homosexuality and evolution

[norwegian-guy]

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.

 

[Sampler]

They're part of evolution - genetic divergences from the norm, they may not be able to directly procreate but doesn't stop them from being more genetic divergences in the next generation - it's quite a large sample set you're looking at, there's bound to be many genetic "dead-ends" as it were and it's not as if whatever caused the divergence in the last wave knew of the outcome for this wave.

This completely precluding the ability to over ride their personal preference in pursuit of an offspring, I have a friend who's a lesbian yet she has a daughter or the "technical" workarounds - Elton John (possibly the most famous gay man on the planet) recently had a boy.

 

[norwegian-guy]

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?

 

[Simon Pettersson]

... 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?

No, many homosexuals do want kids, they are just not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

 

[Heronblade]

I Don't think you quite understand the situation. There are physical differences between a male and female brain. Imbalances in hormones during the fetal stage can cause a male to be born with a female brain, vice versa, or even somewhere in between. That technically makes unusual sexual preference, while not a choice of those involved, a mistake of nature more than a natural event.

EDIT: For some of the other posters, this thread is not in reference to a "gay gene", and in fact has no reference to genetics at all. As a result, debating whether or not evolution would or would not have selected for it is pointless.

P.S. While not directly within either category, this thread may be better off in the politics and religion section.

 

[Nimcha]

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're infertile. The grand majority of the gay people who ever lived ended up in heterosexual relationships simply because doing otherwise wasn't accepted.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

It's an interesting point. On a basic level it makes no evolutionary sense. The best explanation I've heard is that just because something is disadvantagious doesn't mean it will not be selected for.

Say there is a Gene for homosexuality. This gene may have other advantages or be linked with another advantageous gene that would survive generations of selection. It is only occasionally that this gene expresses itself as strong homosexuality. What I'm saying is that Homosexuality may give you super powers

Also if the gene does nothing usually it will not be selected for or against and just ride along with other, more useful, genes.

PLUS just because someone's homosexual doesn't mean they will not have children.

 

[gigastar]

When there are six billion people on the plannet at least some of them are going to come out a bit different than others.

 

[norwegian-guy]

... 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?

No, many homosexuals do want kids, they are just not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

As I said in the part you qouted. It seems likely that--- same--- to have kids = it seems likely they want kids the same way anyone else would want it.

But think of it this way: Without any technical assistance (spermbank, surrogate etc.) It seems a little more difficult for homosexuals to get kids naturally (you know, by bunkin')

So to recite my question is this a conflict between the natural occurance of being homosexual and the natural occurance of evolution?

 

[Nimcha]

So to recite my question is this a conflict between the natural occurance of being homosexual and the natural occurance of evolution?

That has already been answered, by multiple people.

 

[Gluzzbung]

I don't think homosexuality is having too much of an effect on evolution. Even in the most common places they make up about 5% of the populace. When questioning our liberal views as western society and evolution in the same you should really be concentrating on our looking after handicapped people and how familys rarely have more then two children as well as having people not getting married at all. Obviously you can't completely discredit homosexuality's contribution to a falling population and various evolutionary paths but it's dwarfed by the other main contributers

 

[2718]

It seems a little more difficult for homosexuals to get kids naturally (you know, by bunkin')

Many gay men in the closet have children, and even get married to women. I have a close friend whose father turned out to be gay. I think that while they might not enjoy it, a gay man can muster an erection in order to have heterosexual sex (close eyes think of a hunk?). Women are notoriously good at faking arousal and orgasm, even with their preferred gender, so for them it'd be even easier.

 

[Emerson White]

Their is always the Bi-sexual.

 

[Valagetti]

Being gay is subjected to 10000000000s of reasons. Sometimes your just 'born "gay"'. And I too have no issues with gays, unless they come on to me, unless their attractive.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

How about if child birth causes depression in the parents, and one side has evolved to have sex without depression? The "lower caste" recreates while the "upper caste" enjoys.

(Yes, this is VERY facetious, but it goes to show how it all depends on how you look at it)

 

[RicoGrey]

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.

 

[badgersprite]

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.

 

[Sir Legendhead]

We should consider the possibility that homosexuality is an evolutionary reaction to global over-population. No evidence to support this theory, just saying it makes sense in the larger scheme of things.