Wednesday, October 15, 2008

What's in it for Mother Nature? Why I think there are gays

I've been pondering this question for a long time, and I think I've developed a reasonable hypothesis.

Assumption: All aspects of human behaviour are the result of evolutionary process, including social conventions, abstract concepts, and social structures. Nature doesn't keep things around unless they are somehow useful in an evolutionary framework.

Hypothesis: Gays (inclusive) are socially advantageous because they supply a small population of adults who are typically unencumbered by the work of child rearing. At times there are sudden increases to the necessary workload of a social group due to environmental pressures. If all adults were encumbered by child rearing then there would be no additional people to deal with these periodic increases to necessary work without sacrificing the well being of children.

During times of normal activity levels, the population of unencumbered adults are freer to pursue optional activities which advance technology, liberal arts, and other fields of endeavour which are not strictly required for survival and species propagation.

Discuss!

3 comments:

bstewart23 said...

Seumas, I've followed you back to your home from Joe.My.God but, I assure you, not in a nonstalkery fashion.

Yours is a question which has intrigued me for decades and I'm afraid my conclusion may seem overly profane -- given that I've noticed a dearth of swears in your blog (as opposed to mine, which is rife).

The evolutionary purpose of gays -- that is, homosexuals who bond socially and politically with other homosexuals -- is to increase the fuckability of heterosexuals. (Please feel free to edit as you may find appropriate). For how long have homosexuals self-identified as a separate and definable subclass? A hundred years? Less? And what became their (stereo)typical roles?

Entertainers, beautifiers and decorators.

We sought to relax and jollify the masses, to make them more attractive to each other and to make their environments more suited to... human reproduction. And before we were socialized and self-identified, those of us who embraced our sexual "otherness" often held more mystical positions in society -- of which, as a paganist, I am sure you are abundantly aware -- and pagans are ALLLLL about nature and procreation and life and whatnot, right?

Of course, I could simply be full of shit.

Seumas Gagne said...

Thanks for the thoughts, bstewart23. I don't think that political or social bonding is what makes people gay. Being more-or-less exclusively attracted to their own gender does. I'm kind of sketchy around the current fashions of identity politics. I was gay long before I knew the word or went to a bar. The role of gays in society has been what it is since time immemorial; since long before academics decided to deconstruct us for fun an profit. We've always been the mystics seeing the underlying ambiguity of existence.

I think your point about our role in beautifying the world (us included) is well made. That's what I meant to communicate about what we do when we're not riding in and saving the day for the poor overwhelmed heteros and their crying children.

Anyhoo, one final note: "not in a nonstalkery fashion" - being a double negative - indicates that it was in a stalkery fashion. Perfectly fine, of course. I've always wanted a stalker and my Canadian pre-husband doesn't want the job. Ha ha.

bstewart23 said...

Darn those double-negatives! That'll teach me to comment while on Martini #3!

My point with respect to the use of the word "gay" is that a same-sex attraction brands one "homosexual" whereas a homosexual accepting that s/he belongs to a sociopolitical subclass of like-minded (or like-desired) homosexuals brands one "gay".

Meaning? I was totally homosexual while reveling in my same-sex attraction but not "gay" until I acknowledged that I was, indeed, one of those people. It all hinges on self-identity as a member of a group-identity, in my mind.