If everyone were gay...

This is part 3 in the series of anti-gay arguments we tend to ignore, but shouldn't.

Being gay is against the natural order of things; it is against evolution; if everyone were gay humanity would end.

Since homosexuality occurs in nature (some 450 species practice it), something else must be meant by the phrase "not natural." Most often that translates to gay couples can't reproduce. Since they can't there is no evolutionary advantage to having gays in the population.

First, let's shut off the clanging irony meter. Fundies are using evolution to claim homosexuality is morally wrong?

Now that we can hear ourselves think, here are some of the ideas from the main posting and the accompanying comments.

* This use of evolution means the user doesn't understand the term (no surprise there -- then again some of the terms used within evolution are misleading). Evolution does not have a goal. Humans are not evolution's crowning achievement. It does not care if a particular individual or species survives. It cannot be used as a moral principle. Therefore it is impossible for a biological activity to be "against evolution."

* It is possible for a trait to have no evolutionary effect. Or to have a stress-relieving effect. Studies have shown that for some species during times of overpopulation the homosexual activity increases. It may be important for some members of a species to not have offspring to serve as providers of the orphans.

* There are species, such as ants and wolves, where a large number of the members do not reproduce.

* Humans do a lot of activities that have nothing to do with survival and passing genes to descendants -- like attend church.

* Reproduction -- passing our genes on to the next generation -- is not the reason why we are alive; it is not a duty. The argument came from Genesis and the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" but does not mean that's the goal of life or that everyone must take part. It also doesn't mean we must continue to multiply when there are 7 billion of us straining earth's resources. In other words, the original argument is really a religious one dressed up in biology.

* So shouldn't straights thank us for not contributing to the problems caused by overpopulation?

* "If everyone were gay" is simply faulty reasoning. If everyone did something and we would have problems doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to do it. Besides, gays can reproduce using the same wonders of modern medicine that straight couples use.

* Humanity would also end if everyone were male. But that doesn't make being male wrong. Besides not everyone is male and not everyone is gay. When this argument is used ask, "If everyone else were gay would you be gay too?"

* There are some nasty assumptions lurking beneath the surface: only straights care about the future of humanity, care about children, are the only ones with parenting instincts and skills. Gays are only interested in pleasure.

* Some of the same people who claim that there is no evolution because the creation story is literally true will also claim that animals did not engage in homosexual behavior until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The fall of humanity also brought about the fall of creation. And you can't use logic against such foes.

* Doesn't this emphasis on the ability to reproduce turn Christianity into a fertility cult?

* Fundies frequently say that gays should be celibate. How, in terms of reproduction, does that differ from gay sex?

* Whether a person deserves to be loved and whether a person deserves rights has nothing to do with their evolutionary purpose. This argument exists to dehumanize gays.