GQjock saidI read it ....
It was a very interesting article
and it brought up a very interesting question
Are we so heterosexually biased that we do not look at biological science with a completely objective eye
Darwinism puts the need to procreate at the top of the evolutionary ladder
So where does all this homosexuality come from
Either Darwinism is Not all there is .... meaning the mail aim in life isn't to pass on your genes
there is something about homosexuality that is biologically advantageous
and that is why we keep seeing it on every level
1) "Darwinism" is not a term used by evolutionary biologists or people who use Darwin's theory of Natural Selection as one of the many tools in their basket to understand life on our planet (e.g. Mendel's laws and modern genetics, archeology, and anthropology, to name a few). It tends to be a term still used by creationists, social scientists, and others to either bash his theories, or to apply them to realms where they are completely inappropriate. On the next two points, I'm going to swap out your use of the term "Darwinism" and replace it with "Natural Selection" because "Darwinism" only means whatever the speaker using it decides it means, so it's impossible to have a discussion with that noun as the basis.
2) On the "not all there is" statement: well, of course Natural Selection is not all there is. Like all other tools of science, including general and special relativity, quantum mechanics, Newton's laws of gravity, and countless more examples, they are only intended to answer specific sets of questions about specific things. Ideally, you'd like a theory to answer more questions than less, but dissing a theory because it's "not all there is" is kinda odd, since Intel uses quantum theory in the layout of their latest chips, even tho it's "not all there is", and we've sent men to the moon using Newton's laws of gravity, even tho they are also, famously, "not all there is."
3) As to the supposition that homosexuality "must be biologically advantageous" -- this is also false. Natural selection doesn't prohibit mutations or variants, it just seeks to explain why some survive and others don't. That has never meant that we won't continue to see people with freckles, even tho it is a recessive trait that is clearly functionally deficient with respect to other more melanin-rich skin types (sun burns, skin cancer, etc.). Your logic is also justifying the existence of freckles because "it is biologically advantageous." This is misunderstanding natural selection.
4) The fact that this type of thread (i.e. "Hey look at this startling fact! Animals are gay!!! OMFG!!!!") appears on RJ every 3 or 4 months is truly depressing, and shows the sad state of basic science education in the US. This is not news to anyone with even a basic grounding in biology and reproduction. And as others noted already, it's even worse. Many people have heard these facts and simply reject them because they tend to inconvenience their crackpot theories about how their fantasy world operates.
So there's my asshole stuck up high horse rant on this topic. Sorry, it's my time of the month.
MSUBioNerd, can you please take over? I'm too cranky.