Homosexuality and natural selection

[ALawPoker]

Tweety, you seem to be looking at sexuality in too black/white of a manner. IMO, it is nothing concrete, and everyone is basically a shade of bi. Most people are just effectively "gay" or "straight" cause that's what becomes logistically sound. I'm no expert on this stuff, but I would say many if not most "straight" people have either some attraction to the same sex or at least a capacity to be attracted to the same sex.

So I don't think it's as simple as thinking "gay" people just stop reproducing. "Gay" is just a label, and not a concrete description of what's actually going on. There's no way to know exactly what traits will be selected for in the future. But, it's not exactly impossible for gay people to find a way to procreate today, and you can assume it's likely to only get easier in the future.

I have a loose theory (I guess it's sort of similar to the gay uncle thing) that the magical hand of evolution makes it so a being whose survival is more secured will have a higher capacity for same sex attraction as a defense against promiscuity. As your time preference is lowered, basically, you get more gay as a means of protecting against unwanted offspring. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Then, if you do reproduce, it's increasingly more likely that you were in a position where you really wanted the child and are ready to be a great parent, thus increasing the likelihood that your offspring will make good decisions, thus perpetuating the cycle.

It makes sense in my head but it's sort of hard to put it in words. Feel free to flame my theory (pun very intended).

[willie24]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a loose theory (I guess it's sort of similar to the gay uncle thing) that the magical hand of evolution makes it so a being whose survival is more secured will have a higher capacity for same sex attraction as a defense against promiscuity. As your time preference is lowered, basically, you get more gay as a means of protecting against unwanted offspring.


[/ QUOTE ]

in the current era, where almost everyone survives through puberty, i don't see how unwanted offspring or promiscuity could possibly reduce your chances, biologically.

[CORed]

Another possibility is that a recessive "gay gene" confers some sort of survival advantage in heterozygous individuals. What that might be I have no idea (better fashion sense gives males with one copy of gay gene a better chance of getting laid? :-) ).

This would be analogous to sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, both lethal recessives. However, people with just one copy of the sickle cell gene have increased resistance to malaria, and people with one copy of the cystic fibrosis gene have better resistance to water-borne diarrheal diseases (leading cause of infant and child mortality where sanitation is bad, which was just about everywhere until 100 years or so ago).

Actually, I suspect that the reality is much more complex. There is probably a gene, or more likely several genes, that create a pre-disposition to homosexuality, but there are probably psychological factors that trigger it, as previous poster suggested. There still may be some sort of survival advantage to the gene or genes. Non-genetic developmental effects could be a factor, too, such as hormone levels in the mother. It seems to me that I have read of studies of identical twins, and there was something like a 50% concordance rate. If it was purely genetic, it should be 100%. Of course, the true number may well be higher, due to one twin being in the closet and one openly gay. Also, twin studies don't control for psychological factors, since ususally both twins grew up in the same home. Finding enough gay identical twins separated at birth to make a significant sample could be difficult, though.

And of course, it is correct that gay vs. straight is not a black-and-white matter. Many straight people have gay sex at some time in their lives, and vice versa. Sometimes the heterosexual encounters by "gay" people produce children. Also, quite a few lesbian women have children with donor sperm, sometimes using gay men as the donors, so I don't think homosexuality is going to be completely selected out any time soon.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
Another possibility is that a recessive "gay gene" confers some sort of survival advantage in heterozygous individuals. What that might be I have no idea (better fashion sense gives males with one copy of gay gene a better chance of getting laid? :-) ).


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly, there exist genes that give people a higher sex drive and impel them to have more sex and procreate more than other people. An over-concentration of these genes causes people to sexually target members of the same sex rather than the opposite sex as with normal heterosexuals.

OK, maybe not, but that at least sounds plausible, right?

[Aver-aging]

K, seriously, did anyone even bother reading my first response? Jesus. I feel so.. so.. so.. neglected!!!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If homosexuality is genetic (trendy view nowadays and one I actually agree with), now that it is increasingly ok to come out of the closet, won't homosexuality be naturally selected out? (i.e the gay gene won't be passed on). In past generations homosexuality was repressed and so gay people were forced into child-producing hetrosexual relationships. As that changes, will homosexuality be naturally selected out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it has not been naturally selected out, as a matter of fact. That says it all! Your question rest on incorrect premises.

Homosexuality was not/is not repressed in all cultures at all times either, by the way.

[foal]

What I can't figure out is how sexual pleasure derived from being on the receiving end of anal sex evolved. Is there an evolutionary benefit to taking it up the bum (applies to both men and women)? And how could something like that evolve from a simple mutation?

[foal]

Maybe it's so we'd enjoy pooping and not hold it in.

[ChrisV]

this thread has more drivel in it than any thread I have read on SMP in the last six months.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's so we'd enjoy pooping and not hold it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah probably.