From an evolutionary stand point shouldnt g**s not exist?

Question

think about it if homosexuality is genetic why didnt natural selection wipe out the g*y gene

Answer 1

1.) Peer/kin selection: in group cultures (like ours) there is a benefit to having someone who will help raise children and share resources with them without produceing thier own - some argue homosexual people are often the younger of siblings

2.) They genetic aspect of homosexuality (and there is one, although it's not 100%) may be linked to increased female reproduction. Evolution works across a population as a whole - on the whole, this gene would increase fitness.

The link below is incredibaly relevant, in fact. Also, don't forget evolution may explain why traits exist, but doesn't suggest any kind of moral judgement; so even is homosexuallity turns out to be an evolutionary fluke, morally it's still fine.

Answer 2

If homosexuals did not breed, one might expect this to be the case, however most do reproduce via heterosexual s*x.  As a cattle breeder, I know it is action that takes place in the womb that causes one s*x to have characteristics of another. When cattle produce male/female twins the female (we call them freemartins) will almost always be sterile & display male characteristics such as fighting & attempts to establish dominance. They will mount other females upon reaching maturity.

Because I have a scientific education, I realize the folly of applying this knowledge to humans, but some evidence suggests that if a male child follows a female child in the birth order, then that male is more likely to be homosexual.  Therefore, I suggest birth order & conditions within the womb have more to do with producing homosexuals than genetics.

The 1st child produced by a woman is very seldom homosexual for some reason.

See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemartin

Answer 3

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality.

It happens with species in the animal kingdom and they have no concept of what is right or wrong.

It is only humans that make moral judgments not evolution. Sexuality is something that is restrained not eradicated by moral ethics.

Therefore natural human evolution has seen no valid purpose to genetically change the sexuality of the species.

Answer 4

Not necessarily.

Homosexuality may be a genetic change brought on by population pressure. It could literally be built into everyone and as population goes up or there are too many of one s*x or another, homosexuality becomes expressed due to hormonal changes in the mother.

Homosexuality could be a multiply recessive gene. It does have a beneficial effect on the species as a whole by providing a population limiting factor and by providing a group of people who will not have children of their own but can help raise the rest of the tribes children.

Homosexuality is a complex subject and your limited understanding of both genetics, evolution, and homosexuality prevents you from seeing all the options.

Answer 5

yes.

But evolutionists have a knack of 'explaining' completely contradictary evidence by adapting the 'theory'.

The evolutionary hypothesis shows itself to be worthless - if it explains everything, then it explains nothing!

Answer 6

I don't know if it's genetic. But it makes sense for why some people are homosexual. If people are homosexual, then obviously they can't reproduce. It's a means to control the population. This is the same for why we live so long. We can't reproduce after a certain age, but yet we continue to live. It's so we can help care for our grandchildren. It all has to do with what is best for our survival as a species.

Answer 7

No one really knows what causes homosexuality; it is probably only partly genetic, and may also be tied to developmental influences on a child.

Homosexuality is not really tied to evolution. Many mammals,especially primates, show homosexual tendencies and behaviors. Apes and monkeys hav been observed participating in homosexual acts, yet all species seem to be able to procreate sufficiently to continue the species.

Evolutionary change is primarily caused by environmental challenges that threatens the species existence, but not by social conditions. Global warming for example, could ultimately threaten the human species into either extinction or gradual evolutionary change; but our perceptions of homosexuality as a cultural and social phenomenon will not have any similar effect..

Answer 8

There are a couple of things to point out.  First, we're not completely sure why some people are g*y.  We're really not even sure how many people have "homosexual tendencies".  When talking about homosexual humans, there are a few things to take into consideration.  One large factor is that humans are among an elite number of species to actually have s*x outside of purposes of reproduction (I'm not sure, but I've heard Dolphins have s*x for pleasure as well...I don't know enough to confirm this).  Also, humans are the only ones who clothe themselves.  Curiosity, I think, is a big feature here for some people.  Take for instance the sects that regard "elbows" (of all things) as "private parts".  In their culture, they cover the elbows - so showing elbow there is like showing breast here (again, I don't know much about the culture as this isn't a primary study; I'm going back 10 or so years from psych / soc. class!)  

And as it is not confirmed to be a gene or genetic issue, we can't really question evolution (evolution is what would "edit/change/correct/etc" genes).  They always think they find the "g*y gene" but then it appears to be nothing.

Interesting chat though.

Answer 9

Research has shown that g**s tend to be nurturing aunts and uncles. That's a means to ensure that their genetic inheritance is passed along.

Plus "Scientists have discovered that g*y men’s mothers, sisters and maternal aunts tend to have significantly more children than the norm — and that many of their nephews and male cousins are also g*y.

The findings suggest that the same genes that trigger homosexuality in men also promote fertility in women, and that this could explain how they survive in the population when g*y men themselves are unlikely to breed."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...

That seems to explain the evolutionary standpoint

Answer 10

I see what you're saying here, but I think it's a little flawed. I don't think that there is a "g*y gene". Every human fetus, in it's early stages, starts out female. My theory is that if homosexuality is biological, perhaps fetuses that end up male didn't completely develop all of the male characteristics or were exposed to higher levels of certain hormones in the womb, causing them to be male, but have some female preferences (to be attracted to men). Therefor, even though homosexuals can't reproduce in their preferred relationships, there isn't a gene to be selected for or against that would "wipe out" homosexuals.  

You also have to consider that some homosexual men do reproduce with women  or via  surrogates, so if there is a "g*y gene", it would be able to continue on. Also,  homosexuality could be a personal choice and not just a biological predisposition.

Answer 11

Homosexualtiy is not normal. End of story.

Answer 12

Homosexuality is not a heritable trait (or set of traits) so evolutionary forces do not work on it.

Just think, the son of a g*y man is no more likely to be g*y than the son of a straight man.

(This also shows that homosexuality is not caused by environmental factors.)

Answer 13

A long time ago I used to use that argument to make a case that homosexuality can't be genetic.  I was in college at the time doing courses in Biology.  I vaguely remember learning that the purpose of an organism is to pass on it's genetic material and the purpose of s*x is to perpetuate the species.  So, since homosexuality would do neither, it is not a natural part of evolution.

Well, i've ammended my thoughts about this in the 30 years since.  I think it may be possible that nature has evolved some self limiting factors.  In other words homosexuality might be a mechanism for limiting population growth.  

I have also come to understand that with the complexity of the human being our sexuality which depends on both brain, hormones and genitalia, is not a simple matter.  Nothing about the human being is black and white, simple.  Why should we deliniate our sexuality into only two catagories male or female.    I suspect that sexualiy is a continuum that extends from ultra female too ultra male and everything inbetween.  

Biology would have us believe that we all function exactly the same.  Well, the same biochemical processes happen in everyone as long as your healthy, but there are variations in the efficiency of processes and organs in each individual.  What your born with depends on what happend to your ancestors and how efficient your body works depends on inheritence and life style.  Your sexuality is partly determined by your bodies ability to produce s*x hormones and your nerous systems ability to function at a certain level.  This level varies with different individuals.

Answer 14

Because we need people who have great taste in fashion, interior design, and lanscape architeture!  Just kidding.

Answer 15

A lot of the theories are that it's only partly genetic, partly to do with in utero exposure to hormones, and partly cultural.

The genetic element could very easily cause a beneficial effect if you only pick up one copy of the gene, such as being a better father or better able to socialize.

There's also the observation that a lot of warrior cultures are tolerant of homosexuality, suggesting that it may lead to a more increased chance of survival in a battle.

Also, even though a persons sexual preference would be for the same s*x, this wouldn't stop them following the social norm of marrying for procreation. Being g*y doesn't make you incapable of reproducing. This was standard procedure in Roman culture, marriage was more like a reproductive contract, same s*x relationships outside of the marriage weren't uncommon, and not that much of a matter for comment (although being effeminate as a man was a real no no).

Answer 16

it ain't gene, but another bad excessive rotated desire. just like killing, it's wrong but some human can't still help but to live with   it.