homosexuality and evolution

Prof.Badass

r3nu4l wrote: »

It has been suggested in the past that sexually transmitted infections are the real reason for the encouragement of monogamy in many societies. A society weakened by sexual diseases was vulnerable to attack.

I disagree. When we evolved I would think there weren't any countries or proper societies to enforce rules or keep order, just groups of people doing what they please. As regards sex, males who weren't getting a fair deal would rise up or leave the group. One male could not take care of multiple females as single males would start coming in to rape (possibly in groups). Females would have found themselves a male to commit to defending them (out of safety), monogamy restored. Not only would a male not be able to defend multiple females and their offspring, more importantly in pre-historic times he probably wouldn't have been able to provide for them either.

I would suggest however that your own experience has been shaped by the social constructs that you were brought up in.

Possibly, but it didn't feel very concious or rational at the time. It didn't feel any more decided upon than you decide to smile when you're happy (you don't it's pre-progammed).

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would question any standpoint based on the assumption that humans can not love more than one person at a time. There are many examples, in relationships and outside them of this very thing occurring. Even outside the realm of relationships we see parents loving all their children and not just one of them.

I'm not talking about loving someone. I'm talking about being in love with them.

btw, sorry for dragging this discussion horribly off topic. As for possible genetic factors in homosexuality, it's possible that an over-expressed gene related to feminity increases a womans reproductive success, but has the opposite effect in males. As for lesbians, a tendency towards male characteristics might be benificial to the males in the family but not so much the females. This is especially interesting when you factor in the evidence that different people are more/less likely to have children of a certain sex (attractive women-girls), (succesfull men-boys) ect.

5uspect

vinylmesh wrote: »

That doesn't change the fact that you can only be in love with one person at one time.

fact?

So monogamy didn't evolve either?

nozzferrahhtoo

Loving or "in love" I still give the same reply for the same reason. In fact if you re read what I wrote, i included such "in love" types in my response.

Prof.Badass

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Loving or "in love" I still give the same reply for the same reason. In fact if you re read what I wrote, i included such "in love" types in my response.

Which i refuse to believe. I really don't think a man with multiple wives can be properly in love with all of them.

With a dead partner i guess it could be different. For example if a child dies, most people will always think of that person as a child, so i guess when you think of your dead partner you could imagine still being in love with them, but this is just a memory being activated, it's not the same as being in love with a living person (sorry if this sounds insensitive but it's how i see it).

nozzferrahhtoo

Vin,

Well as an opinion you are welcome to it. As a fact it is far from proven and contradicts a wealth of contrary experience. However, as I said, if you wish to stand in front of people who have lost someone and found someone else and rubbish the love they still feel for the departed then you are welcome to do so. I would not like to be there for the response.

You are offering me subjectivity based on a human ideal here. I respect that and it is a noble position. What it is not, however, is science which this forum is based on. Comments like “I refuse to believe” and “I don’t think” are personal feelings and as such are not science.

Scientifically what we have so far are beginning of a mapping of the brain and the parts of it that “light up” when experiencing love. We have a mapping of the hormonal parts of it from Oxytocin onwards.

What we have is the knowledge that “love” whether with a sexual partner, a sibling, a child, or a friend involves essentially the same pathways of hormonal and synaptic activity.

What we also have is the knowledge that one person appears capable of loving many others at once. A mother who loves her first child “with all her heart” does not suddenly love that child any less when the second comes, nor does she love the second any less either. The same can be said of loving friendships, siblings etc.

How you are defining “in love” different to any other kind of love in a scientific context I do not know. What chemical or electrical property or pathway the “in love” type possesses that the mothers love lacks, or vice versa, I have not seen defined but would be agog to hear it or see your scientific model of same.

The pathways are essentially the same and if you were to try and argue that being “in love” with one precludes being “in love” with another you would have to release scientific studies showing not only the chemical and electrical pathways associated with the condition and how it differs from other equally powerful experiences of love, but how the presence of such pathways somehow precludes the establishment of other pathways for another target of love. To my knowledge no such paper has even been attempted, let alone released, but I am willing to stand corrected on that if you find one.

As I said however, you are appealing to what would be considered a more subjective ideal for love. This is the noble, and no less special than the condition itself, characteristic of humans who upon falling in love with someone make the conscious choice to make the love for that person exclusive, to forgo all others, to dedicate oneself wholly and in every way to the target of the affections. On this ideal and in THIS sense of only being able to love one person at a time, you will find no argument from me. To me, however, it is in this context only that your words such as “properly in love with” even begin to make sense.

And if we insist on returning to subjective non-science then I must add that I find that being aware of the science behind all of this makes me no less astounded by the love I myself feel, nor does it cheapen it in any way. Nor does it remove in any way the feelings I have for those departed who I can never see again. Quite the contrary, I find the fact I have chosen to dedicate myself wholly to my chosen partner is elevated by this knowledge that the decision is mine and not solely that of some preclusory chemical process over which I have no control as if my relationship with her were built on some “first come only served” basis.

Capt'n Midnight

Let me rephrase what I said earlier

imagine there is a gene that makes a person more attracted to males

A - if you are a male it will reduce your number of offspring
B - if you are female it will increase your number of offspring


If the effect of B is greater than the effect of A then the gene will be selected for.



Also in prehistoric times up to 25% of the population died violent deaths and that would be highly skewed towards males , the effects of the alpha male having more women so that even if the effects were equal the increased opportunities for women to have offspring would have selected for the gene

r3nu4l

I agree that vinylmesh is proposing argument based on subjective and personal experience. This definitely is not science and there is no place in this forum for that type of argument. Perhaps the humanities forum is better suited to that side of the argument.

On a personal (subjective) level I also agree that the idea is noble and very worthy but on a scientific level, it does not wash.

This is why I'm distrustful of much of the 'research' into homosexuality. Certain scientists, particularly in the US are unfortunately ruled by their own beliefs. These scientists lend credence to theories such as Intelligent design and then in the same breath rubbish the theory of evolution, continually pointing out that it's only a theory that has not been proven. These same people have agendas when it comes to homosexuality and therefore undermine true scientific principles to push their agendas.

However, vinylmesh does raise another interesting point regarding love...there's a new thread right there!

nozzferrahhtoo

Indeed, and any such discussion of love would not be a waste of time by any stretch of the imagination I would welcome it and he makes a lot of correct points that I would agree with, just in the wrong forum and on the wrong topic I think.

r3nu4l

Okay, just looking back at the last few posts (my own included) I think we need to steer this thread back on-topic, regarding the reasons why homosexuality has been preserved by evolution. So please steer away from discussion of monogamy or polygamy and focus on the topic