Homosexuality and Homophobia: In the end it is about Tolerance


This morning I visited Get Real Post to check on how my readers responded to my recent article on the Pacquiao vs gay community fiasco. I was pleased to see that my piece has piqued so many interests from so many people. However, I may have touched a nerve amongst some of my pro-gay readers. For that I hope they can forgive my “heresy” and appreciate my intent of questioning the seeming intolerance of the pro-gay community against those whom they label as “homophobes” and not homosexuality itself. But since the debate has shifted to the nature of homosexuality, whether it is natural or not, then please allow me to play Devil’s Advocate.

I have read some interesting and “science-based” explanations regarding homosexuality. Most of the folks who rely on science more than faith seem to argue that homosexuality is natural and there is genetic basis for it. It certainly sounds plausible that the ‘gay gene’ got passed on down to the next generations when homosexuals chose to have sex with the opposite sex. Now, let’s not even go to the question whether there is indeed a ‘gay gene’ or not. The truth is, the theory for this has not really been definitively tested and proven yet. Just October of last year, a supposedly breakthrough study on the quest for the ‘gay gene’ was met with derision from geneticists who criticized the methods presented, the validity of the results, and the coverage in the press. It appears that the whole thing was so hyped up by the media but the study doesn’t really do what it says it does. But again, just for the sake of discussion, let’s grant (without necessarily accepting yet) that there is indeed a ‘gay gene’.

So, how do we test this idea of a ‘gay gene’ and its propagation? How do we test the fascinating theories that support homosexuality’s natural status? Do these theories pass the evolution under the natural selection framework test? It seems to me that it would be a fair test to subject homosexuality under since we are trying to “scientifically validate” the claim that homosexuality is natural.

The late Harvard University Professor, Dr. Stephen Gould, who was also an evolutionary biologist (or more accurately, a comparative zoologist) and a professing Darwinian (but not necessarily a Darwinian apologist), said that Darwin did two separate things. First, he convinced the scientific world that evolution had occurred and second, he proposed the theory of natural selection as its mechanism. Fossil records are indicators that evolution has occurred. As for natural selection, Gould tells that it offers no guarantee on the rightness of principles. Gould said:

“Natural selection is a theory of local adaptation to changing environments. It proposes no perfecting principles, no guarantee of general improvement; …”

“Darwin’s independent criterion of fitness is, indeed, `improved design,’ but not `improved’ in the cosmic sense that contemporary Britain favored. To Darwin, improved meant only `better designed for immediate, local environment.’ Local environments change consistently: they get colder or hotter, wetter or drier, more grassy or more forested. Evolution by natural selection is no more than a tracking of these changing environments by differential preservation of organisms better designed to live in them: hair on a mammoth is not progressive in any cosmic sense. Natural selection can produce a trend that tempts us to think of more general progress…”

Again, as I understand it, evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Natural selection is the mechanism behind evolution and it is a theory of local adaptation to changing environments. Local environments change consistently. The Earth has become hotter and colder throughout time. Environments have become wetter and drier, etc. The empirical data we have certainly shows how different species have adopted to the changing environments. The evolutionary history of the elephant family gives a good insight for how natural selection worked.

So in essence, evolution by natural selection tracks changing environments by differential preservation of organisms better designed to live in them.

Now, is there any empirical data that shows how the changing temperature throughout the planet’s history, for instance, has changed sexuality? Or why homosexuality emerged from the change in our planet’s historical climate? Can fossils of Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis and Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens be correlated to the changing climates from their respective periods for us to see why homosexuality is what it is today? Do we have empirical data to show that human sexuality is directly proportional to natural selection from changing local environments? What empirical evidence do we have to show that the ‘gay gene’ favorably propagated from whatever ideal change in local environment or climate?

While we are out looking for empirical evidence for the evolutionary under the natural selection framework basis for homosexuality, let’s also look for the same for cannibalism, bestiality, and necrophilia. Hey, they do occur and there is evidence of their occurrence so they must be fair game to be deemed as natural, right? Let’s look for empirical evidence for the ‘cannibalism gene’, ‘bestiality gene’, and the ‘necrophilia gene’!

So people, can’t we see how dangerous it is to bash a belief (however antiquated and silly they may sound to us) prematurely without making sure that what we bash others with may also be flawed or at least may be inconclusive?

Ah yes, but in reality this whole controversy is not really about religious versus scientific belief, isn’t it? It really isn’t whether homosexuality is natural or not. It is really about tolerance. Both sides cannot really make any claims in holding the truth regarding homosexuality. Like I said, homosexuality and its nature are still being debated. So really, this is about how people ought to tolerate difference of beliefs. Tolerance matters when it comes to actions and ideas we don’t like or believe in. Pacquiao doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage and thinks that homosexuality is not natural. Aiza Seguerra is a strong advocate of same-sex marriage and in all likelihood, she strongly believes that homosexuality is natural. From my vantage point, Pacquiao only stated his opinion and he never tried to repress other people’s opposing opinion on the matter. (He even apologized and offered his love and prayer to those who may have been offended by his remarks.) That seems more tolerant than the actions of his bashers who spewed vitriol and words of hate directly at him (words such as ignorant, bigoted, hypocrite, and homophobe).

As a parting shot, based on what I have seen, I think that the real intolerance is coming from those accusing Pacquiao of intolerance (or homophobia, ignorance, bigotry, hypocrisy, etc.). These folks are supposed to be the “tolerant” bunch yet they are the ones who are showing refusal to respect or “tolerate” an opposing opinion. Boy, have pro-gay folks evolved into such a sophisticated bunch! I really have to hand it to them. These folks quickly realized they can use “tolerance” as a weapon to subdue even its nicest critics like Pacquiao. But I wonder how they would feel about welcoming a branch of the Westboro Baptist Church or even a mosque for Sunni Fundamentalists right next to the Chélu (a popular gay bar in Malate, Manila)? That is certainly interesting.

(Image taken from Patriot Update)


Post Author: Hector Gamboa

Calling a spade, a spade...

Leave a Reply

25 Comments on "Homosexuality and Homophobia: In the end it is about Tolerance"

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ren Car
I think you are missing the point. There is no doubt that Manny is a nice guy but what he said about gay people is abhorent. If anything else, Manny should be tolerant since he proudly proclaim that He is a man of God. To compare Gay people to animals is extremely abhorent ang blatantly ignorant. Eveb the pope would not say such thing about gay people. Manny insulted millioms of gay people. Do you realy expect them not to react with such contempt? It also does not matter whether being gay is genetically hereditary or a choice. The issue… Read more »
Robert Haighton
It seems that people are looking for excuses to make homosexuals look unnatural and so not give them the right to marry. My perception, opinion and view is this: I see that females fall in love with females. What the heck. I am not looking for evidence – scientifically or otherwise. They are just there. I easily accept it. And then they want to marry. Okay, why not. If I can as heterosexual, then you (lesbian) must also be able to marry. Do they ruin the family code? Should I mind? The individual personal rights exceeds that. I dont expect… Read more »
Pepe Rep
Thanks for this piece, Hector. The reaction to this whole kerfuffle was just amazeballs! LOL. But really, if the issue is homosexuality and its genetic origins let the biologists settle that (although, I think, psychologists and sociologists may be better equipped at this time due to the lack of supporting hard scientific (physical, biological) evidence, come on, personal experience and simplistic observations do not count). If the issue is morality of it and its distinctions (orientation vs actions/behavior), let that be a discussion within moral philosophy. And if it is about same sex marriage (which is also quite different from… Read more »

Intolerance-intolerant people end up becoming the very people they hate.


In the end we are all right…and we are also all wrong.

Impaler Triumphant
I agree, Pacquiao simply stated what he believes. As for facts about homosexuality among animals, well, let’s leave that for the scientific community to confirm/deny the findings, right? Why can’t some of the liberal LGBTQ people and their fans NOT accept the fact that not all people will like them? Even heterosexuals are having a hard time making people like them for who they are: poetry lovers, non-religious, cat-person, religious, likes his cereal cold, doesn’t wear tubes, likes her water on mug before coffee, hates kids, loves LeBron James, etc. With relation to the cartoon, my hope goes out to… Read more »
I still cannot understand homosexuality. Not even, in the Scientific point of view. It is an occurrence in nature. Even in plants. Some plants that supposed to be female, and bear fruits; become male. Let us all be civil to one another. There is no use shouting down the opponent on the other side of the controversy. I do not believe, it is an evolutionary process. I believe: ” it is an aberration of nature, or an aberration in our creation.” However, I do not mean that homosexuals are freaks. Unless, we have a full study on homosexuality, based on… Read more »


I don’t understand homosexuality either like I don’t understand how people are born without arms or legs. However, we have to accept all human beings for what they are as a part of our humanity.



If the Failipinos in the Failippines social consciousness seems stuck in February 1986, every year is gonna be a rough ride.