Darwin and the origin of gayness
This might be a bit of a ride today – white water rapids-style, more bends and twists than The Nemesis at Alton Towers, a few blind alleys, bit of looping back on ourselves but all at break-neck speed, so hold on tight. I’ll try to not toss you off!
I didn’t sleep well again last night and spent much of the time pondering the nature of the Universe, as you do in such situations, and wondering what it is all for. What WE are all for. What I am all for. You see, by rights, if you follow Darwinian theory, I shouldn’t be here at all. I don’t really fit into the model. Or do I? Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on what he called, “The survival of the fittest”. First off, you have to realise that even that statement can be taken two ways: The survival of the most fit or the survival of the best fit. Does ‘fit’ mean ‘strong’ or does it mean ‘suitable’? I believe he meant the latter and that the life that will survive is the one that can adapt to best fit its environment.
Environments change; nature takes her course; we pollute and destroy and alter everything around us. We’re no different from other species really, beyond the fact that we have the intelligence to see the consequences of what we are doing. Maybe we don’t live as sympathetically with our environment as some creatures, but we’re no worse than others. We built the Aswan Dam and destroyed acres of natural environment – the beaver builds dams and blocks off the flow of the river further down-stream. It’s just a matter of scale. Everything is always in a state of flux; it is the nature of an ever-expanding Universe. Our planet is not stable; it quakes, rattles and rolls. We can’t hope to tame it, just adapt to the changes it throws at us. THAT is why we evolve, why species change. When the oceans and lakes are drying up, fish grow legs and become reptiles. So what part of the animal population is at the cutting edge of such a transformation? It is those members of the species who are different, who are mutated and who look slightly different from their peers. The fish with the stumpy legs was probably bullied at school! And it’s his ancestors who grew up to be T-Rex with a slightly more impressive dominion over the playground of life than those bully-fish!
So, evolution depends on deformity – if every creature remained an exact clone of its parents then there would be no scope for the species to cope with change. If a mutation occurs and it is useful, it is retained, developed, nurtured. If it is not useful, it is rejected and the DNA is preserved untainted. And we’re all, to some degree, mutations – the result of combining the genes of our different ancestor pairings going back through the centuries. I am the combination of genetic material provided by my parents, they of theirs and so on back through time. And the Human race has been around a while now, probably not in geological terms, but I’d have thought long enough for certain genes to have been eradicated.
Current thinking is that there is a ‘gay’ gene. Evidence suggests that it occurs more commonly in larger families where there are three siblings of the same gender, but it is pretty widely spread throughout the population. They are not sure what circumstances cause it to trigger, but it does and you end up with people like me. So where do we fit into Mr Darwin’s theory? Gayness surely represents a developmental cul-de-sac, a dead-end. It makes no sense in the context of the theory of evolution. It should have been wiped out millions of years ago. Well, IF the sole purpose of any life form is to procreate, which seems to me to be the way things work around my neck of the woods.
Step back from things for a minute and try to look at the Human Race as if you were a vastly more superior alien being, (you can choose to call this being God, if that suits your way of thinking). What must we really look like? Are we really that superior to other species on the planet? We’re certainly not the most abundant, the most organised, the most destructive, despite how we may wish to claim those pedestals. Locusts kill more than people, as do bacteria. They say there are more worms on the planet than humans. We are, in fact, not that different from any other hive system. Oh, we like t think we have independence, that WE govern our own individual lives, but we don’t really. We conform to the hive as much as any bee or wasp. We have our different places in society – the workers, the elite, the builders, the hunter-gatherers and we are allowed some freedom but it is limited. The bee is allowed to decide which flowers it visits but it still has a quota of nectar to fulfil. We still conform for the collective good. We are Borg, we just don’t know it! You may disagree. You may think you are free to do what you want, when you want, but you’re not. You are governed by rules and regulations that we have created for ourselves as a society. They have associated punishments if you break them. You drive on the correct side of the road, don’t you? Let’s say I get an early morning delivery which arrives when I’m still in bed – would I get out of bed naked and answer the front door with no clothes on? No, I reach for a dressing gown because I am bound by laws of decency, even though the one thing we all have in common is the basic tools of our biology, but we have rules that dictate when these can and cannot be shown. Why are a man’s nipples fine to be seen in public, but not a woman’s?
We have a whole plethora of different rules set up which dictate how we live our lives – we call them many things, but they all serve the same basic purpose: to keep us conforming with the greater good. Call it legislation, call it morality, call it tradition, call it custom, call it religion – it is just semantics for the same over-riding principal, steeped at different levels with increasing threats of punishment, ranging from a fine, to social stigma or imprisonment to perpetual damnation in the pits of hell.
We are Borg. Resistance is futile. We assimilate our environment, we colonise, we strip resources, and all with the aim of procreation and the perpetuation of our species. And in every hive, each unit has a purpose. So, where do us gays fit that model? Hold that thought.
I’m playing an online game at the moment called Tribal Wars. You start out with a rudimentary medieval village. You build troops for defence and attack, plus a farm to grow your village population. And you set out to conquer your neighbouring players’ villages. You join a tribe for more power and support. Eventually one tribe will become bigger and more powerful than all the others and will conquer the world. It’s a God game, plain and simple. Some of your troops you train up to be highly skilled, some you leave as cannon fodder, disposable, just there to clear a path. But in Tribal wars, if and when one tribe becomes so big that it has taken over the whole world, a new world is created and we get to start again with our rudimentary villages. It’s not quite like that in reality!
I’m thinking goldfish bowel syndrome here – they say that if you keep a goldfish in a small bowl it will remain a small fish, but put it in a pond and it will grow to a size appropriate for its environment. I don’t know how true that is, or how scientific, but the concept is valid I suppose, and appropriate to illustrate my argument at least. What if the Human Race has coded into it some sort of trigger that tells it when the population is reaching a critical mass, where the resources of the planet can’t support it anymore? That isn’t a new idea – we have had population control for many centuries, even if only through changing attitudes to large families, the introduction of contraceptives or, in places like China, legislation limiting the number of offspring any particular pairing are allowed to spawn. I’ve though this for a long time: maybe the gay gene is there for the same purpose. It kicks in to help keep the population from exploding beyond its means (be they physical, environmental, geographic etc). THAT too would explain why evolution has not wiped out gayness. Homosexuality isn’t a solely human trait either – we can’t claim it as our own aberration. It exists in many other creatures, such as the primates and marine mammals – in fact there are over 1500 species that practice homosexuality:
- Swans
- Dolphins
- Apes
- Elephants
- Giraffes
- Lions
- Sheep
- Hyenas
- Lizards
- Fruit flies
The list goes on, as do I!
I could take a somewhat questionable stance here and proffer the argument that being gay frees one from the pressure to scatter one’s genome as widely as possible and thus concentrate on other matters, such as art, recreation and entertainment. There is certainly a wide and varied list of gay men and women who have added to the planet’s cultural heritage and maybe have been able to do so because they were not spending their time and resources on pampers, expressing milk and Mothercare. I’ve added a few names that you might recognise, in the list below. Admittedly, some of these people have only dipped their toes in the gay pool, or maybe more correctly, have bowed to popular pressure for conformity, but I’m not trying to judge, merely make the point that we’re too important to Homo Sapiens to be a genetic cock-up.
| Marc Almond | W H Auden | Michael Barrymore |
| Alan Bates | Alan Bennett | David Bowie |
| Derren Brown | Pete Burns | Lord Byron |
| Rhona Cameron | Alan Carr | Julian Clary |
| Quentin Crisp | John Curry | Russell T Davies |
| James Dean | Daphne du Maurier | Brian Epstein |
| Kenny Everett | Rupert Everett | Richard Fairbrass |
| Justin Fashanu | E M Forster | Jodie Foster |
| Samantha Fox | Stephen Fry | Paul Gambeccini |
| Jean-Paul Gautier | Boy George | John Gielgud |
| Julie Goodyear | Alec Guiness | Hadrian |
| Ainsley Harriott | Rex Harrison | Nigel Hawthorne |
| Christopher Isherwood | Derek Jacobi | Derek Jarman |
| Holly Johnson | Angelina Jolie | Gordon Kaye |
| Billie Jean King | Leonardo de Vinci | Liberace |
| Matt Lucas | Peter Mandelson | Miriam Margolyes |
| Nigel Martin-Smith | Johnny Mathis | Michaelangelo |
| John Nathan-Turner | Graham Norton | Rudolf Nuryev |
| Sinéad O’Connor | Paul O’Grady | Laurence Olivier |
| Wilfred Owens | Brian Paddick | Sue Perkins |
| Cole Porter | Tom Robinson | Yves Saint-Laurent |
| Siegfried Sassoon | Carley Simon | Jimmie Somerville |
| Dusty Springfield | Pam St Clement | David Starkey |
| George Takei | Peter Tatchell | Tchaikovsky |
| Neil Tennant | Sandi Toksvig | Gok Wan |
| Andy Wahol | Oscar Wilde | Dale Winton |
| Virginia Woolf | Will Young | Albus Dumbledore* |
* OK, fictional, but if JK can ‘out’ him, so can I!
So we make great cultural contributions, but that isn’t enough to counter Darwinian Theory – paintings and poems do not sustain a growing population or ensure the survival of the fittest. Creativity doesn’t give a good enough reason for the gay chromosome to buck the evolutionary trend (and let’s be honest, there are plenty of gay people out there who are cultural philistines despite their floppy hair and make-up). There has to be another reason, especially when taken with the greater concept that homosexuality is not a homo-centric trait. The only thing I can think of is that we are a genetic restraint in the same way as the fish bowl confines growth. I suppose the point I’m trying to convey is that maybe homosexuality exists for a reason, and part of that reason is as fundamental as population control. It’s not a new concept – many science fiction stories look to a society that is, at least, more tolerant of gay behaviour for that very reason. Gay people represent a significantly reduced drain on the planet’s resources. If we say that every heterosexual couple produces two children, and those two go on to produce two more each, and so on through time, then the planet is going to collapse under the sheer weight of the maths! Maybe we are the trigger mechanism built into the grand design that prevents a species from over-reaching itself. For the time being, we are restricted to this particular goldfish bowl, if our tribe conquers the planet absolutely, then, to the best of my knowledge, there isn’t a Great Programmer who will can just create a new world for us to start again. Or maybe there is? Maybe we’re just the archers and swordsmen and cannon fodder of a great online game, but that is a theological argument for another time. And the hive mentality? We still conform, albeit on the edges of society sometimes. We’re becoming more welcome in the collective – laws give us rights now, civil and human. It’ll be a long while yet before all in the hive are happy to have non-breeders around, but we’re here, we’re queer and, despite Mt Darwin, we’re not going anywhere! Ah the Brave New World!
The first ‘live’ music performance I ever saw was Tom Robinson (I don’t count being dragged to see the Black and White Minstrels on a rainy afternoon in Scarborough, age about 10, as being a proper live music performance). He sang the quintessential “Glad To Be Gay” – a song which has now, thankfully, lost its political edge, but turned me on to live music for life and gave me a connection to other gay people, if only through music. Tom changes the lyrics every few years so that they remain current and appropriate, so here’s my attempt to do the same:
The British perception has come a long way
Now it is trendy to be friends with a gay
Gone are the days we got killed for our ‘crime’
Queer bashed, and tortured and sentenced to time
Picking on gay boys, knocking them down
Hit them and beat them, and slap them around
Now we have nightclubs and pubs of our own
The British perception has certainly grownSing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy that way
Sing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy that wayNow we have freedom and rights under law
Protected from violence like never before
We’ve got civil union, and now we can wed
But not in a church with a cross overhead
They’re calling this progress but where are we now
When a kiss in the streets starts an anti-gay row
Legal protections are fine as they go
But still the old hatred is boiling belowSing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy that way
Sing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy that wayAnd now they say gayness is blamed on our genes
Beyond our control, we were bound to be queens
The argument’s rational and carries some weight
We’re not on this planet just to procreate
We’re here to give colour, laughter and flair
And art and music and be debonair
We’ll write the best poem and the catchiest song
Admit it, Gay Anthems make you sing alongSing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy that way
Sing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy that wayMaybe our DNA carries a goal
To cut down the babies, population control
We’ll never have children to use your resources
Or keep us together avoiding divorces
Yes it’s sad when our branch is the end of the tree
A surname dies with us, and our ancestry
Forget evolution, Darwinian theories
The fact of the point is there’ll always be “queeries”Sing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy that way
Sing if you’re glad to be gay
Sing if you’re happy THIS way
Posted: July 31st, 2009 by OberonUK | No Comments | Filed under Life's misadventures
The sparkling new beast arrived yesterday and we fitted it last night. Its lovely. It has a separate grill. I’m in heaven. This is the closest I’ve come to a sexual stirring in over a year! It has lights and a timer and a clock and more than one shelf and a top oven and a fan that works and a defrost function and a slow cook mode and I love it! I’ve been running it on full power for a couple of hours to burn off the factory smell you always get with new cookers. God knows what they make them with – whale I imagine, judging by the pong. The house smells like an arson attempt in a kipper factory. The last oven used to consume about 52p per hour when it was on full power – and that remained constant during the cooking process. This one has about 10 minutes at 60p and then drops down to less than a penny an hour to keep itself up to temperature! It is a thing of beauty, efficiency and wonder. This afternoon I shall cook a joint of dead cow and, if I’m feeling really brave, I might even do Yorkshires. Because now, I can! And I’ll not be using Delia’s recipe for ‘Yorkshire Pancakes”, nor Nigella’s obvious tendancy to flirt with her ingredients. No, just plain, old-fashioned cooking, as advocated by Mrs Beaton and Ms Craddock. I’m just hoping my yourshires turn out like Fanny’s!






