual preference by being gay or lesbian? And what is so wrong with same-sex marriages?
Am I confused regardign the ongoing debate? Perhaps. Probably because I see nothing wrong with choosing one's sexual orientation, call it freedom if you will. Why look for reasons in religious writings and impose those rules on people who choose to not follow that? Why bring it into the legal system at all? Seems to me that everyone deems themselves culturally superior and as someone mentioned to me, that people seem to want to impose that "superior culture" on the rest. See the connection with politics and religion?
0 comments:
Post a Comment