homosexuality and evolution

[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.

 

[Bobbity]

Personally I believe that sexual preference is an emotional and personal thing, so that evolution and the whole rigmarole relevant to that would have nothing to do with whether or not people continue to become homosexuals.

 

[Wutaiflea]

Before anything I'd like to point out that this is NOT an attack on homosexuality. It's more of a question about nature coliding with nature.

I find the theory about homosexuality being a result of natural reactions during the fetal-stage the most plausible to date. 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.

But then comes the question of evolution, or more precise the question about the natural system of getting you genes to the next generation, thus ensuring the survival of your genes.
... How does this work with homosexuals? It seems likely that they would have the same "natural programing" to have kids, but it dosen't seem that easy...

Maybe I'm overthinking about this but I can't help but wonder: Is this two natural occurances in conflict?

EDIT: This is not a question of "can they?" or "should they?" It's a question about the how sexuality works with evolution.

Personally, I think you're over-thinking it.

Before a person is gay or straight (whatever the "cause"), they are alive, and a basic function of something that is alive is to reproduce, and much the same as eating and breathing, they are fundamental instinctive needs.

Sexuality wouldn't naturally impact on that instinctive need. I still feel the need and instinct to eat even though I don't like certain foods.

 

[PoliceBox63]

Think of all the gay/bi men and women in earlier times who had children because society deemed that they be in a heterosexual relationship/marriage.

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

Lets say the "gay gene" is real and it is caused by no other factors like fetal mutation or anything like that.

How can two heterosexual parents have a gay child you ask?

It could be recessive.

Here's a wiki on recessive genes that explains the basic principles of recessive genes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive this would allow homosexuality to passed on even if both parents were hetero but "gay gene" carriers.

Also lets not forget homosexuals can still have sex with the opposite sex. They just arent attracted ^^.

But as i said genes mightn't be the cause but if they are this is (probably) how it would work.

 

[nekoali]

It may or it may

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.

Well, it may or or may not override sexual orientation... But it's not something that's likely to be tested. Homosexual orientation in humans takes up roughly 10% of the population. if you throw in an extra generous 10-20% on top of that for people who for one reason or another cannot or choose not to reproduce, and assuming that none of the 10% of the homosexual population reproduces (which some do) That still leaves a very generous 70% of the population breeding new generations. Running out of people is not something we need to worry about, honestly. In fact the opposite is true. With all our scientific and medical advances, the human population is quickly starting to overwhelm the planet's ability to support us. it would probably be a good idea if there were even fewer people having children at this point. But that's another subject.

 

[chinomareno]

I wouldn't rule out there being gay genes to be expressed rather than it being a circumstantial birth, we have plenty of inheritable traits that seem immediately detrimental to survival but may help in some other way.

It likely wasn't an option for most gay men and women in the past to have stopped having children, societies with religious laws and customs of arranged marriage would have forced most to try and live out their days straight.

Evolution is indiscriminate as far as I understand, if it was a response to overpopulation then it would almost be a sentient force. Also the majority of people haven't felt the pressures of resource shortages for long enough to make that remotely likely.

 

[bevanoes]

While there havn't been any "gay genes" found as such, there does seem to be a few that are likely to be found in homosexuals (different ones for men and women). But i read somewhere that those genes seem to increase fertility when active in the opposite sex. Whilst these genes do not make a person homosexual, you can see how easily they would get passed down.

Another interesting thing i read recently was many researchers agreeing that whilst what you will be attracted to (hence determining sexuality) is not determined at conception (ie solely genes), it does seem to be determined by the time a person is born (after the brain has formed), as there are several structures in the brain that tend to resemble that normally found in the opposite sex in homosexuals.

 

[Titan Buttons]

I believe that homosexuality is just a nature occuring thing, that has always occur in the human race even further back then the Roman Empire, and regaurdless of evolution it appears that homosexuality will always be a part of the human race.

 

[Nimcha]

Because it's impossible for gay people to have and raise kids now. Oh wait no it isn't. Surrogacy, sperm donation, IVF, adoption and any number of means exist for gay people to raise families and many gay people do.

Sex isn't the only way to produce children anymore.

If all those other options fail, a bit of straight sex is always a last resort. I mean, I know a lesbian couple who have a kid who was conceived through one of them having actual sex with the donor. It might not be ideal, but if you don't have any other options...

 

[CarlMin]

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.

That rather depends. The best thing you can do, assuming that your sexuality isn't inherently pathological for yourself or anyone else, is just go with nature.