Evolution and Homosexuality

This may come across as a question intended to make fun of evolutionists. It's not.I'll admit that I don't know a very much about evolutionary theory except for what they teach you in high school science. Most of the science in this forum is over my head. What I'm wondering is how does evolution account for homosexuality? From what I understand the whole process of evolution is to propogate the speices, all the while getting stronger and more capable of survival. It seems like homosexuality doesn't help to accomplish this because a couple can never reproduce on their own.I guess that's my whole train of thought. I'm just interested in any answers you can give me.Thanks,
Jenn

---

"The life I preach I do not live...I follow at a distance crawling" - unknown

It's a sex-linked trait, so it's carried on the X chromosome, which males only have one of. But it's possible for a female to carry one copy of the gene, which is recessive (because she has two X chromosomes).Basically it's accounted for in the same way that other recessive or sex-linked traits are - having an unexpressed copy doesn't reduce your fitness, even if having an expressed copy does.Also there's the kin selection factor. Because you share genes with your siblings, sometimes you can pass on more copies of your genes - including the gay gene that you might carry - by focusing on the survival of your siblings' offspring than on having offspring of your own.

Just to add to Crash's post, I can't remember where I heard it, but it goes something like this: "It's not how many children you have, it's how many grandchildren you have." Fitness isn't primarily about having numerous children, passing your genes into subsequent generations is important however. This is where kin support fits in. I am not sure whether or not homosexuality fits into this role, but it may. I'll leave the experts argue over that one.Just as an aside, homosexual displays are seen throughout the animal kingdom, but as far as I know no other species has members that preferenctially attach themselves to the same sex without effort to mate with the opposite sex. Homosexuality in humans may be a hardwired behavior that has intertwined with our societal instincts to result in what we see today.

Interesting thought -- but if that were true, wouldn't we expect to see more homosexual men than women? Maybe there are, I haven't seen any data on that. If you have it, it would be interesting.Perhaps there is a gene that creates a predisposition towards homosexuality, but it acts like the diabetes gene. Have one, and you would likely be "a little gay". Perhaps bisexual or one of these new metrosexuals (whatever THAT is). Have two and you are decidedly gay.Or perhaps SOME people are gay due to genetics, but some choose to be gay. Maybe due to some trauma or some bit of their personality. I read one study on left-handedness that correlated its occurence with infants being born with the umbilical cord wrapped around the neck. The suggestion was that we are all naturally right handed, but if blood flow is reduced to one side of the brain in infancy and that area of the brain is slightly damaged, the tremendously plastic infant brain simply shifts the handedness function over to the other side. Perhaps something similar could happen -- the part ofthe brain for forming relationships with the opposite sex is damaged, so the same-sex portion takes over.A lot of "perhaps" and "maybe" up above. The point is we don't really know a definitive cause for homosexuality at this point, so it is impossible to show how evolution explains it yet. One more question for antropologists, geneticists, etc.By the way -- I know this topic is somewhat politically sensitive, so for the record: I don't think it matters WHAT the cause is. If they are two consenting adults and not harming anyone else, I can't see the fuss -- gay marriage is OK by me.

---

Ian C."Future events such as these will effect you in the future!"

Only if you assume that the cause of homosexuality is the same for both men and women. There's no reason why that would have to be the case. I'm of the opinion, and I think studies confirm this, that women's sexuality is a little more fluid anyway; you'd likely find that more men than women are only gay, as opposed to somewhere in between straight and gay. Who would choose to be gay? For that matter, who chooses their sexuality? When did you choose to be straight?If what you're trying to say is that it's more complicated than the presence or lack of a gene, you're certainly correct. A gene could make me want to have sex with another man but no gene in the world could actually make me do it. Behavior is ultimately up to the person, of course. We know that there's some genetic influence. For instance if you have a gay uncle on your mother's side you're more likely to be gay yourself. Same pattern as color-blindness, actually. Yeah, I'm married myself (to a woman) and it's not like we lay awake nights thinking "geez, I hope those gays don't get married, or else I might have to get a divorce!" I mean, what does gay marriage have to do with straight marriage?

As for why some people would choose to be gay -- I can't really give you an answer there! An overwhelming urge to be an iconoclast? Sexual abuse by someone of the opposite sex? I emphasized the word "some" since I doubt this is a common occurence. That as may be, I can't discount it as a possibility, either.I've never seen any studies showing a pattern similar to color blindness -- could be, though. Where did you read about that? Not asking for a cite, just curious.As for the different gene for men and women -- now, THAT could be. It would certainly explain the increased occurence of bisexuality in women compared to men. Have one: bisexual. Have two: gay. There seem to be VERY few bisexual men comparatively.You know, the thing that cracks me up about bisexual marriage is Bush wants to spend money encouraging marriage, but GAY marriage -- oh, no -- that's the wrong sort of commitment and happiness.

---

Ian C."Future events such as these will effect you in the future!"

I can't help but get the feeling you don't actually know any homosexuals. Just sit and think for a minute about what reasons would be sufficient to convince you to decide to be gay. I don't even think it takes a gene for a woman to lean towards the other side, to tell you the truth. Yeah, it's pretty stupid. The fundamentalists characterize this as a religious issue but I don't see it - it's not like people are going to make their churches perform gay marriages. If they don't want to, they don't have to. But what possible objection could they have to others doing as they see fit?

Thank you for your explanation, it was very informative.I know that there are other threads following the homosexual marriage topic, but most of them have followed the religious stand point of the "God says it's wrong view". I would agree, but I'm going to stay away from that for the sake of keeping this thread different then the others.I know that most Americans don't know much about what happens in Canada. It's not meant as an insult, merely an observation. Here in Canada it has become very much a religious issue for several reasons.The first of these is that we had a bill passed that can directly infringe on the ability to own a whole Bible. Bill C-250 was a bill regarding hate literature against homosexuals. The original reading of the bill (if it had been passed in that form) would have made it illegal to even discuss homosexuality as a choice or genetics illegal. So basically this whole conversation would have been illegal. The way it passed later on had a clause that stated that religious literature would be excluded in this law.The problem with this is that when it is a clause, quite often it's the judge's decision as to whether the clause applies. All it will take is one over enthusiastic Christian to use scriptures regarding homosexuals as some sort of soap-box and the Bible will suddenly be hate literature.Although I agree with what the Bible says, I think that there is a time and place for everything. Soap boxes on the corner are not it.Also the first homosexual marriage that was performed in Canada took place in a church. Although the validity of it's doctrine could be called into question, that's a topic for another forum. The point of that being that Churchs may not be given the right anymore to choose who they marry. It could be considered an act of hatred towards homosexuals if you refuse to marry them.Religion and homosexual marriages cannot be divided. Who was it that wrote "I may not agree with anything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? It's coming down to that in some places.I guess that's all.Jenn

---

"The life I preach I do not live...I follow at a distance crawling" - unknown

I have read of both a couple of penguins in a zoo and a subpopulation of male sheep that are exclusively homosexual. There's some genetic component to the sheeps' preferences. I don't remember if I have citations, but I'll look later today.

No, I do know a few homosexuals. I don't think that they chose to be gay. I know one bisexual. By his own description, sometimes he chooses to be because he just can't fathom why he shouldn't. I don't think those that choose to be homosexual (that is, there are no genetic factors at play to make them lean that way) are a particularly sizable portion of homosexuals, but I can't discount the possibility that there are some of them. I think human sexuality is too complex to simply say genes do it all -- there is some nurture with the nature there. Our cultural perception of the ideal woman keeps shifting -- there is some societal influence on what we deem attractive and acceptable.As for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, I KNOW there are exclusively gay dogs. I have witnessed that first hand. Each attempt with the female dog produced no results, but as soon as he was put back with another male dog, he showed that he understood the intent of the meeting! In the end, he was just kept as a pet.

---

Ian C."Future events such as these will effect you in the future!"

Thread copied to the Evolution and Homosexuality thread in the Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.