Questions about homosexuality.

[Sophus]

Biologicly homosexuality serves no benefitial purpose.

There's no stress, burden, invested time and energy into raising and caring for children. In the animal kingdom this would surely make it easier for the individual animal (particularly a female) to survive. Indeed, it doesn't benefit the species, but the would be mother is free to use any gathered resources, such as food, all for herself.

From a males perspective they wouldn't have to go out of their way to perform tasks to win over a female.
Such as fighting if you're a hippo or singing if you're a bird (there have been birds who have sung themselves to death while trying to attract a mate).

None of this is a 'purpose', but it is beneficial.

[Tanker]

Biologicly homosexuality serves no benefitial purpose.

There's no stress, burden, invested time and energy into raising and caring for children. In the animal kingdom this would surely make it easier for the individual animal (particularly a female) to survive. Indeed, it doesn't benefit the species, but the would be mother is free to use any gathered resources, such as food, all for herself.

From a males perspective they wouldn't have to go out of their way to perform tasks to win over a female.
Such as fighting if you're a hippo or singing if you're a bird (there have been birds who have sung themselves to death while trying to attract a mate).

None of this is a 'purpose', but it is beneficial.

Since this phrase has been quoted twice I would like to say I should have said "Evolutionarily speaking" since regardless of the benifit to an individual the trait would not, in fact could not, get passed on.

I would also Like to say I have not forgotten about this thread but am Revaluating my thoughts, as well as organising them. While my current understanding my not change I am taking the time to think things through before I make another signifcant post.

[templeboy]

Just my two cents worth on question 1:

Obviously is is absurd to suggest that homosexuality is directly beneficial....

I think the strongest explanation for any gene that promotes homosexuality being selected for is that the same gene is beneficial in some other way (for instance it might promote fertility or promiscuity, or less likely some "higher" benefit. The fact that the gene promotes homosexuality has to be a less significant effect than the main effect.

[Sophus]

Since this phrase has been quoted twice I would like to say I should have said "Evolutionarily speaking" since regardless of the benifit to an individual the trait would not, in fact could not, get passed on.

I know what you mean, but even that I wouldn't rule out. At least not in a case of bisexuality. I believe I read that: If an animal forms a behavior on its own that is not the cause of some gene, it can become genetically inherited by its offspring.*

[li]Somebody please correct me if I'm mistaken.[/li]

The fact that the gene promotes homosexuality has to be a less significant effect than the main effect.

It's a misfire in males. Helpful in females from whose "grandmothers" reproduced more than the average female.

Obviously is is absurd to suggest that homosexuality is directly beneficial....

I can see some benefits to the individual. Obviously not for the species as a whole.

[Pineapple]

I myself am a homosexual and I do not have a choice over my sexuality. Do you think a lot of us want to be gay in a society that patronises and belittles us?

There are flamboyant people of any race, creed, religion, sexuality, etc. For instance, I know a lot of Christians that flaunt how much they love Jesus. Some people are just vocal about certain aspects of their lives.
No one I know would guess that I'm a fag.

[Kylyssa]

I think homosexual behavior in social animals has a beneficial effect and is part of a reproduction "strategy" employed by multiple species.

Non-reproductive, non-competitive animals may represent a reproductive advantage for their siblings or their species.  Note that "gay" penguins have been seen raising chicks, obviously filling the void left by a missing parent for a chick that would otherwise die.  While they are not, themselves reproducing they are preserving offspring of their species.  

Humans are born in pretty equal numbers, male and female, with a few more males born than females which soon levels out due to higher male mortality rates.  It makes for fierce competition for mates.  But if 10% of the male population is not competing it gives the other males a slight advantage.  That does make sense for the continuation of the genome if we examine the possibility that the successful male maters are siblings to homosexual males.  Perhaps this is why (according to a study I need to look up) each successive male child is slightly more likely to be homosexual than the first.  And if those homosexual sibs serve as part of the support structure for feeding and protecting their brothers' offspring instead of their own, those children will stand a better chance of survival than children of males with no sibs or sibs with their own children.  A child with a a mother, a father and an uncle has orphan insurance.  A woman with a non-reproductive brother (because, face it, in primitive societies, the woman's sexuality didn't matter, all women capable of bearing young probably did whether they enjoyed penises or not) might also experience the same benefit - an extra provider and protector for her children.

[AlP]

I myself am a homosexual and I do not have a choice over my sexuality. Do you think a lot of us want to be gay in a society that patronises and belittles us?

There are flamboyant people of any race, creed, religion, sexuality, etc. For instance, I know a lot of Christians that flaunt how much they love Jesus. Some people are just vocal about certain aspects of their lives.
No one I know would guess that I'm a fag.

Well said sir.

[Tanker]

As I said I have not abbondoned this tread But have spant some time thinking.

First I would like to say thank you to everyone

Kylsssa thats probably the most reasonable thing I have heard. There seems to be a few hole to me that will bear more thinking on, but it is far better the my previous "I can't see the evolutionary point" I was at before.

On flamboyance while common in many groups my subject is on homosexuality so they are the group I'm asking about. Since it has become the near stereotype of being gay. Wetaher we like it or not many stereotypes have a grain of truth to them. After some reflection I think the reason some gay people go a bit overboard with their flamboyance is they are so often repressed and live in closet for years, predending to be what they are not, ect that now that they are out they are showing the world and expressing those shrugged off repressions in the extreme. The lose the fear at with it some of the reserved inhibtions they had in the closet.

I think a bennefit that has resulted is since the more exteme flamboyance is rare it make the more subdued in they gay community seem that much more "normal" and therefor acceptable to the rest or society. Though I doubt this was a conscience reason for it.

[jbeukema]

My first question has to do with why any of you belive Homosexuality exists.

One possible explanation for some instances: http://www.google.com/search?q=homosexu ... +evolution

There is a great deal of argument on why someone (or some animal) is gay. Religious people tend to think it's a choice (which doesn't work for animals). I do not agree. That would primarily leave genetic coding, but that too makes little sense to me

\\\

You present a false dichotomy

. Since there is no evidence it is an inherited trait,

Clearly, you're not familiar with studies of twins.

biologicly speaking it serves no purpose, and evolutionarily speaking It's actually counter productive since a gay person (or animal) won't be able to reproduce if it ONLY mates with it's own sex.

Evolution acts on populations, not individuals. See my first links and also see the studies regarding more successful feminization of the fetus after multiple births by a single mother.

Since it's abnormal to be gay, (see point 2) normaly a gene with no positive benefit is bred out. but homosexuality has been part of the human condition for at least as long as man has had a writen language. It is almost certainly older then the aproxamitly 5000-6000 year old writen word, woulden't it have bred out by now or al least be at a much lower level if it was purely genetic.

Again, see sexually antagonistic evolution

My second question is about "flamboyance". I don't get it at all. A good example would be gay pride parades. Just because I'm an atheist I wouldn't drawn attention to the fact by say...stripping naked, painting myself blue, and running down the street naked. (Not that gay people would either).

Most gays I know hate flamers. I have known hetero flamers, as well.

[Brizz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

 

[-43-]

As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

[Tanker]

As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

Did you read my original post or are you just trolling? If you had read it you would realise I DON'T mind but was simply confused. As I dislike gaps in my knowledge I posed the question to try and fill those gaps.

[-43-]

As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

Did you read my original post or are you just trolling? If you had read it you would realise I DON'T mind but was simply confused. As I dislike gaps in my knowledge I posed the question to try and fill those gaps.

I am not trolling, merely stating my opinion about homosexuality. If I was trolling I would become far more offensive.

[Tanker]

As longs the person/sheep/blow up doll, you stick your junk into doesn't mind, why should you?

Did you read my original post or are you just trolling? If you had read it you would realise I DON'T mind but was simply confused. As I dislike gaps in my knowledge I posed the question to try and fill those gaps.

I am not trolling, merely stating my opinion about homosexuality. If I was trolling I would become far more offensive.

Well your "opion had NOthing to do with the post. Your record of post are about 1-2 miutes apart. which unless you are a ridiculously fast reader means you're not reading the treads, mabye just the subjects, then giving your opinion which is not helpfully or conductive to the usuall free discourse of this forum. One of the best things about this forum is the obvious effort most people put into thier responses, you just seem to want to make lots o' posts quickly without contributing anything worthwhile.

[-43-]

Okay, if you want some thorough answers this is what I can do:

Homosexuality exists for a myriad of reasons, an emotional need created by childhood circumstances, a possible genetic mutation, a simple animal need for any form of sexual contact, a dissolutionment or dissatisfaction with members of the opposite sex, an adaptation to circumstances (such as that which exist in prison) and an emotional connection which has been intensified. These seem to be the major contributing factors to homosexuality.

As for the flamboyance, it's a call to attention, and it is by no means a universal trend in homosexuals. Those who dress as such usually enjoy a "shock value" or identify themselves with gay pop culture icons (Perez Hilton comes to mind). It is much like the baggy pants worn by gangsters or the emo haircuts, it's to fit in to some social group.

On another note: I enjoy being concise, occam's razor.