honmosexuality and evolution

dubcitycentre

Hi guys,

I just raised an issue on another thread and it got me thinking. So i just wanna put it out there and see what others think.

Do you think you are born gay or is it a choice/lifestyle?

If we are born gay, where does it fit in regarding evolution? Why did we evolve to be non-procreating in an existence which is doomed without it? Theories i have read include: we have evolved to be gay to reduce competition for suitable mates....ie survival of the fittest (darwinian theory). Indeed if this is right, it is doing a good job. If it is true 10% are gay, then that means about 500 million people in the world are gay in 2009...or 250 million procreating couples (assuming both are fertile and 50% male and female demographics). If 250 million families have 2 kids, that is 500 million more people for competition every 20 or 30 years...if u extrapolte that over the centuries (past and future)...that would leave our popultaion at a much much much higher number than it is now, or would be in say, 1000 years. So then, are gays saving the world from extinction by overpopulation and depletion of resources?

Maybe we are gay so that we can practice sex with other males (or females) so that we are good at it when the suitable member of the opposite sex comes along. I heard that particular theory on a documentary on homosexuality in other species. But if this were true, then wouldnt all lads be doing lads until they get married, and same with girls? Or Maybe they would if society told them it was ok. In certain countries in the world, it is widespread practice for adolescent boys to engage in sexual activity with their male friends, and when they mature, to marry off and "become" straight.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Id like to hear some of your views, especially from scientists, philosophers and academics, although all comments appreciated.

Also, please keep your homophobic, religious, or bigotted views to yourself. Serious, open minded, scientific, intelligent posts only

Thanks

oisindoyle

What a load of tosh.If you,re gay you,re gay ,if you,re straight ,you,re straight .Stop with your over analiseing of stuff ,just live your life and be happy .
Jeez,,,,kids these days !

dubcitycentre

i almost wish i was that simple.

oisindoyle

dubcitycentre wrote: »

i almost wish i was that simple.

Life is what you make it ..If you go around constantly worrying and wanting to know why someone is straight or gay ,you aint gonna have much of a life are you !

Boston

dubcitycentre wrote: »

Hi guys,

I just raised an issue on another thread and it got me thinking. So i just wanna put it out there and see what others think.

Do you think you are born gay or is it a choice/lifestyle?

If we are born gay, where does it fit in regarding evolution? Why did we evolve to be non-procreating in an existence which is doomed without it? Theories i have read include: we have evolved to be gay to reduce competition for suitable mates....ie survival of the fittest (darwinian theory). Indeed if this is right, it is doing a good job. If it is true 10% are gay, then that means about 500 million people in the world are gay in 2009...or 250 million procreating couples (assuming both are fertile and 50% male and female demographics). If 250 million families have 2 kids, that is 500 million more people for competition every 20 or 30 years...if u extrapolte that over the centuries (past and future)...that would leave our popultaion at a much much much higher number than it is now, or would be in say, 1000 years. So then, are gays saving the world from extinction by overpopulation and depletion of resources?

Maybe we are gay so that we can practice sex with other males (or females) so that we are good at it when the suitable member of the opposite sex comes along. I heard that particular theory on a documentary on homosexuality in other species. But if this were true, then wouldnt all lads be doing lads until they get married, and same with girls? Or Maybe they would if society told them it was ok. In certain countries in the world, it is widespread practice for adolescent boys to engage in sexual activity with their male friends, and when they mature, to marry off and "become" straight.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Id like to hear some of your views, especially from scientists, philosophers and academics, although all comments appreciated.

Also, please keep your homophobic, religious, or bigotted views to yourself. Serious, open minded, scientific, intelligent posts only

Thanks

Sexuality is a modern cultural construct. In some ancient societies no one would bat an eye at a man having a wife and also having sex with other males. You can't judge sexuality properly in a world of sexual taboos. Do I think homosexuality is an evolutionary imperative? No, I've seen no evidence to suggest that its an evolved treat.

oisindoyle wrote: »

What a load of tosh.If you,re gay you,re gay ,if you,re straight ,you,re straight .Stop with your over analiseing of stuff ,just live your life and be happy .
Jeez,,,,kids these days !

If you don't want to discuss a topic, maybe you shoud go somewhere else.

blackswan

I think we're definately born gay. I reckon it's in our genes. Some mix up with the composition of our genes or something like that.
I'm the third cousin on my mother's side of my family who is gay and we reckon that there's a fourth one approaching! In mind mind I don't think that's a coincidence.

Aard

I'd say that some people have a genetic (possibly not the right word) predisposition towards being gay, which is then brought on by upbringing. So I think that a lot more than the so-called 10% of society have a "gay-gene" (again, possibly not the right word), but it's only active in a sub-section of those.

blackswan

Maybe the straight people are the ones with the genetic predisposition, and we have the rare but perfect genetic composition! lol!

mobius42

Being gay certainly has a genetic component. If you take a gay identical twin, his twin is 70% likely to be gay as well. This is a much higher probability than between two brothers or two strangers, so genes certainly come into it.

Dwn Wth Vwls

mobius42 wrote: »

Being gay certainly has a genetic component. If you take a gay identical twin, his twin is 70% likely to be gay as well. This is a much higher probability than between two brothers or two strangers, so genes certainly come into it.

Cause != effect. There are other reasons apart from genes that twins would have that probability rate, such as hormone levels in the womb.

There really is no answer to this. There are lots of theories out there, and nothing conclusive.

Trance

MRI's in recent years have shown that there's quite distinct differences in straight and gay, male and female brains — with gay male's brains developing more like straight females and lesbian's developing somewhat like straight males. Link

I don't believe that there's a 'gay gene' or a particular defect that alone determines sexuality because if there was it would inevitabley be removed by natural selection. Having said that however, I'm now going to contradict myself and say that I do believe it's genetic — but the genes that cause it are not doing so directly but instead, causing it indirectly without ‘intent’. (I'll explain in a minute.)

I've read plenty about the gene theory and also about the prenatal hormone-exposure theory.The hormone-exposure theory alone I don't believe feasable because if a child's sexuality was determined by his mother's hormone levels while he developes in the womb, there wouldn't be such similar patterns and common trends amongst homosexuals around the world; as found by countless surveys. (Trends would indicate that homosexuality is genetic.)

What I've yet to read about are any ideas of how the two theories; -the gene theory and hormone-exposure;- could work if combined. If, instead of there being a 'gay gene', there were particular genes which caused a child to inherit a particular sensitivity in the brain to certain hormones, hormones associated predominantly with either male or female brain development, it would account not only for the common patterns found amongst homosexuals all over the world, but also it would explain why gay men's brains are developing somewhat like women's and lesbian's brains like men's. It would explain why Dean Hamer found that gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. It would also explain why homosexuality has never been eradicated by Darwinian evolution. While a 'gay gene' or a mutation would certainly be eliminated, genes causing a brain to develop like a female's would never be removed; those genes would be absolutely necessary for the survival of the species.

It would actually explain an awful lot of things..


(I posted this into both of your threads because it seems that different people are following different parts of the forum.)

Bottle_of_Smoke

It's an interesting topic. Not sure myself

dubcitycentre wrote: »

Hi guys,

I just raised an issue on another thread and it got me thinking. So i just wanna put it out there and see what others think.

Do you think you are born gay or is it a choice/lifestyle?

If we are born gay, where does it fit in regarding evolution? Why did we evolve to be non-procreating in an existence which is doomed without it?

I don't think its choice, I think its something you are, aren't, or partly are.

Theories i have read include: we have evolved to be gay to reduce competition for suitable mates....ie survival of the fittest (darwinian theory).

Definitely not. Evolution works on an individual level, not the species. By helping someone else find a mate your genes don't get passed so genes for that disapear.

Perhaps if you helped out a brother by not taking an available female it might work, but a full brother only shares 50% of your genes. So his kids share 25% of your genes. Whereas your kids would share 50%. For this to work your brother would have to have twice as many children as you would have had for an equal amount of genes to be passed on, which is highly unlikely.

Indeed if this is right, it is doing a good job. If it is true 10% are gay, then that means about 500 million people in the world are gay in 2009...or 250 million procreating couples (assuming both are fertile and 50% male and female demographics). If 250 million families have 2 kids, that is 500 million more people for competition every 20 or 30 years...if u extrapolte that over the centuries (past and future)...that would leave our popultaion at a much much much higher number than it is now, or would be in say, 1000 years. So then, are gays saving the world from extinction by overpopulation and depletion of resources?

Perhaps they are, perhaps not, either way it goes against the mechanics of gene survival.

Maybe we are gay so that we can practice sex with other males (or females) so that we are good at it when the suitable member of the opposite sex comes along. I heard that particular theory on a documentary on homosexuality in other species. But if this were true, then wouldnt all lads be doing lads until they get married, and same with girls? Or Maybe they would if society told them it was ok. In certain countries in the world, it is widespread practice for adolescent boys to engage in sexual activity with their male friends, and when they mature, to marry off and "become" straight.

You don't need good sex to pass on genes. Though it may help keep a partner and increase the frequency of sex. I still doubt it though, you could still "practice" sex with someone of the opposite sex.

I personally think more than 10% of people are homosexual. However I don't many at all are 100% homosexual. I think its possible say lesbian couples could have had sex with men and then brought up the child themselves and then continued their relationship. Its also important to note the family unit as we know it today was not present in early humans. A gay man could still want children and have had a child with a female in the tribe and continued homosexual relationships. Therefore he's passing on his gay genes.

unreggd

FYI Evolution is nothing to do with ADAPTING. Its a random mutation that happens. If this random change happens to be an advantage, then that's evolution


Sexual Attraction is there for one thing: survival of a species [thats us, the aul humans]

Men and women are attracted so they will have sex > have babies

So, IMO, gay people have the wrong type of attraction "part" or makeup or whatever. Its pretty simple logic

IMO its a hormonal thing, as lots of gay people have other feminine traits such as a narrow jaw, or low muscle-mass, higher pitched voices etc
[not ALL, but a lot!]

Dr_Phil

oisindoyle wrote: »

Life is what you make it ..If you go around constantly worrying and wanting to know why someone is straight or gay ,you aint gonna have much of a life are you !

Haha it reminds me of a thread where a fella was constantly worried if the Irish like him as he is Polish

I couldn't agree more, live your life and don't care what people think. I work with 2 gay lads and they are really sound and professional. I don't care what they do in bed, no one cares what I do in bed and let it stay this way. Approximately 3-10% of any bi-sex population are gay. It is natural, but cannot be a 100% alternative to heterosexuality.

Aard

unreggd wrote: »

IMO its a hormonal thing, as lots of gay people have other feminine traits such as a narrow jaw, or low muscle-mass, higher pitched voices etc
[not ALL, but a lot!]

I wouldn't agree with that. A lot of a certain subsection have feminine traits, true; but not homosexuals as a whole. There are gays in every shape and size, from stick-insects to body-builders, in just the same ratio as heterosexuals. Perhaps it's just that the overtly feminine ones are usually the loudest/most visible.

mobius42

Aard wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with that. A lot of a certain subsection have feminine traits, true; but not homosexuals as a whole. There are gays in every shape and size, from stick-insects to body-builders, in just the same ratio as heterosexuals. Perhaps it's just that the overtly feminine ones are usually the loudest/most visible.

I agree. People think gay people are feminine because they can easily identify the overtly feminine gay people. If someone doesn't act like that, then you cannot tell just by looking at them.

Señor Juárez

Boston wrote: »

Sexuality is a modern cultural construct. In some ancient societies no one would bat an eye at a man having a wife and also having sex with other males. You can't judge sexuality properly in a world of sexual taboos. Do I think homosexuality is an evolutionary imperative? No, I've seen no evidence to suggest that its an evolved treat.

OK, I think I follow, so only in a primitive society of savages is homosexuality unnoticed. Right.

dubcitycentre

unreggd wrote: »

FYI Evolution is nothing to do with ADAPTING. Its a random mutation that happens. If this random change happens to be an advantage, then that's evolution


Sexual Attraction is there for one thing: survival of a species [thats us, the aul humans]

Men and women are attracted so they will have sex > have babies

So, IMO, gay people have the wrong type of attraction "part" or makeup or whatever. Its pretty simple logic

IMO its a hormonal thing, as lots of gay people have other feminine traits such as a narrow jaw, or low muscle-mass, higher pitched voices etc
[not ALL, but a lot!]

I dont think u fully understand the concepts of evolution. Evolution is about adaptation...adaptation to suit current environmental conditions to ensure optimal survival. Everything in our bodies has adapted over millions of years so that we are efficient human beings able to survive. Everything from ouur sense of smell, our eye sight, our jaws, our stance...theyve all adapted and changed to make us better at survival. Some of the mutations that we have evolved havent been totally successful but evolution is ALL about adaptation

dubcitycentre

and also...that thing about feminine guys is a load of crap. If 10% of people are gay, i would think that not even 10% of that number have the feminie traits ur on about. There are plenty of straight guys with narrow jaws and low muscle mass...its not just present in gay people. open your mind a bit

Nothingcompares

not to be a pedant, but you're mixing up Evolution (change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next) with natural selection (process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations).

I believe there is a genetic component to all behaviour but to imply there is a single gene responsible for complex behaviours (homosexuality etc.) is fairly ludicrous (and not supported scientifically).

For discussions such as this it's best to use animal models:

If we are born gay, where does it fit in regarding evolution? Why did we evolve to be non-procreating in an existence which is doomed without it?

It is entirely your assumption that "GAY" males don't have sex with females. You can imagine a "gay" duck having sex with 100s of other male ducks but he only has to have sex with a female duck once (successfully) to produce eggs and ducklings with his genetic material.

We're all too quick to see things in terms of black and white. homosexual or heterosexual (non-homosexual) or carnivore and herbivore (non-carnivore). But in fact, we can clearly see there are plenty of omnivores (and fruitivores etc.) If we observed a beer in the Arctic we might assume he was purely a carnivore (eats seals) but if we observed a bear in Southern United states we might call him an piscivore (eating fish) or omnivore (eating fish, salmon, rodents, berries, fruit, roots).

In my opinion it's entirely possible there are environmental and genetic based influences that cause a person to be to the 'left' (almost exclusively homosexual) in the middle (bisexual) and to the 'right' (almost exclusively heterosexual). Thus, allowing for the myriad of different environmental and genetic conditions we can expect to see people across the entire spectrum from left to right (e.g. those that are in between the dead center and the right -bisexual people who are mostly heterosexual).

Allowing for relatively modern cultural constructs - taboo, society itself, monogamy, contraceptive, STIs trying to find genetic explanations for sexual behaviour is almost impossible.

LegacyUser

if u were talking to me, im not mixing up the 2. Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution. Natural selection is a process which occurs in the evolution of species. When talking about developing or losing certain traits, the two words kinda go hand in hand, although not interchangeably.

In terms of natural selection, perhaps gay people have a certain trait that is not suitable to be passed on to the next generation (not my opinion btw), so making us (humans) gay, is natures way of trying to prevent us passing on that certain trait. And no need to jump on me and say but plenty of gays and lesbians have kids....i know.

And to those who say "if ur gay ur gay,get on with it,live ur life etc etc". I am not complaining that im gay, i love being gay. I have a curious mind and like to question things. There is a reason for EVERYTHING so if you dont apprecitate intelligent chat about what we are and why, dont post. Its that simple

philologos

The purpose for homosexuality in nature seems to be as a means to increase fertility:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-beetles.html

I don't think it occurs in nature for the same reason that humans argue it occurs in them though, which would require more research. Imposing human views on homosexuality when assessing nature isn't the best way to do research.

dubcitycentre

Im sick of the mods not posting my replies in this thread so this will be my last one here, if it is posted. nothingcompares, i am not mixing the two. natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution, it is a process within evolution, so it is fair to say they often go hand in hand. I am not using them interchangeably and am aware of the difference between the two.

renraw

I've known i was gay since I was 11 but couldn't understand it. I was born gay. If it was a choice, I'd have been straight. Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and I'm sure they don't have a choice either. I personally dislike the way people say its a "choice", because it isn't

Goodshape

Jakkass wrote: »

The purpose for homosexuality in nature seems to be as a means to increase fertility:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081104-homosexual-beetles.html

Interesting, but...

nationalgeographic.com wrote:

What the team did find was that males were dribbling sperm onto each other. This suggested that males might be trying to get rid of old sperm, lining up fresher sperm for their next female encounter.

The team also found that if one male leaked semen on another male and the semen-covered male later bred with a female, the female's eggs could become fertilized with the sperm of the male she had never encountered.

...not quite what I have in mind when I'm, ehem, 'dribbling sperm' over my partner :pac:

I would have to agree with you that comparisons between homosexuality in the animal kingdom and homosexuality in humans make for a fairly tenuous argument, mostly down to our (humans) capacity for love, free will and the aforementioned social taboos. While I'd consider most of what goes on in the animal kingdom to be the result of baser instincts and hard-wired survival mechanisms.

That said, it does at least show that the 'act' itself is not localised to humans, only our interpretation and treatment of it is. Unlike flour beetles, we love and mate for life in our modern human society. Doing otherwise certainly isn't unheard of but it is taboo -- and, being such social creatures, we're hard-wired to fear and act against that which may not be accepted by the larger society.

While, on the other hand, our base sexual urges are something we share with all biological organisms.

I am, and always have been, considerably more attracted to males than females. Does this make me incapable of impregnating females (to be blunt)? No. But I am also in love with my partner. Does this make me incapable of impregnating females? Society, my boyfriend, my own personal wishes and undoubtedly the wishes of any females I might want to 'impregnate', would tell me that it does.


(would this make me incapable of raising the abandoned - or otherwise parentless - child of another? .... can open... worms... everywhere! .. damn you society!! )

Boston

Señor Juárez wrote: »

OK, I think I follow

Nope.

Nothingcompares wrote: »

not to be a pedant, but you're mixing up Evolution (change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next) with natural selection (process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations).

...

Allowing for relatively modern cultural constructs - taboo, society itself, monogamy, contraceptive, STIs trying to find genetic explanations for sexual behaviour is almost impossible.

Good post and excellent closing point that's often over looked. We as humans are driven by multitude of influences in ever aspect of our life, including but no limited our basic evolved instincts. We're able to rationalise to a degree animals are not.

brandodub

I've 'known' from a very early age that I wasn't the same as my brothers-there were (and are) subtle differences even to our social interaction amongst ourselves. As a family (and mature with our own families too!) we have 'put up' with our differences as is the way in a closely interacting society.

Whatever the researchers discover I'm still here; I still exist and I'm still a happy Gay man.

You can make me into your cliche (muscles,jaws effeminate etc.,) or you can accept me for me and interact with me on the same human /societal level I interact with you.

If this offends you then that is your right in our democracy but I'm not asking for your permission to exist.

I'm not going anywhere because I live here

nozzferrahhtoo

The signs that homosexuality is genetic are increasing all the time. However this should not be mistaken as saying there is a single “Gay gene”. It is instead showing to be a massive combination of things.

Recent studies even show that gay people share certain traits that straight people do not, which suggests there is a strong genetic connection.

Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

(PET) scans taken by the researchers also show that in connectivity of the amygdala (which is important for emotional learning), lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women."

(Ref information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (2008, June 18). Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm)

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.

Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institute in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex.

(Ref information: Queen Mary, University of London (2008, June 30). Homosexual Behaviour Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm)

The question from the OP is why this might be however. What evolutionary sense does it make to have homosexuals in a species? I am reminded of the recent story then of the two male penguins that, upon being called upon to care for a lone young penguin, started to engage in homosexual activities.

This raises the question, could homosexuals be nature’s carers? If 4 siblings each have 1 child each, for example, then each child gets 100% care from the parents of each. If however 3 of them have a child, and there is a homosexual 4th, each child will get 133% care. This is an instant selection advantage.

To understand this, a certain understanding of genetics are required. A gay person does not “have” a gene that the straight siblings do not. In fact the genes are likely to be in all siblings, but only “Active” in some. A small fact, but one that if ignored can totally change ones understanding of genetics and evolution.

For this to be true, a prediction would have to be made. There would have to be a factor in child development that “turns on” this gene. Not just turns it on, but turns it on in a sensible fashion.

Just such a factor does exist, the hormonal release in the mother changes with each successive male child she has. Certain hormones which increase the likelihood of a child being gay go UP with each successive pregnancy. This fits the prediction perfectly.

Not only then is the gene shared, and activated, but it also ensures that the gay sibling is likely to be a younger later sibling and not the first. This increases both the chances of the straight siblings reproducing successfully, while increasing the chances that the extra “caring” sibling will be a younger and fitter sibling with the ability to care for further generations. Kind of like “Calling in the backup”.

Personally I find it comforting to know nature is helping us care for ourselves and that homosexuals have a strong place in the development of our species. I raise my glass to them!

dubcitycentre

wow really cool post thanks. The caring theory might explain the large number of gay males in the caring profession

Reflector

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Personally I find it comforting to know nature is helping us care for ourselves and that homosexuals have a strong place in the development of our species. I raise my glass to them!

If this is an attempt to try and score some free babysitting from the gays on boards, nice try.

12euro an hour!

nozzferrahhtoo

Hehehehe no no But good idea!

It was just an exercise in formulating what I know about the subject into essay form. A good exercise for the brain muscle, which needs more and more use as I get older to stop it going too soft!

I just did it again but differently on the other thread with the same name:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61763311&postcount=19

Reflector

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hehehehe no no But good idea!

It was just an exercise in formulating what I know about the subject into essay form. A good exercise for the brain muscle, which needs more and more use as I get older to stop it going too soft!

I just did it again but differently on the other thread with the same name:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61763311&postcount=19

Well I do agree with your theory but the proof of brains being similar between gay men and straight woman I find quite dubious. Gay mens behaviour is more similar to straight men especially when it comes to sexual partner selection and sexual conduct. Perhaps gay men are similar to straight women in other ways.

phancydan

I'm not gay but i think society needs gay people and always has and maybe there is an evolutionary need for gay people. It's a fantastical theory but i think Gay people are supposed to be artists thus showing all society the creative possibilities of mankind, unburdened with rearing children this is more possible. And it may be suggested that Gay people are more suited to being carers and medics as they could devote more time to these professions than those who have responsibilities to their own children. It aint no waterproof theory but its something.. anyone else agree? anyone find it very patronising?

Aard

You assume there that homosexuals do not rear children.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes, the assumption that gay people do not rear children is clearly a little off.

I would also add that the assumption that gay people are “supposed” to be anything is also a little off. Evolution is blind. IT does not plan for what should happen or is supposed to happen. It is essentially a random process with non-random selection.

Tricity Bendix

phancydan wrote: »

It's a fantastical theory but i think Gay people are supposed to be artists thus showing all society the creative possibilities of mankind, unburdened with rearing children this is more possible.

Cant say I know any gay people who are artistic. On the other hand, I do know artistic people who have kids. If anything, the kids are a source of inspiration, not a burden.

LegacyUser

First off I'd like to say I'm a gay guy, but not out.

I believe it is an evolution thing, survival of the fittest. There must be a genetic defect that causes a person to be gay. Just think about it, the penis and vagina are for reproducing. Why would nature want a man/woman who cannot reproduce? Thats why gay people dont have children.

And thats a reason I would be against gay adoption. Gay people were not intended to be parents. If they were, they would have had a "mate" and actually had a child of their own.

It may not seem like it, but I am genuinely gay!