If it was a naturally-occurring imbalance, this tendency naturally selects against the homosexual population. Evolutionarily speaking, it is abnormal.
I wanted to build on this point from the other thread. This statement was made in reference to homosexuality; that is, if it is a naturally occuring phenomenon, evolution would select against it, because homosexuals do not have a natural means by which to reproduce. That homosexuality persists raises several possibilities:
1.) It is contributed to, at least in part, by a "nurture" style (nature v. nurture debate).
2.) That sexuality is, at least in part, determined by multiple genes; and that homosexuality is likely regressive, has not been eliminated from the population, likely due to social influence against homosexuality.
3.) That sexuality is, at least in part, determined by choice of the individual.
Now, I don't know the relevance any of this has to the point that I'm bringing up. But I'll get around to it.
Homosexuals tend to be grouped into the non-mainstream-religion crowd, because the mainstream religions are all generally against homosexuality (I'm speaking of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). Many have an atheistic point of view, or polytheistic viewpoint, where there is not a universal, absolute "law" of any kind; or if there is, it's in some ways subjective (like Buddhism or Hinduism).
Of late, there has been significant fighting among secularists and religious people about the appropriate separation of religion and government (I'm speaking now of the last 40 years in the United States). I'd like to carry this out to one possible end. The end I'm going to speak of is not necessarily probable, although I'd argue it's possible. The end that I'm speaking of is the complete abolition of theistic religion -- not because religion becomes illegal, but because it just dies out, likely due to social pressure causing loss of interest over a long period of time (likely multiple centuries).
Social psychologists argue that religion satisfies very particular, and very strong, social needs, like that of quelling the evolutionary terror of death. If theistic religion were to be eliminated, what would quell that fear?
I believe that we're already seeing the beginnings of what would happen in the ultra-hard-core evolutionary biologists. I call it the religion of atheism.
That atheism is a religious standpoint is not a new concept. Religious studies professors at universities frequently refer to athiesm as a religion as well; it is a set of common beliefs about how the universe works and why and how it came to be. Despite its lack of official organization, there are several branches of atheistic apologetics (evolutionary biology and evolutionary cosmology), and other branches of science are already beginning to depend on it (social psychology is huge on evolution, although not necessarily dependent on macroevolution).
Ethics have also become somewhat dependent on evolution. A secular society depends on evolution because it is allegedly (and I say that not meaning to be condescending, but to imply that this is not necessarily absolutely true) the most reasonable system we have of explaining the origin of human life and life in general. This also brings the scientific community to the forefront of a field that, up to this point, they have only been marginally a part of.
What would happen if secular ethicity was to be determined by genetic "purists"? It is a theme we commonly face now in media; in
X-Men, for instance, the greater human population reacts with fear to the mutant population because they are not genetically pure.
What if it is found that homosexuality is a genetic anomaly?
As I said at the outset, homosexuality would be selected against by the evolutionary process. Because the (theoretical) homosexuality gene(s) would not have a way by which to reproduce, it is by definition anomalous. Would a genetic "purist" would want it screened out?
Much like
1984 does with civil liberties, the idea of a future run by an atheistic culture has a potential to be very scary. It certainly won't happen during my lifetime; but I'm concerned that it will happen, period.
