Why are there gay people/gay species?

[Mrs Zeta]

Briefly, I see homosexuality as the beginning of something evolutionarily deeper. I believe that the development of higher levels of intelligence in homo sapiens will lead to the progressive reduction of sexual reproduction, increase of homosexuality (there is no specific reason for this other than the removal of the need for sexual reproduction), and as a consequence, the abolition of human ageing.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Mrs Zeta

[Ringer]

Briefly, I see homosexuality as the beginning of something evolutionarily deeper. I believe that the development of higher levels of intelligence in homo sapiens will lead to the progressive reduction of sexual reproduction, increase of homosexuality (there is no specific reason for this other than the removal of the need for sexual reproduction), and as a consequence, the abolition of human ageing.

 

Besides being extremely adaptationist it doesn't really follow from the fact that we have found homosexuality to be extremely widespread.

[Consistency]

This is like asking what is consciousness.

 

My observation.. we all have internal male and female characteristics, lets call them internal light energies since we are made of light held by matter, maybe homosexuals and lesbians have more female than male light energies, maybe bisexuals have an equal amount of light energies, maybe straight guys have more male than female light energies. At the end of it.. like attracts like... maybe certain internal light energies attract certain internal light energies. Who knows.. just a theory.

Edited November 30, 2012 by Consistency

[Phi for All]

This is like asking what is consciousness.

 

My observation.. we all have internal male and female characteristics, lets call them internal light energies since we are made of light held by matter, maybe homosexuals and lesbians have more female than male light energies, maybe bisexuals have an equal amount of light energies, maybe straight guys have more male than female light energies. At the end of it.. like attracts like... maybe certain internal light energies attract certain internal light energies. Who knows.. just a theory.

Sorry, but gack! We hate the term, "Just a theory" here. This is a science site, and in science a theory is the best it ever gets, representing thousands of people working sometimes their whole lives to form the best explanation for a specific phenomena. We'll forgive you, just this once...

 

Light energies? Simple biology works just fine.

 

Sorry to jump on your first post with both feet. I hope you stick around. It's not personal, around here we attack the idea, not the person who has it.

[John Cuthber]

 

I dont have a problem with homosexuality but its not normal because normal is measured by what the majority average human being is.

 

Roughly half the population is male and roughly half is female.

In each of those two groups there are heterosexuals and homosexuals.

So none of the 4 groups formed by the combination of those traits can be a majority.

Congratulations! you have just defined the whole of humanity as abnormal.

 

(and you forgot the apostrophes too)

 

Homosexuality is observed in many species. It's normal .

However homophobia is only observed in one species.

What are you calling "normal"?

[Consistency]

Sorry, but gack! We hate the term, "Just a theory" here. This is a science site, and in science a theory is the best it ever gets, representing thousands of people working sometimes their whole lives to form the best explanation for a specific phenomena. We'll forgive you, just this once...

 

Light energies? Simple biology works just fine.

 

Sorry to jump on your first post with both feet. I hope you stick around. It's not personal, around here we attack the idea, not the person who has it.

 

I mean't my personal hypothesis. My mistake.

 

What produces the light around the cells? and what about the burst of light when the cells divide?

 

Around the 4:05 mark -

Edited December 1, 2012 by Consistency

[mooeypoo]

My observation.. we all have internal male and female characteristics, lets call them internal light energies since we are made of light held by matter,

We are? Well. I'll need to re-earn my diploma, then. So would all other physicists. And biologists. And chemists. Get to it, Hypervalent_iodine.

 

maybe homosexuals and lesbians have more female than male light energies, maybe bisexuals have an equal amount of light energies, maybe straight guys have more male than female light energies. At the end of it.. like attracts like... maybe certain internal light energies attract certain internal light energies. Who knows.. just a theory.

 

Very substantiated one, at that. It explains why all those hot half-naked gay men glow in the dark in gay clubs downtown NYC.

 

 

 

 

Now, a bit more on topic, I am not sure I understand the original question. There is no "gay species", there are homosexual/gay individuals in *many* species. As was pointed out before, this can be explained evolutionarily, but we should also take into account that what we culturally define as "gay" is a multi-facet definition of things that exist in nature outside of humans. Our current modern society finds it convenient to divide sexual orientation to 'extremes' - gay, bisexual or straight - and according to many observations (both in human beings and in other species) that might not necessarily be the case. Homosexuality might be more similar to a sort of "range" (Ever heard of the Kinsey Scale?). The range is represented more as 'extremes' because that's more convenient out of the taboos we have in our society against same-sex relationships.

 

Even if a person is predominantly straight and 'leans' towards homosexuality, it would be (socially and culturally and, most often personally) more convenient to disregard that "small" taboo inclination and settle for the "straight" title. Same for predominantly homosexual people who might not be on the extreme end; society expects you to title yourself, and we tend to comply.

 

But that doesn't mean NATURE title us this way at all. In fact, the more we get into these issues in both humans and other species, the more we learn these things tend to be a lot more layered and complex than we'd like to believe.

 

~mooey

 

I dont have a problem with homosexuality but its not normal because normal is measured by what the majority average human being is.

 

John answered the point about the weird-logic here, but I would like to point out that even if you're right, "not normal" doesn't really mean anything. Einstein's intelligence, according to your definition (and I would assume most definitions) wasn't normal either. It was greatly beneficial to our existence, though. Natural immunity to diseases is not "normal" but it is an evolutionary step forward in producing offspring that is naturally immune to diseases...

 

"Normal" is something that constantly changes. I don't see how it's relevant even if your definition of it is correct.

[MonDie]

I dont have a problem with homosexuality but its not normal because normal is measured by what the majority average human being is.

We could use two different sorts of categorization here.

 

The heterosexual-homosexual system of cetagorization is gender-binary. That is, a man who desires women is heterosexual, while a woman who desires women is homosexual. The heterosexual-homosexual categories are convenient for referring to couples.

 

In contrast, the androphilia-gynephilia system of categorization is not gender-binary. This categorization system is more useful when you are talking about individuals, not couples.

 

When we are talking about genetics, we are talking about individuals, not couples. On top of that, men and women share most of their genes. If natural selection is to restrict gynephilia to men, it will have to cram all those gynephilia "genes" onto one tiny little chromosome, the Y chromosome. Likewise, if it's going to restrict androphilia to women, I imagine that it would have to put some sort of anti-androphilia genes onto the Y chromosome. However, as long as same-sex sexual behavior isn't too maladaptive, I see no reason for why nature would make us heterosexually inclined rather than bisexually inclined.

 

Another interesting consideration is the mating system that has dominated human recently. Correct me if my anthropology is alittle off. The agricultural revolutions were occurring about 15-20,000 years ago. After these revolutions, family units were more cohesive. Individuals could no longer choose their mate, it was their family that made the choice. However, there probably were illegitimate children that nobody knew were illegitimate. Nonetheless, selection for a heterosexual orientation would have been weakened.

 

EDIT: I had another thought. Excessive heterosexual desire might be selected against if the parents would produce too many offspring. Humans must give great amounts of care to their offspring to ensure their success. Overbreeding might diminish the amount of care they provide to each offspring.

 

Wooh! I think I just joined the kin-selection explanation with the sexually antagonistic selection explanation!

Excessive heterosexuality would probably be maladaptive for females unless they have nonreproductive, gay relatives to help them raise the extra offspring. Without those gay helpers, the excess female fecundity (heterosexual desire) may have been selected against.

However, this concept would be less significant to patrilocal mating systems, unless the gay brothers relocated with their sister. The idea of patrilocality could be extended beyond the post-agricultural-revolution mating systems.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Ringer]

I mean't my personal hypothesis. My mistake.

 

What produces the light around the cells? and what about the burst of light when the cells divide?

 

Around the 4:05 mark -

 

The light around the cells comes from using a light microscope. The cells move around and create space between the membrane of other cells and the solution surrounding the cells and let the light through.