The problem of homosexuals

Poo Fingers

Why are there homosexuals? What function does homosexuality serve?

It's often claimed in debates that homosexuality is seen all across the animal kingdom but this is very misleading. What is actually observed is bisexual behaviour which doesn't pose any evolutionary problem since bisexual organisms still reproduce from their heterosexual matings.

Exclusive homosexual behaviour and the avoidance of heterosexual mating is extremely abnormal and rare for the simple reason that organisms that avoid heterosexual behaviour don't reproduce. It's only been observed in one non-human species, a type of ram.

Could it be that homosexuality is not an adaptation of any kind but simply a malfunction the human brain is susceptible to? Maybe because our brains are much bigger and more complicated than those in other animals they are more susceptible to malfunctions?

ScumLord

There's been homsexuality observed in hundreds of different species. The bonobo uses sex to solve all conflicts between males and females, males and males, females and females.

Homosexuality in the ancient past was allowed, it also wouldn't necessarily mean that homosexuals wouldn't reproduce. They could go out riding men and see nothing wrong with having a wife at home spitting out his sprogs.

I would say it is an abnormality but the thing about abnormalities is that they are normal, they happen, it's just they're not as common.

It wouldn't surprise me if homosexuals did serve a particular evolutionary purpose, in a large group of humans it's not as important to have everyone breeding. Homosexuals were often preferred in some ancient armies because they'd fight harder for the men beside them.

Poo Fingers

As i said, the evolution of bisexual behaviour poses no evolutionary paradox because it still allows reproduction. It's the avoidance of heterosexual sex which is the mystery.

An aversion to heterosexual mating would be extremely damaging to an organism's reproductive success and we should expect it to be thoroughly selected out, as it has in almost all species.

Why are we one of the rare exceptions?

ScumLord

Poo Fingers wrote: »

As i said, the evolution of bisexual behaviour poses no evolutionary paradox because it still allows reproduction. It's the avoidance of heterosexual which is the mystery.

I'm not talking about bisexuality, in the past there were clearly homosexual men that also saw the value in having heirs and the social standing of family. They treated their family as a resource which wouldn't be all that different from hetrosexual men of the time.

An aversion to heterosexual mating would be extremely damaging to an organism's reproductive success and we should expect it to be thoroughly selected out, as it has in almost all species.

It's not an aversion though, homosexuals don't do anything to prevent hetrosexual cxoupling, if anything they improve the chances for the rest of the men.

Why are we one of the rare exceptions?

Homosexuality is not unique to humans, many animals display the behaviour. Although every animal has it's own sexual quirks so even if it was unique to humans it wouldn't mean much. Other animals can change sex at will, some animals just drop their load and wander off. Homosexuality happens in humans, it's as simple as that.

wildefalcon

The "aunt/uncle" social advantage?

Agreed - not good for preserving an individual genome, but there maybe benefits for a species.

nozzferrahhtoo

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Why are there homosexuals? What function does homosexuality serve?

Perhaps a good start is to divest yourself of the notion that everything must serve a function. That is not to say that homosexuality does, or does not, but it is not a safe assumption to start your inquiry on.

Many things in evolution serve no function / are function neutral.

1) Sometimes they are misfiring of things that "should" be doing something else.

For example there is no separate human genome for male and female. We all contain all the genes for both. If there is a genetic component to sexuality then every single male contains the genes for being attracted to males because they contain all the genes required to BE female. And vice versa.

The genes between the sexes barely differ. Just which genes are "expressed" (turned on) do. Sexuality therefore would be explainable by nothing more complex or unusual than the "wrong" genes being expressed in the "wrong" sex.

2) Sometimes they are side effects of things that DO do something else.

For example ask yourself what the "function" is of a moth flying into flames and immolating itself. It is precisely the wrong question to ask. The moth merely flies in a straight line relative to the brightest light source at night. In its evolutionary past this was the moon which was at "optical infinity" and so was a good navigation point.

Now with the advent of fire light relatively recently the moth will fly towards the light it assumes is at optical infinity and will describe instead a pretty mathematical spiral into the flame and die.

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Exclusive homosexual behaviour and the avoidance of heterosexual mating is extremely abnormal and rare for the simple reason that organisms that avoid heterosexual behaviour don't reproduce.

Actually this is entirely incorrect. The animal kingdom is awash with innumerable examples of animals that avoid mating. And the species is made stronger, not weaker for these non reproductive elements. Further, the genetics for being non-reproducing do not die out either. So the idea that genetics that are not directly reproduced by these elements do not get reproduced is also false.

The clearest examples of this are in hive species. The insect world is awash with such examples but it does not have sole purview over it. The naked mole rat for example has a hive structure.

What we see is that many elements in a species are non-reproducing entirely. Their existence strengthens that species and increases their evolutionary fitness.

How nature achieves this differs from species to species. Some are simply non-reproducing like drones. Some are sterile. Some are forced not to reproduce by other members of that species and, perhaps, some have their reproductive urges directed into non-reproductive avenues such as by homosexuality.

Regardless of how nature achieves it, the effect is the same. The species contains non reproducing elements and it benefits from their existence. Further Natural Selection does not select against this propensity to not reproduce as the lay man might expect. Rather the genetics for it are selected for in the siblings and relatives of the ones that themselves do not reproduce.

It is worth divesting oneself of this lay man notion that to get ones genes into the next generation one _must_ reproduce. It is not so and as we see clearly in hive species one can also just as easily get ones genes into the next generation by aiding the reproductive fitness of others who also contain them.

Capt'n Midnight

Not this crap again :rolleyes:

Here's one theory that explains the circumstances under which a gene for male homosexuality could increase it's chances of being inherited. (along with all the other changes such a gene or adjacent ones would have)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/13/highereducation.research

The team discovered that the mothers, aunts and sisters of gay men tend to have more children than those women related to straight men.

IRWolfie-

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Could it be that homosexuality is not an adaptation of any kind but simply a malfunction the human brain is susceptible to? Maybe because our brains are much bigger and more complicated than those in other animals they are more susceptible to malfunctions?

Substitute homosexuality with "becoming a catholic priest" in your initial post. Would you describe becoming a priest as a brain malfunction?

HansHolzel

Joey: If homo sapiens really were homo sapiens, is that why they became extinct?
Ross: Homo sapiens are people, Joey!
Joey: Hey, who's judging?

Zombrex

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Why are there homosexuals? What function does homosexuality serve?

The genes that produce homosexual behaviour in many animals have different effects in the siblings of said animals, often greatly increasing the fertility of these animals

Homosexuality is simply a side effect of these genes. The greater fertility in the siblings more than offsets for the lack of children produced by the homosexual animals.

For example, if mouse A is homosexual due to a specific gene it will not produce any children. But mouse A's sister might produce 6 times as many offspring as if neither of them had the gene.

Poo Fingers wrote: »

It's often claimed in debates that homosexuality is seen all across the animal kingdom but this is very misleading. What is actually observed is bisexual behaviour which doesn't pose any evolutionary problem since bisexual organisms still reproduce from their heterosexual matings.

That isn't true. Honest to God homosexual behaviour is observed across the animal kingdom, and also the effects that the genes that cause it have in the siblings of homosexual animals.

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Exclusive homosexual behaviour and the avoidance of heterosexual mating is extremely abnormal and rare for the simple reason that organisms that avoid heterosexual behaviour don't reproduce.

An individual organism not reproducing is not all that relevant in the grant scheme of evolution. What matters is how well doe the specific genes that are in that animal and its siblings manage.

Poo Fingers wrote: »

Could it be that homosexuality is not an adaptation of any kind but simply a malfunction the human brain is susceptible to? Maybe because our brains are much bigger and more complicated than those in other animals they are more susceptible to malfunctions?

It is most likely that there is a genetic element to homosexuality in humans just like in other animals. Studies have found that homosexual men for example are much more likely to have sisters with large families than heterosexual men, suggesting that there is a genetic component to homosexuality that is also present in the sisters that increases fertility.

locum-motion

Zombrex wrote: »

The genes that produce homosexual behaviour in many animals have different effects in the siblings of said animals, often greatly increasing the fertility of these animals

Homosexuality is simply a side effect of these genes. The greater fertility in the siblings more than offsets for the lack of children produced by the homosexual animals.

For example, if mouse A is homosexual due to a specific gene it will not produce any children. But mouse A's sister might produce 6 times as many offspring as if neither of them had the gene.



That isn't true. Honest to God homosexual behaviour is observed across the animal kingdom, and also the effects that the genes that cause it have in the siblings of homosexual animals.



An individual organism not reproducing is not all that relevant in the grant scheme of evolution. What matters is how well doe the specific genes that are in that animal and its siblings manage.



It is most likely that there is a genetic element to homosexuality in humans just like in other animals. Studies have found that homosexual men for example are much more likely to have sisters with large families than heterosexual men, suggesting that there is a genetic component to homosexuality that is also present in the sisters that increases fertility.

Have you got any sources to back up your claims?

Capt'n Midnight

locum-motion wrote: »

Have you got any sources to back up your claims?

From earlier in the thread

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Not this crap again :rolleyes:

Here's one theory that explains the circumstances under which a gene for male homosexuality could increase it's chances of being inherited. (along with all the other changes such a gene or adjacent ones would have)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/13/highereducation.research

robp

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

From earlier in the thread

This theory has circulated around for a bit but its worth in mind there is little explanation how fertility would rise. Furthermore there is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic even though its commonly supposed. I wonder has there been any further studies following on from the 100 gay Italians in the study and the following Italian study. Could be local socio-economic factors.

Capt'n Midnight

robp wrote: »

This theory has circulated around for a bit but its worth in mind there is little explanation how fertility would rise. Furthermore there is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic even though its commonly supposed. I wonder has there been any further studies following on from the 100 gay Italians in the study and the following Italian study. Could be local socio-economic factors.

You also have to remember that until recently humans lived in extended families, so having relatives to help was an advantage.

Let's hypothesise that a brother who didn't have children of their own would spend more time looking after or providing food for your kids because of the genetic link, perhaps that would increase their chances of survival because let's face it in the past most humans didn't survive the first few years and any improvements then would drastically increase chances of surviving to reproductive age. Who knows maybe that's the real function of maiden aunts ?



there are many genes that provide more advantages than disadvantages.
one in 16 or so Irish people carry the cystic fibrosis gene, in the past it must have provided a real survival advantage because it meant that one in four of the children where both parents were carriers were unlikely to live long enough to reproduce

it's unlikely that one gene controls sexual orientation just as no one gene determines skin colour. skin colour is also determined by the environment and if you are Irish it can change over short periods of time too, (white , pink , brown etc.)

robp

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You also have to remember that until recently humans lived in extended families, so having relatives to help was an advantage.

Let's hypothesise that a brother who didn't have children of their own would spend more time looking after or providing food for your kids because of the genetic link, perhaps that would increase their chances of survival because let's face it in the past most humans didn't survive the first few years and any improvements then would drastically increase chances of surviving to reproductive age. Who knows maybe that's the real function of maiden aunts ?



there are many genes that provide more advantages than disadvantages.
one in 16 or so Irish people carry the cystic fibrosis gene, in the past it must have provided a real survival advantage because it meant that one in four of the children where both parents were carriers were unlikely to live long enough to reproduce

it's unlikely that one gene controls sexual orientation just as no one gene determines skin colour. skin colour is also determined by the environment and if you are Irish it can change over short periods of time too, (white , pink , brown etc.)

Yeah I would give plenty of credit to group evolution concept. Although in this case I would sit on the fence. I am not sure maiden aunts are so common in Hunter gatherer societies and I don't think there is a gene for maiden aunts!! haha. Likewise I am not sure bachelor (possibly gay) uncles are documented in hunter-gatherer societies. I like the idea of of old age and the menopause evolving as a group trait to provision for children but the reality is it is just not clear cut.

I was thinking again about the Italian theory that homosexuality increases fertility and it struck me how many problems there are in that study. They didn't controls for participants socio-economic and regional factors. That could easily warp the results. A huge amount of a skin colour variation is supposed to be a result of the gene SLC24A5. Until you have a smoking gun like that with homosexuality this really is unsolved.

Maybe homosexuality is or is partially an environmental response as you suggest but its not a PC notion these days.

Zombrex

locum-motion wrote: »

Have you got any sources to back up your claims?

http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html
"Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study. - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html#sthash.58ye56x4.dpuf"

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/14/499483/study-male-genetic-homosexuality/?mobile=nc
"Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova discovered that the mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have significantly more offspring than those of straight men."

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2008/06/18-01.html
"As gay couples race to the altar in California this week, scientists may have found an answer to the so-called gay paradox. Studies suggest that homosexuality is at least partly genetic. And although homosexuals have far fewer children than heterosexuals, so-called gay genes apparently survive in the population. A new study bolsters support for an intriguing idea: These same genes may increase fertility in women."

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/06/13/study-male-homosexuality-strongly-genetic-and-related-to-female-fertility/
"A new study has suggested that male homosexuality is much more genetically determined than previously thought, and is directly related to the fecundity of female relatives."

jumpjack

Poo Fingers wrote: »

As i said, the evolution of bisexual behaviour poses no evolutionary paradox because it still allows reproduction. It's the avoidance of heterosexual sex which is the mystery.

An aversion to heterosexual mating would be extremely damaging to an organism's reproductive success and we should expect it to be thoroughly selected out, as it has in almost all species.

Why are we one of the rare exceptions?

Because mental illness has been banned in current "politically correct" epoch, hence if your brain "tells" you to do something, you are willing it, no excuse.
You're alcohol addicted? It's your choice, you're not sick.
You're homo? It's your choice, you're not sick.
You like killing people? You're sick, it's not your choice. Oh, wait...

I think a person is socially-harmful if, in case all people did what he does, society gets harmed.

nozzferrahhtoo

jumpjack wrote: »

I think a person is socially-harmful if, in case all people did what he does, society gets harmed.

That is a rather useless definition. By this definition street cleaners are harmful. After all if EVERYONE did that society would be harmed as nothing else would get done.

In fact I am struggling to think of many things at all where if the entire species engaged in it... it would be harm free. There are some of course, like breathing and loving, but the list is not long.

And given that there is no probability of "all people" doing any of these things I do not see the utility in the definition. Perhaps our definitions would be best served by being based on actual reality rather than fantasy, unattainable and massively unlikely hypothetical scenarios.

If ALL people turned homosexual... sure there would be some issue (though not as many as people think at all as we still have surrogacy etc etc). But it is fantastically unlikely. Perhaps the harm or lack of harm of homosexuality is better defined by the fact it is two consenting adults engaged in acts that harm no one and have no good moral or social argument against them to date nor any reason to validly class it as a mental illness or harmful mutation.

ScumLord

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If ALL people turned homosexual... sure there would be some issue (though not as many as people think at all as we still have surrogacy etc etc).

If you go back to the greeks where homosexuality was accepted those gay people still had families. Having children was your obligation to the state but they could still have sex with other men for fun.

Justin1982

I think there is a lot to be said for homosexuality as a human trait that provides advantages over being straight.

I think most people notice that gay men are often easily able to break into female groups who can be very clicky. And its not every day that you see real macho men going shopping with a big bunch of girly females or just hanging out doing girly stuff. So if homosexuals do spend more time with women then they have more time opportunity to mate with them. And this does happen. I know a few gay guys who told me that they had sex with their really close girlfriends just because she was in the mood and he was up for the laugh and wanted to try it. The fact that they are homosexual means that the dont give off any sort of pervy vibe that I'm sure I'd give off if I was hanging out with a bunch of women which might cause their guard to go up. Homosexuals may have an ability to sneak in under the radar and if just a few of them are in any way inclined to have sex with women then they can cause enough of an effect on the gene pool even if it is limited.

On the other hand, men hang out with men quiet a lot. Say in jail for example, men end up being grouped together. Really straight men are at a disadvantage in terms of mental health, happiness and generally keeping up moral to get through prison sentence. Gay men are in the prison population are given a slight advantage in terms of happiness. They can somewhat create relationships which increase happiness, which increases ability to come out of jail less mentally scared and go on and be more successful. Ok so this is a bit of a silly example but you see where I am going. You can apply it to a lot of social areas like the army or sailors or whatever where men end up living in male confines.

Lauren3142

calling it a problem makes it sound like something terrible happened !

[-0-]

Why is it a problem?

Lauren3142

you could have chose a better title !

Capt'n Midnight

The title was presumably chosen to be provocative.

I'll be closing the thread unless there's sciency discussion.

For non scientific discussion aspects the LGBT forum is over here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=255

nozzferrahhtoo

I think there is two meanings of the word "problem".

Perhaps people are choosing to read it (and as pointed out perhaps this was the OPs hope) as the vernacular non sciency meaning rather than the sciency one.

I do not think we mean "problem" as in "a troublesome issue" or "a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome."

Rather I think we mean it more in the sense of "an inquiry starting from given conditions to investigate or demonstrate a fact, result, or law.".

If homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon then it is a "Problem" in the sense of being a genuinely interesting Biological phenomenon for which there could be equally interesting and informative causes and explanations.

Lauren3142

Well maybe choose a more "sciency" discussion title ?

nozzferrahhtoo

That you would have to take up with the OP who, it seems, is long gone.

Capt'n Midnight

As I said earlier.

I'll be closing the thread unless there's sciency discussion.