Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

I don't think there's much you can do, except to stick to your guns regarding the facts.Of course you might ask them if they are then going to be deselected as they lose their evolutionary purpose (of "curing" overpopulation) by having children through surrogates and the like. And for those who believe they are selected to take care of the community's children you might want to ask how many are doing that now. I'm unaware that anyone has shown specific social behaviors beyond sex linked to homosexuality.What's odd is that this is being discussed as if there really is some set polar possibility. Gays and straight are simply endpoints on a spectrum of preference where most people fall. Both 100% sexual pref types exist because that's what organic processes set to develop sexuality for any individual CAN produce, but will do so rarely.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you omni... There is very little to suggest this, unless you are referring to a gene which allows for, or the lack of a gene which inhibits, the possibility that environmental factors could produce a near 100% sexual orientation (one way or the other).What I have seen suggests that orientation is generally outside a person's control, but its controlled more by environment than genetics. This also does not make much sense to me. Evolution developed a sex drive, it is usually generalized and you can find animals (including humans) mating with not only the same sex but just about everything imaginable. The bigger question to me is why people are looking for some reason for homosexuality to be around. As long as a specie has generalized sexual drives they will produce a spectrum of behaviors. In a specturm some will be homosexual, or engage in homosexual acts.Even if its presence held some genetic component, that is to say the "spectrum" is dependent on differing gene combos, as long as there was no problem with a gene being passed on, it simply would be. It need not provide any advantage to anyone, just inheritability in a way that does not remove the possibility for future inheritance. Uhm... this could be explained in so many more ways than a connection to their sexual orientation. And it forces me to ask if this means poor, uncultured gays are failing at their evolutionary role? I find it sort of demeaning to suggest that a person's sexual orientation must be connected to some social benefit for the community. As it is we DO NOT see that in the animal kingdom. But that's simply replacing one piece of PC BS with another. Why can't gays who are ignorant about evolution just be corrected about the reality of evolution, rather than change science to stroke their egos?I might add that there are plenty of other alternative sexualities out there. Pretty much every individual's sexual preference is "alternative" in some way. Do they all need similar justification or is it just "gayness" that needs an explanation?Finally, being homosexual does not stop them from having children. It just means the person they have children with will not necessarily be their main squeeze. In times where societies openly accepted homosexuality, people still chose husbands and wives for the express purpose of procreation. Today many gays are striving to have children, whether on their own or through adoption. Well I can't speak for everyone that has sex with members of their own sex, but for me I sure wouldn't. I may be creative, but I am not an idiot, and dumbing down science to make anyone feel good is insulting to me.Once again I am sorry for disagreeing, and I apologize for having my hackles up on this reply. I agree with almost everything you say, but this one rubbed me completely the wrong way.AbE: I just notice you suspended yourself for 72 hours? So sorry for posting while you were suspended and couldn't reply.Edited by holmes, : more apologies

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I realize you are not suggesting it must be all genetics, just using that as a possibility and running through how it could work, so I am not going to address that part. However... The former sentence does not lead to the latter. Something does not need to be selected "for" in order not to be selected "against". For would mean advantage, and against a disadvantage, but there is always just plain NEUTRAL. As long as there is no disadvantage a characteristic can still keep going. If the purpose was just to keep from getting rusty or enhance social standing, why couldn't they have had sex with siblings as well as people that were old or young? Or, uhm, masturbate? Why would they have to go for members of the same sex?You mentioned the bonobos and they do it with everyone, young old, related unrelated, same sex and opposite sex. If we are close to them then that's likely why we see humans doing all those same things.Edited by holmes, : typo

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Sure there is. There are many fantastical scenarios that COULD happen so that the gay population increases BECAUSE OF natural selection. But the fact is we just don't know what exactly goes into constructing any individual's sexual preference, and so can't validly discuss natural selection issues.I mean the first thing one needs is a genuine genetic connection. And then one has to show that selection FOR an advantage it produces has something to do with that orientation. For example, while presence of a gene might end up promoting attraction to same sex in an individual, its advantage may actually be for something else it does in the human body. For example maybe it is responsible for fertility in females, or better breast milk, and it just so happens that as a side effect it results in affecting sex preference of children in a way is not in and of itself detrimental for the gene to be passed on.Before people leap to the conclusion that there IS a gene which causes a desire for the same sex and that it ALSO causes them to care for children or entertain the masses, maybe it would be wise to look for direct physical advantages?But that really is only if one must find an advantage when no one has to. There are also genetically inheritable conditions which exist throughout humanity, patent disfunctions. Why do they exist? Because it makes those people contribute to society in some special way? No, it is simply because the way the gene is passed on does not get culled.And that is really only after we assume there is a genetic link, which no one has really shown, and indeed only after we assume humans are straight or gay, when in fact that is simply a cultural invention. Humans as a whole are polymorphous perverse. Its a spectrum with only a relative few at the poles of strictly hetero (nonkinky) and stictly homo (nonkinky). We box people into declaring some allegiance to preference, which artificially exaggerates actual numbers on either side. That is one way humans "increase" both the gay and straight populations.Whatever happened to "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"? Isn't that catchier than "we're here, we're queer, and that's because evolution creates us to be caretakers and entertainers of society so you really need us to fulfill those social roles"? Edited by holmes, : subtitle

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

1) If people kept reproducing then it wouldn't matter if they were straight or gay, they wouldn't die out. If we assume orientation will be so great that they ignore reproductive urges, which has not been the case in history, then I suppose an increase in gays would pose that problem.2) But even if this did happen, it would not be a "failure". It might suck from our perspective but there is no goal to evolution. If anything I suppose it was "successful" in removing a species that was no longer suited to environmental demands. I'm not going to say every extinct species, since some were not the result of characteristics evolving, but rather environmental conditions changing around them and their not having sufficient capabilities. I assume some must have evolved characteristics that were ultimately detrimental, but I do not know enough about evolutionary history to say which. Maybe someone can fill us in with details. Want something more realistic? A species grows the capacity for more abstract thought which allows for greater innovation and technology, but also fantasy.This species becomes so unable to disentangle elements of their fantasy from reality that they use technology to reshape reality to fit their fantasies. Eventually certain factions invent wholly fictional species which talk to them and demand the destruction of all life that does not believe in those fictional species or how they want reality to be seen. These factions proceed to use their improved technology to kill off members of their own species to placate the fictional entities, wiping out everyone in the process.In other words I think we have more to worry about than homosexuals being selected to such a degree that we don't reproduce.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

While I can agree that they usually miss celibates in their list of people to attack, they do not only attack gays and I find that claim bizarre.They are currently engaged in a massive campaign against sexual expression, both in the making and using of such materials. They are directly attacking sexual hedonists, exhibitionists, voyeurs, and onanists.As part of this they have expanded concepts of what should be deemed inherently obscene and illegal as far as sexual acts go. In addition to the above, there is fisting, piss sex, scatalogical sex, bestiality, SM, and simulated rape fantasy. Oh oh oh and prostitution!This is not to mention that they are wholly against sexuality with, by, for, from, and around minors... especially if it also includes nonminors.In fact you can find leaders and communities on the left and the right attacking all of the above. The only difference between the morality brigades on the left and on the right, is that those on the right include homosexuals.My question is why are only homosexuals protected by the "morality" brigades of the left? Even free thinkers tend to spend undue time on protecting that one class of person, with the possible extension to a limited class of porn. Why?AbE: I should also probably note that the right is achieving victories in their campaigns against the above EXCEPT against homosexuals, and the reason is that the left is willing to help them against the rest. Perhaps the loudest noise you hear is homosexual issues, because the right has to expend more effort on that, as well as the left not spending much time advertising the plight of those other communities.Edited by holmes, : just a noteEdited by holmes, : pt 2

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. We have survival instincts because that is what developed. That does not indicate that evolution has a purpose for us to survive to some goal. I feel relatively confident in asserting the Dinosaurs had a survival insitinct. Okay, I don't remember that I was responding to RAZD's post, but I'd agree with the above. I think you missed my point. Technology wasn't our demise, it was using it within a context of living in our fantasies rather than the real world. Most specifically using tech to fulfill demands of figments of our imagination such as Gods.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

But outside of twins, or direct relatives, your scenario is meaningless to his point.Can't it be agreed that anyone who does not act to reproduce, or is less likely to reproduce, is a "weaker" reproducer from the purely evolutionary standpoint of passing on genes? I'm not sure why that in itself is a contentious claim.The errant position would be to argue that that standpoint has some objective moral weight, or that it is discussing the health/fitness of any individual within a society. As families get smaller, particularly as we drive for reductions in population growth, an individual's reproductive choice may become more important with respect to "passing on one's genes".

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think one of us is not understanding the other (perhaps both). How that reads to me above is that fitness can be measured by passing on certain genetic lines. Thus those that help other members who are carrying on the same line are still contributing to "fitness". Your example was of sterile insects whose "family" they help pass on genes.If I am correct then that missed my point. I was trying to say that that ASSUMES there are other "family" members to which any are helping. I don't know if there is any correlation between being gay (or celibate) and having more family that have more kids or that have more successful kids (especially helped by the gay person). In fact that seems a bit fanciful.If you are suggesting the "human family" as a whole, I think we are venturing into a strange area of discussion as it is various characteristics arising within the population which get selected on, and not all characteristics as a whole. I'm also a little hesitant to be drawing connections between anyone who is not reproducing to the sterile class of animals within an insect colony. The latter clearly do have evolved purposes for the colony, which is not the case for human behavior. While I can certainly agree with that, as a general rule isn't it easy to say that providing care is equal those who are not reproducing (for whatever reason) are "weaker" reproducers from a purely evolutionary standpoint of passing on genes?As an aside, are you actually suggesting that there is a "caring class" of human being?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

But it is on the individual, or single gene line, level which is the point I was making and I think the poster was sort of coming from.Any individual when looked at from an evolutionary standpoint, could be considered "weaker" in comparison to other individuals based on his stated criteria.I get that from a population level, the individual may be seen as providing fitness in another way. Looking at colonies this is especially true, but then the drones really are adapted to a purpose which aids the population as a whole. We can see it.I'd almost consider colonial animals essentially a single organism with individuals acting as organs for that organism. They certainly seem as programmed as any organ for a specific role for the colony. That's not true if homosexuality is a side effect (perhaps just a potentiality) caused by a gene that produces a totally different effect which allows for its propagation.And this also assumes that homosexuals will not procreate, which simply is not supported by any historical data. People who have lived largely homosexual lifestyles, and gays in cultures where homosexuality was not oppressed, figured out what they needed to do if they wanted to have children and they did it.The urge to reproduce is significantly different than just the urge to have sex. As long as humans understood that they need to have sex with a female to have kids, and wanted kids, there is no reason for homosexuality to reduce in the population.Given our nearest ancestors, and early human civilizations, there probably wasn't much issue as they were generally practicing bi-sexual. That would lead to the potential for gay children (assuming some hard genetic link).Edited by holmes, : removed gays

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think I spotted the difference in what was being said. He seemed to be discussing the individual, characterizing the individual, which might have the gene. You are discussing the gene itself.I think you are both right, but its just a matter of viewpoint.But as a nitpick, if the gene which results in homosexuality for some offspring is actually used to produce other effects, and indeed gets selected for that reason, I'd hesitate to call it a gene for homosexuality. I think it would be generally anecdotal, but same would go for being asked to prove that heteros are more progenitive. We know that historically in culture that openly allowed homosexuality, people who lived largely "gay" lives where a same sex partner was their major love interest still took spouses and had children like everyone else.In the Greek world it was common for male lovers to help pick out the female partners for their lover.I agree with what others have stated in this thread, reproductive interest is separate from sexual interest.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I don't buy that one. But we can leave it as we seem to agree on the overall point. I've already posted (I think twice) how genes resulting in less reproduction can survive in a population. I only went to defend a portion of CD's claim based on looking at an individual from a large evolutionary standpoint, which is what I think he was doing.That he might be mistaken that that is the ONLY way to look at it, to make comparative claims, is duly noted.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

A person who does so stands a fairly decent chance of getting laid afterward.Fulfilling demands of gods that hate sex, and have worse odds of survival when carrying out their orders, entail little chance of getting laid afterward.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I'm not sure if I should mention Xian fascination with NASCAR, or point out that are millions more people who do not share the above mentioned faiths.Either way I stand by my claim that racing a car at 200mph is more likely to get a person laid than merely trying to fulfill a god's demands about forcing other people to live correctly.Just joking around of course.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well I was talking about getting laid by doing something, not extending survival time. But I will certainly concede your point. Deities, pure fantasy or not, have definitely resulted in many people holding on to life, even bettering themselves.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)