Why does homosexuality exist?

Post Reply New Topic

Since the gene-complex(es) associated with homosexuality only seem to express in somewhere between 2% and 10% of the population (depending on whose figures you accept), it obviously has no effect on the process of human evolution. Remember, after all, that a genome's only concern is reproducing itself - future generations can take care of themselves. If such a small number are shunted into a non-reproductive path, it makes no difference to the species. (Obviously, it must represent a recessive allele, or group of alleles, otherwise it would edit itself out of the genome within a generation or two.)

As for "choice", I don't recall anyone ever asking me my preference - I've just understood that ever since I grasped that girls were different, I enjoyed looking at them, and have always found the male form somewhat ridiculous at best. (Thank heavens most of the women don't feel that way too, or we'd really have problems!) It was never a conscious choice. And if it were, don't you think it would be profoundly stupid for so many to make a conscious choice that would alienate them from so many of their (theoretically) straight brethren? (I've also long been of the opinion that those who really hate and fear homosexuals are those who want to deny and repress their own same-sex tendencies. See Ron White's "proof" that most men are "a little bit gay" - it's both telling and hilarious!)

GreatCeleryStalk is spot on, though. Ancient Greece and Rome had a lot of homosexuality going on. His point about forming attachments and social bonds is really critical. I mean, if you look at various species in nature, some newborn species are quite self-sufficient very soon after being born. Human babies? Human gestation is very long, and babies are utterly helpless for several years, probably at least one full decade if not more. It is also extremely time- and resource-intensive to raise a single human child. If there were no mechanism for reducing male-male intraspecies aggression, human children would be wiped out in a hurry, and then you can say goodbye to the human race. You don't need this mechanism in the lower species because one, fecundity is so high that it's nearly impossible to kill all the offspring anyway, and two, the offspring become self-sufficient and capable of defending themselves and reaching sexual maturity much earlier.

I think this can be taken in the context of sexual peak in human males: sexual peak occurs in late teens to early 20s in most guys, so it would not be too surprising if heterosexuality/bisexuality is more common among younger men. However, it would also make sense for this sexual peak to occur immediately before a prolonged period of homosexuality/bisexuality, as this period is required in order to provide a stable years-long environment to raise young children. It's for this reason that I think bisexuality in humans is the rule and not the exception, but factors such as age and experience in various social situations can make a guy lean more towards heterosexuality or towards homosexuality at different points in his life. I think it's exceptionally rare for a person to be 100% gay or 100% straight, all the time. So rather than the idea that "homosexuality exists because it can", I think it's more that "homosexuality exists because it must".

Last edited by Stinkypuppy on 02 Oct 2009, 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

What are these genes that are associated with homosexuality? If you can, please cite literature to back up the 2-10% figures so I can look them up. I am a geneticist by training.



You are right, a genome is concerned with reproducing itself, but there's more to genome reproduction than merely producing a lot of offspring. There's no point in producing a lot of offspring if the offspring do not survive one full generation time to reach sexual maturity and produce the next generation. Future generations (especially of humans) can not necessarily take care of themselves!

Even though that can be seen a a bit sarcastic, you actually may be on to something there.

Excellent question.
I'm a little shy of excellent answers.
And that even with a couple extended family members and a couple friends who are gay.

What has mystified me so far in this thread is the belief that homosexuals and asexuals can't have children. I mean, the sexual attraction isn't there, but I'm assuming that in the past, when societies were not as enlightened, homosexuals and asexuals were more or less forced to reproduce. I'm guessing it's still like that in some parts of the world.

My theory is the homosexuality exists because sex in superior mammals is a form of comunication and conflict resolution tool. And not only women exist in a society...

For your information, I showed this to my fellow asexuals on AVEN to see what they make of that belief.

I like this reply most:

Homosexuality is NOT a choice, please! As a gay man and an only son, trust me on that one.

The purpose of homosexuals is to create welcome diversity in the world and to add creativity.

There is an excellent book on the subject, it's called "Gay Spirit: Myth and Meaning", by Mark Thompson.

A fantastic book, the author spent over a decade of investigative cultural reporting and research into the ethnicity of the gay subculture, and it has a wide-ranging collection of essays by original and provocative gay thinkers that suggests that gay people have a particular vision and special contribution to make to society.

Most theories about gay people claim that gays are no different from anybody except for what gays "do in bed". Mark Thompson, on the contrary, argues that the gay difference arises from a deeper spiritual place; that gay people experience and interpret reality differently; and that, because of this, their unique contributions are a necessary part of human society on a biological, cultural, and spiritual level.

How does one "force" people to reproduce? One can force people to hide their interests, and to pretend a different interest or none at all, but for men at least, if there's no interest then it seems unlikely anything's going to happen. (With lesbians and asexual women, there's always the option of repeated rape, distasteful as that seems to any civilized being - but it is one way of "forcing" reproduction on them.)

I do have to agree with your unnamed friend, though - so often, people try to attribute some "cause" to the perpetration of a genome, when in fact if it doesn't harm the reproductive capability of its carrier, evolution won't select against it. (What is the purpose of red hair? Or blue eyes? Both are recessive gene complexes that have absolutely no bearing on the individual's ability to reproduce. They happen because they can.)

I believe that homosexuality is just a random set of genes occurring. If it were heredetary, then it obviously would have ceased to exist long ago, since gays tend to be non-breeders

Remember, most people are bi-sexual to some degree. All that means is that it is possible for you to be attracted to members of either sex, even if you seem to be only attracted to one. That special person of the other sex may exist, and you may find him/her.

I, on the other hand, am attracted only to males. Frankly, I find the plumbing of the female to be pretty gross, and am very glad I'm not one

Whenever I find something that strange about myself, I tend to blame it on my AS...

I completely agree with everything you stated, and I SECOND everything in italics.

Agree.
Be homosexual is like be Aspie...

Homosexuality sure is not a choice. I am a transgender MTF, and I know. I don't know why it exists though, all i know is how I feel. It's kinda like asperger's, we don't know why it exists, but we have it.

I don't think I've made myself clear, and I apologize.

I assume that homosexuality is genetically determined because, as I think we've established, it's not just a matter of "making a choice", and very few of the homosexuals of my personal acquaintance were molested as children, so the archaic pop-psychology explanation fails too.

Now, obviously it cannot be a dominant allele, else it would die out in a single generation for lack of reproduction (just as a genetic mutation that leads to early death will prevent its carrier from reproducing). However, it can be passed as a recessive allele, unexpressed unless reinforced, and thus go from generation to generation (like the gene that codes for a weak mitral valve).

It is possible that if/when this allele is discovered, it may provide some sort of protection in its unexpressed form, just as the genes that code for sickle-cell anemia provide some protection against malaria as well...

Curious - if there is a distinct genetic component, perhaps it evidences itself in terms of the duplication/replication of a sequence which then determines where on the 'sexual spectrum' (Kinsey scale?) that one calls on, similar to how Huntington's Disease is found in genetic testing.

I think all human beings have a degree of bisexuality; it is the moral constraints of thought and one's person desires that define how they evidence those aspects of themselves.


M.

Decades ago while I attended collge in California this came up.

First, we studied the Hardy Weinberg principle. Secondly, we evaluated the Minnesota study of monozygotic twins. Third, we studied and evaluated the social position of non-reproducing males in societies (e.g. berdaches)

The Hardy Weinberg principle dictates, at a certain population level, a certain genetic material will remain in the population pool, regardless of the consequences of not passing on the genetic material. In a nutshell, you have two sons which have XY genetic material from the parents. In order for the material to propogate, these sons need to have children.

Almost. The other way is for one son to contribute to the overall welfare of the family. The greater the likelihood of the offspring of the first son surviving and having their own kids, the greater the likelihood of the genetic material propogating.

As long as the family continues propogating genetic material, it does not matter who does the propogation. The genes will be passed along. If homosexuality is a simple dominant expression of genes, then the recessive components will continue to be passed along to offspring.

The MZT studies pointed out that twins typically (I don't remember if it was 100%) identified the same sexually as their counterpart - regardless of adoption, distance, environment, etc. This indicated a genetic component towards sexuality.

The final portion was the social position of a member of the family. If one member of the family was/is an influencial member of the tribe, the likelihood for the family to pass along it's genes was greater. So even if the leader did not procreate, his/her genes did propogate via siblings.

IMO, society doesn't make people gay, it allows bi/homosexuality to be physically expressed. The genetic material, due to the number of people present keeps the genes around.

Babies aren't born tan, but can produce melanin darken their skin after exposure to sunlight.