Mystery of Homosexual Behavior

[Edpsy77]

The genetic creation of homosexuality is a mystery to me. Although I believe there is a genetic component to same sex attraction, I have not heard any valid explanation for its existence. One of the purposes of heterosexuality is to pass on genes and reproduce. Thus, it makes sense that the male-female attraction is in part due to the need for the human species to procreate. Some scientists have made the conjecture that perhaps homosexuality was a means of population control. However, the most logical orientation in that case would be asexuality(lack sexual desire at all). If nature knew there was no possibility to procreate under same sex attraction, it would be equally plausible for nature to produce offspring that lacked sexual desire in order to control the population.

 

Thus, I am wondering if any of you who are familiar with scientific principles can explain to me how it could be scientifically logical for humans to have genetically produced behavior of same-sex attraction which has a reproductive purpose. Many evolutionary psychologists still consider the sexual urges of gays and lesbians as sexual urges that are linked to procreation. How can that be when same-sex orientation is incapable of spreading genes or procreating and it has been established that only the opposite-sex attraction is a genetic sexual-attraction paradigm which at times results in procreation.If I am wrong with any of my assumptions, please let me know. Please tell me what is flawed in my thinking. I am truly confused.

[iNow]

It's possible that a desire for sex was selected more prominently than a desire for sex with opposite sex members. The sex drive itself is what gets selected, not the object of desire. That could translate into individual differences for preference. Less likely, but possible.

 

There is also the idea that homosexuality may be a benefit to the survival and care of kin. This is similar to the grandmother hypothesis, so you should look that up if you're not familiar.

 

Finally, if you incorporate an understanding that homosexuality is seen in other animals outside just humans, you get a better feel for how homosexual behavior could assuage group tensions. In many primate species, sex is used to calm aggressors and to give thanks for resources shared. In these instances, where sex is more for social cohesion instead of pure reproduction, it becomes much more clear how other benefits come from the homosexual activities.

 

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head. There are certainly more.

[Phi for All]

Although I believe there is a genetic component to same sex attraction, I have not heard any valid explanation for its existence.

What's the valid explanation for heterosexual existence? If it's procreation, modern science does make it possible for homosexuals to have children.

 

Some scientists have made the conjecture that perhaps homosexuality was a means of population control.

I've seen bloggers and religious leaders make that conjecture, but not a scientist. Do you have a link to any studies?

 

However, the most logical orientation in that case would be asexuality(lack sexual desire at all). If nature knew there was no possibility to procreate under same sex attraction, it would be equally plausible for nature to produce offspring that lacked sexual desire in order to control the population.

Your logic sounds expensive in a biological context. It would cost more in evolutionary terms to stifle sexual desire than it would to redirect or broaden it.

 

Thus, I am wondering if any of you who are familiar with scientific principles can explain to me how it could be scientifically logical for humans to have genetically produced behavior of same-sex attraction which has a reproductive purpose. Many evolutionary psychologists still consider the sexual urges of gays and lesbians as sexual urges that are linked to procreation. How can that be when same-sex orientation is incapable of spreading genes or procreating and it has been established that only the opposite-sex attraction is a genetic sexual-attraction paradigm which at times results in procreation.

In a strict evolutionary, pass-your-genes-along kind of way, homosexual reproduction is limited. But the drive to raise children with a partner of your choosing is no less strong among same gender couples.

[Moontanman]

How can that be when same-sex orientation is incapable of spreading genes or procreating and it has been established that only the opposite-sex attraction is a genetic sexual-attraction paradigm which at times results in procreation.

 

One way in which you are wrong is assuming that homosexuals cannot procreate, in fact you are assuming that homosexuality is one of two states with heterosexuality being the only other one when in fact humans are sexual along a curve with most people being a combination of both, in other words bi-sexual and some call themselves pan sexual. It is our culture that places limits and labels on sexuality.

 

Humans when denied their main sexual desire can and will substitute the same sex to satisfy their sexual needs, humans in prison area prime example of this.

 

But assuming that being homosexual precludes sex with some one of the opposite sex is simply not true.

[akh]

Your logic sounds expensive in a biological context. It would cost more in evolutionary terms to stifle sexual desire than it would to redirect or broaden it.

 

 

 

My thoughts are along this line and it goes along with iNow's comment that, "It's possible that a desire for sex was selected more prominently than a desire for sex with opposite sex members." It is a bit of a conjecture, but sexual drive is among the strongest, if not the strongest, natural drives of the animal world for obvious reasons. This would suggest that it is very much hard wired, and to rewire to a lack of drive would require much greater change at the genetic level. But, a redirection of the drive may require very little, if anything, at the genetic level. It could be entirely a product of the environment in which the fetus develops.

Edited September 22, 2012 by akh

[Edpsy77]

One way in which you are wrong is assuming that homosexuals cannot procreate, in fact you are assuming that homosexuality is one of two states with heterosexuality being the only other one when in fact humans are sexual along a curve with most people being a combination of both, in other words bi-sexual and some call themselves pan sexual. It is our culture that places limits and labels on sexuality.

 

I agree there are pan-sexuals/bi-sexuals. However, there are also homosexuals who are only attracted to the same sex and heterosexuals who are only attracted to the opposite sex. I don't see why I would question someone who says the have only a same sex orientation. Homosexuality is certainly not imposed by our mainstream society while heterosexuality is the dominant orientation that is overwhelmingly promoted.

 

Humans when denied their main sexual desire can and will substitute the same sex to satisfy their sexual needs, humans in prison area prime example of this.

 

But assuming that being homosexual precludes sex with some one of the opposite sex is simply not true.

 

Yes your theory is valid to some degree. However, a vast majority straight men and women fail to engage in homosexuality in prison even it is used as a "substitute" for straight sex. Many homosexuals are not attracted to anyone of the opposite sex. Many straight people are not attracted to anyone of the same sex. Thus, how can evolutionary psychological theories on sexuality which center on passing genes apply to gays and lesbians who are attracted to the same sex?

 

What's the valid explanation for heterosexual existence? If it's procreation, modern science does make it possible for homosexuals to have children. I've seen bloggers and religious leaders make that conjecture, but not a scientist. Do you have a link to any studies?

 

 

I am not asserting that homosexuality is morally invalid. Homosexuality would be valid whether it is caused biologically or sociologically. However, I don't see how I can reconcile the validity of homosexuality within most of the theories that are posited under evolutionary psychology. For instance, large numbers of evolutionary psychologists base alleged gender differences in sexual behavior on the assumption that males can produce more offspring than females. However, it is obvious that they are referring to heterosexual mating rather than homosexual mating.

 

I have rarely seen studies that mention other evolutionary purposes for sex except for passing genes. Proponents of Darwinian sexual theories will concede that humans can use sex beyond procreation but this fact does not change the fundamental biological intent behind sexual urges: procreative desire. In other words, every sexual arousal is a cry from an organism to pass his or her genes.

 

Your logic sounds expensive in a biological context. It would cost more in evolutionary terms to stifle sexual desire than it would to redirect or broaden it.

I don't see how it would be expensive, if nature failed to put sexual desire in species as a means of preventing overpopulation. The desire is only necessary when it is used as a means to procreate. I am referring to the desire on genetic terms not social terms. Although, homosexual relationships have provided valuable romantic/sexual relationships to benefit humanity, they are waste within the context of passing genes.

 

In a strict evolutionary, pass-your-genes-along kind of way, homosexual reproduction is limited. But the drive to raise children with a partner of your choosing is no less strong among same gender couples.

 

I agree. I have heard that many Darwinian psychologists attempt to apply theories that are commonly used to explain gender differences in sexual behavior between straight males and females to gays and lesbians. Claimed differences in sexual attitude/behavior between straight males and females are based on studies that assume sex is primarily for passing genes. Even though gays and lesbians can raise children, they cannot produce offspring by engaging in homosexual behavior. There is nothing wrong with that even if homosexuality was a choice but the fact remains they are unable to procreate by engaging only homosexual behavior.Thus, how can heterosexual mating strategies be applied to homosexual behavior?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2012 by Edpsy77

[dmaiski]

1. hetrozygote advantage, one possibility for homosexual behaviour

2. its just a mental trait (you know psychology?)

3. a mix of the two

 

 

[akh]

I don't see how it would be expensive, if nature failed to put sexual desire in species as a means of preventing overpopulation. The desire is only necessary when it is used as a means to procreate. I am referring to the desire on genetic terms not social terms.

 

 

 

Did you read my comment above? To stymie sexual drive altogether is likely to require a radical alteration at the genetic level, while redirecting that desire does not. Can you see why this would be biologically expensive? Sexuality has been shown to be very plastic.

 

As pointed out earlier, the idea that homosexuality is the direct result of overpopulation has not been established. I do not think that this idea seems reasonable.

 

 

 

Although, homosexual relationships have provided valuable romantic/sexual relationships to benefit humanity, they are waste within the context of passing genes.

 

Not necessarily true. If homosexuality increases the overall fitness of a group, tribe, or next of kin, then it is not a waste within the context of passing genes.

Edited September 22, 2012 by akh

[Phi for All]

I am not asserting that homosexuality is morally invalid. Homosexuality would be valid whether it is caused biologically or sociologically. However, I don't see how I can reconcile the validity of homosexuality within most of the theories that are posited under evolutionary psychology. For instance, large numbers of evolutionary psychologists base alleged gender differences in sexual behavior on the assumption that males can produce more offspring than females. However, it is obvious that they are referring to heterosexual mating rather than homosexual mating.

Again, can you provide some links to the studies you're referring to? I don't know of any psychology that puts reproduction above gratification. While evolution inevitably favors those who pass their genes along to the next generation, most individuals just have sex because it feels good. That seems completely valid to me, psychologically.

 

I have rarely seen studies that mention other evolutionary purposes for sex except for passing genes. Proponents of Darwinian sexual theories will concede that humans can use sex beyond procreation but this fact does not change the fundamental biological intent behind sexual urges: procreative desire. In other words, every sexual arousal is a cry from an organism to pass his or her genes.

Seriously? Most studies I've seen involving humans don't mention the drive to procreate as the main reason to have sex. Even in an evolutionary sense, sexual drives fulfill many other functions where the rewards are much more short-term.

 

I don't see how it would be expensive, if nature failed to put sexual desire in species as a means of preventing overpopulation. The desire is only necessary when it is used as a means to procreate. I am referring to the desire on genetic terms not social terms. Although, homosexual relationships have provided valuable romantic/sexual relationships to benefit humanity, they are waste within the context of passing genes.

It's not as simple as just failing to put the desire there. Think of it like any physical system. It's easier to divert a force away from a certain area than it is to dam it up completely, or just fail to provide a force. This is especially true with something as strong as sexual desire.

 

If you have a river that's going through an area you wish to protect, it's easier and cheaper to redirect the flow of water around the area than to remove the lake that feeds the river. And damming the river creates its own problems (not a perfect analogy, but then none are).

 

I agree. I have heard that many Darwinian psychologists attempt to apply theories that are commonly used to explain gender differences in sexual behavior between straight males and females to gays and lesbians. Claimed differences in sexual attitude/behavior between straight males and females are based on studies that assume sex is primarily for passing genes. Even though gays and lesbians can raise children, they cannot produce offspring by engaging in homosexual behavior. There is nothing wrong with that even if homosexuality was a choice but the fact remains they are unable to procreate by engaging only homosexual behavior.Thus, how can heterosexual mating strategies be applied to homosexual behavior?

I fail to see what you're arguing about here. You seem to suggest that homosexual humans are not valid members of the species because they can't procreate in the exact same way heterosexuals do. Yet you acknowledge that it's perfectly possible and acceptable for homosexuals to use other advantages humans have in terms of intelligence, cooperation, superior communications and tool use to work around the limitations of homosexual reproduction. It seems like you're making the parameters too rigid in order to point out a problem that really doesn't exist.

 

As a minor side note, I object to your use of the term "Darwinian psychology". Evolutionary theory has advanced a great deal in the last 150+ years. Calling it "Darwinian" anything seems like an attempt to chain it to a time when it wasn't as deeply understood. You don't see relativity being referred to as "Einsteinian physics" or big bang as "Lemaitrian cosmology", so why insist evolution be associated only with its earliest understanding?

[overtone]

The benefits of homosexuality in the context of caring for children, including support for reproductive humans, defense of the reproductive community, exploration and innovation of the environment, etc etc etc, seem to have attracted little research or attention.

 

The assumption that such benefits do not exist is dubious, given the stubborn ubiquity of homosexual potential among most mammals, birds, and other more intelligent and social beings.

 

The observation that homosexuality would be bred out of the species if it had no value, given the direct hit to reproduction it creates, is a strong argument against the hypothesis that it has no reproductive value.

[dmaiski]

these advantages you describe, why do you think they are limited to gay men?

 

straight men are just as capable as gay men at all those tasks, so I don’t see how it could be a selective advantage for the gay gene.

 

I'm sorry to ruin your party but it has to be done, until you can answer that what you are saying is baseless.

 

 

 

 

[Ophiolite]

I have rarely seen studies that mention other evolutionary purposes for sex except for passing genes. Proponents of Darwinian sexual theories will concede that humans can use sex beyond procreation but this fact does not change the fundamental biological intent behind sexual urges: procreative desire. In other words, every sexual arousal is a cry from an organism to pass his or her genes.

Like Phi for All I am astounded by this comment. It is true that in very many species sex is used solely as a means to procreation, but there are still a significant number of whom this is not true. (I wonder in passing if they are mainly comparatively close relatives of ours.)

What you have not considered is that evolution repeatedly makes use of existing structures for a new purpose. Most examples are of physical structires put to new uses, but it can be - as in this instance - behaviours also.

[overtone]

straight men are just as capable as gay men at all those tasks, so I don’t see how it could be a selective advantage for the gay gene.

And I see no basis for your assumption that "gay genes" offer no such selective advantages in a reproductive context of evolved complexity in social nature (even those limited, as you presume for some reason, to the Y chromosome in humans).

 

The major evidence we have is all against such an assumption: homosexual behavior is universal and pervasive among humans, common and robust many other evolved and evolving animals and birds - especially, we note, the more intelligent and socially complex ones.

 

The direct reproductive penalty is obvious, so the automatic presumption would naturally be - under the precepts of Darwinian theory - that to the extent homosexual behavior is genetically influenced there is some serious reproductive benefit to those genetic influences. Otherwise, as several people have noted, these alleles or whatever would have vanished long ago, from the gene pools of all those animals and birds as well as humans.

 

Any claims otherwise would require thorough research, overwhelming evidence, and excellent argument.

 

[dmaiski]

co selection of alleles,

also specific combinations of alleles or minor mutations can give rise to unusual mental traits(schizophrenia).

 

There's no requirement for an advantage to a trait for it to be selected, the appendix is a great example of this, the trait just needs to be reletevly harmless, in a place that it cant easily be removed from(near centromere usualy), and resistant to mutation.

Edited October 16, 2012 by dmaiski

[overtone]

There's no requirement for an advantage to a trait for it to be selected, the appendix is a great example of this,

The appendix is presumed to be left over from a formerly useful organ (and is not completely useless now) - it persists despite its costs because there is no incremental and likely evolutionary way to remove it. (Smaller and less functional appendixes are more, not less, prone to lethal appendicitis.).

 

It was selected for its advantages, at one time, by presumption (and several plausible functions have been suggested). That is the normal presumption for such features. That would be the normal presumption for any genetic component of homosexuality. Any other presumption would require strong evidence and solid argument.

 

There is, apparently, a clear and visible path to evolutionary reduction and long term removal of whatever the genetic component of homosexual behavior is - through the obvious reproductive hit incurred in a population of non-breeders. So we are not talking about a leftover from former times of advantage - the advantage has to be available now, to explain the apparent situation. Homosexuality is not disappearing, from any human population known.

Edited October 17, 2012 by overtone

[dmaiski]

You do know that your explanation for why the appendix is here can apply to homosexuality?

meaning there is no good way that it could be removed from the population, probably because the traits that cause it (and they are probably multigenic) cant be removed or edited out without sever reproductions on:

personality

reproductive behaviour

mental function

 

*just approximations, I have no proof since I haven’t had the chance to play around with human genetics to that extent, and simulations of that complexity will need more processing power that is currently easily available.

 

Also it could have evolved as a side effect of other traits. Being multigenic, in all likelihood, it wasn’t even selected for, but rather was the result of a specific mix of alleles being present in an individual resulting in the trait.

 

 

 

 

*i use likely and probably because no one has tried to prove it

 

 

[john5746]

If sexuality is on a continuum, then maybe those on the extreme ends are not the optimum. Maybe a man with some feminine traits and a woman with some masculine traits generate the most successful offspring possibly genetically and/or with better nurturing. Maybe they are also more attractive.

[overtone]

You do know that your explanation for why the appendix is here can apply to homosexuality?

This is possible, but very unlikely for several reasons:

1) Unlike with the appendix, no formerly valuable and ubiquitous but currently missing function of the characteristic has ever even been suggested. If it used to have a role it no longer has, something that would explain its Darwinian emergence in the past but not apply to current circumstances, no one can think of what it might have been - there aren't even any plausible guesses out there AFAIK. The farther back in evolutionary times we consider, the less likely the evolutionary emergence of such a huge and direct reproductive hit seems to be.

 

2) Most people don't feature the characteristic. So there is a large population of non-expressers to select for, and a much smaller population of expressers to select against, and no apparent reason that Darwinian mechanism would not be in rapid and decisive force.

 

There is no such population of appendix-free people, enjoying the reproductive advantages of invulnerability to appendicitis (a major cause of pre-reproductive death and disability until very recently), so the failure of Darwinian mechanism to select for them is easily explained.

 

3) Rather than being a holdover from a distant evolutionary past, say with examples in extant older branches of evolutionary trees (as with the appendix), homosexual behavior seems to characterize especially the very most recently evolved entities - the intelligent and socially complex mammals and birds.

 

Also it could have evolved as a side effect of other traits. Being multigenic, in all likelihood, it wasn’t even selected for, but rather was the result of a specific mix of alleles being present in an individual resulting in the trait.

This is also possible, in theory. But the selection against such combinations, and Darwinian pressure to ensure their impossibility (by gene linkage, suitable mutation, etc) would have been severe for millions of years - some explanation for the failure, the universal failure planetwide among all populations of humans known, to reduce the likelihood of them (with all the opportunity various founder effects and genetic bottlenecks have provided) would be necessary. And then there are all those other animals - - - - .

 

 

[Moontanman]

I have noticed that some if not most posting in this thread seem to think that homosexuality is biological, i suggest that it is more a part of cultural labels. I know a lot of people who have at one time or another had homosexual sex, many of them still do recreationally but would never call themselves homosexual.

 

In fact the model of bonobos in nature seems to show this quite strongly. In bonobo society everyone has sex with everyone else, who is the homosexual? They reproduce quite well and still manage to have homosexual sex quite a bit, in fact homosexual sex seems to dominate with females having recreational sex with each other more than sex with males. Sex for them is mostly recreational and or an expression of dominance/submission and i think it is quite possible that humans in their natural state are much more like this than the strict homosexual heterosexual divide that society requires.

 

I think the idea that sexuality is mostly one way is an artifact of our culture more than a biological imperative with people who are at the extremes being held up as examples of the norm. I look at the tolerance of female homosexuality as an example. A woman who goes both ways is sexy a man who does is considerably less so and suspected of just pretending to like women and is generally shunned by both sexes, this is a cultural artifact, not biology.

[jp255]

Overtone I think you have let your assumptions grow unchecked, like weeds. Weed killer application might be appropriate. Your posts have gradually become more and more inappropriate.

 

The benefits of homosexuality in the context of caring for children, including support for reproductive humans, defense of the reproductive community, exploration and innovation of the environment, etc etc etc, seem to have attracted little research or attention.

 

The assumption that such benefits do not exist is dubious, given the stubborn ubiquity of homosexual potential among most mammals, birds, and other more intelligent and social beings.

 

Whether or not benefits do or don't exist is not the important question. If homosexual behaviour as a trait were to have some advantage then you should ask if those benefits are strong enough to allow for the genetic basis for the trait to rise in frequency. Since the genetic basis for homosexuality is not understood so well in humans, but suggested by heritability, such studies are not meaningful. To also extend these studies to imply that these benefits existed a long time ago, ,which would allow you to suggest that the traits rise in frequency may be due to these benefits, is inappropriate. Those studies and research you refer to don't offer much, if any, meaningful data/conclusions.

 

And I see no basis for your assumption that "gay genes" offer no such selective advantages in a reproductive context of evolved complexity in social nature (even those limited, as you presume for some reason, to the Y chromosome in humans).

 

The major evidence we have is all against such an assumption

 

In my opinion, the argument should not go beyond how likely it is that homosexual behanvioural traits confer selective advantages as there is no/very little evidence suggesting that there is or isnt. Assuming either possibility isn't appropriate as it is an open question whether there are or are not selective advantages.

 

 

The direct reproductive penalty is obvious, so the automatic presumption would naturally be - under the precepts of Darwinian theory - that to the extent homosexual behavior is genetically influenced there is some serious reproductive benefit to those genetic influences

You can't deny the possibility of genetic hitchiking, selective sweeps etc as mechanisms which could have contributed to the increased frequency of genetic components to homosexual behavioural traits though, can you?

 

There is, apparently, a clear and visible path to evolutionary reduction and long term removal of whatever the genetic component of homosexual behavior is - through the obvious reproductive hit incurred in a population of non-breeders. So we are not talking about a leftover from former times of advantage - the advantage has to be available now, to explain the apparent situation. Homosexuality is not disappearing, from any human population known.

 

When you say that you are not talking about a leftover from former times, that is assuming that there is very high penetrance and that a genetic component that contributes to homosexual behaviour cannot be found in an individual that reproduces. Proove the high penetrance or take back the statement. It is your perception that a homosexuality trait should in theory be wiped out from the gene pool very fast, but that might not be the case in reality.

 

 

Most people don't feature the characteristic. So there is a large population of non-expressers to select for, and a much smaller population of expressers to select against, and no apparent reason that Darwinian mechanism would not be in rapid and decisive force.

 

There is no such population of appendix-free people, enjoying the reproductive advantages of invulnerability to appendicitis (a major cause of pre-reproductive death and disability until very recently), so the failure of Darwinian mechanism to select for them is easily explained.

This contains far too much speculation and deduction from your own personal observation. Firstly, this argument also assumes high penetrance. The trait itself varies, and some individuals with the trait do reproduce, there could also be an underestimation of homosexuality behaviour due to social prejudice.

 

 

If I had made those assumptions you made then I would have been in agreement more often. The issue is not simple and all possibilities must be considered.

 

I have noticed that some if not most posting in this thread seem to think that homosexuality is biological, i suggest that it is more a part of cultural labels

 

Labels are all we really have. In a similar way to skin colour, there is no strict melanin index score that the entire general population uses to term someone as white, is there? I havn't read much of this thread but I'd imagine it is hard to tell if people really do think that homosexuality is not a continuum.

 

Same sex attraction should also not be ignored in homosexuality discussions.

Edited October 19, 2012 by jp255

[John Cuthber]

WTF?

As far as I'm aware there is no mystery.

Homosexual people engage in homosexual activity because they enjoy it.

Oddly that looks just the same as heterosexual behaviour.

Obviously, only one group worry about contraception.

Is it viewed as a mystery that straight people don't suddenly stop having sex because they know that he's had a vasectomy of she's on the pill?

 

For most people, sex has little to do with procreation.

[zapatos]

I don't know enough about the subtleties of evolution to participate in this discussion much, but I am unclear on a particular point that has been made and would appreciate some feedback.

 

A couple of times in this thread the point was made that people have sex primarily for enjoyment, not procreation. I understand that it is pleasureable, but presumably the pleasure is simply an incentive to procreate. I don't think we evolved that pleasure simply to make our lives less dreary.

 

Evolution has built a mechanism to ensure procreation; a need that gets us up and off the couch on Saturday night, and a reward in the pleasure of some one-on-one athletics. The need to have sex is similar to the need we get from thirst. The pleasure that comes from a cool drink of water and sex seems to be there simply to help ensure we slake those respective thirsts.

 

It seems to me that while our conscious minds may think we are having sex for pleasure, deep down we are having sex to procreate. Homosexual behavior, whether genetic, environmental, or cultural is of no particular benefit and simply exists because the mechanism for procreation is not flawless.

[dmaiski]

Sex, with respect to human society, has taken on a role of a social mechanism, rather then a purely procreative one.

 

In many ways it is closer to talking then the way other animals do it (go into heat, secrete pheromones, have sex, run off)

 

Having sex for pleasure, or for social interaction, or for purely recreational purposes, is something that humans have partaken in for a long time.

Admittedly this system came about due to the possibility of conceiving children as a side effect, but it has taken on a secondary role in human society over time.

 

 

This makes gay and lesbian sex a fairly logical by product of such a social mechanism, that is why it can be considered that the “gay gene/trait/complex/multigenic disorder” dose not actually exist, and is a by-product of regular function.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2012 by dmaiski

[zapatos]

Sex, with respect to human society, has taken on a role of a social mechanism, rather then a purely procreative one.

 

In many ways it is closer to talking then the way other animals do it (go into heat, secrete pheromones, have sex, run off)

 

Having sex for pleasure, or for social interaction, or for purely recreational purposes, is something that humans have partaken in for a long time.

Admittedly this system came about due to the possibility of conceiving children as a side effect, but it has taken on a secondary role in human society over time.

 

 

This makes gay and lesbian sex a fairly logical by product of such a social mechanism, that is why it can be considered that the “gay gene/trait/complex/multigenic disorder” dose not actually exist, and is a by-product of regular function.

I'm wondering then how attraction comes into play. I am sure there is some homosexual behavior that is simply social. Some women I know who have had public displays of 'making out' with other women said they did it simply because it was fun, to tease the guys who were around, etc. But it seems like this is a small part of what is involved in homosexual behavior.

 

Don't most people who have sex do so with the the gender they are 'attracted' to? Is it true that most people who participate in homosexual behavior do so because they feel that attraction to the same gender? Having an attraction sounds to me like it must be from something like a genetic or developmental cause, rather than a social cause.

 

People have talked about sexuality being on a continuum, but just from personal observation (which may not mean squat) it seems that 'most' people are heterosexual, followed by a small group that is homosexual, followed by a very small group that falls in between.

[Dekan]

I don't know enough about the subtleties of evolution to participate in this discussion much, but I am unclear on a particular point that has been made and would appreciate some feedback.

 

A couple of times in this thread the point was made that people have sex primarily for enjoyment, not procreation. I understand that it is pleasureable, but presumably the pleasure is simply an incentive to procreate. I don't think we evolved that pleasure simply to make our lives less dreary.

 

Evolution has built a mechanism to ensure procreation; a need that gets us up and off the couch on Saturday night, and a reward in the pleasure of some one-on-one athletics. The need to have sex is similar to the need we get from thirst. The pleasure that comes from a cool drink of water and sex seems to be there simply to help ensure we slake those respective thirsts.

 

It seems to me that while our conscious minds may think we are having sex for pleasure, deep down we are having sex to procreate. Homosexual behavior, whether genetic, environmental, or cultural is of no particular benefit and simply exists because the mechanism for procreation is not flawless.

 

Yes, straight sex is merely Nature's way to induce genetic reproduction. It's quite demeaning really. When a man gets into bed with a woman, both participants are Nature's puppets. Lured by present pleasure, into the future distress of coping with squalling babies. Which no man really wants. The woman might. But the whole business seems such an obvious genetic ploy on Nature's part.

 

Whereas, when a man gets into bed with a man - Nature is transcended - and gloriously outwitted! We say "Forget the ruddy genes, whey-hey, let's just have some fun!"