On the causes of sexual orientation

quote:

---

THEREFORE: Heterosexual orientation is entirely consistent with biological principles that improve a population’s wellbeing, while homosexual orientation is detrimental to a population’s wellbeing because it does nothing to protect it from the ravages of Darwinian NS.

​

Does science know enough about homosexual orientation to refute any of the WHEREAS statements and alter the THEREFORE statement?

---

This same reasoning might be used for peacock feathers. (An apt analogy given how fabulous homosexuals can be).In all seriousness, the answer is a complicated one. It's almost certainly the case that homosexuality has a strong biological component. However, how much of that role is genetic, epigenetic, or developmental isn't entirely known.In any case, homosexuality is observed across many, many species, from penguins to elephants to dogs to chimps. Thus, there must be something either beneficial or selectively neutral about homosexuality for it to persist.In wolves, mounting behavior between males is done to establish a dominance hierarchy. The same is true for rabbits, though humping behaviors persist even after neutering and is done by both genders. In bonobo chimps, lesbianism helps ease the stresses of inter-population migration. This last observation would seem to be a distinct positive effect.

quote:

---

BB, is it fair to call any of these examples a true form of homosexuality? I've seen dogs hump pillows, babies, and people's legs, but that doesn't prove they're homosexual.

---

Well, at the very least it provides reasoning for my choice of names.I do know of several reports where animals have engaged in pure same-sex relationships at the exclusion of opposite-sex relationships (such as the zoo penguins that had romanced each other and were even given a fake egg to tend to). There were news reports a few years ago of sheep engaging in homosexual activities, ignoring the opposite sex. In fact, this phenomenon was so significant that scientists did studies of sheep brains on this. The wikipedia article has plenty of examples in which homosexuality appears to be a social activity rather than one of simple horny rutting. I'm afraid I don't have access to the university network, so I can't provide any primary sources. However, if you do find some papers you're interested, give me a link and I can download them for your perusal next week.Now I've gotta go. There's a pillow in the corner there that's looking mighty attractive right now.

quote:

---

I don't see how homosexuality could be beneficial to a population's evenly proportioned reproductive success amongst individuals, which is required to prevent NS. Homosexuals don't seek out relationships that participate in a population's reproductive activity.

---

The same might be said of altruism and kin selection, though. Such behaviors are detrimental to the individual's fitness, but they improve the fitness of the population as a whole.As we've seen with species like the bonobos, there definitely seems to be a societal benefit to their lesbianism.I recently learned of another hypothesis though, whereby homosexuality may be an X-linked trait that causes a behavioral change in women who have it, increasing their motivation to mate with other men. Males who have this chromosome and turn out gay might just be a side-effect. There's a book here. It looks interesting but I haven't read it.EDIT:

quote:

---

Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep study

---

Ah there we go. This'll make some frat boys happy, for sure.Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I am certain I know what caused my heterosexuality. I can't speak for women and their heterosexuality, but I can say for sure that I got it from my Y chromosome. If another man has a Y chromosome, just as I do, then I don't know why he prefers to have sex with men instead of women. It is up to him to explain why this is NOT an aberration of the normal male condition, and also to explain why it deserves access to heterosexual institutions.

​

”HM

---

"Abberations" as you put it still are the result of some sort of causal phenomenon, which are often very complex. Heterosexuality in the crude sense certainly isn't Y-chromosome-dictated... after all, women are heterosexual. Neither is attraction to men (again, women). It's a specious hypothesis at best.As much as I'd like to address topic, "why should homosexuals have access to heterosexual institutions?", the matter is a moral question, not a scientific one. If you're interested in this problem, it may be best to start a new thread.

EDIT: Whoops, already posted.Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So I am curious how those who proclaim "homosexuality is a choice" can explain exactly how this particular guppy 'chose' to be gay?

---

It's a conspiracy from homosexuals to push their Gay Agenda and erode the traditional nuclear family of one man, one woman, and hundreds of eggs.

quote:

---

Nosy, anything that affects the reproductive success of individuals in a population will invite NS. That is true because NS is precisely defined as differential reproductive success of individuals across a population.

​

A population experiences no NS if it comprises no differential reproductive success amongst its individuals. But if some members of a population fail to engage in successful reproduction, that means that THERE IS differential reproductive success amongst its individuals. Therefore, they contribute to the NS process by failing to reproduce.

​

”HM

---

Absolutely. And this study has shown that homosexuality has a positive effect on reproductive fitness which counterbalances the negative one.In women, the "gay gene" appears to enhance reproduction, while in men the "gay gene" will reduce reproduction.Just as Nosy said, the analogy to the SCA gene is an apt one. Sure, a good mix of this gene in a population is going to be fatal for some individuals, but across the board it's still going to result in improved reproductive fitness.It's important to remember that populations evolve, not individuals. Some dudes not fathering children isn't going to affect the women in the population from getting pregnant and giving birth to highly fecund females and gay males.Edited by BeagleBob, : No reason given.

quote:

---

BeagleBob, just checking on one point here. You know that there is a difference between fecundity and NS. Fundity is a measure of a female's ability to make babies. It is not a measure of NS itself. NS happens when the fecundity of females is differentially distributed across a population. Thus, when some females become more fecund than others their population undergoes natural selection. The study cited by Nosy does not address differential fecundity, which is tantamount to NS.

​

”HM

---

Please tell me you aren't saying that fecundity is unrelated to natural selection.If GirlA has twice as many children as GirlB, she's spreading her genes more effectively.

quote:

---

And I don't really believe anymore that it has to be a bad aberration, even if that was how I was taught by my football teammates in the locker room.

---

Well hello there. In all fairness, it could be said that blond hair and blue eyes are also "abberations." After all, they are the result of rare, defective genes that eliminate the ability to produce pigment in the cells of the eye and hair follicles."Aberration" is a strong word for something that is just a rare mutation distinct from a wild-type.

quote:

---

The silliest question on this thread is "What causes heterosexuality?" That's like asking What causes testicles? The only thing I know of that causes my heterosexuality is the testosterone surging through my system. And for some odd reason I have gotten the notion that this is the way it's supposed to be.

---

Christ, you're 70 years old? Don't you recall how in the 1950s homosexuality was "treated" with hormone supplements that didn't work at all? How can you maintain that "testosterone" is an adequate answer to the issue of the biological difference between homo and heterosexuality?Hell, Alan Turing, one of the greatest minds of your generation, committed suicide because he was forced to take hormones that made him sterile and obese.

quote:

---

Was he forced? I knew he was gay, but he was crazy smart, too, like so many geniuses. Maybe he was predisposed to suicide.

---

It was the 50s. Of course he was forced.He pulled a Snow White and ate an apple injected with cyanide.