Evolutionary Basis for Homosexuality

[Prometheus]

I once though that homosexuality was just something that depraived people who wanted attention decided to do just to piss off everyone else. I have been forced to ammend that opinion in the last 2 years. Both historical and natural evidance suggests that to many people, homosexuality comes naturally. It has been shown that in nature, some animals practice bisexuality. I have also spent time with homosexualy, and they neither "depraived" or "attention seekers". It is obvious to me that homosexuality is natural. But why?

Nearly all of human behavior can be shown to have arisen from evolutionary expediancy. I admit that I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I can't see how such a behavior could evolve. It is counterintuative. I was wondering if any of you have any ideas/thoughts on the issue.

[Jack]

Philosophical thought certainly doesn't increase our chances of survival as a species. Why have we developed the ability to think abstract thoughts? Maybe because it's just an extention of a pre-existing ability, the same way sexual preference (and we're talking behavior here, not nature, correct?) is an extension of the pre-existing ability to have sex. Once you can entertain abstract thought, you can consider "enjoyment" and "pleasure" instead of simply following instinct.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Prometheus I have also spent time with homosexuals, and they neither "depraived" or "attention seekers".

That's all anyone needs to do... get to know them.

When I left home for the Hawaiian Islands in '72, my attitude was pretty much the same as the rest of my homo-fag-queer baiting peers. Through circumstance, I came to know many gays in the islands, including the brother of a long-time girlfriend and all his friends. They were, for the most part, kind, funny, hardworking, law-abiding and delightful people... and not a single one of whom chose to be gay.

Quote by: Prometheus Nearly all of human behavior can be shown to have arisen from evolutionary expediancy. I admit that I haven't given it a lot of thought, but I can't see how such a behavior could evolve. It is counterintuative. I was wondering if any of you have any ideas/thoughts on the issue.

Indeed, since gays and lesbians have existed in about the same percentile in every time and culture on the globe, one has to wonder why, and how, considering they can't reproduce, they continue to exist. I've read a variety of theories... everything from gays being the fodder for a deeply bonded military (ancient Greece, for example) to the need for non-sexually competeing "aunties and uncles" to assist with tribal chores and child rearing.

Here's a source your might try. Straight Science?: Homosexuality Evolution and Adaptation

..

[lsbskins1]

Maybe we are meant to be a bridge between the sexes, allowing for more efficient communication. I mean, I figure my tomboy ass can better explain the motivations of males to my hetero female friends than the males themselves can and gay men could probably explain alot about some aspects of the feminine nature to you guys (hence Queer Eye For The Straight Guy) than your girlfriends can.

[RickSp]

I have given up trying to second guess evolution. Evolution seems from a practical, if not a rigorously scientific, viewpoint to be a series of compromises and adaptations.

This thought occurred to me while I was with my wife during the delivery of our first son. Having witnessed the birth, I find the idea of "intelligent design" to be questionable at best. Delivering a creature with a large brain in an even larger skull through the equivalent of a human pasta extruder doesn't strike me as particularly intelligent. Childbirth reminds me more than anything else of scenes from the movie "Alien."

So if something as basic as childbirth is such an odd adaptation, homosexuality by comparison seems to be a fairly minor variation in the human genome.

[italiangm]

Theory: Homosexuality has persisted for thousands of years because there's a payoff. It is an evolutionary adaptation that has improved species survival. Consider early man:

Male programming: Aggressive. Hunter. Warrior. Tool and weapon fabricator. Stressed by female mate's programming. Resists domestication. Absent father. Half-brain thinker. High incidence of infidelity, matebeating, and psychopathology.

Female programming: Nurturer. Childbearer. Caretaker. Nest-builder. Stressed by male mate's programming. Enforces domestication. Controls access to sexual gratification. Whole-brain thinker. High incidence of depression caused by hormones and oppressive environment.

Initial outcome: Focus on survival. Stress from disharmony, jealousy, and discord adversely affects male sperm motility and female ovulation. Offspring production rate low. Species advancement slow. Species survival threatened.

Evolutionary soution: Leverage temporary dip in reproduction to create a less aggressive, more compliant male exhibiting survival-positive female traits. Biological imperative to reproduce eliminated. Hunter/gatherer instinct redirected toward nuture/support.

Homosexuality thrives, despite society's finger-pointing, because it fills important gaps. (no pun intended)

[belverron]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
Anyone with a serious interest in this subject will find this useful, I hope.

[belverron]

Okay, depraved, no. Attention seekers, often.

[tman_ndsu08]

Homosexuality definately has no evolutionary value. It doesn't help a species procreate. Quite the opposite.

But maybe that's the point? Maybe, somehow, our speices is being overpopulated...and it knows it? And, as a defensive mechanism, it's causing the revival of built in anti-overpopulation genes. Cancer could also be defined this way.

[belverron]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Homosexuality definately has no evolutionary value. It doesn't help a species procreate. Quite the opposite.

There are other examples of individuals of a species giving up the role of procreation to serve another purpose beneficial to their species. We see this quite often in insects. I was unable to find a supporting source, unfortunately, but nevertheless it is the case.

Incidentally, I'm not saying this is the case with homosexuality, only that it would not be outside the realm of possibility.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Homosexuality definately has no evolutionary value. It doesn't help a species procreate. Quite the opposite.

There are several kinds of traits that evolution can act on that don't affect procreation. For example, the instinct to help out the elderly. All kinds of animals do it. They expend resources for those that can't reproduce any more. According to your above statement, this behavior dosen't make any sence.

Well, you are wrong. This behavior is only demonstrated in intellegent animals capable of learning. The older, nonreproductive animals pass on knowledge and wisdom. Evolution has done this - and it had no affect on procreation. The same type of thing thould have very well happened with homosexuals.

[tman_ndsu08]

Evolution is only concerned with procreation.

It's nice that the homo's are helping grandpa teach the young'ins how to properly tie the hook on to the fishing line, but that won't help mom have more kids.

[lsbskins1]

Evolution works to further species survival and does not only affect procreation. Where did you pick up the concept that it is only concerned with procreation? If that were the case, whales and dolphins would have never moved from the land to the water because what on earth does a nostril migrating to the top of your head and becoming a blow-hole have to do with procreation? You are wrong and it is that simple.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Evolution is only concerned with procreation. It's nice that the homo's are helping grandpa teach the young'ins how to properly tie the hook on to the fishing line, but that won't help mom have more kids.

Isn't fishing a survival skill? You can't get laid if you've croaked 'cause you couldn't fish.

[tman_ndsu08]

Evolution works to further species survival

And the mechanism for this futhering is?

Magic dragons laying golden eggs?


You can't pass on genes unless you procreate. And the more you procreate, the better the chances for survival are.

It's that simple.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Prometheus Isn't fishing a survival skill? You can't get laid if you've croaked 'cause you couldn't fish.

Fishing is not a survival skill.

Hunting is. Gathering is.

Both of which required no teaching in caveman days.

[italiangm]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Evolution is only concerned with procreation.

Exactly. And homosexuals are created by the act of procreation.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It's nice that the homo's are helping grandpa teach the young'ins how to properly tie the hook on to the fishing line, but that won't help mom have more kids.

Actually, the likelihood of producing a male homosexual increases with each male birth to the same mother, regardless of father. Mom's genetics obviously controls the "switch".

One theory states the increase in homosexual expression occurs because a pre-programmed shift in hormones is triggered by the stress of taking care of a household with multiple offspring. It's not surprising that homosexual male offspring frequently help with the care of siblings and the household in general.

If the stress theory is indeed true, I suspect there would be fewer homosexuals if dad was more supportive.

[tman_ndsu08]

Christ, why the hell is the anti-fag radar so damn sensitive on this site?!

I'm not against fags!!

They're just as human as anyone else.


For crying out loud.

[italiangm]

We're not against breeders, either. Just keep doing your job.

[lsbskins1]

But if that were the case, then there would be one prototype for each species and they(the members of that species) would be indistinguisable from each other. Species survivial also requires diversity to allow for sudden changes in enviroment (if there were no diversity certain climate changes or germ intoductions could wipe out the entire species). Evolution is not a theory only of what genetic traits are passed that define the limits of a species, it also addresses what genetic mutations may enhance survivability through low occurance that allows for that necessary diversity. It works both ways. Again, you are wrong in your assertion and demonstate a lack of understanding of the subject on which you are expounding.