NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen a lot of "rational" explanations for why humans have both evolved and made social adaptations in heterosexual behavior. The common argument usually implies that women have a concealed estrus cycle that makes men uncertain about paternity unless they constantly attend the woman and her needs, blah, blah, blah.

You've probably seen this sort of stuff in textbooks.

So, I am wondering - if all of this is driven by the sociobiological imperative to pass one's genes successfully to another generation (to reproduce, and to have one's offspring achieve adulthood successfully), what is the explanation for homosexuality?

If you consider that homosexuality has always been a part of human experience and human civilization, one cannot argue that it involves any imperative to pass one's genes successfully to another generation - at any time short of our current modern times, reproduction would have been impossible without resort to heterosexual activity of one sort or another.

Can anyone posit a hypothesis on what social need (or individual need) tied to genetic survival (outside of a modern technological society) is fulfilled by homosexuality?

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality - just looking for the same kind of explanation that you get for heterosexuality.

On the face of it, homosexuality is a great way (historically speaking) of committing genetic suicide.

Answers?

The brain forms differently.

It's not supposed to happen, the same way autism or down sydrome isn't supposed to happen.

Of course you're not saying anything like that, RO. :rolleyes:

First of all, homosexual males and females still often procreate--my ex-wife did, twice, for example--so it seems that the drive to pass on genes can overcome one's sexual urges. There's also social pressure to procreate regardless of one's urges.

But there's another way homosexuality can continue in the gene pool. A gay male can act as another hunter/gatherer/protector and provide a greater opportunity for his siblings and their offspring to survive. They do share a larger percentage of identical DNA than that of another member of the tribe. The genetic imperative is still fulfilled--his relative's DNA is passed on, even if his own is not.

The brain forms differently.

It's not supposed to happen, the same way autism or down sydrome isn't supposed to happen.

I'm not asking "how".

I'm asking:

"What sociobiological imperative (such as successfully passing on one's genes, which is the usual explanation for almost everything) is fulfilled by homosexuality?"

The brain forms differently.

It's not supposed to happen, the same way autism or down sydrome isn't supposed to happen.
Wait--you're comparing being gay to having Down's Syndrome or Autism? Seriously?

Wait--you're comparing being gay to having Down's Syndrome or Autism? Seriously?

Don't look at me - I didn't come up with that.

Look at the question I'm asking - see post 3.

Of course you're not saying anything like that, RO. :rolleyes:

First of all, homosexual males and females still often procreate--my ex-wife did, twice, for example--so it seems that the drive to pass on genes can overcome one's sexual urges. There's also social pressure to procreate regardless of one's urges.

But there's another way homosexuality can continue in the gene pool. A gay male can act as another hunter/gatherer/protector and provide a greater opportunity for his siblings and their offspring to survive. They do share a larger percentage of identical DNA than that of another member of the tribe. The genetic imperative is still fulfilled--his relative's DNA is passed on, even if his own is not.

I don't think that you can argue that the majority of homosexuals follow your ex-wife's path. While some may, I would argue that the vast majority do not.

Your second argument has merit, especially in a tribal society where extended families are the rule and not the exception. It falls apart in any society where extended families are sharply curtailed or reduced.

I was thinking that it's a built-in response to overcrowding.

In societies that become crowded (when cities were built), and agricultural production was controlled more by the weather than by humans, it was an attempt to automatically self-limit the population. Famines were common and unpredictable, and you needed workers to harvest, but you didn't necessarily want any additional babies.

You get the benefit of an agricultural worker who won't add any additional mouths, and sacrifices his labor and life so that the others survive.

"What sociobiological imperative (such as successfully passing on one's genes, which is the usual explanation for almost everything) is fulfilled by homosexuality?"

Caretaker in the pack not bound by immediate blood tie? Self regulating check to prevent overbreeding in limited resource environments? Could be any number of reasons really. Or it could just be something very simple.

Hmmm, or perhaps a genetic sink.

The brain forms differently.

It's not supposed to happen, the same way autism or down sydrome isn't supposed to happen.

And also the same way child geniuses shouldn't exist then? Or you'll compare homosexuality to a deficiency but not to a "good" mutation? :rolleyes:

Caretaker in the pack not bound by immediate blood tie? Self regulating check to prevent overbreeding in limited resource environments? Could be any number of reasons really. Or it could just be something very simple.

Hmmm, or perhaps a genetic sink.

Number two there.

I've seen a lot of "rational" explanations for why humans have both evolved and made social adaptations in heterosexual behavior. The common argument usually implies that women have a concealed estrus cycle that makes men uncertain about paternity unless they constantly attend the woman and her needs, blah, blah, blah.

You've probably seen this sort of stuff in textbooks.

So, I am wondering - if all of this is driven by the sociobiological imperative to pass one's genes successfully to another generation (to reproduce, and to have one's offspring achieve adulthood successfully), what is the explanation for homosexuality?

If you consider that homosexuality has always been a part of human experience and human civilization, one cannot argue that it involves any imperative to pass one's genes successfully to another generation - at any time short of our current modern times, reproduction would have been impossible without resort to heterosexual activity of one sort or another.

Can anyone posit a hypothesis on what social need (or individual need) tied to genetic survival (outside of a modern technological society) is fulfilled by homosexuality?

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality - just looking for the same kind of explanation that you get for heterosexuality.

On the face of it, homosexuality is a great way (historically speaking) of committing genetic suicide.

Answers?

Umm genetic mutation?

Umm genetic mutation?

There's a reason that it keeps coming back, which is the reason I'm looking for.

See my post on famine, etc.

I'm not asking "how".

I'm asking:

"What sociobiological imperative (such as successfully passing on one's genes, which is the usual explanation for almost everything) is fulfilled by homosexuality?"

Doesn't need one.

Can anyone posit a hypothesis on what social need (or individual need) tied to genetic survival (outside of a modern technological society) is fulfilled by homosexuality?
Speaking generally, here are some reasons why homosexuality may benefit an individual in terms of passing on their genes:

--Increased individual survival. Having a "gay" partner may help you forage or hunt, avoid or defeat potential predators, or maintain a hold on territory. If your health is improved, then so is your ability to reproduce successfully.

--Benefits in brood care. Sex can promote bonding or good will between individuals who will then share brood care responsibility. Remember, if you make lots of babies but none of them survive to adulthood, you've just failed at passing on your genes. Caring for young is critical to reproductive success, and it can be a great help to have an extra individual helping to feed and protect your offspring.

--Increased group stability. The bonobo chimps are a great example of this. Sex is used to diffuse tensions and avoid conflict within a group. In a group of common chimps, if you provide the group with food there will often be fights over it. Among bonobo chimps, when food is introduced the group will often engage in a bunch of sex to diffuse the tension and make everybody calm down, and then share out the food without having a physical fight. Social animals benefit from group stability.

--Related to the above, evidence has suggested that homosexual activity can decrease intraspecies violence in general, particularly between males. (The research I've read was on bottle-nose dolphins.) From an individual perspective, think of it this way: even if you win a fight, you're likely to have taken injuries. There is a cost to you for fighting. If you're hurt in a fight then your ability to forage, avoid predators, and compete for resources will be diminished. Your reproductive success can be impaired by any and all of these. If there's a way for you to never have to fight, that can be a beneficial option for you.

I"What sociobiological imperative (such as successfully passing on one's genes, which is the usual explanation for almost everything) is fulfilled by homosexuality?"

Not everything needs a reason. Sometimes things just happen. Well everything has a cause-effect reason but you've already said you don't wanna hear about that.

There's a reason that it keeps coming back, which is the reason I'm looking for.

See my post on famine, etc.

Umm because the gene is passed on?

One could also look at other animals. The sexual play of male bottlenose dolphin youths often leads to stronger bonds that survive as friendship into adulthood. The inplications of such a bond in a hunter-gatherer society suggest a better bond among hunters and warriors, both of which are usually all male groups.

Another possible evolutionary benefit may have been increased bonds within females who do not have any bond to a particular male. Since the relationship between sex and children was not clear to humans until after we became agricultural, paternity was not an issue. Once the female is pregnant, the survival of the child depends on a stable family life. This does not need to be between the biological parents. It can be between the mother and anyone else. Sexual bonding would increase the strength of such relationships, regardless of the sex or gender of the people involved.

I was thinking that it's a built-in response to overcrowding.

In societies that become crowded (when cities were built), and agricultural production was controlled more by the weather than by humans, it was an attempt to automatically self-limit the population. Famines were common and unpredictable, and you needed workers to harvest, but you didn't necessarily want any additional babies.

You get the benefit of an agricultural worker who won't add any additional mouths, and sacrifices his labor and life so that the others survive.
Selection does not work this way.

"Genetic altruism" is not an evolutionarily stable solution. It's pretty easy to see why not: individuals who bear the altruistic trait are sacrificing their own reproductive success, and thus are less likely to pass on the trait.

Selection works on an individual level, it doesn't work on the species level.

Umm because the gene is passed on?

Recessive?

y'know, when I read the title of this thread I initially thought RO suddenly had a lucid moment and was reflecting upon his own behaviours and attitudes.
Sadly I was wrong.

As to a 'rational' explanation for homosexual behaviour - you do knowi it's not a solely human construct? It's observable in pretty much ever species of higher lifeform. Which in itself implies that it's not tied to a 'need' to procreate. It's not 'part of human experience and human civilization'.
It's part of Life on this planet as we know it. so get used to it.

(waits for Fass to read this thread)

Humans, having highly evolved nervous systems, have a whole host of behaviors which are contrary to species survival. Smoking, overeating, inventing and then watching television. Homosexuality must be compensatory or limiting behavior.

y'know, when I read the title of this thread I initially thought RO suddenly had a lucid moment and was reflecting upon his own behaviours and attitudes.
Sadly I was wrong.

As to a 'rational' explanation for homosexual behaviour - you do knowi it's not a solely human construct? It's observable in pretty much ever species of higher lifeform. Which in itself implies that it's not tied to a 'need' to procreate. It's not 'part of human experience and human civilization'.
It's part of Life on this planet as we know it. so get used to it.

(waits for Fass to read this thread)

Gee, scientists are all over finding a rational explanation for heterosexual behavior.

A whole science, sociobiology, sprang up over that.

So, why leave out homosexuals? Surely there's a logical explanation.

Recessive?

Or Dominant. Or Submissive. With bondage and...

Oh. Wait. We're talking about GENETICS here? My bad, do go on.

I'm not asking "how".

I'm asking:

"What sociobiological imperative (such as successfully passing on one's genes, which is the usual explanation for almost everything) is fulfilled by homosexuality?"

Not every evolutionary change is beneficial. Though they're something to be said about a male around that you know won't compete with you for females.

Not every evolutionary change is beneficial. Though they're something to be said about a male around that you know won't compete with you for females.

Which is the main reason that if I have a male friend, I prefer that he's homosexual.

Recessive?

Perhaps. I was also reading somewhere a while back(sorry can't remeber where or when) about studies done on family size that suggested that there are more gay men who are amongst the youngest in large families then there are gay men who are elder or only siblings.

Make of this what you will.

Not every evolutionary change is beneficial. Though they're something to be said about a male around that you know won't compete with you for females.

There's also something to be said for a male or female that won't reproduce, thus easing super-population. :rolleyes:

Geez. I'm straight, but claiming homosexuality to be a deficiency is just an excuse to call it a "disease". I'm well-aware of where that line of thought ends.

Of course for this obviously slanted point to be worth more than a footnote in stupidity, we have to blindly accept the assertion that sexual encounters are only had for procreation.

Perhaps. I was also reading somewhere a while back(sorry can't remeber where or when) about studies done on family size that suggested that there are more gay men who are amongst the youngest in large families then there are gay men who are elder or only siblings.

Make of this what you will.

I still think it's linked to what I (and Non Aligned mentioned it as well) posted.

I think it's a response to crowding as a preparation for potential famine or other shortage.

You get the extra workers (male and female) without the birth rate of the main body of the population.

Since famines were cyclical, and unpredictable, this sort of makes sense as to why this adaptation occurred.

I still think it's linked to what I (and Non Aligned mentioned it as well) posted.

I think it's a response to crowding as a preparation for potential famine or other shortage.

You get the extra workers (male and female) without the birth rate of the main body of the population.

Since famines were cyclical, and unpredictable, this sort of makes sense as to why this adaptation occurred.

I still think that you're looking for something that isn't there.

Gee, scientists are all over finding a rational explanation for heterosexual behavior.

A whole science, sociobiology, sprang up over that.

So, why leave out homosexuals? Surely there's a logical explanation.
gee, sociobiology is about human behaviour. This includes everyone.
unless you now asserting that gays aren't human.

btw, the nature and attitudes towards homosexuality (and indeed sexuality in general) have changed markedly over the centuries and between nations. You seem to be trying to fit your own narrow view of sexuality on not just the world, but also upon history. This probably what's causing you to be so confused.

I still think it's linked to what I (and Non Aligned mentioned it as well) posted.

I think it's a response to crowding as a preparation for potential famine or other shortage.

You get the extra workers (male and female) without the birth rate of the main body of the population.

Since famines were cyclical, and unpredictable, this sort of makes sense as to why this adaptation occurred.

Which sorta suggest that either you belive in God, or you are leaning towards the belife that nature has it's ways of sorting things?

I still think it's linked to what I (and Non Aligned mentioned it as well) posted.

I think it's a response to crowding as a preparation for potential famine or other shortage.

You get the extra workers (male and female) without the birth rate of the main body of the population.

Since famines were cyclical, and unpredictable, this sort of makes sense as to why this adaptation occurred.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology:

"In evolutionary science, a "Just So story" (named for the fables created by Rudyard Kipling) is a neat adaptive explanation of the evolution of some trait that does not rest on any evidence beyond its own internal logic. A Just-So story can be generated to argue for any trait, and examples exist within sociobiological literature of traits which have been explained with exactly opposite stories."

gee, sociobiology is about human behaviour. This includes everyone.
unless you now asserting that gays aren't human.

btw, the nature and attitudes towards homosexuality (and indeed sexuality in general) have changed markedly over the centuries and between nations. You seem to be trying to fit your own narrow view of sexuality on not just the world, but also upon history. This probably what's causing you to be so confused.

You obviously can't read.

The field of sociobiology originally started with theories about heterosexual behavior - why men and women interact in the way they do.

Nowhere have I said or implied that homosexuals are not human.

Nor do I have the narrow view of sexuality you seem to believe I have.

So pull your foot out of your mouth - it looks unseemly.

I'm looking for a sociobiological explanation for homosexuality. There seems to be plenty of material about heterosexuals - but what about homosexuals?

Of course for this obviously slanted point to be worth more than a footnote in stupidity, we have to blindly accept the assertion that sexual encounters are only had for procreation.
oh but of course. It's not like there's other holes to stick it into now. Are there?

I suppose you view having sex as a way of bonding with the other person or just for the plain enjoyment of it, you sillybilly.

Of course you're not saying anything like that, RO. :rolleyes:

First of all, homosexual males and females still often procreate...

Damn, Nazz, will you stop giving always the right answers with your first post in the thread? You're spoiling the fun!;)

Oh, and you won, of course.:D

I still think it's linked to what I (and Non Aligned mentioned it as well) posted.

I think it's a response to crowding as a preparation for potential famine or other shortage.

You get the extra workers (male and female) without the birth rate of the main body of the population.

Since famines were cyclical, and unpredictable, this sort of makes sense as to why this adaptation occurred.

That makes sense to me, but homosexuals are still capable of reproduce with women, they just prefer not to.

oh but of course. It's not like there's other holes to stick it into now. Are there?

I suppose you view having sex as a way of bonding with the other person or just for the plain enjoyment of it, you sillybilly.

For heterosexuals before birth control, if they had sex for enjoyment it usually resulted in babies.

Like I said, you haven't bothered to read a single post I've made in here - just jumping to your own conclusions about what you think I typed, and what you think I believe.

You look pretty fucking stupid right now.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics!!! Thus it has nothing to do with evolution.
It has to do with an abnormality in the cells during brain formation.



Originally Posted by Remote Observer View Post

I think it's a response to crowding as a preparation for potential famine or other shortage.





Evolutionary mutations occur without outside influence. It wouldn't just start to show up due a famine. It might but that would be a complete accident.

All your arguments are based on a false back drop.




Homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics and therefore nothing to do with evolution!!!

You obviously can't read.

The field of sociobiology originally started with theories about heterosexual behavior - why men and women interact in the way they do.

Nowhere have I said or implied that homosexuals are not human.

Nor do I have the narrow view of sexuality you seem to believe I have.

So pull your foot out of your mouth - it looks unseemly.

I'm looking for a sociobiological explanation for homosexuality. There seems to be plenty of material about heterosexuals - but what about homosexuals?
And you obviously haven't the faintest idea what you're babbling about.
Sociobiology is the study of how behaviour can be explained in terms of evolutionary advantages of certain behaviour. The idea that some (note: some) animal (not animal) behaviours are heritable.
Where and how does this only involve hetreosexuality?

And yes, if you bothered reading what you wrote, you would see you did imply gays aren't human:
Gee, scientists are all over finding a rational explanation for heterosexual behavior. A whole science, sociobiology, sprang up over that.
Your statement that there's rational explanation for het behaviour followed by the next sentence that sociobiology is about that (het behaviour) implies that sociobiology is only about that. Since sociobiology is about human behaviour we must therefore infer your view is that only hetrosexuality is human behaviour. ergo gays aren't human or are partaking in an unhuman act.


Incidently, you're also wrong about how sociobiology sprung up. It arose from a study into ant behaviour, not human hetrosexual behaviour. You really should try reading about the things you spout off about first. It'd make you look less foolish (though twould deprive us of amusement).

You look pretty fucking stupid right now.

I'm feeling some negative energy right now. Lets just take a deep breath. No, deeper than that. Ok, there we go, and exhale.

Ok, now this "Chill-pill" is going to help you calm down. The container says to take two, but I think you should take 22, m'kay?

For heterosexuals before birth control, if they had sex for enjoyment it usually resulted in babies.

Like I said, you haven't bothered to read a single post I've made in here - just jumping to your own conclusions about what you think I typed, and what you think I believe.

You look pretty fucking stupid right now.
Once again, you're showing your incredibly limited views on sex, ways of doing it and sexuality itself.

Well here we are only page three, and you're having to resort to petty insults rather than attempting intelligible discussion (not that you've ever shown you're capable of such a thing).
I'll leave you to continue throwing your toys out of the sandpit and whining like a 3 yr old. Come back when you've matured a tad.

Once again, you're showing your incredibly limited views on sex, ways of doing it and sexuality itself.

Well here we are only page three, and you're having to resort to petty insults rather than attempting intelligible discussion (not that you've ever shown you're capable of such a thing).
I'll leave you to continue throwing your toys out of the sandpit and whining like a 3 yr old. Come back when you've matured a tad.

I love that word. Oh heh ohh my I failed to say which word havn't I!
Well let me fix that right now, and name the word of which I speak.

In plain and simple language, the word that thrills me so much is..... Tad!

Meaning 'a little' I wonder if it has anything to do with baby frogs!?

I'm not asking "how".

I'm asking:

"What sociobiological imperative (such as successfully passing on one's genes, which is the usual explanation for almost everything) is fulfilled by homosexuality?"

Sex=/Reproduction solely. Especially in social creatures. Many animals, not solely humans, have homosexual behavior. As well, not everything requires an imperative.

A very important of sexual behavior in social animals is infact strengthening social bonds, in some form or another. In this, homosexual behavior can be more advantageous as heterosexual behavior, as one is not limited to possible partners as solely the opposite sex. As such, those of a species that have homosexual tendencies can create a stronger social bonds between members of the same sex.

More or less.

Once again, you're showing your incredibly limited views on sex, ways of doing it and sexuality itself.

Well here we are only page three, and you're having to resort to petty insults rather than attempting intelligible discussion (not that you've ever shown you're capable of such a thing).
I'll leave you to continue throwing your toys out of the sandpit and whining like a 3 yr old. Come back when you've matured a tad.

I don't have incredibly limited views on sex.

Obviously you are making that up. I see that's your standard of argument - just make up what the other person believes, and repeat it until everyone is tired of it.

Recessive?

Or perhaps not genetic at all(Or only being affected, but not controlled, by genetics). It is entirely possible that it arises during the development of certain glands that secrete hormones that decide sexual behavior. As such, it is affected by genetics, but genetics is not the sole factor.

Or perhaps not genetic at all(Or only being affected, but not controlled, by genetics). It is entirely possible that it arises during the development of certain glands that secrete hormones that decide sexual behavior. As such, it is affected by genetics, but genetics is not the sole factor.

I'm NOT ASKING the "HOW".

I am asking what survival advantage is incurred? What genetic motivation is present?

Homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics and therefore nothing to do with evolution!!!

1) We don't know that. Indeed, there is evidence for some type of genetic influence on sexuality, including homosexuality.
2) Things that aren't genetic can have a whole lot to do with evolution.
3) Instead of adding more exclamation points, add sources.

That makes sense to me, but homosexuals are still capable of reproduce with women, they just prefer not to.
A lot of homosexuals aren't capable of reproducing with women. Seeing as how a lot of homosexuals ARE women.

I'm NOT ASKING the "HOW".

I am asking what survival advantage is incurred? What genetic motivation is present?

That I have answered. Strengthening social bonds.

As well, you seem to be moving in a round about here. You seemed to ask if perhaps it was a recessive gene, and seem to be under the notion that it is genetically caused, which may or may not be true.

That I have answered. Strengthening social bonds.

As well, you seem to be moving in a round about here. You seemed to ask if perhaps it was a recessive gene, and seem to be under the notion that it is genetically caused, which may or may not be true.

No, I answered someone's question with another question about recessive. They were diverging from the topic.

I still think it's linked to what I (and Non Aligned mentioned it as well) posted.

I think it's a response to crowding as a preparation for potential famine or other shortage.

You get the extra workers (male and female) without the birth rate of the main body of the population.

Since famines were cyclical, and unpredictable, this sort of makes sense as to why this adaptation occurred.
As I've already said, selection does not work this way. Selective pressures act on individuals. If an individual's reproductive success is impaired by a given trait, then that trait is unlikely to thrive in the population. Instead, it will most likely be weeded out over time.

The reason homosexuality persists in many species is because it either does not impair the individual's reproductive success, or it improves the individual's reproductive success.

No, I answered someone's question with another question about recessive. They were diverging from the topic.

Ah, the question mark confused me.

Now then, have I sufficiently answered your question? Strengthening social bonds and all?

A lot of homosexuals aren't capable of reproducing with women. Seeing as how a lot of homosexuals ARE women.

If you read back in the thread, you'll see my hypothesis that homosexuals (of any gender) are extra workers that don't place population pressure on the overall population - a group adaptation for possible famine or shortage in an urban environment (in early history).

For heterosexuals before birth control, if they had sex for enjoyment it usually resulted in babies.

Actually, no it didn't.

Among humans, the majority of sexual contact does not result in the production of offspring. This has been true throughout our species' history.

Throughout our species' history, non-fertile individuals have had sex. Males have had sex with males, and females with females. Non-vaginal sex has been practiced. Individuals have had sex while a female is already pregnant. And so on, and so on.

Even when no form of protection is used, and when "sex" involves a fertile male and fertile female having vaginal intercourse, the rate of pregnancy is still only about 85%. And pregnancy often does not lead to childbirth. Indeed, historically pregnancy was even less likely to lead to a live, healthy child than it is today.

Human sexual activity has NEVER been exclusively about procreation. Most of the sex human beings have doesn't result in procreation.

If you read back in the thread, you'll see my hypothesis that homosexuals (of any gender) are extra workers that don't place population pressure on the overall population - a group adaptation for possible famine or shortage in an urban environment (in early history).
Yes, I've seen it. And responded to it several times.

It's an interesting theory, and one that has been floated by researchers in the past, but it has ultimately been rejected. Selection simply does not work that way.

If you read back in the thread, you'll see my hypothesis that homosexuals (of any gender) are extra workers that don't place population pressure on the overall population - a group adaptation for possible famine or shortage in an urban environment (in early history).

Problem arises in that high population densities have not existed for that great of a time. Basically, only a small sliver of human history expands such a style of living. As well, as homosexual behavior is observed in animals, one should only expect that humans as well have experienced it.

Not to mention the fact that this requires spreading of a thought throughout the world, including the Americas, of which was not possible until around 1200 A.D. As such, it is unlikely that this would be the case.

That makes sense to me, but homosexuals are still capable of reproduce with women, they just prefer not to.
Slightly inaccurate. Should read more like "they just won't enjoy it and will only do it for the reproduction part". Whereas heterosexual men engage in sexual relationships with women for the pleasure much more than the procreation.

But yeah, gay =/= sterile.

I'm NOT ASKING the "HOW".

I am asking what survival advantage is incurred? What genetic motivation is present?
Not every aspect of human behaviour has a genetic motivation. Far from it. In fact, "genetic motivation" doesn't exist. Genes have no motivations, and don't predetermine all we are and what we do.

If you remove the genetic aspect and simply ask for the motivation part, though, it becomes pretty simple: because it's very darn pleasurable. =D

I'm NOT ASKING the "HOW".

I am asking what survival advantage is incurred? What genetic motivation is present?
I think the same survival advantage that violet eyes have, that is, none. But genetic changes don't happen because they offer advantages, they happen, and if they work (meaning the gene carrier is able to procreate more than others of the same species) then they stay, and the eventually all of that species carry the trait.

There's an article in "Discover" magazine June 2007 pg 58 on this very question. Several possibilities are given though not yet proven.

One is there is a link on the X that makes women more fertile. When this X becomes part of the male homosexuality occurs. But all of the sisters and the mother of this man reproduce enough more to make up the difference. And a single uncle could better supply for the sister's offspring so they could better survive.

There are several other theories you can read.

In lesbians there is a good chance that at some point in development they were given an extra shot of testosterone. In animal studies, a single shot of testosterone produces a lifetime of homosexual behavior.

There is also a new book out with the physical differences between Homo and Hetero people. Heard about it on radio so don't have the name. I remember one thing was homosexual men have an index finger that was either longer or about the same length as the ring finger on the right hand. Hetero men have an index finger shorter than the ring finger. NO THIS WAS NOT 100%. There are people in BOTH groups that have the others fingers. But it is more likely in one group. Another indication was the direction of the swirl of the hair on the head, but don't remember which direction was which. Clockwise or counterclockwise. Anyway there seems to be physical differences that aren't 100% but more likely in one group or another indicating an inherited predisposition.

I think the same survival advantage that violet eyes have, that is, none. But genetic changes don't happen because they offer advantages, they happen, and if they work (meaning the gene carrier is able to procreate more than others of the same species) then they stay, and the eventually all of that species carry the trait.Care to tell me how a gene that would make the individual homosexual, and therefore more likely to have sexual relations with no possibility of reproduction, increases said individuals chances of passing on that gene? Unless the homosexual individuals genes forced it to engage in heterosexual behavior aswell, the individuals with these 'homosexual genes' would on average produce less offspring than individuals that were heterosexual. It doesn't matter if homosexual indivual could run faster than a cheetah and strangle an elephant, if he never reproduced. It's not like he can transfer his homosexuality to the next generation by licking them or some nonsense like that. If you don't engage in heterosexual behavior then you won't pass on your genes, and the homosexual gene would dissappear with the individual.

Only way 'homosexual genes' makes sence to me is if, like others have said before, the genes are recessive. On top of that they would most likely have to be tied to genes that are useful for reproduction, so that the amount of individuals that do not reproduce are offset by an increase of reproduction in the individuals where the recessive genes have not come into play. If it doesn't offset the loss of reproduction, then homosexuals would eventualle ceace to exist. If the gene offset the lack of reproduction by homosexuals, then we would see in increase in homosexuals, as the chance for the recessive genes to come into play would increase as the number of carriers would increase. Since the mutation probably existed by the time our ancestors left Africa, and probably existed for a long time before that, I would theorize that the gene offset the lack of reproduction enough to increase the percentage of carriers. Else the gene would've probably died out before, since mankind nearly went extinct before even leaving Africa.

If my theory which I now realize looks suspiciously like a more wordy version of the one Good Lifes posted:rolleyes: is correct, then there's no need for survival advantage, since the gene has other properties that increases it's chances of being passed on. That also means that their might not be an advantage to having homosexual individuals in a group, though I'm not discounting the fact that their might be. Come to think of it, if the homosexual individuals helped the group enough to offset his or hers lack of offspring through caring for the groups offspring then the gene doesn't have to be anything more than a recessive gene that makes individuals homosexual. It doesn't have to confer any genetic advantages onto the individual, as the social advantages make up for it.

Btw: Evolution is not based upon survival advantage, but on propagation advantage. If you have 2 individuals from the same species, one with a survival advantage over another, but the one with the advantage is steril, then the survival advantage won't be passed on to the next generation. Most of the time survival advantage and propagation advantage correlate though, since individuals with survival advantages often have more offspring.

/end homebrew science rant of someone that watches alot of tv about genetics and human evolution, but is in no way an authority on genetics.

Hmmm... A couple of gay penguins once adopted an abandoned egg and wound up raising it as their own.

So I guess they did contribute to the healthy continuation of the species.

Of course, silly humans don't let their gays adopt.

And you obviously haven't the faintest idea what you're babbling about.
Sociobiology is the study of how behaviour can be explained in terms of evolutionary advantages of certain behaviour. The idea that some (note: some) animal (not animal) behaviours are heritable.
Where and how does this only involve hetreosexuality?

And yes, if you bothered reading what you wrote, you would see you did imply gays aren't human:

Your statement that there's rational explanation for het behaviour followed by the next sentence that sociobiology is about that (het behaviour) implies that sociobiology is only about that. Since sociobiology is about human behaviour we must therefore infer your view is that only hetrosexuality is human behaviour. ergo gays aren't human or are partaking in an unhuman act.


Incidently, you're also wrong about how sociobiology sprung up. It arose from a study into ant behaviour, not human hetrosexual behaviour. You really should try reading about the things you spout off about first. It'd make you look less foolish (though twould deprive us of amusement).

To be fair, he never did say that sociobiology was exclusively about heterosexuality, merely that interest in the causes of heterosexuality were what began study in that field. Regardless of the fact that he's wrong about that, that's all he actually did say.