How did homosexuality evolve

How did homosexuality evolve

by A Person | Published on June 21st, 2011, 3:16 pm | Science

It's an interesting question. Gay couples don't breed - or at least not by sharing genes with their partners, so since their reporductive fitness is very low we would at first glance expect homosexuality to be weeded out by natural selection - if it is genetic and not simply a choice.

An interesting article in New Scientist explores the question. Worth reading

Uh... some reproduce...

In fact many gays and lesbians I know have kids whom are genetically theirs by a previous relationship.

Of course you're right, and it may be that some of the explanation for homosexuality in humans has somthnig to do with societal expectations historically pushing them into heterosexual marriages.

However, strictly homosexual couples don't breed and even if they spend part of their life with an opposite gender partner they would still presumably be at a reproductive disadvantage - which we would expect to be selected against.

Assuming that homosexuality is genetic, not epigenetic or learned.

Liv brings up an interesting question. If homosexual couples feel they were "made" the way they ARE yet they feel the need to reproduce then wouldn't that indicate to them that they are "broken" and that homosexuality is NOT normal? If this is the case why wouldn't you want to be "fixed" if you could (as Liv indicates she would not want to be)?

In evolution, diversity is normal.

Liv wrote:In evolution, diversity is normal.

Red Herring.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Liv brings up an interesting question. If homosexual couples feel they were "made" the way they ARE yet they feel the need to reproduce then wouldn't that indicate to them that they are "broken" and that homosexuality is NOT normal? If this is the case why wouldn't you want to be "fixed" if you could (as Liv indicates she would not want to be)?

Why do people have sex using contraception? Does that mean we are 'broken'?

Very little about our lifestyle is 'normal' - we didn't evolve with the drives to survive in the modern world. Just as a porcupine's defense is effective against a cougar (cat) but useless against a Cougar (car)

We are 'made' with a sex drive and a desire to parent. Without it a species (or the genes that we're made from) wouldn't survive in a primitive society. We have all sorts of evolution (genetic) derived drivers or instincts: Eating sugars, fats and high protein diets had good reproductive and survival results in a subsistence feast/famine environment. In out modern sedentary lifestyles it's dangerous and we have the intelligence to realize that, so we suppress or subvert our instincts and diet or eat foods that are lower in fats and sugars. We forgo the ice cream in favour of an apple.

Many of us also have the intelligence to realize that as we have greatly reduced the natural dangers that used to kill our children in infancy, so that virtually all reach adulthood (a most unnatural situation) having more children is bad for the mothers, bad for society and bad for the environment. So we cheat our instincts by using contraception - satiating the libido without the consequences.

In other words, in the gene centric world, humans are just vehicles for the genes survival. Evolution has given us large brains so that we can overide the genetic imperatives in order to meet our goals.

The God of our genes intended us to die in our 40's after having gone forth and multiplied as much as we could and watched three quarters of our children die in infancy.

Maybe, but you're just trying to justify your position of prejudice and bigotry based on your personal interpretation of ancient stories which have no scientific basis in the real world.... So I'd consider my argument valid.

The question of a scientific reason for homosexuality in any given population of mammals holds little immediate interest for me. No doubt it's very interesting to geneticists and other biological specialists, but I don't find the question very interesting. I accept the fact that some people see sex in a different manner from how I do, and I see no reason to be upset about that, in general.

As a member of society, I see sexual violence-- rape and sexual assault-- as more pressing matters to be concerned about.

And at the bottom of my list of concerns is what a bunch of primitive villagers from the Middle East thought on the subject, and how they chose to express those thoughts... By saying that Gods of varying descriptions had the same thoughts as they did.

Agreed, but it is an interesting question why something apparently reproductively unsuccessful should become consistently expressed in a population.

Interesting questions are how knowledge is advanced.

Agreed, but it is an interesting question why something apparently reproductively unsuccessful should become consistently expressed in a population.

Interesting questions are how knowledge is advanced.

Regarding BHL's attempt at a point linking sex drives and parenting instincts: while they may be linked functionally, they sure aren't linked psychologically. I hope not, at any rate. Once upon a time, I engaged in sexual activity. Sorry I have to mention this, for those who know my current physical appearance... Just rest assured things were far different in the too distant past. But I recall that during said activity, my mind had no thoughts about the possible future of midnight feedings, changing diapers and hours of time shared watching Sesame Street.

Sure, my wife and I discussed the matter of reproduction, but that was OUTSIDE of the actual process.

Liv wrote:Maybe, but you're just trying to justify your position of prejudice and bigotry based on your personal interpretation of ancient stories which have no scientific basis in the real world.... So I'd consider my argument valid.

Nope, I'm asking you to back up your claim that homosexuals should not change sexual preferences because they were "born" that way. Your insinuation is that being homosexual is perfectly normal but it is not. If it were then you would not feel the urge to reproduce. Keep in mind here I am NOT discussing the sexual urges but the urge to bear children. I say that if you were a complete homosexual you would not have these urges to reproduce. If you did then you would be "broken".

Let me go with this for arguments sake... Because honestly I find your logic, no offense, lacking perspective and the wisdom while ironically disembodying the religion you claim to follow... but "Okay"...

We had children because like most heterosexual relationships we were stupid, young and had sex with someone not knowing the full repercussions of the responsibility attached to children. That's how most kids come into this world who aren't adopted. The fact we're a lesbian couple who ultimately managed to have a relationship post child-birth and raise the children has nothing to do with our sexuality. For the record, I have absolutely no impulse to have any more children. They're expensive and they smell. Though I'm rather fond of the one's I have.

So back to our "hypothetical situation here".... If I'm so "broken", how do I fix myself? Go to church, praise god? Become heterosexual and abandon a well formed functioning family?

There's a couple problems with that. One if if I wanted to believe in God... I never could. Two I'd be taking the word of some random stranger who has interpreted the Bible for himself and thinks he knows what's better for me and my family than I do. Which would basically mean I'm clinically mad and should be committed. If anything it sounds as if you and your plan to destroy and "break" families apart seem like the less "Christian" thing to do.

Then again perhaps there is a God and he just blessed me and my wife with children to show us we're doing it right, and you're doing it wrong?

Liv wrote:Let me go with this for arguments sake... Because honestly I find your logic, no offense, lacking perspective and the wisdom while ironically disembodying the religion you claim to follow... but "Okay"...

We had children because like most heterosexual relationships we were stupid, young and had sex with someone not knowing the full repercussions of the responsibility attached to children. That's how most kids come into this world who aren't adopted. The fact we're a lesbian couple who ultimately managed to have a relationship post child-birth and raise the children has nothing to do with our sexuality. For the record, I have absolutely no impulse to have any more children. They're expensive and they smell. Though I'm rather fond of the one's I have.

So back to our "hypothetical situation here".... If I'm so "broken", how do I fix myself? Go to church, praise god? Become heterosexual and abandon a well formed functioning family?

There's a couple problems with that. One if if I wanted to believe in God... I never could. Two I'd be taking the word of some random stranger who has interpreted the Bible for himself and thinks he knows what's better for me and my family than I do. Which would basically mean I'm clinically mad and should be committed. If anything it sounds as if you and your plan to destroy and "break" families apart seem like the less "Christian" thing to do.

Then again perhaps there is a God and he just blessed me and my wife with children to show us we're doing it right, and you're doing it wrong?

It is interesting (and sad) this hatred you have for God. I haven't mentioned God or religion not once in this thread yet you seem to be basing all of your arguments using religion as part of your answer. And you still haven't replied to my post properly. How you came into possession of your kids is really not part of the question and neither is how difficult or expensive they are to care for.

Let me put this as simply as I can because either you are throwing red herrings or you just don't understand the question.

Premise #1: You are homosexual.
Premise #2: You want children

"You" in the above premises can mean anybody. Not necessarily Liv Jones. I read about homosexual couples all of the time wanting/trying to have children and going to extreme limits to have one through artificial insemination or adoption. Why would a homosexual person have these urges if they weren't broken? If they weren't broken then they could have children to fulfill those urges.

Adoption or AI is hardly 'extreme'

An inability to conceive children is not an indication the person is 'broken'.

BecauseHeLives wrote:Why would a homosexual person have these urges if they weren't broken?

Most (but not all) people have an urge to procreate built in by our genes. Most people enjoy sex and have an urge to freck. If you actually read the article you might find some answers to your questions about how a process like natural selection and evolution can naturally include a portion of the population that is homosexual and on the surface less reproductively fit. It can't be summed up with a simplistic and insulting 'Gays are broken and not normal'. Homosexuals are normal and natural. They occur naturally in humans and other species

BecauseHeLives wrote: If they weren't broken then they could have children to fulfill those urges.

They can have children to fulfil those urges. As you pointed out by the 'extreme' process of adoption. Are you 'broken' because you adopted? Of course not. Even though you could have fulfiled your urges in the 'unbroken' normal way of crackin and a 9 month pregnancy.

I'm not 'broken' when I enjoy sex using a contraceptive which is totally unnatural and abnormal. It's no more broken than using drugs to cure 'natural' illnesses. Ebola is natural.

Why would a homosexual person have these urges if they weren't broken?

In all honesty... LOVE.

LOVE is your answer. It's always been the answer.