Some thoughts I’ve had over the years:
It’s occurred to me that (at least in the few mammal species I’ve paid attention to), when populations go too high up, homosexuality appears to go up, as well. I’ve noted this in rats — stick too many in a cage, and many “go gay”. A fact that my previously homophobic aunt used to use as “proof” that homosexuality was bad (rather than sticking too many rats in a cage is bad)..
But what if (in the case of rats and..?) God has designed in homosexuality as a natural form of population control? It’s certainly a whole lot more humane than starvation and disease to reduce a population that’s exceeded it’s current environment.
Now, for people homosexuality tends to be more “set” — though a good number of straight men and women in prisons also “go gay”, just like the rats, only to revert to their usuals after they get out.
But we also know that individuals within other animal populations (reptiles I’m thinking of now, though I can’t remember the species off hand) can alter their own sex, and even reproduce more males or more females depending on how many are already out there in the current environment. Since reptiles have yet to develop the technology to consciously choose the sex of their unborn, or to even do a census before giving birth, I’m persuaded that God has designed their physical bodies to sense what’s already out there, and what’s probably going to be needed, in the near future.
So if a lowly lizard body can manage to produce what will work best for the genetic population in the near future, why should we assume human bodies cannot do something similar in choosing to produce homosexuals when we are needed?
The assumption of science, of course, is that homosexuality doesn’t promote genetic survival. That kind of logic only flies when one is stuck in severe individualism and assuming that in God’s world we only need to exist for ourselves and our own direct benefit.
But in most human cultures, where an entire tribe or people’s genetics continued only to the extent that they worked together as a group (Western Philosophy: “EEK! HORRORS!”), what might the benefits be of having a small percentage of your tribe/group be NONreproducing, so that they were able to do a larger part of the tribe/group’s work (not having to take care of the huge task of bearing and raising children, in other words)?
Sort of like having a built-in babysitter/food-gatherer/etc, and not having to pay them at the end of their shift..
I myself love science, but I’ve learned not to trust it in these kinds of matters because it really doesn’t start with Science 101: What’s already functioning quite well out there? In this, science has been just as bad as bad religion in defining what’s “normal” (only heterosexuality), and then spending incredible amounts of time and energy (and today, money) to wonder why God’s world isn’t matching their definition (and trying to devise ways to “correct” those “abnormal” things).
They’ve made me into a “scientific creationist”, I suppose…