Population control.

But why must there be an evolutionary purpose? Evolution is a product of random genetic selection. Randomness doesn't have a purpose, otherwise it wouldn't be random. Things in our genetic code might aid survival, some things might hinder it, but a lot of the code is just neutral.

I posted this one here a number of years ago...

Jealousy is common among humans, and two or more potential "alpha males" vying for the same female might threaten the cohesion of a tribal group...

A couple of extra males who didn't compete with leadership for a lady's affections would give the tribe a decided competitive edge...

Similarly, human children with their inordinately long childhoods would benefit from an extra female presence or two to offer caretaking, mentoring, and tutoring of young children...

JMHO, but that one's a no-brainer...



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 08:52PM by SL Cabbie.

They followed and filmed a heard for a year. During rut, when the alpha males were fighting it out for control of the females, beta males would slip in and mate with willing females. Thus we see there's also an evolutionary advantage to not being the alpha male.

I agree with points made by both Mutt and Cabbie.

I'll add that looking at other species, I think it is possible that homosexuality leaves options open. It might be a carryover from other species that use this option too.

For example, with fish, there are species that change gender according to need. Depending on availability of males, a female might begin to take the male role. Or, depending on temperature and conditions, one gender might be needed more than another so members can switch for better breeding output.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it's an extra layer of survival safety. It may not be as developed in humans as it is with fish, but hey, in a few more million years maybe human reproduction systems could be more versatile.

I think there are a lot of reasons why it is sensible that homosexuality should thrive from a biological standpoint. Mostly because it can.

Perhaps the inclusion of productive but non-reproducing members in a population allows for a better chance of raising young to reproductive age.

As a gay man, I see us as being the leaven that broadens the scope of society. Being free from the rigors of child rearing might be seen as allowing for more strictly creative endeavors. I am not saying that parents aren't creative, so lets not fight. Michaelangelo for example.

But male and female brains tend to have gender biased strengths and weaknesses. Women tend to excel in communication, emotional intelligence and design, while men tend to be more agressive and have more spatial and analytical strengths.

In a male dominated society a male whose brain is wired to think more like a female could possibly have an advantage over their competion in roles where those skills are valuable like artist, playwrights, diplomats. Similarly in a society where women may have to deal with more threats and may not have enough men around, a woman with a more masculinized brain may have the advantage. We are all on a continuum and this is broad generalization, but I think there could definitely be advantages to having a brain that thinks diferently than those around you.

That is a silly assumption, like saying blacks like watermelon.

Sexual orientation, sex, and gender are three different things that can occur in any combination and are not always distinct.

Most people identify with the gender that corresponds with their physical sex, and most of them are heterosexual. But a great many people do not align with that norm.

Homosexuality, bi-sexuality, cross-gender, androgyny, and intersex are all naturally occurring variations. A person may be physically male, psychologically identify as female, but be attracted to men, women, or both. Most homosexuals are not cross-gender, so your assertion that homosexual males have the "brain wiring" of a female is misplaced.

Some people have over-simplified views of male/female and are unable to separate these concepts, but they are all different.

According to Quentin Crisp, God made gays so that the truly talented wouldn't be burdened with children.

I think that may have been a little tongue in cheek, but if you look at society and the homosexual contribution, I do think there is something to that. I have always felt there is more to it than a simple sexual preference.

I also think as evolved as man is now, evolution has kept up in such a way that homosexuality plays a much bigger role than that of some survival need, though it may have started out that way.

Our artistic needs have been important since cavemen first drew buffalos on the cave walls, and evolution has geared its changes in humans to even more sophisticated purposes than mere survival. I like to think that anyway.

According to geneticist Dean Hamer, at least some of the genetic code associated with male homosexuality is also associated with high fertility in females. There may not be a genetic advantage to the male, but the fact that the genes contribute to overall human fertility makes it an evolutionary plus.

That's why I'm always amazed at the Mo church and other fundies who waste so much time (and humanity) trying to convert gay people to become straight people.

I always say, maybe there's a reason that God (or nature) wants people to be attracted to the same sex. Something we can only guess at.

Traits do not need a purpose, they just need to survive.

It's heterosexuals that make homosexuals, so as long as there are heteros boinking and breeding, homosexuals will exist.

Oscar Wilde put it best:

"Homosexuality is God's way of ensuring that the truly gifted are not burdened with children."

Homosexuality in men is the biological price paid for birthing masculine men.

Male embryos require testosterone to wire them in masculine ways: high visio-spatial ability, risk taking, large bones & tendons, etc. All of which are necessary for survival in prehistoric times.

Women, after birthing boys, become less sensitive to testosterone so the younger brothers get a lower dose and are far more likely to be gay than 1st born males. Witness the stereotypical gay man: slightly built, effeminate mannerisms, less aggressive, risk averse and verbally inclined.

This poses no survival advantage to a group, who is simply denied genetic variability.

Those who insist every deviation MUST have an evolutionary purpose come up with purely speculative reasons such as the "Gay Uncle" hypothesis, etc.

Is this true?!

Yep.

No grand evolutionary strategy, just a deviation caused by growing immunity to testosterone.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1209914,00.html

Note the absence of a gay gene required. Even in recessive form, that would present a problem to gays reproducing.

Cabbie's remedial English Class will now come to order...

>Now a new study suggests that if you're also gay, they may have had a role in that too

The word is "suggests," and the researcher is a psychologist, not a geneticist or someone with an understanding of physiology...

Wholly maladaptive, my Aunt Sadie...

What's adaptive is the homophobic bigotry that colors your beliefs and perceptions...

It has the survival value of permitting you to avoid cognitive dissonance and serious critical thinking.

Edit: Here's a reasonable review of the literature and the causes, which point out that all embryos start out as "females" but the role of testosterone is reviewed, which creates male genitalia, etc. Its role in "gender orientation" is unknown at this time. And please note the author cited in the Time article gives a figure of 3% of men born gay while the actual figure is 10%.

http://viewzone2.com/homosexual.html

And another that involves twin studies...

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2011 02:34AM by SL Cabbie.

>"What's adaptive is the homophobic bigotry that colors your beliefs and perceptions..."

There is neither phobia nor bigotry. Not sure where you came up with that. Is it because I didn't make up a story about how fewer men competing for females promotes group cohesion? Because I said "deviation"?

Gay men are more likely than straight men to have older brothers. The incidence nearly doubles when one has two older brothers. Facts are facts.

>"The word is "suggests," and the researcher is a psychologist, not a geneticist or someone with an understanding of physiology..."

Cabbie, you don't have a background in psychology, genetics or physiology. You have a 20 yr old English degree and an expired teaching license. You have failed at every intellectual endeavor that you've tried and now drive a cab around and fish for status on internet boards in your free time.

Other work has backed up the original study.

You've offered nothing except some cockamamie 'theory', posted nothing supporting it (not even to speculative evolutionary psychology) then accuse me of scientific illiteracy, bigotry, cognitive dissonance and offering an English class-- though in fairness, your only academic background is actually a BA in English.

You posted links showing testosterone differentiating embryos as though it's some little-known truth or somehow detracts from the older brother facts.

You're a chubby drunkard, a failure at every non-cab driving job you've had and YOU don't have any scientific aptitude.

Same one who hassled me over on a politics site, I'll bet...

Repeating the same misiformation... That graduate program in alcohol and drug counseling included quite a bit of nature/nurture training in a subject a little close to my heart, alcoholism...Including the genetics... Which, incidentally I was reasonably well-versed in as a result of high school (I got bored at that one).

And my English teaching backgrounds allows me to point out that you obviously lack an understanding of what the word "suggests" means in the scientific literature (and I blog on that subject in another "identity" as well; and I promise you my science aptitude was in the 99th percentile). And I've renewed that teaching certificate twice with grad hours in other fields, bub.

Add to that your "because I say so" justifictions, and I'm inclined to bet you're a zoobie by indoctrination; certainly that conclusion, "wholly maladaptive" is pretty diagnostic of an individual in pretty deep denial (another subject I have both practical and professional education in).

And if you'd read the second link, oh selective-attention-sort, you'd see that there is probably a genetic role... More denial on your part, of course...

Just another who was silly enough to get into a swearing contest with a cabbie...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2011 04:16AM by SL Cabbie.

Full disclosure: an old gf's son--whom I still care about, as I do her--was clearly gay from the time he was twelve...

Here's a bit on the incidence of gay uncles that our dishonest poster above dismissed with his cherry picking...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/02/gay-guys-make-great-uncles-maybe-thats-why-theyre-still-among-us.html

>Gay uncles, the study of Samoans found, have a pattern of devoting themselves to their siblings' offspring, selectively paying them more attention than they do unrelated children. Their inclination to dedicate themselves to their nieces and nephews was found by researchers to be not only greater than that of straight uncles and aunts, they also favored their nieces and nephews for attention over other kids more strongly than do heterosexual men and women.

>Having such an attentive gay uncle confers a selective advantage on a child, making it more likely that a child will survive, thrive, prosper and reproduce, researchers surmised. Because of the gay uncle's availability and assumed role as "helper in the nest," researchers say, the child is more likely to grow up and carry his or her uncle's genes forward indirectly (and perhaps in an attenuated form), keeping the "gay gene" alive.

Whoops. Checkmate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2011 04:35AM by SL Cabbie.

He has a younger brother and I have 2.

and the youngest of the 3 is not. This is actually quite prominent in his friends, too--not all, but at least half--where the younger boys are not gay.

So what accounts for lesbians then? His middle sister of 3 is lesbian--the older and younger are not.

I'm to the point that it just doesn't matter what made someone gay.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2011 02:28AM by SL Cabbie.

The fact that homosexuality occurs in many different species (over 1500 the last I checked) and they have even documented it in insects suggest that is not maladaptive. Maladaptive would not survive in so many species.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2011 03:44AM by MJ.

"Maladaptive" assumes a purpose -- one for which the thing in question is not adapted. So what purpose do you have in mind?

Survival of the individual? Homosexuals survive as well as heterosexuals, provided they don't get killed by insecure heterosexuals.

Survival of the species? Homo sapiens has survived rather well, despite non-breeders of all kinds in the mix.

Survival of a certain genetic cluster? If a set of genes isn't "interested" in reproducing itself, then it's perfectly successful if it doesn't reproduce itself.

Or is the "purpose" just something invented by certain humans —— something like totally conformity?

First of all, we need to clean up your dumb question into a smart one.

You MEANT to ask, "Is there a creation-ary purpose to same sex atraction disorder?"

And the answer to that is, "Why would a loving god do that?"

And the answer to THAT question is - read the book of Job.

God loves to fuck your shit up just to see how far he can push you. And he only does THAT because Satan dared him to.

Isn't science fun???

had an advantage because it was someone he could trust who wouldn't be distracted by women and family needs of their own.

Evolution is not a plan, it has products but no purposes.

Or is it mostly a religious/cultural phenomenon?

Not.

For anyone interested, I'm reading a book called "Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation" by Dr. Simon LeVay. It's a review of the scientific evidence regarding sexual orientation written for a general audience.

According to what I've read so far, homosexuality appears to correlate to exposure to sex hormones during prenatal development. Males exposed to lower levels of testosterone are more likely to identify as gay as an adult. Females exposed to higher levels of testosterone may be more likely to be lesbians.

So far the author hasn't discussed an evolutionary pressure for this to exist, but I've heard a couple of theories. One is the super aunt/super uncle theory mentioned in a previous post. A gay aunt or uncle won't reproduce, so instead of supporting a family they can help support their nieces and nephews.

Another theory is that homosexuality is sort of a byproduct of having fertile siblings. There is evidence that the sisters of gay men are more fertile and more likely to produce healthy offspring. Remember, evolution occurs at the species level, it's not about survival of the individual. Traits that lead to homosexuality don't contribute to the survival of the homosexual, but they could contribute to the overall survival of the species.