How does evolution explains homosexuality?
The going theory is that a gene which, in women, increases their maternal capacities (makes their breasts bigger and some other stuff…I read about it in Matt Ridley’s Genome–can’t remember all the details), in men produces a homosexual orientation. The gene has survived because it’s selectively advantageous for women; for the dudes, however, it doesn’t make them 100% attracted to men, so “genetically gay” men still often procreate. I’m pretty sure genetics is not known to DETERMINE one’s sexuality, but it can significantly slant things one way or the other.
Isn’t arguable that most people don’t have an exclusive sexual orientation? That way there’s no real need to explain homosexuality (other than as a recreational activity 
)?
Well we have to explain sex and sexual reproduction or the lack thereof for that seemingly is the supreme reason why things evolve: survival of the species via natural selection, ie the variant that adapts best, or more strictly speaking, reproduces most numerously is the one that “wins” in this game of survival aka life.
So if humans have no “sexual orientation” doesnt that have to be explained by evolution too? for doesnt that diminished the human as a species from propagating itself and surviving? And also “recreational sex” need to be explained for from an evolutionist’s perspective this is a wasteful non productive activity that dont go to help a species survive, or does it? 
Homosexuality or the lack of sexual orientation perhaps can be explained as a “reverse adaptation” of sorts, ie when the population of a species get too large to sustain itself, then homosexuality, or if it is genetic based, genes that promote homosexuality, gets favoured and gets reproduced and so naturally slow down or reverse the population growth.
Remember it has also been reported that animals are observed to be homosexual too.
Well just because something is wasteful doesn’t necessarily mean it gets selected out of the gene pool. It could be carried alongside other genetically advantageous traits.
However, waste can be used to criticize the design argument for God. If the biological world was created by an intelligent being, it must be a being that does not value efficiency, and a being that does not particularly care about the large amounts of suffering it has put its creation through.
I said it is “wasteful” from the evolutionist’s perspective, ie “survival of the fittest”. Now you can’t blame God for evolution if you have denied God in the first place, and instead prop up Evolution on the pedestal that was once God’s, can you? You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
But even if you acknowledged God and even if we accept primae facie that it is “wasteful” from a reproductive perspective, who are we to criticise God for being inefficient? We, conceivably, do not and perhaps can never know all of the reasons for God’s design even to begin to question him, how can we then, rationally and sensibly speaking, dare conclude and critique his design as flawed?
chanbengchin, I think you’ve misinterpreted me, which wasn’t hard, I wasn’t being as clear as I could have been. I meant that there is probably a spectrum within homosexuality, bisexuality and hetrosexuality, which leaves these terms, on their own, rather inadequete.
But, yeah, I was going to say something similar. In my opinion, homosexuality is just a way for animals to experience sexual satistfaction, without the risk of ovepopulation.
Human beings in their primitive habitat are naturally social, existing in packs not unlike wolves. According to Desmin Morris the reason people engage in sex more often than needed for procreation is to bond emotionally and releave stress, stronger bonds of course strengthening the overall survivability of a tribe.
What Morris doesn’t say that would make sence to me about homosexuality: Why doesn’t the same idea of bonding individuals and realeving stress apply here? If you look at greek history (sparta, namely) the homosexual unions have been largely regarded to improve even something as suposedly unsexual as the military by strengthening human bonds.
I’ve never read this written anywhere, but it rather makes sence. Homosexuality serves every evolutionary purpose that heterosexuality does except reproduction. And as i’m sure we’ve all figured out, people screw alot more that nessisary and I’m sure you can think up your own reasons. It’s the same for queers.
d
There is homosexual (although not ‘exclusive’) behavior in other primates, and it goes along w/ what Dallas Ann is saying… there is the use of sexuality in other primates to relieve stress or to celibrate… and not solely for reproduction. If you want sources I have to put more effort into it 
I gots other stuff ta do… 'Course w/ a little research, you could find those same sources, but that’s just me rationalizing my laziness haha.
On another thread (the one about the gender test), Smooth (I think) mentioned the monkeys who would beat the crap out of a monkey for going up the latter – this (social pressure), I feel, is one reason (one, because there is the reason/are the reasons ‘behind’ the social pressure) we have gender stratification and why we associate sexual orientation w/ gender/sex. But the social pressure is gradually changing.
I don’t think that homosexual male’s stick penis’ in anus’ just because they have nothing else to do and they want to feel closer to their fellow man. Damn, I want to get closer to my fellow man, but there is no way in hell I’m going to start packing fudge or biting pillows in order to do it. We could go to a bar, drink, laugh, sing some karokee and bond that way!
I really think that homosexual males are attracted to their fellow males. Why is this concept so freaking hard to grasp. Nature needs us to not overpopulate. What better way than to ensure that a certain percentage of a species doesn’t reproduce.
I personally never denied it… it is not hard to grasp at all. Granted – attraction and behavior do not necessarily corelate… but I do tend to include both (and not even necessarily the latter) in the definition of (human) homosexuality (in the context of social pressure).
That may have something to do with it. But, certainly not everything. Much of ‘attraction’ (including heterosexual) is influenced by social norms for beauty/eroticicity (is that even a word? lmao), individual life experience, and so on… (nurture).
I never understand why some heterosexuals call gay men fudge packers and lesbians carpet munchers. As if heterosexuals don’t enjoy anal and oral sex…?
I agree with what you were implying, She. Of course the whole nature/nurture issue comes in here, and at a time when we are just at the begining of understanding the complexities of the mind it really is all speculation. Societys impact on the number of homosexuals seems to be more of an issue of peoples capacity to deal with it in themselves rather than what they are born with. How else do you explain societys in which all or nearly all individuals were homosexual? Was it a genetic trait that was just not wiped out by the time the Romans came along? After 10000 of potentially homosexuality-eliminating years I doubt it.
My personal opinion is that every human beging has the capacity to be socialized to homosexuality or heterosexuality without trauma (like being raped or something.) And the socializing theory (concepts of beauty and eroticicity (sounds like a word to me 
) goes hand in hand with the evolutionary theory. We have the capacity because depending on the circumstances, our highly adaptable species may have the need or want to use it.
I don’t think, Smooth, it has much to do with your personal reasons or preferances. Sure, you don’t want to have sex with a man. But how sure are you of where how and why you are influcenced by your parents raiseing, historical heritige, subliminal religious ideals, standardized society ect. Without decades of intense psychoanalysis, and maybe not even then, our personal thoughts and feelings are so tangles in influences you can’t really know whats you and what has been made into you. I apply this same concept to myself of course.
Maybe the “homosexual gene” was never meant to be propagated.
If we accept that our genes undergo random mutation from time to time, one of these mutation may have led to homosexual offsprings. But by natural selection since homosexuals cannot breed these mutations will die out immediately. And so in every generation there is a sprinkling of homosexuals but they all die out in that generation without propagation.
However due to cultural and social norms and values, something entirely not genetic (and therefore not “natural”?), such as the continuation of family name, need for young to contribute to the economic well being of a society, etc, these homosexuals become forced by societal and peer pressure to breed too, and thus passing on the gene, although unintended by Nature.
Now that society have accepted homosexuality, perhaps order in nature can be restored, but not entirely. For there are still those who are secretly homosexual, for reasons such as conformance and acceptance to their social group being something more important than being themselves.
While I do not know every human on the planet, I have noticed in my megar experiance that that sexual oreintation is RARELY exclusive to the point of never being able to breed because of it. In fact, it is very unusual (in fact, the term is ‘purebred’) for a gay person to have never had sex with the other gender. I don’t know anyone to be 100% one way. And you have to take into account the mass repression of feelings taboo’s tend to cause, anthropologically speaking.
Although, to validate your point, what you said about homosexuals being unable to breed could come into play when combined with the insitution of marrige. If you are only allowed to have non-bastard children, then if the thought of pairing up with the other gender for life turns your stomach, well then you might not breed. (I’m suspisious of the number of life-long spinsters)
I think my point is that between the numbers 1 and 100, exact 1’s and exact 100’s equals 2%. I know its not that mathmatical, but it seems to me that historically, homosexuality has never given you the equivalent of sterility. It took forced homosexual adaptation of every citizen (again, Sparta) to reduce the population significantly over however many centuries. Is there a society were it occured without forceing, or even after tabooing it where homosexuality became exclusive enough to disallow their breeding? I have never heard of that happening.
Evolution proves that homosexual Sodomy is a deathstyle choice and not a genetic disorder. It is impossible for homosexual Sodomites to procreate and pass on their genes.
Moderate Centrist –
so to remain celibate is a deathstyle choice… to have sex even though you’re unable to conceive is a deathstyle choice… to adopt instead, even though you could have conceived, is a deathstyle choice… to do anything other than reproduce like rabbits is a deathstyle choice… any other motive for sex besides reproduction must be a deathwish… love… love must be a deathwish… pleasure must be a deathwish… an orgasm must be the most deadly aspect of life you could ever imagine…
Did you know that at some point, this damn earth is going to get so crowded… it just may pop? It just may! At the rate we’re doin’ it (Brooklyn accent)… reproduction is a deathstyle choice…
That was a fantastic response She.
i concur. she, you rock my epistemological experience 
ty