First of all, there is some merit to the question about the urge for survival. It does certainly seem to inform what most organisms and most species are trying to do. They spend an awful lot of time "getting and spending" in order to be able to wake up the next day. But there are many instances (some described above) where survival does not mean the individual, but emphasizes the future existence of the species or the family. So the calculation has to be broadened to include wide-spectrum survival (meaning individuals, families, groups, and species, interalia). I think it goes without saying that in any given situation, and for any given viewpoint, the importance of the different facets of survival will vary. If a man sacrifices himself by throwing himself over a grenade, and thereby saves the lives of four of his fellows, he has committed a survival act in the broad sense, even at severe personal cost.

Secondly, it is pretty clear that when confusion, oppression, trauma, and loss mount up beyond the ability of the individual to cope, (at least in humans) he or she can be pushed into an inverted state of mind whereby destruction makes sense and survival becomes an ugly illusion used to fool the weak-minded. This state of mind generates all kinds of colorful crimes and clever acts which add up to destructiveness on the facets of survival. THis doesn't change (in my opinion) the fact that survival is a core drive.

Gay people, however, or usually not exercising a choice about gayness. It could be argued they should reproduce anyway, but that doesn't work very well. The fact that they do not does not mean they are contra-survival in general; it merely means they are focusing on other facets of survival. Fabric, for example! Or building networks. Or organizations which add aesthetics to the culture. One of the reasons we sing, after all, is because of a sense that it improves things in some way.

A