Does the evolutionary theory tell us anything about homosexuality?

No. Then again, it’s not like humans are the only species where homosexuality occurs.

@jerv That’s right. It’s been documented within 1,500 species

Simply put in terms of evolutionary theory homosexuality is the death knell to any species.

@Cruiser – only when practiced exclusively.

But the ‘death knell’ theory is true in other places as well. The Catholic priesthood is celibate and if there weren’t (non-celibate) catholics, there would be no new priests.

If I remember my history properly, certain Quaker sects in early America basically died out because procreation was considered irreligious. So it isn’t just homosexuality that brings species death – it is any non-normative anthropological behavior that is in effect for an entire sub-population.

What this means in contemporary times is that there are not enough homosexuals (in comparison to the entire population) to cause any sort of threat to the human species.

@elbanditoroso All well and good but your answer adds nothing to the OP’s question about homosexuality and evolutionary theory. For a species to evolve it MUST produce healthy offspring that in turn must produce offspring that will also procreate and so on. Do you need me to explain this further to you?

@Cruiser Honestly Cruiser it drives me crazy when someone I respect drops a big turd in the middle of a public forum. I mean nothing is more blatantly obvious than the fact that gay folks are every bit as obsessed with the illogical and financially crippling urge to bear, rear and spoil children as the rest of us. In fact, from what I see, they’re more driven by the urge than the population at large.

I would have to say “no” as well; I don’t buy the “population control” argument, especially considering that homosexuality has always existed and is not some new development that results from high population.

For the record, I am homosexual, but I don’t need to be told I’m “evolutionary valid” to feel good about myself. I know I’m not. Same goes for someone with no sexual desire. It doesn’t mean our existence is “wrong”, but I’m not going to pretend it has any evolutionary function.

There are not really any evolutionary consequences and it’s not going away since it’s a convergence of different factors that don’t get filtered out through natural selection. Genes are passed on through heterosexual brothers and sisters, homosexuals who choose to breed and environmental causes that are not really subject to being removed. There are advantages that can be described as well. It burns me when folks stick by a simplistic fairy-tale picture of nature and the universe. It’s almost never as simple as people think it is.

No. I mean, as long as there is some heterosexuality to keep the population growing, but other than that, there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. It’s practiced by a lot of different species.

I’d say, YES! It does tell us something about evolution. Homosexuality has never been the reason for any species has gone extinct. @Cruiser However, ignorant human beings have been responsible for the extinction of some.

@stanleybmanly talk about laying turds….you are putting you own obsessed opinions into my very simple and explicit statement that homosexuals cannot possibly procreate it’s species. I can’t wait to hear how you or other similarly “ignorant” jellies will try to weave a response to this. O_o

A lot of assholes say that homosexuality has to be a choice because it can’t be genetic because such a gene would be squashed by natural selection.

There is some evidence, however, that the straight sisters of homosexual men tend to be more promiscuous and have more children. So, maybe there is no “I like the same sex” gene, but maybe there is an “I really like men” gene. The idea is that the gene doesn’t die out because these aforementioned sisters pass it on in large quantities.

One day, and soon, I hope, @stanleybmanly, we will look at homosexuality the same way we see left-handedness. It occurs. Not sure why. There was once a stigma and people were shamed, punished, forced to change, but then we all realised it was fine and hurt nothing and no one and decided to let people be what they were.

@Cruiser But gay men are fathering children and gay women are bearing children routinely amongst us and doing so rather prodigiously. Your argument assumes that gay men and women are somehow excluded (or should be) from parenthood. Frankly, I believe in a society where homosexuality were the rule instead of the exception, the birth rate would be more than sufficient to maintain or even expand the population. In fact it would be the one society in which the abortions you detest would not exist. Imagine a society with no unplanned pregnancies, and all children are wanted and treasured.

@stanleybmanly First off I do not “detest” abortions I only have a problem with Federally supported abortions. Secondly please consider the nuance of how homosexuality could not possibly support procreation….but as you astutely suggest bi-sexuality though could.

@Cruiser why do you confuse pro-creation with sexuality? They are not mutually exclusive.

@Cruiser I see our problem. It’s in the definition of homosexuality itself. Consider the possibility that anyone is capapble of a homosexual act. If you think about it, is everyone who experiences such a thing by definition a homosexual? Then turn that logic to conceiving a child. If a gay woman chooses a man to inseminate her, does the act classify her as bi?

@cazzie I do not confuse the 2 and IMO they are not mutually exclusive of each other. I did and have been applying the concept of homosexuality as asked by the OP with regards to evolutionary theory. Please don’t ask me to spell this out for you.

@Cruiser I think you may need it spelled out. Homosexuality was never a reason for any species to ever become extinct. It does not pose a threat, evolutionary speaking. In fact, some cultures encourage the first born, if it is a son, to become feminine to help the mother and raise the family. It has been shown as an adaptive aid.

@stanleybmanly Homosexuality as I know it by how homosexuals claim it to be is that they are born that way….they supposedly are genetically predisposed to be homosexual and if you want an answer as to if a gay woman seeks out a male partner to procreate you are diluting the OP’s question to drift towards your narrative and also asking the wrong person for that answer.

Is this really a question about whether natural selection would remove homosexuality entirely from the human population if it were a solely genetic trait? I would like a clarification from the OP.

At the very least, we have a population that is around 10% gay, yet population growth is currently unsustainable. So… do the math. Most humans are not gay. Those people are continuing to procreate. A lot. Far too much, really. We’re not in danger of extinction due to gayness. I can’t believe I even have to say this.

@Cruiser As far as I can tell, your argument for “Gay people will make us extinct!” is that if two gay people have sex, that union cannot produce a child. Are you aware that other humans are having sex? How is the fact that gay sex is occurring in any way a threat to heterosexual sex occurring?

@cazzie No offense but I think you need a long good schooling on genetics, evolution and viral threats to species that are the more often than not the reason species go extinct. Plus the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and any species that procreates and survives is most certainly not homosexual.

Viral threats? Please explain how that is part of your reasoning. You are condescending to the wrong person. and explain how homosexuality is an entire species?

@Cruiser “Plus the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and any species that procreates and survives is most certainly not homosexual.”

Correct astronomy notwithstanding, homosexuals are not a separate species. They are a small proportion of the human species.

@cazzie “It is hypothesized that background extinctions are caused by host-specific viral action. It is further hypothesized that background extinctions are a fundamental component of the process of evolution.” To further my point the wider a gene pool the greater the odds of a species rate of survival. Homosexuals can’t procreate which does zero to expand said species gene pool leaving whatever gene pool they have vulnerable to mutating viruses which is a certain dead end for that short lived species.

I can’t decide whether to find this hilarious or infuriating. I think I’ll opt for the former.

@Cruiser This is really basic stuff. Just because homosexuals don’t procreate near as much as heterosexuals in humans does not mean it will be bred out. Genes are a -little—lot more complicated than that. The genes responsible for homosexuality exist in the heterosexual population and serve roles that aide heterosexuality and procreation. They are propagated through normal heterosexual breeding. Natural selection will not remove them without a mechanism to do so and when they serve a beneficial purpose. If the bulk of the population went gay and decided not to procreate then we may face some issues. Just not the case though. In what universe does a thriving population such as humanity risk extinction because we have a minority of homosexuals? It just does not follow.

I’ll keep handing him digging implements and he’ll keep digging deeper.

The link you provided had nothing to do with homosexual behavior. Host specific viruses are causes for background extinction events, is what it says, and that, they are a fundamental component of the process of evolution. If the question was ‘Does the evolutionary theory tell us anything about viruses?’ I think there would be more to say about their effect. But that isn’t the question.

Try reading this instead: https://books.google.no/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KXM3F59y1jkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=homosexuality+and+evolutionary+biology&ots=WHYMXo7oXX&sig=qXe9fxBJ0vd1Oa8ysJGLvQ8RyAg#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20and%20evolutionary%20biology&f=false

There are at least 2 possible ways that homosexual behavior may not become extinct. One given by @Mariah is that sisters of homosexuals may be more strongly attracted to men, allowing the gene to reproduce itself successfully.

A second possibility is that if there is a gene for homosexuality it may act similarly to the gene for sickle cell anemia. One copy of the sickle cell anemia gene does not cause sickle cell anemia, but does provide protection against malaria. Only if there are two copies of the gene does a person get sickle cell anemia, so the gene provides a net advantage. Maybe even if homosexuality is in part genetic and is detrimental, it may occur only if there are two copies of a particular gene that has an advantage if there is a single copy.

@LostInParadise “Maybe even if homosexuality is in part genetic”

But that “even if” is assuming an awful lot. It probably has more to do with epigenetics than genetics. It’s certainly not nearly as straightforward a calculation as your sickle cell anemia example.

@Cruiser And yet here we all are still existing and living to tell the tale (along with the other 1,500 different species)

/looks at what happened here while I was gone for the night…
/dons asbestos suit

First off, @Cruiser, I’m disappointed in you. At best, you’ve proven to be uncharacteristically ignorant in a rather inflammatory manner. Specifically, you don’t know as much about genetics as you think you do, and displayed that lack of knowledge with even less tact than I have on a bad day. So stop digging, put down the shovel, and walk away without security having to escort you out and there is a chance that your actions here will be considered a rather major faux pas. As a friend, I’m asking you to stop embarrassing yourself and inviting conflict.

Second, it seems that the gay-haters give zero though to how uncontrolled population explosions are harmful. That is such an egregious, blatant selective lack of logic to “prove” hatred correct that I believe that our species would do well to do a little culling, starting with those who are a threat to society based on nothing more than ideology.

Just as a species requires reproduction in order to last more than a generation, there comes a point where resources are too limited to support infinite numbers. What’s one way to have adequate numbers in one generation without the next generation being too numerous for the ecosystem? Ensure that not everyone reproduces.

There are certain demographics that support the idea of having as many children as possible despite that risk of overpopulation. The primitive and the poor lack access to modern healthcare, so there is a very real chance that most of their offspring will not survive to adulthood. When faced with that, the simplest solution is to pop out a dozen sprogs and hope at least one sticks around.

Then you have others like Catholics who promote overpopulation for ideological reasons; birth control is a sin! Go forth, be fruitful, and multiply! [Diety] will provide, and if they don’t then your lack of prosperity and watching your kids die before your eyes is a sign that you have earned the displeasure of higher powers.

However, those of us living in the really real world where things follow logic and reason as opposed to dogma know that overpopulation is a thing. Notice how the affluent typically have fewer kids than the less-affluent? That’s a societal thing with biological consequences. When parents can ensure that their genetic legacy will be passed on without having 12–20 kids, they will have only 1 or two by choice. And those who cannot afford to have kids may use birth control… assuming that option isn’t removed by ideologues in government.

But the most effective population control is also the most natural; having a portion of the population born with no desire to reproduce. I’m not talking about artificial means like banning (Negroes/heretics/poor) people from reproducing or vows of celibacy. I’m talking about the asexuals who have no desire for sex, and those who go halfway by retaining a desire for physical relations but only those that don’t involve reproduction. Every gay couple out there is two fewer people contributing to overpopulation, so in that regard it’s no worse than birth control.

Of course you have people who think that humanity only exists to procreate. These are the people who defund Planned Parenthood and demonize homosexuality to the point where they are at a minimum stripped of rights, and would have their very existence be a criminal offense if the ideologues had their way. They may claim that a few homosexuals (and birth control) are a threat to our species, yet they are merely trying to distract us from the true threat; themselves. looking at how hatred and intolerance is popular enough right now that it’s pretty much the official platform of a major political party, I’d say they’re doing a distressingly good job at it.

I feel that we have far bigger things to worry about that whether about 10% of humanity prefers their own gender over the opposite one. I feel more threatened by those who seek to dehumanize others for arbitrary reasons than I do by some guy saying he thinks I’m sexy. Homosexuals generally respect those who say, “That’s nice, but I’m straight.”, while their opposition takes such rejection as heresy/blasphemy/treason.

So to all those who say homosexuality is a threat to humanity, next time you want to open your mouth, just make sure that you are not a larger threat yourself..

I have not read the whole thread.

Has anyone yet mentioned that gay penguin couples tend to adopt extra eggs, which is certainly beneficial to the species?

@jerv I appreciate you concern and all the effort you put into your last post…and I say this in the least inflammatory effort I can muster but can you or anyone here demonstrate to me how homosexual behavior ensures the evolution of a species?

@Cruiser “can you or anyone here demonstrate to me how homosexual behavior ensures the evolution of a species?”

It doesn’t. No one trait “ensures the evolution of a species”. No one trait “ensures” the survival of a species, either – though that would be a more relevant question.

Homosexuality simply does not significanlty affect the survival of our species. It perpetuates at low levels within our species for reasons we don’t fully understand (because we don’t fully understand to what extent it is heritable).

@Cruiser not all behaviours are there to continue the evolution of the species. What we do know is that having a variety of traits and differences in a population is better than they all being the same and uniform. You could say the same thing about left-handedness, green eyes or stuttering. It is a trait that occurs that seems to do nothing to ensure the continuation of the species, but there it is. It does no harm, it is just a variation in the traits. Not every individual in a tribe or a pack is allowed or does procreate and that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are usually social pecking orders. Just because one specimen does not create offspring, especially in social groups or packs, does in NO WAY mean that that individual does not contribute to the continuation and success of the pack or group. In Samoa there are the fa’afafine. Their social structure adopted an interesting practice to help ensure the success of the family unit. If the first born was a boy instead of a girl, they were still raised as a girl in order for them to be taught to help the mother with domestic issues. They aren’t gay necessarily, but they are raised as girls and end up identifying, sexually as a female. The Samoan culture doesn’t believe in terms like gay or hetero. It is all just sex. You can read about this yourself. They aren’t expected to leave the house and get married and have children. Their job is to look after the family and help their mothers.
Variation in the gene pool is what keeps a species viable. Humans have survived viruses, bacteria, iceages, self-imposed attempts at extermination. Homosexuality has never and will never be a threat to the continuation of homo sapiens or any species. (I hate to keep repeating myself.)

I think @Cruiser is arguing from the point of ‘if every individual in the species was homosexual’.... which was not the questions, but we could ask the OP to clarify, perhaps?

@Cruiser It may be Nature’s way of population control, but I think the actual truth is more along the lines of comorbidity. I’ll try to explain my reasoning as best I can.

Most Autists have poor enough social skills to hurt their chances at finding a mate. But sensitivity to sound and pattern disruptions make it easier for a predator to hear prey moving or see their camouflage against a background better than “healthy” people. Something that benefits survival comes in a package with reduced odds of reproduction.

Unlike other species though, we have big brains. Our intellect is our evolutionary advantage. Our brains are far more complex than those of most other species, and due to a few hundred generations of extelligence (starting with oral tradition and cave paintings) pushing our intelligence to rise and create more extelligence (libraries of scholarly works) which in turn spurred greater intelligence and creating a feedback loop between evolutionary biology and cultural anthropology. And we’ve picked up quite a few quirks along the way.

Tell me, where do you think modern computers would be without Alan Turing? There are a number of other creative minds that have done things no normal person could do who also preferred same-sex partners. Or maybe no partners at all, like Sir Isaac Newton. Many artists are likewise a little less conventional in their sexuality.

Could it be that the sort of creativity and sheer intellect required to advance science and/or the arts comes with a higher-than-average incidence of having a non-standard libido? Even if there is no link between creativity and sexuality, there still is a genetic component to homosexuality (not a “gay gene”, but merely a genetic predisposition) that may be linked to other things that are evolutionary advantages. It’s a little harder to see those advantages in other species though since we really don’t look that close. How do we know which pigeon in the park is a better songwriter than other pigeons or which earthworm is the genius of the dirtpile? Nobody knows genetics well enough to untangle the vast list of interactions between various parts of a genome. It’s entirely possible that homosexuality is a side-effect of some other things that are undeniably beneficial to our species

So tell me, is having 100% of the adult population able and willing to procreate more of an evolutionary advantage than genetic diversity? Would you risk losing the exceptional traits certain humans have, like high IQ, creativity or a resistance to certain diseases? Or are you willing to accept a few quirks such as homosexuality and left-handedness in order to have a more disease-resistant, more intelligent species that can change instead of doing things the same way for thousands of years? Before you answer though, notice that you don’t run around in a deer hide with a hunk of chipped rock tied to a stick to hunt something to eat.

I don’t think we wouldn’t gotten to having a worldwide network of computers to argue on without having plenty of people who were innovative instead of hidebound, and I don’t think it would do anyone any favors to bring the world back to the 16th-century either. If you feel otherwise, well, that might explain a few things.

@Cruiser , If homosexuality is epigenetic rather than genetic then, in evolutionary terms, homosexuality is an occasional aberration in a successful survival strategy. There is nothing much to explain.

Would people stop bashing @Cruiser. The question did not ask anything about the morality of homosexuality, and @Cruiser‘s answer rightfully did not address that issue. The question is simply a matter of whether or not homosexuality can be explained in terms of evolution.

Aren’t we all part of human society however we live our lives? If it was all about procreation we could do away with the elderly as well but how much of a loss that would be?

I believe it was Ayn Rand’s Anthem that demonstrated the evils of sequestering those ineligible for breeding (including everyone over 40 years old) in the “home of the useless”.

@flutherother , Please look at this article

In brief, the anthropologist Sarah Hrdy proposes that shared responsibility for child raising, particularly that of non-reproducing grandmothers, provided an evolutionary and cultural advantage. By looking after the children of someone with related genes, the helpers are providing a survival advantage for copies of their own genes. During their reproductive years, the helpers will in turn get help in directly passing on their own genes. This argument does not work for homosexuality. Assuming that the reproducing kin of a homosexual do not have the gene for homosexuality, any help provided does nothing to proliferate the gene.

How does one become ‘a non reproducing grandmother’? By definition she has already reproduced.

Yes, but not not around the time she becomes a grandmother. Hrdy thinks that the assisting role of grandmothers explains early menopause in humans.

Not having offspring and putting your body through the hormone changes explains early menopause. So in her scenario, she becomes a grandmother first and then has offspring after she has helped rear her grandkids but not before ? Again, explain this to me how this happens.

I think it was just strange wording.

I’m certain she meant the grandmothers are not currently reproducing, not that they never reproduced.

Though, I think we are unnecessarily ignoring foster parentage, adoption, and “takes a village” child rearing. Even those with little direct genetic connection will mutually benefit from communal caregiving. Anything that assists a gene in replicating itself is evolutionarily positive, even non-reproducing “grandmothers”

Evolution occurs through natural selection – random genetic mutations occur within an organism’s genetic code through chemical, biological, radiation or chance events, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival. Because of the increase survival rates these beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation; whereas harmful mutations reduce the chances of success and over time will be deleterious to the survival of that particular branch. Genetic mutations that do not help nor hinder survival can be passed on since they are contained within the individual genome and their exisitence does not negatively affect the rate of survival. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism.

I would assume that increased levels of the number of homosexual individuals within a species would only decrease the number of successful matings producing viable offspring who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality which would appear to be a self-defeating adaptation that would eventually die out.

Since it obviously has not we can posit two different scenarios: either it is a genetic variation that at the present rates neither helps NOR hinders the survival of the species or it is not genetic at all.

@rojo And what of those things that are beneficial to survival yet harmful to reproduction?

@jerv I think you have to differentiate between survival of the individual and survival of the species. Survival without reproduction would last, what, one generation?

There are situations, such as wolves and other species where there is an “alpha” breeding pair that is assisted by the others in the pack to ensure the survival of the young produced by this pair. Those who do not have the opportunity to have offspring chance not seeing their individual genetic material passed on but help the species survive.

This is why I like Dawkins’ statement that it is the gene that is the unit of evolution, not the individual or the species.

A gay brother that helps to raise his sister’s offspring is assisting in the survival and perpetuation of half of his own genes. The gay brother has more genetic stake in his nephews than the grandmother does: the babies are only ¼ genetically similar to her.

@rojo Given that much of what I am talking about is things that are pretty much recessive genes that can express themselves even in the offspring of two adults who haven’t had that trait express in the last few generations, or at least functionally close enough for purposes of discussion, I take that as meaning that you’re not quite following and I’m not sure how to clarify well enough to make sure we’re on the same page.

Putting thoughts into words is hard enough for when those thoughts are not a spiderweb of interdependencies and pointers to uncommon knowledge that my thoughts here are just… umm… yeah.

I’m back and frankly surprised no one looked under the genetic hood as to the role of same sex behavior (SSB) – homosexual genes. Mostly because I was embarrassed by my own ignorance on this matter, I did some digging.

Without citing all the studies I have read I will paraphrase what I learned and if you want to know more or verify this just google it like I did.

SSB is genetic but apparently this gene (according to the studies I read) does in fact play a role in the evolution of a species. This gene apparently affects the bonding traits of the carrier. Those males that have more abundance of this genetic code are the ones who will more likely be homosexual because this bonding tendency genetic code pushes them to want to bond with other males. Here is where it gets real interesting. Men who possess a lesser amount of this “bonding gene” apparently will appear more attractive to women as they again will exhibit this tenedency to want to bond with their female partners. Makes total sense to me.

Here is where the real impact this gene may play in the evolutionary process. This gene is passed through the generations of these families and women will get this gene as well and their studies have shown that maternal women in these families who have this gene will in fact have more babies…more babies = better chances for that species to survive! Ta-da!

So there is still no direct correlation (that I can find) as to how SSB effects evolution other than homosexuals being an extra pair of hands for the care of offspring or as sperm donors, but there is scientific evidence that the gene that influences SSB plays a significant role in producing greater amount of babies.

I want to apologize if my earlier answers comments offended anyone of it they came across as homophobic as that was NOT my intention and only my ignorance on the subject and my stubbornness coming out.

@Cruiser Kudos for being able and willing to admit you made a mistake

Fantastic, @Cruiser . Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

@Cruiser Yes, fascinating indeed! I always believe homosexuality was of a genetic nature but that explanation is really interesting!

@Cruiser , Nicely done. It seems to relate to what @Mariah said.

Why would it?
Seems sort of a small issue in the big evolutionary picture. Like laying eggs in water instead of a chicken coop.