El Gringoqueño

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing.
— Descartes

The concept of Nothing is something that we live with every day, but never really think about. What is Nothing? When I ask you what you have in your pocket, you might reply, "Nothing." I ask you how many you have, you say, "none." We understand each other. You have no money, papers, Kleenex, etc.

But what if I really thought there was "Nothing" somewhere in the universe, I’d have to ask: Is it really "Nothing?" Isn’t "Nothing" sort of Something? Isn’t at least the concept that you and I have of what "Nothing" is, Something? Isn’t a vacuum at least something?

"What is inside the box?" I ask.

"A vacuum."

"Nothing."

"Space."

"Time."

"What is a box, what part of the box is actually inside the box? At what point does the box start being a container instead of a box, the very last layer of molecules that is exposed to the vacuum, or the outer layer? If it’s the outer layer, then the box is inside the box."

"Somebody get that kid outa here."

Five things are certainly not nothing. They are states, places, concepts and brain teasers. They are not matter certainly, but not nothing either.

So, there must be something that we share, a common conception of what "Nothing" is in any given circumstance. Nothing really takes on the definition of what the two parties intended. Nothing must be a fluid thing indeed. It fills our container with something to understand. It springs into existence when we need it to take shape, and vanishes ever more quickly when we dismiss it. It matches our needs, our understanding, our wishes. It is our servant becoming whatever we need it to be: Something.

So if the concept of nothing depends on the conceptions of those involved, how might we define absolute nothing, because the absence of anything really is sort of something, if only a concept.

If there was a big bang, and before the universe existed, there was no time, no space, what was there.

"Nothing," you reply.

Everyone is of course hard pressed to come up with common understanding of what sort of nothing, the Nothing that existed before the big bang was… or wasn’t.

Starting to sound like A.A. Milne, aren’t I?

If no two people have a similar concept of what this sort of nothing is, then how can they come to an understanding. It’s like asking that kid again what’s in his pocket.

He replies with a smirk, "Lint, air… what actually is a pocket…"

Obviously you realize what I meant when I asked you the question. Of course there was a misconception of what I was asking. I wanted to know if he had anything of value in his pocket. The kid wanted to let me know that his definition of "Nothing" was superior to mine, more exact, more his master than mine. He had the Nothing working harder for him than I did. My Nothing was lazy, ill conceived. His was sharp, exact.

But how can we be exact about the Nothing that existed before the universe?

Our definitions break down, nothing seems to be a concept that none of us can understand at this point. It has no common focus for us.

So we call it God.

God is nothing?

Now, what do you have in your pocket, smart ass?

Wouldn‘t it be interesting to think that with all the talk about nature and natural things that homosexuality is indeed natural.

If we are so sure that homosexuality is unnatural, maybe we may never suppose that it is. Maybe there is truth in studying the nature of ourselves and our species by using this assumption: homosexuality is essential to humanity.

The Catholic Church has said that it’s unnatural, that it violates the natural order of things, that same sex relationships are contrary to how nature works. This assertion has long been assumed even by gays and lesbians themselves. Take this conversation for example:

"Well it’s wrong because it doesn’t lead to procreation, that it doesn’t lead to the natural coupling of a man and woman. We were made for each other weren’t we? A man and a woman? I mean we weren’t paired up with the same sex to procreate."

"I can see that point, but then why did God give us free will. We are not beasts. It should be okay for people with free will to do what they want, to be happy to fall in love."

And as always, there is a mild concession that homosexuality is indeed unnatural, that it doesn’t lead to a normal natural existence the way nature intended, but that since we are free, we should be able to decided how we want to live our lives. Gays and lesbians would say that the issue of whether it’s natural or not is irrelevant, but of course never combating that assumption at its root.

I have another thought. What if homosexuality IS natural, and not just natural in that it is biological, but natural because it is essential to our species survival.

Many devote religious people agree that homosexuality violates God’s natural order, that it is contrary to our existence and seeks to defame His will. But what if we couldn’t exist as a species without homosexuality? What if homosexuality is natural and good and IS part of God’s plan?

So many assertions start from the platform of the natural way is the procreative way. That everything we do starts from the need to recreate ourselves and continue humanity. Our culture values marriage. It values children. We educate them, we care for them. They take our desires and dreams and carry them onto the next generation in the hopes that we will continue to improve, grow, and succeed. Has no one thought that this paradigm may not have a natural conclusion, no limiting factors, nothing to stop its growth?

We see evidence of self limitation in the wild. Fish know when to stop breeding in fish tanks. Animals have all sorts of mechanisms for limiting their procreation. Some animals change sex, self fertilize, or are engaged in predatory behavior in order to manage the ecology and their species survival. When the population of a species gets too great and the food supply cannot support them, they start to die of starvation and sickness. Nature kills them, and the balance is returned to normal.

What if you were a species that had unlimited domain over the earth and its resources? What if you could counteract disease, destroy all natural enemies, and turn infertile soil into rich yields of food? You take care of your sick, you preserve your wounded, you fight for your old. What happens if you just keep growing and growing and growing?

Who can save us from ourselves?

As THE top level predator, smartest, fastest, most ruthless, there must be something to limit us to keep our population is check. What if homosexuality is indeed part of that equation. What if there was a natural tendency for more people to be born attracted to the same sex for reasons of species survival?

Many people believe that we control our population with violence, that when we get too close to each other, we fight and kill and war. People think violence is natural, individually immoral but collectively moral for species survival, and the propagation of the strong. If you think about it, what could be more civilized than homosexuality? Population control that comes not in the form of violence, sickness, and starvation, but through none procreative unions. Homosexuality could be everything that God wants for us. Maybe it’s His plan for our survival, maybe it’s only through His love that gays and lesbians exist. But aren’t we so typically ignorant that we assume we know better and choose to ignore, hate, and destroy… than to believe it is natural.

Yet, still we persecute and torment our brothers and sisters out of some primal need, a gut reaction to their behavior that we cannot reconcile to our own. Maybe the issue of same sex orientation is naturally repugnant to individuals who seek to procreate. It defies individuals’ needs to pursue their biological urges, to recreate themselves and continue the species. Possibly though, homosexuality can be beneficial and warranted on the species level and individually contrary to the tendencies of heterosexuals in their need to reproduce.

And finally, how could we believe we are so single-mindedly programmed in our existence. Surely there is more to life and death than having children. Are we capable of imagining that there is something else that plays into the complexity of our existence?

Are we capable of at least considering that just possibly Homosexuality will help us survive.

Nature does not reward species that are single-minded, static, stagnant, unyielding and unchanging. Nature rewards change, adaptation, diversity, multi-track species development. Nature almost never puts all of its eggs in one basket and when it does they usually fall on the path of extinction.