-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does evolution explain homosexuality?
- Thread starter tomspug
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I would suggest that homosexuality is a phenomenon which does not require homosexual parents in any species. Furthermore, the homosexual offspring may reproduce anyway. Therefore, the strong reproduce and yeild some homosexual offspring who may or may not reproduce.
I don't see why this would puzzle you.
I don't see why this would puzzle you.
Gaddock
Member
Because:
1) Homosexuality isn't a (wholy) genetically determined trait. It is as much to do with early childhood experience and a range of other psychological factors(e.g. the more older brothers a male has, the more likely they are to be homosexual). Therefore there is no reason why this should be genetically excluded.
2) The distinction of homosexuality as an exclusive sexual preference is a relatively modern invention. At many points in history homosexual relationships have gone along side heterosexual ones for the same person. Many people historically have married to breed and still had sexual relationships with others (including same sex others) as well. We see this in the non-human animal kingdom too with some animals having both homosexual and heterosexual encounters.
3) Even a genetic disposition to homosexuality does not have to be passed on directly. It can be passed on as a dormant genetic tendancy for a number of generations without being active (and even then its only a tendancy, not a determinant).
Regards
Gaddock
1) Homosexuality isn't a (wholy) genetically determined trait. It is as much to do with early childhood experience and a range of other psychological factors(e.g. the more older brothers a male has, the more likely they are to be homosexual). Therefore there is no reason why this should be genetically excluded.
2) The distinction of homosexuality as an exclusive sexual preference is a relatively modern invention. At many points in history homosexual relationships have gone along side heterosexual ones for the same person. Many people historically have married to breed and still had sexual relationships with others (including same sex others) as well. We see this in the non-human animal kingdom too with some animals having both homosexual and heterosexual encounters.
3) Even a genetic disposition to homosexuality does not have to be passed on directly. It can be passed on as a dormant genetic tendancy for a number of generations without being active (and even then its only a tendancy, not a determinant).
Regards
Gaddock
That they are not "weeded out" or passed on from generation to generation suggests that they are not genetic.
I suspect they stem from love.
Smoke
Done here.
1) Why do heterosexual men have sex with women who are already pregnant and with women who are post-menopausal? Humans (and other animals) have engage in all kinds of non-reproductive sex, homosexual sex is just one of them.
2) Homosexuals do reproduce. Until fairly recently, probably most homosexuals reproduced. There are a lot of people alive today who would be surprised to know what I know about their grandfathers, and I know a lot of gay men and lesbians my age and younger who have biological children, too. Whenever there's pressure to conform to the expectations of a heterosexist society, a lot of people will marry someone of the opposite sex whether they really want to or not. My husband grew up in a religious family in a rural area, and married a woman because he didn't even know he had the option of being with a man. Even when people manage to accept their sexuality and form a healthy relationship, a lot of them just want children, just as a lot of heterosexuals do, and will manage to have children even if they don't want their primary relationship to be with the other biological parent. The children of homosexuals are also less likely to be a "surprise," and might, like the planned and wanted children of heterosexuals, have some advantage over children who are unplanned or unwanted or whose birth stigmatizes the mother.
3) Homosexuality may have some reproductive value even when homosexuals don't reproduce, in that homosexuals may devote greater resources to their nieces and nephews, who, after all, carry the genes of the homosexual's parents. Particularly when life expectancy was lower and death in childbirth was common, there may have been a strong advantage in having an uncle or aunt who didn't have children of his or her own to worry about. Families may also have benefited from alliances with other families as a result of homosexual relationships, just as they have always benefited similarly from heterosexual relationships. Celibacy has similar advantages; in medieval Europe it was often advantageous to have an uncle who was a Catholic clergyman, and in the Ottoman Empire it was sometimes advantageous to have an uncle who was a Janissary. So even when homosexuals and celibates don't themselves reproduce, they may help to pass on the genes of their parents.
4) Evolution doesn't imply that everything we do, and all our characteristics, are geared to survival and reproduction. It's not necessary that stamp collecting have any reproductive value; all that's necessary is that the genes of the stamp collector are perpetuated.
2) Homosexuals do reproduce. Until fairly recently, probably most homosexuals reproduced. There are a lot of people alive today who would be surprised to know what I know about their grandfathers, and I know a lot of gay men and lesbians my age and younger who have biological children, too. Whenever there's pressure to conform to the expectations of a heterosexist society, a lot of people will marry someone of the opposite sex whether they really want to or not. My husband grew up in a religious family in a rural area, and married a woman because he didn't even know he had the option of being with a man. Even when people manage to accept their sexuality and form a healthy relationship, a lot of them just want children, just as a lot of heterosexuals do, and will manage to have children even if they don't want their primary relationship to be with the other biological parent. The children of homosexuals are also less likely to be a "surprise," and might, like the planned and wanted children of heterosexuals, have some advantage over children who are unplanned or unwanted or whose birth stigmatizes the mother.
3) Homosexuality may have some reproductive value even when homosexuals don't reproduce, in that homosexuals may devote greater resources to their nieces and nephews, who, after all, carry the genes of the homosexual's parents. Particularly when life expectancy was lower and death in childbirth was common, there may have been a strong advantage in having an uncle or aunt who didn't have children of his or her own to worry about. Families may also have benefited from alliances with other families as a result of homosexual relationships, just as they have always benefited similarly from heterosexual relationships. Celibacy has similar advantages; in medieval Europe it was often advantageous to have an uncle who was a Catholic clergyman, and in the Ottoman Empire it was sometimes advantageous to have an uncle who was a Janissary. So even when homosexuals and celibates don't themselves reproduce, they may help to pass on the genes of their parents.
4) Evolution doesn't imply that everything we do, and all our characteristics, are geared to survival and reproduction. It's not necessary that stamp collecting have any reproductive value; all that's necessary is that the genes of the stamp collector are perpetuated.
MidnightBlue already covered some of this while I was typing, but here it is anyhow...
Kin altruism seems to me to be the most plausible explanation. Here's the short version:
- an animal shares 50% of his or her genes with each child - a parent and a child have 50% of their genes in common.
- an animal also shares genes with other blood relatives: for instance, on average, siblings have 50% of their genes in common, and cousins share 12.5%.
- genes don't care which "container" they're in. In terms of propagating genes to the next generation, it makes no evolutionary difference whether some gene that you have is passed down through your own child or someone else's child - depending on the fitness of the child, but not on your personal relationship to him or her, the gene will hopefully continue and increase in frequency.
Based on all this, we have two strategies that might yield some evolutionary success:
1. Devote your effort and energy to protecting and benefiting a small number of family members with a high genetic similarity to you... i.e. the "standard" family where the parents (who both share 50% of DNA with each child) focus most of their energy on their own children.
2. Devote your effort and energy to protecting and benefiting a large number of family members with a lower, but still siginificant, genetic similarity to you... i.e. being part of the village (or, rather, extended family) that it takes to raise a child: taking part in the rearing of and providing for nieces/nephews, cousins, etc.
The most extreme example of this in nature are things like bee colonies: the whole hive is related, so it's in the evolutionary interest of the worker bees to support the queen, because that's the workers' own means of ensuring that their DNA gets passed to the next generation.
As long as there are some members of the family doing the actual procreating, other non-breeding family members can use that offspring as a way to pass their own DNA.
Kin altruism seems to me to be the most plausible explanation. Here's the short version:
- an animal shares 50% of his or her genes with each child - a parent and a child have 50% of their genes in common.
- an animal also shares genes with other blood relatives: for instance, on average, siblings have 50% of their genes in common, and cousins share 12.5%.
- genes don't care which "container" they're in. In terms of propagating genes to the next generation, it makes no evolutionary difference whether some gene that you have is passed down through your own child or someone else's child - depending on the fitness of the child, but not on your personal relationship to him or her, the gene will hopefully continue and increase in frequency.
Based on all this, we have two strategies that might yield some evolutionary success:
1. Devote your effort and energy to protecting and benefiting a small number of family members with a high genetic similarity to you... i.e. the "standard" family where the parents (who both share 50% of DNA with each child) focus most of their energy on their own children.
2. Devote your effort and energy to protecting and benefiting a large number of family members with a lower, but still siginificant, genetic similarity to you... i.e. being part of the village (or, rather, extended family) that it takes to raise a child: taking part in the rearing of and providing for nieces/nephews, cousins, etc.
The most extreme example of this in nature are things like bee colonies: the whole hive is related, so it's in the evolutionary interest of the worker bees to support the queen, because that's the workers' own means of ensuring that their DNA gets passed to the next generation.
As long as there are some members of the family doing the actual procreating, other non-breeding family members can use that offspring as a way to pass their own DNA.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You consider Plato to be modern?
And even with neutral or negative activities like stamp collecting, they may be a side effect of something else that is beneficial in evolutionary terms.
For instance, a fondness for teddy bears probably doesn't provide any real benefit for the individual, but if it stems out of the same genetic cause that enhances fondness for infants, say, then the net effect can be positive: it's likely that an individual with a fondness for both infants and teddy bears has an advantage over one who doesn't care at all about either.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Male homosexuality has had a variety of social advantages in many cultures in human history. Exclusivity of sexual identity is a relatively recent phenomenon - possibly an adaptive strategy to changing cultural responses to homosexuality. In many cultures, homosexuality was an avenue to an elevated status in society. Such was the case in Ancient Greece and to some extent in Renaissance Italy. There are advantages in matriarchal societies and kinship structures can use homosexuality to their advantage as well (MB's #3).
Project MUSE
That link is to the abstract, but the article itself is an excellent literature review and specifically addresses the question in the OP. Short answer: Sunstone is right that there is no consensus yet. However, psychological and anthropological research has already revealed a number of plausible hypotheses that suggest evolutionary advantages in cultures or kin-relations where homosexual behavior is expressed.
Project MUSE
That link is to the abstract, but the article itself is an excellent literature review and specifically addresses the question in the OP. Short answer: Sunstone is right that there is no consensus yet. However, psychological and anthropological research has already revealed a number of plausible hypotheses that suggest evolutionary advantages in cultures or kin-relations where homosexual behavior is expressed.
Francine
Well-Known Member
Did you ever rig a film projector? You have to put a little bit of slack in the film coming off the take-up reel, because the film in the gate is pulled by a series of stops and starts. Otherwise you could break the film. Mammals are born roughly one boy for every girl. Having some of the boys pair bond with boys, and some of the girls pair bond with girls creates "slack line" which lets the breeders pair up more smoothly. It makes up for temporary or local fluctuations in the sex-birth-ratios.
Gaddock
Member
Ancient Greece is a prime example of a society in which homosexual relationships were tolerated alongside and in addition to hetrosexual ones. Many married men would have sex with servents or other men and still be expected to have children with their wives.
Regards
Gaddock
On an evolutionary timescale, yes.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
I think its more to do with the mind then it is with the body.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I was specifically addressing the statement:
Plato knew of exclusively homosexual men who married women and reproduced only because of cultural pressure.
Plato, Sym. 192a
Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.
Gaddock
Member
Indeed, a good example of why evolution would not screen out homosexuality even if we held there was a strong genetic element (which I personally think is minimal). Those with a preference for males breed with wives anyway, which is exactly my point. If you object to the use of the term 'preference' in my first post here I am happy to replace this with another term, eg 'practice' for the sake of precision, but the point in relation to evolution remains.
Regards
Dr Bruce
Regards
Dr Bruce
Yerda
Veteran Member
I don't agree. I think that a genetic basis to homosexuality is plausible.
Smoke
Done here.
Then you need to read them again.