I have something to say to the idiotic masses of the world and I need to borrow a hautparleur, a purple one by preference.
And, I want to tell them the following:
Homosexuality is making the crowds steer nervously again thanks to an article titled “Please me at any Price” by Mohamad Sibai who was disturbed when he saw two humans (he precises they were men) holding hands, as published in Outlook (AUB newspaper) on the first week of May 2012. The most reasonable argument against homosexuality that I have stumbled upon a couple of times, is the one I retrieved on facebook by some Zouheir Abdallah who was facing the angry mob that energetically responded to the sad article. He said: “Riddle me this, IF homosexuality is innate as you guys claim, then why hasn't homosexuality developed a natural way of survival? Why hasn't evolution given homosexuals an innate reproductive system in which 2 homosexuals can reproduce. Survival IS an innate instinct in which the human body adapts to ensure the race's continuity.”
Let me argue to you why even this argument is a futile and meaningless argument against homosexuality. The key word here is “survival” and the problem is our misconception of this word: we mistaken survival as being generated by reproduction. The simple proof for this misconception is the good old dinosaurs example: (1) all dinosaurs reproduced, (2) almost all dinosaurs did not survive, (3) therefore reproduction does not lead to survival. That said, we ask ourselves, what is survival? Survival is pretty straight forward: it is an attempt, by a certain genetic code, to achieve the state of a constant fact in the universe. In other words, at any given moment in time, there must be at least one copy of the concerned genetic code. That is what it means to survive.
Reproduction, a constant and massive copying of the code, would simply increase the probability of finding at least one genetic code at any given moment in time, i.e., we have currently about 7 billion copies of this code. I point out here that to have enough numbers of genetic copies, not everyone needs to reproduce in their life time. If half of any given number of a population is reproductive, it would be enough to keep a good number of copies. For quite a while now, a lot of people live without reproducing, especially in Europe. Does this mean they are contributing to the extinction of the human race? This is quite doubtful, when the actual number of human population keeps on increasing. On the contrary, maybe we should start thinking about restraining the numbers, as this increasing number of population is slowly but surely becoming more of a threat for survival than a help, i.e., poor living conditions, malnutrition, etc…
Reproduction is only one side of the survival business. The other is protecting the current code by eluding dangerous conditions that may eliminate a code, at any given time, i.e., sudden change of natural habitat or lose of caretakers of an infant, etc. Humans have been working on this front for millions of years, enough to develop the skill of producing actual technologies to protect us from natural disasters, to enable survival conditions for adults and children who carry the genetic code and who have less probability of surviving on their own. We do this by means of increase in our technology and intellect. Just as in the case of reproduction, not everyone needs to be producing technology and intellect at a given moment in time. Also, protection of the genetic code is not solely human, each species has its technology for survival: birds build nests and migrate; elephants remember the whereabouts of water and grass plains; leopards can climb a tree with their prey which weighs more than themselves to evade other predators; ants build colonies and organize themselves to attack enemies; chimpanzees adopts wild dog puppies that grow up and defend their adoption family from other predators; and the list goes on.
Moral of the story: the conditions of survival requires that, at any moment in time since its creation, at least one copy of the genetic code concerned must exist. The big numbers of copies reproduced and protected only increases the chances of survival, nothing more and nothing less. Therefore, not all the populations need to indulge in the act of reproduction, noting that a big increase in numbers can fail survival by creating a massive extinction through lack of resources needed to protect the genetic code. A balance is needed to keep the survival of the code.
We can notice by now that homosexuality has not occurred in our argument about survival: only carriers of codes such as humans. A homosexual is a human, and, as human, s/he may decide not to reproduce or they may decide to reproduce if so they wish. They may contribute to the production of technology and intellect that aim to protecting other humans, if so they wish. They may care for other humans that need them, if so they wish. In other words, they may do anything any other human chooses to do, precisely because of the leverage that the big number of the human population creates for all of us: we are not scared of extinction given we are 7 billion copies today. Contact me again when we are only several humans and then we'll start worrying about our survival innate instincts violated by homosexual behavior.
And so, I would like us to remember that, as far as survival is concerned at least, we are all humans who carry the genetic code, regardless of our personal preferences and physical constitutions, and thus by default we are supposed to protect this code rather than point out that our sole purpose in life is reproduction.