Evolutionary reason for homosexuality?

Sternwallow wrote

Yet one can't "catch" gayness from mere proximity to gay people, teachers, for instance.

Really? Fuck, have I been wrong all these years.

Influence in the form of sexual encounters , perhaps. Or sexual experiences of any kind. Or sexual thoughts. Personally I wouldn't even consider coprophilia even a year ago. It's not an orientation in the sense that homosexuality is, but still.

[Choobus]

Sternwallow wrote

Yet one can't "catch" gayness from mere proximity to gay people, teachers, for instance.

However, jeebus can cure gayness (just ask haggard). Truly, the Lord is said to work in completely unbelievable ways.

[Professor Chaos]

Does anyone know where evolution put my keys?

[nkb]

skribb wrote

Influence in the form of sexual encounters , perhaps. Or sexual experiences of any kind. Or sexual thoughts. Personally I wouldn't even consider coprophilia even a year ago. It's not an orientation in the sense that homosexuality is, but still.

Does that mean you consider it now?

Homosexuality is similar to any other type of sexual desire in that it is not a choice to be sexually aroused by it, it just is sexually arousing for some people.

I couldn't even fathom voluntarily being covered in shit for sexual purposes (or for any other purpose), but I can accept that others derive pleasure from it, and I support their freedom to do so.

[nkb]

Sternwallow wrote

Yet one can't "catch" gayness from mere proximity to gay people, teachers, for instance.

In the case of gay teachers, that is usually not the concern for parents. They are worried that the teacher will sexually abuse their son, not necessarily make him gay.

Of course, that uses the ridiculous stereotype that a gay man is necessarily a sexual predator, but that's a whole different discussion.

[Professor Chaos]

nkb wrote

Of course, that uses the ridiculous stereotype that a gay man is necessarily a sexual predator, but that's a whole different discussion.

They're not all predators?

But...but...that guy? That guy that Lily knew in Massachusetts? I thought he represented every gay man or woman since the dawn of man?

[nkb]

Anecdotal evidence only applies when Lily uses it as proof. So, in that case, it would be true.

[nkb]

psyadam wrote

Hey, does anyone know what scientists have decided the evolutionary reason for homosexuals are? Just curious. Thanks.

To address the original question of this thread, I think it's a logical fallacy to assume that every deviation from the norm is somehow beneficial in terms of evolution.
Evolution does not have a goal. Even if homosexuality was purely genetic, there is no inherent reason behind it.

That's kind of like arguing why evolution is making humans taller (on average).

[Irreligious]

nkb wrote

In the case of gay teachers, that is usually not the concern for parents. They are worried that the teacher will sexually abuse their son, not necessarily make him gay.

Of course, that uses the ridiculous stereotype that a gay man is necessarily a sexual predator, but that's a whole different discussion.

Lock up your sons, daughters and grandmas, folks, 'cause all men--gay, straight and bi-- are pigs. And that's why they're into porkin'. All of 'em, just quakin' for that bacon.

[nkb]

Irreligious wrote

Lock up your sons, daughters and grandmas, folks, 'cause all men--gay, straight and bi-- are pigs. And that's why they're into porkin'. All of 'em, just quakin' for that bacon.

But the majority of the pigs are quakin' for the fully cured bacon, I would hope.

[Kate]

Irreligious wrote

Lock up your sons, daughters and grandmas, folks, 'cause all men--gay, straight and bi-- are pigs. And that's why they're into porkin'. All of 'em, just quakin' for that bacon.

nkb wrote

Evolution does not have a goal. Even if homosexuality was purely genetic, there is no inherent reason behind it.

Evolution does not have a goal, true, but I think it's a valid question to ask what kinds of competitive advantages a behaviour might convey (purely genetic or not) given that it is common in the animal world. You at least have to explain why that "deviation" is not heavily selected against. I took that to be the meaning behind the question.

[nkb]

whoneedscience wrote

Evolution does not have a goal, true, but I think it's a valid question to ask what kinds of competitive advantages a behaviour might convey (purely genetic or not) given that it is common in the animal world. You at least have to explain why that "deviation" is not heavily selected against. I took that to be the meaning behind the question.

I'm no expert on evolution, so pardon me if I say something stupid.

I'm not saying it is or isn't an advantage, even though in the purely "natural selection" view, it can't be, since homosexual animals are less likely to reproduce.
And, would we necessarily see the selection process in the relatively small window that we've been studying this issue in the animal kingdom? It's not like we can go back in the fossil record and determine the sexuality of animals, and whether they became extinct or not because of it.

My background is the same as yours, nkb. I guess the only thing I take issue with is the automatic assumption that natural selection must necessarily select against homosexuality. That would be like saying that natural selection breeds against cooperation, when in fact we see cooperative behaviour all over the place.

I also don't think it's a small observational window when you see a behaviour in chimps, penguins, etc, although I see what you mean.