homosexuality and evolution

[Sir Legendhead]

But there have been homosexuality since animals developed sexual reproduction...

True, but haven't you noticed how it started becoming more socially acceptable among us human animals at about the same time overpopulation became a serious problem? It's possible that our shared sense of morality is more of an instinctive reaction to physical circumstance than it is a conscious decision.

 

[Seriphina]

Maybe we aren't evolving to continue the human race anymore. Just evolving to destroy ourselves... morbid outlook but what if?!

 

[RicoGrey]

But there have been homosexuality since animals developed sexual reproduction...

True, but haven't you noticed how it started becoming more socially acceptable among us human animals at about the same time overpopulation became a serious problem? It's possible that our shared sense of morality is more of an instinctive reaction to physical circumstance than it is a conscious decision.

The rise of Catholicism is the main cause of homosexuals being so stigmatized. I am not saying that it was always ok to be gay, but it wasn't nearly as big of a deal, until the pope decided that one of the best ways to get new followers was to have everyone breeding around the clock.

"Be fruitful and multiply"

 

[Sir Legendhead]

Maybe we aren't evolving to continue the human race anymore. Just evolving to destroy ourselves... morbid outlook but what if?!

Well...let's put it this way. I took a hunting class once and they taught me that for the deer population to thrive as a whole, the herd has to be thinned. As sentimental as we like to be about the nature of our own existence, is there really any good reason to elevate humanity above the animal standard?

The rise of Catholicism is the main cause of homosexuals being so stigmatized. I am not saying that it was always ok to be gay, but it wasn't nearly as big of a deal, until the pope decided that one of the best ways to get new followers was to have everyone breeding around the clock.

"Be fruitful and multiply"

And that's how they made so many Catholics. Nothing against their beliefs, but come on. They clearly made that decision in what they thought were their own best interests.

 

[Heronblade]

But there have been homosexuality since animals developed sexual reproduction...

True, but haven't you noticed how it started becoming more socially acceptable among us human animals at about the same time overpopulation became a serious problem? It's possible that our shared sense of morality is more of an instinctive reaction to physical circumstance than it is a conscious decision.

This might be something to consider, but don't forget that the acceptance of homosexuality is not a new thing. Several cultures in the past were quite fine with it, during time periods where overpopulation was not an issue. For example, prior to the advent of Christianity, Rome and Greece both considered it common. It was considered a mark of shame for someone of importance to be the "catcher", but that was the only limitation.

In addition, an instinctive reaction to overpopulation would more likely be triggered in areas where overpopulation was a big problem, like India and China.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

True, but haven't you noticed how it started becoming more socially acceptable among us human animals at about the same time overpopulation became a serious problem? It's possible that our shared sense of morality is more of an instinctive reaction to physical circumstance than it is a conscious decision.

Actually all evidence suggests that homosexuality was perfectly acceptable a long long time ago... the romans frequently had homosexual relationships for example, it was the rise of the catholic church that marked a point were it was viewed as immoral, and now that many people no longer follow a religion, or just don't really care about it, it is becoming socially acceptable again.

 

[matt87_50]

its a good point... being homosexual kinda makes it hard to reproduce... which is what natural selection is all about...

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

You're assuming people are gay because of their genes. We don't know this.

I didn't say that at all. Did you even read the opening post?

I've read your post and this is the same conclusion I thought you were saying... I might not have understood you correctly though.
I'd just like to say that there are a lot of straight people as well who don't want to have children... and also a lot of homosexuals who do... so the part of us that wants to reproduce and carry on the species is affected by a lot of outside things as well

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If evolution is so wonderful, why is it only a subset of mammals that have developed the opposing thumb?

 

[ExileNZ]

Don't forget that not all genes possessed are active - there are dominant and recessive genes and it's all a big mixed bag of chance as to which ones come out (although with a tendency towards the dominant ones, hence the name).

 

[Angelcraft]

By what I've seen, and to be perfectly opinionated, homosexuals are only homosexual because of a trauma or a choice. The trauma can be as harmless as living with grandma for the first six years of life or as serious as an uncle touching them... and the choice scenario is simple. They chose to be the focus of attention because being gay is a big subject. There are alot of homophobes out there that will give them that attention, although negative.

 

[Pain Is Inevitable]

Maybe we aren't evolving to continue the human race anymore. Just evolving to destroy ourselves... morbid outlook but what if?!

"HOMOSEXUALS ARE DESTROYING THE HUMAN RACE!"

I'm pretty sure that wasn't what you intended to convey in a light-hearted tone there, but it's technically what you just said. That is funny to me.

It can work from an evolutionary standpoint.

Certain types of birds will support their superior siblings(superior in the sense of the most fit to survive), if that bird recognizes their siblings are superior, to help their sibling pass on their genes. Since the siblings share the same genes, even if only one is actually breeding, both still have their genes passed on. It would put the energy of the inferior sibling to waste since that sibling would be less likely to pass on genes directly, but if that sibling supports the superior sibling then the energy is less wasted.

Similar things happen in wolf packs. Only the alphas mate, both the alpha male and alpha female, reproduce. All the others, the siblings, and stray wolves being absorbed into the pack support the alpha males/female pups.

Now think of human tribes. Usually, the one with the best chance to pass on genes directly is the first born male, or possibly just the first born. No surprise then, that the 2nd and 3rd male children that a woman has, has a higher chance of being gay. So the gay brother has the strength of a man, but is not a competitor to the first born male son. This allows the gay brother to support his straight brother, and that will help his genes to be passed on indirectly.

With all of that being said, your second and third brothers are still more likely to be straight than gay. The study I read did not state whether or not if the more children a woman had the more it increased the chance of the later children to be gay, only that after the first born, the next had a greater likelihood.

/thread

 

[CarlMin]

You're assuming people are gay because of their genes. We don't know this.

I didn't say that at all. Did you even read the opening post?

I've read your post and this is the same conclusion I thought you were saying... I might not have understood you correctly though.
I'd just like to say that there are a lot of straight people as well who don't want to have children... and also a lot of homosexuals who do... so the part of us that wants to reproduce and carry on the species is affected by a lot of outside things as well

Isn't it a scientific consensus that sexual orientations is 100 percent biological?

So in that matter I stand that homosexuality is a natural occurance. We even see it in nature, by animals that dosen't have our advance ability of choice.

Animals don't have less of a conscious choice when it comes to sexual behavior than humans.

 

[nekoali]

But homosexuality hasn't been 'bred out' of people in all the years there have been people on the planet. It's not going to happen now. Homosexuality is not a trait that is passed down from parent to child, either through genetics or upbringing. A gay parent is just as likely to raise a child of any sexual orientation as a straight parent. In fact, because of the ratio of gay to straight people out there... most gay people are born to straight parents. Being gay is not passed down, it just happens.

Also, homosexual creatures, be they human or animal, do server a purpose in preserving the species as a whole, but acting as 'backup parents'. There is nothing in being homosexual that stops the nurturing instinct to have and raise children. And it has been shown that in the animal kingdom, when the birth parents of a child die, reject or otherwise can't take care of the child, sometimes two animals who are of the same sex yet live as mates will adopt the child as their own and raise it.

The same of course can and does happen with homosexual humans, when allowed by law. Sadly a lot of places do not allow same sex couples to adopt, despite the fact that we have far more kids in need of loving homes than there are opposite sex couples adopting them.

That is only one possible reason of course. If anything, evolution, species propagation and natural selection favors the fact that some people are just born gay, and that's the way they were supposed to be. It's usually religious and political reasons that people trot out as being against homosexuality... Human kind is very good at messing itself up by thinking to much sometimes. Or finding reasons and excuses to cover their bigotry.

 

[Mr.Wizard]

There are plenty of theories revolving around homosexuality and evolution. My personal favourite is known as the "Gay Uncle" theory.

Basically the presence of another male in the social group that can help provide resources and defence, without threatening the alpha males reproductive supremacy is nothing but a win win for the social group as a whole. It's been observed at work in several forms of primates.

Of course this is, as others have mentioned, predicated on the fact that homosexuality is genetic. We do not know that for certain in any way shape or form.

 

[Sir Legendhead]

This might be something to consider, but don't forget that the acceptance of homosexuality is not a new thing. Several cultures in the past were quite fine with it, during time periods where overpopulation was not an issue. For example, prior to the advent of Christianity, Rome and Greece both considered it common. It was considered a mark of shame for someone of importance to be the "catcher", but that was the only limitation.

In addition, an instinctive reaction to overpopulation would more likely be triggered in areas where overpopulation was a big problem, like India and China.

From what I understand of Roman history, homosexuality was used as a sign of dominance rather than partnership. This seems to negate any possible contribution as a potential family unit.

Also, the lack of acceptance towards homosexuals in India and China is easily explained by the social values and religious beliefs of those nations. Same as America and England, just to a more noticeable extreme.

 

[DayDark]

I find that Homosexuality is not just entirely a gene thing, genes can probably make you susceptible to become homosexual, but I think the environment plays a large role in it as well. A lot of hormone control is from the environment around you. Take a bird of low color quality in a species where color is a determining factor in procreation, then paint that bird in a vibrant higher quality, and watch as the bird become more aggressive and gets higher levels of testosterone, because of how the other birds perceive him.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I've read your post and this is the same conclusion I thought you were saying... I might not have understood you correctly though.
I'd just like to say that there are a lot of straight people as well who don't want to have children... and also a lot of homosexuals who do... so the part of us that wants to reproduce and carry on the species is affected by a lot of outside things as well

Isn't it a scientific consensus that sexual orientations is 100 percent biological?

Yes admittedly this is true... but we have the ability to make concious decisions from the world around us which overrules our biological programming.

 

[Baradiel]

I was dreading reading this thread, thinking "Oh God, what will this be like?" but instead I read an interesting, serious and controversial topic.

I think that the biological (or societal) need to reproduce might override sexual preference.

 

[Baradiel]

Animals don't have less of a conscious choice when it comes to sexual behavior than humans.

It sortof depends on the animal. I think the OP was referring to a Human Beings ability to think about the social ramifications of homosexuality. If its an urge, animals (generally speaking) are much more willing to go along with that urge. They might not think "Oh, but I can't have children if I mate with this other male lion." (I wrote that with Stephen Fry's voice)

Atleast, I think that was what the OP meant.