Why does homosexuality exist in nature?

[Night FM]

Obviously, heterosexuality is nature's default due to its link to procreation. Therefore, I'm curious why homosexuality exists in nature since it doesn't seem to have an evolutionary purpose. I've heard various theories about why it exists, some genetic and some environmental, but I wanted to hear other people's opinions.

And regarding "homophobia" or aversion to homosexuality, which seems particularly focused on male homosexuality, my thoughts are that there are various factors at play here, such as the link between male homosexuality and disease.

Edited October 12 by Night FM

[StringJunky]

It's because of cultural and religious dogma.

[MigL]

To satisfy a need.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Night FM said:

the link between male homosexuality and disease.

Citation needed, or silence. Silence works, too. 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

Therefore, I'm curious why homosexuality exists in nature since it doesn't seem to have an evolutionary purpose.

How can you tell whether it does or doesn't have an evolutionary advantage ('purpose' is an incorrect term when referring to evolution)? If it were a handicap to a species, I suppose it would have bred out.

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

And regarding "homophobia" or aversion to homosexuality, which seems particularly focused on male homosexuality, my thoughts are that there are various factors at play here, such as the link between male homosexuality and disease.

Huh. I wonder why syphilis and gonorrhea haven't put a hex on heterosexuality. It's because some idiotic Middle-eastern warmonger figured there might be fewer baby soldiers next generation, and/or the troops might not fight as fiercely. The Greeks put that notion to rest quite decisively, but the lesson wasn't learned.

[exchemist]

9 hours ago, Night FM said:

Obviously, heterosexuality is nature's default due to its link to procreation. Therefore, I'm curious why homosexuality exists in nature since it doesn't seem to have an evolutionary purpose. I've heard various theories about why it exists, some genetic and some environmental, but I wanted to hear other people's opinions.

And regarding "homophobia" or aversion to homosexuality, which seems particularly focused on male homosexuality, my thoughts are that there are various factors at play here, such as the link between male homosexuality and disease.

I think it's a misconception to think that natural selection will necessarily eliminate all inherited traits that do not promote reproductive success. Furthermore I'm not sure it is at all clear that that sexual orientation is inherited in the first place. With that in mind one should be able to see why homosexual behaviour might continue to be found in nature, natural selection notwithstanding.

Even if homosexuality is to some degree inherited, considering that Man is a social creature, success for the group would be expected to be driven by factors that help the group to pass on its genes successfully to subsequent generations, rather than simply operating at the level of the individual. There are roles in human society for individuals that contribute to that, apart from procreating themselves. For instance one explanation for the longevity of human life, way past procreation age, is that the wisdom and skills of experience have value to the group, as does the help of grandparents with childcare.  So individuals that don't actually procreate themselves may nonetheless serve an evolutionary purpose at group level.

 

[joigus]

10 hours ago, Night FM said:

Therefore, I'm curious why homosexuality exists in nature since it doesn't seem to have an evolutionary purpose. I've heard various theories about why it exists, some genetic and some environmental, but I wanted to hear other people's opinions.

 

Read The Selfish Gene. Your statements prove hands down that you're not familiar with the arguments there.

And no, there are no genetic theories, as opposed to environmental ones. Genes interact with the environment from the get-go. In fact, they do during the perinatal stage already. You just made that up.

It's a bit like saying you've heard an argument about electrostatics based on positive charges and another based on negative ones. Silly to say the least.

[Night FM]

13 hours ago, joigus said:

Read The Selfish Gene. Your statements prove hands down that you're not familiar with the arguments there.

And no, there are no genetic theories, as opposed to environmental ones. Genes interact with the environment from the get-go. In fact, they do during the perinatal stage already. You just made that up.

It's a bit like saying you've heard an argument about electrostatics based on positive charges and another based on negative ones. Silly to say the least.

If we use Wikipedia as a source, homosexuality isn't said to derive exclusively from environmental or genetic causes. Most likely it's a combination of factors and no-two scenarios are identical. On social media, however, people will often ascribe purely one or the other.

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Citation needed, or silence. Silence works, too. 

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/sexual-health/sex-activities-and-risk/#:~:text=Anal sex has a higher,chlamydia

Anal sex has a higher risk of spreading STIs than many other types of sexual activity.

I'm aware that anal sex isn't exclusive to homosexuals, but for obvious reasons, I'm sure that male homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex. And since anal sex between males doesn't carry the risk of pregnancy and males are more likely to take sexual risks than females, male homosexuality is also associated with higher numbers of sex partners. Likely this association of male homosexuality with disease plays a role in why the Biblical Old Testament, to my knowledge, exclusively forbid male homosexuality.

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Huh. I wonder why syphilis and gonorrhea haven't put a hex on heterosexuality. It's because some idiotic Middle-eastern warmonger figured there might be fewer baby soldiers next generation, and/or the troops might not fight as fiercely. The Greeks put that notion to rest quite decisively, but the lesson wasn't learned.

I don't totally buy into this, because homophobic behavior isn't exclusive to one religion or culture. As an example, while some Native American societies are said to have tolerated homosexual and transgender behavior, the Aztec Indians executed homosexuals despite having no link to Abrahamic faiths. So, if anything, homophobic behavior seems to be tied to certain types of cultural or socioeconomic groups, and may have some innate origins, such as the link between anal sex (which is associated with male homosexuality) and disease. (This is likely the reason that aversion to male homosexuality seems more common than aversion to female homosexuality).

It may also be a mischaracterization to claim that Greeks or Romans were entirely "tolerant" of homosexuality. I've heard that the typical Roman attitude may have been more akin to "prison sexuality", where a man was not considered "gay" if he was the one doing the penetration rather than being penetrated.

Edited October 13 by Night FM

[TheVat]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:09 PM, Night FM said:

regarding "homophobia" or aversion to homosexuality, which seems particularly focused on male homosexuality, my thoughts are that there are various factors at play here, such as the link between male homosexuality and disease.

Statistical analyses show that cultural and socioeconomic factors are what mainly drive STD rates.

Also, generally, you are asking about a set of behaviors which are then culturally defined as homosexuality - these are notoriously difficult to link to specific genes or to selection in terms of reproductive fitness.  It's a bit like asking why some people engage in stamp collecting when "it doesn't have an evolutionary purpose."

In macroevolutionary framing of social animals, a whole vast range of behaviors which connect us as social animals are adaptive at the scale of species even if it's not so much at the individual level.  And macroevolution, as Gould, Erwin et al have noted, is not just microevolution writ large.  

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

I don't totally buy into this, because homophobic behavior isn't exclusive to one religion or culture.

The ones who tolerate it are as good at making war as the ones who punish it. Nothing to do with exclusivity: just a simple fact that the punishers are wrong. Roman and American prisons notwithstanding. None of those ancient peoples understood the causes of disease, or based their religious dicta on scientific information. 

[joigus]

8 hours ago, Night FM said:

On social media, however, people will often ascribe purely one or the other.

I didn't know that, TikTok or X not being my sources for evolutionary biology. Quora has considerably better standards, but still...

[iNow]

11 hours ago, Night FM said:

since anal sex between males doesn't carry the risk of pregnancy and males are more likely to take sexual risks than females, male homosexuality is also associated with higher numbers of sex partners.

This too is plucked from your twisted imagination 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Night FM said:

If we use Wikipedia as a source, homosexuality isn't said to derive exclusively from environmental or genetic causes. Most likely it's a combination of factors and no-two scenarios are identical.

!

Moderator Note

Are you using wikipedia as a source? You haven’t provided any citations.

 

12 hours ago, Night FM said:

On social media, however, people will often ascribe purely one or the other.

And social media is definitely not a source. 

Quote

I've heard that

Neither is this. You need to do better 

[Night FM]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

This too is plucked from your twisted imagination 

Not at all. Honestly it's common sense, but it can easily be sourced:

MSM (men who have sex with men) reported significantly more lifetime partners than heterosexual men and women at all ages (p<0.01 for each age group). The median lifetime number of sex partners among those aged 18–24 was 4 in heterosexuals and 15 in UMHS MSM, and among persons age 35–39, was 10 and 67, respectively. (The SEA did not ask about lifetime number of partners.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3334840/#:~:text=MSM reported significantly more lifetime,was 10 and 67%2C respectively.

[naitche]

Because it most often not a trait harmful to species. No need to delete.