homosexuality disproves evolution

[Rainbow Mage]

What about homosexuality being nature's population control? Like haven't some put forth that in animals with high populations more of the specie are born homosexual?

 

[Koldo]

This is my own hypothesis. I thought it up myself. There is evidence out there for the pieces of it:

Women outnumber adult men.
Even more so in hunter-gatherer cultures.
Female sexuality tends to be more flexible, responsive and relationship-oriented than male sexuality.
Men are often willing to have sex with women without being willing or able to help raise the children they conceive.
Exclusive lesbians are rare: <1% of adult women.
Many women discover their capacity for lesbian relationships late in life.
Children with two parents survive and thrive better than children with one parent.
Etc.

Even today it is common to encounter lesbian couples raising the children that one of them bore in a heterosexual relationship.

I see. Yet, wouldn't it be possible for humans to live in groups? There is no need for homosexuality if they lived in groups.
Males have a constant desire for sexual relation, wouldn't it be normal for them to try to secure women for their own? Isn't our society a result of this?
Also, forming a bond with someone is different than being homosexual. You can , for example, raise children with another woman and not have any sexual relation with them. Keep in mind the males are always coming back for more sex.

Also, male homosexuality could be seen as a common behavior if for some reason there is no female to have sex with. Two possible situations such as : 1) A predator, such as a tiger, killed the females in the area. 2) There is a strong male which is securing the only females in the area, and the other males are afraid of him.

Just some of my random thoughts....

 

[Gunfingers]

As far as I know human beings have been more-or-less monogomous for as long as we've been humans, so the need for females to pair up and raise children on their own probably wasn't there outside of a certain Greek island, nor am I aware of a dearth of males in hunter-gatherer societies (though I would certainly like to live in such a society!). Plus most incidences of relationships where a male sires children with multiple females are polygynous.

 

[Koldo]

As far as I know human beings have been more-or-less monogomous for as long as we've been humans

Really? Interesting.

 

[Gunfingers]

Do you actually find that interesting, or is that an "I'm about to tell you why you're wrong" interesting? Because i'm not an expert here, i'm just channeling high school history classes and The History Channel.

 

[McBell]

As far as I know human beings have been more-or-less monogomous for as long as we've been humans,

Based on what, exactly?
I mean, have you done any actual research on this or is it just "common sense"?

 

[Gunfingers]

Based on what, exactly?
I mean, have you done any actual research on this or is it just "common sense"?

If I had research I wouldn't have said "as far as I know". I mean, I can find some supporting evidence. For example according to wikipedia our balls match the more-or-less monogomous relationship style. Seriously. Anyway, that indicates that monogomy has been a part of the human condition long enough for it to have an evolutionary impact.

 

[McBell]

If I had research I wouldn't have said "as far as I know". I mean, I can find some supporting evidence. For example according to wikipedia our balls match the more-or-less monogomous relationship style. Seriously. Anyway, that indicates that monogomy has been a part of the human condition long enough for it to have an evolutionary impact.

This sounds more like ratification than evidence...

 

[Gunfingers]

This sounds more like ratification than evidence...

Yeah...well...YOU SOUND LIKE A POOPY-HEAD!

 

[McBell]

Yeah...well...YOU SOUND LIKE A POOPY-HEAD!

I am not trying to be offensive.
I am merely saying that you made a rather bold claim and now seem to be scrambling to support it.

 

[Gunfingers]

I am not trying to be offensive.
I am merely saying that you made a rather bold claim and now seem to be scrambling to support it.

I...made an unsupported claim, admitted from the start that I was only aware of limited evidencial support for it, and provided it on request. Basically the same thing Auto did, except everyone called me on mine. Probably because mine doesn't involve lesbians.

 

[Autodidact]

Homosexuality can hardly be said to have an evolutionary effect or meaning, at least until it is established how it influences the odds of surviving and having offspring.

Personally, I think I good case can be made that homosexuality is in part a response to excessive social pressures, and therefore more of an evidence of evolution than against it.

But really, it is a stretch either way.

Well speaking as a homosexual with an empirical/scientific approach to life, I think it's obvious that, at least at first glance, homosexuality has a counter-reproductive effect. I mean, it's not that homosexuals can't reproduce, (I have 3 kids myself) but that to the extent that someone does not engage in heterosexual behavior, their chances of reproducing go down.

 

[Autodidact]

What about homosexuality being nature's population control? Like haven't some put forth that in animals with high populations more of the specie are born homosexual?

I don't think that works with evolution. Evolution starts with individuals, not groups. You have to grasp the actual mechanism, which is simply progeny passing on genes. If you, the individual, have fewer progeny, then your genes will be passed on less.

 

[Autodidact]

I see. Yet, wouldn't it be possible for humans to live in groups? There is no need for homosexuality if they lived in groups.

Well, humans do live in groups. However, our core relationships are pair bonds and parent/child.

Males have a constant desire for sexual relation, wouldn't it be normal for them to try to secure women for their own?

Human males seem to pursue both basic strategies: long term pair bonds and casual sexual encounters. This seems pretty universal.

Isn't our society a result of this?

I don't know, and I doubt that society is primarily a result of anything men do, more likely to be the result of women or men + women, IMO.

Also, forming a bond with someone is different than being homosexual. You can , for example, raise children with another woman and not have any sexual relation with them.

You can, but due to biology, nothing cements a pair bond like sex, especially for women.

Keep in mind the males are always coming back for more sex.

That can happen as well.

But there just aren't enough husbands to go around.

Also, male homosexuality could be seen as a common behavior if for some reason there is no female to have sex with. Two possible situations such as : 1) A predator, such as a tiger, killed the females in the area. 2) There is a strong male which is securing the only females in the area, and the other males are afraid of him.

Maybe. However, this does not lead to reproduction.

It helps to keep your eye on the ball: survival and reproduction.

 

[Koldo]

Well, humans do live in groups. However, our core relationships are pair bonds and parent/child.

Yes, but the problem you were presenting was the lack of means to raise children. If humans engage in a group where children are watched over by the group rather than individual then the problem is solved.

Human males seem to pursue both basic strategies: long term pair bonds and casual sexual encounters. This seems pretty universal.

Correct. If each male firms a long term bond then the problem may be solved too. It all depends on how many males were willing to do so, and also what was proportion of males to females back then. Not forgetting that polygamy was also a possibility.

I don't know, and I doubt that society is primarily a result of anything men do, more likely to be the result of women or men + women, IMO.

It is men + women. What i said is that men were important to estabilish how our society is nowadays. If there was no intent on their part to firm a long term bond with women, then things would be very different.

You can, but due to biology, nothing cements a pair bond like sex, especially for women.

Even if this is true, it is not a requirement.

That can happen as well.

But there just aren't enough husbands to go around.

Do you have evidence for this back in hunter-gatherer times?

Maybe. However, this does not lead to reproduction.

It helps to keep your eye on the ball: survival and reproduction.

Why would this be related to reproduction? I lost you in here.

 

[Autodidact]

As far as I know human beings have been more-or-less monogomous for as long as we've been humans, so the need for females to pair up and raise children on their own probably wasn't there outside of a certain Greek island, nor am I aware of a dearth of males in hunter-gatherer societies (though I would certainly like to live in such a society!). Plus most incidences of relationships where a male sires children with multiple females are polygynous.

There is already a disproportion in modern societies: more women than men. (Because females have a higher survival rate.) When you add in war and intra-tribal conflict, this is exacerbated.

O.K., I just poked around Google with no success (yet.) It looks like it's complicated, varies, and is highly influenced by female infanticide.

 

[camanintx]

It is because heterosexual males get turned on watching it, leading to further human reproduction.

I'm with DarkSun on this one.

 

[The Wizard]

How does a genetic factor override conscious will power and freedom of choice? I mean, a person had to arrive at the fork in the road and be aware of it- to inturn choose it. They did not just unconsciously glide into the lifestyle without being aware and choosing it at the same time.

Upon that, evolution would be a genetic mutation to benefit and progress the gene line, not to end it. Unless I'm mistaken. Am I wrong? So, that don't compute either. Another one.. How can a scientist even identify a so called, gay gene? Does the gene look at him and say "Hi, I'm the gay gene. Don't you see the big G and gay lifestyle intructions imprinted on me? That gene could be for anything, but just so happens to be found more often amongst homosexuals -if it even exists.

I would have to see this so called gene with my own 2 eyes to believe it in any degree. And, I don't see how a gender behaving as the opposite of their own gender/sex could be considered natural in anyway (i.e. physically, emotionally, socially, genderly, etc). I myself just subscribe it to someone's own choices, experiences and envirement more than any "genetic role." Because I am not waiting for the bi-sexual gene to be discovered either, lol..IMO.

 

[McBell]

Well that certainly clears it right up then.
I mean since you cannot understand it, it must not exist...

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Not as opposed to, but I'm sure you agree that the difference between men and women is sex, and female homosexuality and male homosexuality are quite different in how they relate to reproduction. For that reason, there is no reason that the evolutionary explanation for them should be the same. Indeed, it would be surprising if they were.

I can accept that I suppose.

So I'm not criticizing male homosexuality, my explanation simply does not cover it.*

Fair enough...I jumped to an incorrect conclusion in this instance, my apologies.

More? Have you seen me exhibit prejudice?

Judging (perhaps incorrectly) from your posts on the subject of homosexuality.
Like your repeated mention of the absence of lesbianism in the Bible for example.
You seem to think female homosexuality is more 'natural' and perhaps in generalistic terms more acceptable to human society at large...perhaps for the reasons you have given.
A belief that I feel could lead to the further isolation/demonisation of male homosexuals in society...if not female ones.

You do? How do you know that?

I may be wrong.

O.K. it's like this. In the ancestral environment (always bear in mind that the ancestral environment is hunter-gatherer) there are substantially fewer men than women. Since a single male can impregnate many females, and because of the way male sexuality works, it is relatively easy to find a male to have sex with. It is often quite difficult to find a male partner/husband to raise children with. So if a woman is pregnant or has a small child or children, and no husband, it would benefit her to have the capacity to form a pair-bond with another female. In particular, her offspring would be more likely to survive to adulthood and so carry on her genes. For this reason, the capacity to form a female/female pair-bond can be evolutionarily successful for women.

In HG egalitarian socieites this may well be the case...good theory.

And we observe that many women discover this capacity in themselves at some point in their lives. What is rare is women who are exclusively lesbian, with no heterosexual capacity at all. I believe these women are a rare and extreme example of a capacity that is common in many women.

Perhaps...

*We really don't know, but suspect that male homosexuality may be vestigial to female sexuality. I predict that any genetic component will be located on the X chromosome, which means that it will be expressed when there is no corresponding gene to pair it with.

Interesting.
My genetic makeup is XXY, well I am mosaic so some of my chromosomes in some cells are XY...yet I am bisexual..effectively/technically...I wonder...

Sorry if I seemed antagonistic Auto..its just my method...I personally like what you say quite a lot...I just have this impulse to test anyone I have a good feeling about