Why are people gay?

[BrentWil]

I hope no one takes offense at this thread. That is not the purpose of it.

However, I do have a question. Why are people gay? Most of the biological evidence suggests that being gay is nature. There seems to be genetic information that supports this. Moreover, there are gay people in countries where they are killed for being gay. Clearly it isn't something that is a choice.

My question revolves in why. If you are gay, you do have less of a chance of passing your genes on to another generation. Looking at this from an evolutionary point of view, I don't get it. Why and how did homosexuality develop when it would seem to be a self defeating evolutionary trait in that it reduces the chances of reproduction.

Again, I hope this isn't something that offends anyone. For me, politically, why something happened isn't as important as it did happen. Gay Americans are denied rights every day and that is highly immoral. However, homosexuality is an evolutionary puzzle that I just don't get. I hope you will not take offense to me asking "why", even if it is not as important as the fact that it did happen.

[Orrex]

1. Because they love popcorn. And I hope they'll share.

:popcorn:

[NMMNG]

66. Good thing I have a large supply

[KG]

2. well, *somebody* has to fabulous.

:eyes:

[Vickers]

16. Ding! Ding!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Freetradesucks]

32. Best answer.

nt

[muffin1]

138. Right on!

:loveya:

[mwooldri]

147. Especially if his name *is* Gay.

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

Longtime presenter of RTE's Late Late show. He retired in '99 tho.

[msongs]

3. come on now, being "light hearted and carefree" is a lifestyle choice don't ya know

[dsc]

4. there are two distinct evolutionary possibilities

One, having gay relatives might make it more likely to pass your own genes on. Thus having a gay brother might have given you an extra hunter back in the hunter-gatherer era and having one now might give you more ability to send your kid to good schools etc.

Two, being gay might be a recessive gene where having one gay gene might be helpful. This is why sickle cell amenia is around. One sickle cell gene bestows immunity from malaria with no ill effects but two such genes gives you cycle cell amenia. One gay gene might make a straight guy more desirable to women.

I think one is more likely than two but you never know.

[BrentWil]

9. That is interesting

That is interesting. Has there been much evolutionary science on it? Not my area of expertise, but I am curious.

[dsc]

14. I don't think there has been

I know that the first theory has been explored to some extent but the second can't be until a gene is isolated and can be studied.

[hlthe2b]

12. Just a little hint...

I think you are referring to sickle cell trait, sickle cell gene. ;)

[HillWilliam]

41. There's another theory that posits that

early groups may have prospered with more hunters and gatherers who had no children and could better concentrate on supporting the group that way. Also there would have been more aunties and uncles who could care for children whilst parents were out hunting and gathering. With no children of their own, the gay members could support the group as a whole.

It makes sense to this gay man. I always thought that was the best part of being an uncle. I could borrow my sibling's or cousins' kids, have a great time being a kid, sugar 'em up, and when they got loud at one end and smelly at the other, I could hand them back :D

[Warpy]

58. Don't forget the clues in paleo linguistics

that have the words for "father" emerging rather late in our history, with "mother's brother" being the closest male relative until the idea of paternity was introduced. There might have been a real evolutionary advantage in having a gay brother who would be willing to take on a more nurturing role with his sister's children, thus making sure related DNA was passed on more efficiently, while straight brothers would be tomcatting around and bashing each other's heads in.

However, nobody knows why people are gay, only that it's not a choice and that it seems to be programmed from birth.

[jobycom]

69. That's interesting, but I'm not sure it's related to gay brothers.

In many prehistoric cultures, and some tribal cultures even to this day, the child is raised by the mother's family, with the father playing mostly the roll of provider, if he is involved at all. Before strict "marriage" laws and sexual taboos, it wasn't always clear who the father even was, so the mother and her immediate family were more likely to raise the child. The maternal uncle would become the breadwinner, especially when life was "nasty, brutish, and short" enough for the father to be less likely to be around.

Even in the Middle Ages, the maternal uncle played a greater roll often than the father, because fathers were typically ten to twenty years older than mothers--the cultural result of waiting until the father was able to provide while only waiting for the mother to be old enough to reproduce.

[Warpy]

171. Man the producer?

90% of the caloric intake in a hunter-gatherer society is vegetable, gathered by the women. That intrepid hunter/caveman savior stuff evaporated in the face of reality years ago. What they did provide sporadically was nutritionally dense food like meat. While the men contribute, it's not in the form of subsistence.

[BrentWil]

145. That is very interesting. I had not heard that.

So there is some evidence that homosexuality was a part of early family structure. Interesting.

[Warpy]

172. No evidence, but it makes evolutionary sense.

Marriage, after all, is a fairly late invention.

[tigereye]

201. I think there are/were plenty of cultures where homosexuality and transves-

tism/ variable gender roles were accepted. Hopefully someone here who's an anthropologist will correct or provide more info.


Also in nature, there are plenty of "gay" bugs and other creatures - read Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to all Creation. Often the "one male-one female" paradigm is not the most typical one, or the most genetically beneficial one in nature.

[jobycom]

62. I don't understand the first one, so I wrote a bloody long post about it.

I think you're saying that a relative who won't compete for a mate or leave to form a different family is a material asset, being a hunter or provider who doesn't cost anything. If that's what you mean, I get that part.

But natural selection doesn't care about the species. It cares about the individual. Traits that help a creature survive and breed are passed on through breeding, but traits that don't help a creature reproduce aren't passed on. Natural selection doesn't weed out non-helpful traits, it weeds out any trait that doesn't assist in surviving until reproduction. Gay genes if they were isolated would therefore, it would seem, die out quickly because they would limit reproduction.

But I can think of two ways around that. The first is your second point--that the gene is beneficial in some other way, and only triggers homosexuality in some people but not others. If that is the case, then the ideas of fucking with that gene in the fetus to control sexuality would be a very dangerous one.

There's another possibility (I'm a liberal arts major and know about Evolution mostly from Dawkins and Coyne, so this is going to be poorly explained). Some people are lactose intolerant because the same gene that allows them to handle milk as a child switches off when they get older. In other people, it doesn't. Why it switches off in some people is hard to say--maybe because of a lack of use in cultures that don't use dairy products, maybe for some other reasons. Or maybe it is designed to switch off when it is no longer used, but in cultures where dairy farming is important, the gene never receives the trigger to shut it off. I apologize to any biologist out there for butchering the complexity of that explanation, I'm paraphrasing Jerry Coyne as well as I can from memory.

So perhaps there is one gene which determines sexual attraction, and maybe it's triggered one way in the majority of people for evolutionary purposes, and maybe it's triggered a different way in a minority because of some stimuli we don't understand yet. That would even explain bisexuality, if the switch didn't select one mode or the other. Maybe the trigger is related closely but not exclusively to physical gender or hormones, or maybe like the lactose tolerance gene it chooses its final position based on external factors.

The last could fit two general observations. First, that a person's sexual orientation is influenced at an early age (pre-toddler?) by something external, in their basic love map. Say the gene is triggered by emotional responses in the first one to three months. Because of cultural stimuli as well as natural attraction, a parent responds one way to boys, another to girls. Not a major difference, but enough to trigger whatever triggers the gene, maybe. In some infants something causes a different attraction and the switch triggers the other way. I'm not talking about stuff like James Dobson or Jerry Falwell fantasize about--playing with dolls or hammers or showering with their parents. I'm talking about something that happens much earlier, before conscious thought in a way too subtle to be noticed, that might create an emotional or hormonal reaction that triggers the switch. That would mean the gene is passed on just like every other gene that helps reproduction even though it precludes choice.

The other general observation, the more likely one, is that it is triggered environmentally for some reason, like, say, to control population, in a family, a region, a nation, or whatever. Say it's triggered by a lack of some nutrient, either in the child or the parent (before or after conception), and that nutrient informs the body that things are going well out there. If it is lacking, it is telling the body things aren't well, that further reproduction would strain resources. This would have to be only triggered in some people missing the nutrient, not all. It doesn't have to be about population, I just used that as an example because it was mentioned downthread. Again, since the same gene also enables reproduction, it is passed on by natural selection, but functions differently in a way that can affect overpopulation and therefore can help the species survive. It's not natural selection, which is why it works.

Or it could have nothing to do with genes. It could be something else, like a hormonal balance created and affected by things unrelated to sexuality, and it could explain why some people are bi, or some people lean gay or straight but can choose sexual activity with someone else.

Or it could be none of those. Just some ideas of how it can be decided before or immediately after birth and still not violate natural selection. I doubt we understand more than five percent of what controls emotions and sexuality, and it may turn out to be something that happens at a sub-cellular or sub-genetic level we don't even theorize about, or in the countless chemical and electrical impulses in the 90% of the brain whose function we can't even grasp yet.

I've heard conservatives claim sexual orientation can't be a choice because it violates natural selection, so I wanted to counter that. Sorry about the length. If anyone is even still reading.

[csziggy]

90. There are studies of birds and species in which sisters or siblings assist the mother

In raising the young that prove that natural selection does not just "care about the individual." Natural select works in favor of perpetuating the genes, but that does not necessarily mean the individual carrying those genes must be the one to make sure they survive.

In many species it is the social unit that ensures the perpetuation of the genes. For instance, in wolf packs and in lion prides, the dominant female may be the only one that is permitted to support her offspring to adulthood. Generally, her sisters or other females in the group will help in raising the cubs, even to the point of lactating to allow the dominant female to return to her leadership role.

I have no idea how this concept might be affected by alternate sexual identity and do not post this to be applied to that. I am just commenting on your original premise: "But natural selection doesn't care about the species. It cares about the individual. Traits that help a creature survive and breed are passed on through breeding, but traits that don't help a creature reproduce aren't passed on. Natural selection doesn't weed out non-helpful traits, it weeds out any trait that doesn't assist in surviving until reproduction." That idea has been disproven in many species.

[jobycom]

98. Great. More stuff I don't understand.

If the genes aren't passed on through reproduction, how do they survive? That's how I saw the question.

I understand that some traits can help the species survive outside of reproduction. Menopause is maybe an example in humans--it's a trait obviously in the genetic coding enabling women to survive beyond their child-bearing years, so they are around to protect their genetic offspring for maybe two generations, helping that specific genetic code to survive.

But they still have to pass on the code. If they were unable to reproduce, the gene would not pass on. If they were predisposed to not reproduce, the gene would likely die in a few generations as odds caught up to it. The genetic trait has to be passed down, or it just isn't there anymore. There can be a gene that makes a creature the greatest hunter ever--a superman gene--that would be exceptionally useful to a society, but if the gene also meant that Superman couldn't reproduce, the gene would not be passed on no matter how useful it was.

That's all I was saying. It can't be a simple matter of there being a "gay gene" that automatically makes a person gay, because over a million years it would have died out, not because it's not useful to the species, but because it just didn't get passed on by the individual. That's why I was agreeing with DSC's second point, that it could be a gene with another primary purpose that is useful to reproduction.

So I get that "does not necessarily mean the individual carrying those genes must be the one to make sure they survive," but the genes do have to be passed on through reproduction somehow, or they just aren't passed on, and no amount of help can make something that doesn't exist survive.

[csziggy]

105. Since many social groups in animal consist of siblings

Then they are perpetuating their genes - even if it is only 50 or 25% of the same genes. The wolf pack and lion prides are usually the daughters of the dominant female with a male or more from outside the family allowed in. The studies that I have seen reports of have seemed to say that the chances of group survival is improved if not all the members are competing for sexual rights and that cooperation can be a major survival factor.

We think of family groups as being patrilineal -headed by a male - since that is how our Western society tends to run. But in nature and in some human cultures, they are more matrilineal and matrilineal groups tend to evict the male offspring once they begin to mature sexually. So the society ends up being the dominant female, her sisters and her female offspring. They will have a limited number of mature males for reproductive and defensive purposes, at least in the feline and equine social organizations I have studied.

Mature males that have been evicted from their natal groups often form bachelor bands, but mortality is high since they tend to be more competitive than cooperative with each other and they do not have the leadership of a dominant female with her accumulated knowledge.

Maybe that is an answer to the original post - if an effeminate male is not evicted as maturing males usually are, it increases his individual chances of survival. The presence of a an additional male to protect the group without competing for sexual rights might increase the group and its offspring survival. As well more dominate but non-reproducing sister would increase the chance of her sisters' offspring surviving. Perhaps if that trait is passed genetically, the gene survives in their sisters' offspring.

Edited to add - that would also explain why the difference between "normal" males and "gay" males is more distinct and obvious than with homosexual females. Since sexually mature males are evicted, a male that is obviously not sexually active with female would be less likely to be evicted.

[jobycom]

199. No, that's still not complete.

A gene that stops reproduction cannot be passed on. It can't be passed on by siblings because if the siblings had it they would not reproduce. It does not matter how helpful the gene is to the species, if it blocks reproduction it can't be passed on.

So the gene has to be useful to reproduction for some other reason, and homosexuality is just an occasional side effect of that gene. THAT could be passed on through siblings.

A lot of people are looking at Evolution as a designer. It isn't. It is a series of unrelated changes that emerge as useful. It only operates on the individual. The results can be helpful to the community, or the community can learn to benefit from the results, but it only works on the individual. For a parallel, it would be helpful if my brother were very rich, but it would not be my needs which caused my brother to be rich. It would be his actions which caused it.

If a gay lion helps the pride but cannot reproduce, then the gay lion is not going to pass on genes. The helpfulness is just a random benefit. It may help the species to survive, but it's not by design, and it doesn't pass on its gene to another generation. The gene therefore cannot simply cause homosexuality, or it would die out. That's what the OP asked. That's what I answered. I stand by it now that I've read rebuttals that don't understand what I said. There isn't a gene that causes homosexuality every time. As DSC said, it is more likely a gene that has some other purpose individually, but under the right conditions results in the trait of homosexuality emerging.

The fact that the trait may help the species survive is good for the species, but it is not and explanation of how the gene can be passed on when it seems to block genes being passed on, which is what the OP was asking.

On a related note, the OP's question is a big talking point of conservatives. They like to claim liberals are inconsistent by claiming first that Evolution is true, and second that homosexuality is not a choice, since they think the two contradict each other. They don't, because conservatives misunderstand Natural Selection. That's the reason I answered the question. Hopefully the OP wasn't asking for that reason.

[tigereye]

208. many biological species are mult-sexual from what I have read

Also if there are genes that "cause/lead to" homosexuality, I suspect that it is a very complex, multifactoral interaction.

[GodlessBiker]

219. Heterosexuals, largely, pass the gene on, as it helps them to have some gay people in the family...

to help with social responsibilities but not have children themselves.

It is in the interest of heterosexuals to have gay people around to help, that is why the gene, if it is a gene, is passed on.

I think it is in meerkats which have a behavior which warns non-family group members of danger even if the warning presents an immediate danger to the warning giver. Why is the gene which produces that behavior passed on if it doesn't immediately help the the individual, indeed it presents a risk of death to the individual? Because genes also are geared to group preservation, and the larger the group to warn each other, the better the chance that any individual is warned by others and survives.

[csziggy]

265. If it is genetic it's very likely that it is not a single gene but a complex

Of genes expressed because of specific environmental factors that produce alternate sexual identities. Genes and DNA are just not as simple as they used to think. Sure, blue vs.brown eyes can be simple, but most other things are much more complicated.

Many parts of a genome are only expressed when triggered by specific things at specific times in development. Heck, alligators can have their sex completely flipped in the egg if the temperatures are at different ranges. Homosexuality could be something like that - only triggered occasionally but otherwise not evident. And if that is so, every single person could have the potential to be homosexual but whatever factor triggers it just did not happen at the right time.

Every individual in a related group does not have to reproduce in order for their genes to survive. If a brother helps his sister's offspring to survive, then the percentage of genes that they share will be passed along. In some species, a more successful group allows more of the sisters to reproduce, improving the likelihood that more of the shared genes will be reproduced, even if every individual does not reproduce.

Think of it as a sports metaphor - does the team fail if the entire team does not individually score or do they succeed if each contributes and allows their point main to score more often? (yeah, that's bad - I don't do team sports so I don't know the terms.) You get the idea?

[Spike89]

287. Think a bit broader on "passing the genes"

You're missing the point of multiple offspring. My brothers and sister all have the same genes as me, yet we are not identical. Let's make this simple and take the sibling information back to the lion pride example. Mama lion has a gene that causes 1 of 10 of her cubs to be gay. Her pride is successful because of this and each of her cubs carry on her gene and their prides are successful.

In other words, all the offspring have the gay gene, but "gayness" only manifests itself 10% of the time. The 9 reproducing offspring survive at a better than average rate (compared to prides without the recessive gay gene) and the gene is a "winner" from an evolutionary standpoint.

Even simpler...an individual need not manifest a genetic trait to pass it on.

[tigereye]

207. not all gay men are effeminate, either

Is there that big a difference between straight and gay men, other than gay men's lack of interest in sexual activity with women? What about bisexual men?


I think we need a biologist in here, too! :D

[csziggy]

263. I realized after I wrote that effeminate was not really the proper term

Just the handy one.

I'm thinking more in terms of animal behavior than human and as I said before, my knowledge is mostly of feline and equine groups. Primate and hominid behavior is much more complicated and far more influenced by nuture than many other animals.

[tigereye]

205. I don't know that one can asume that gay folks have no desire to reproduce

:shrug: Many do.

Not being a geneticist, I'm not even going to risk a guess at the inheritance patterns or the collections of genes that might contribute to homosexuality.

[jobycom]

286. Yeah, I realize that, but the inclination over a million years

would reduce the likelihood of the gene being passed on. But that is an excellent point, and one that was made downthread rather well.

[ThomThom]

284. I don't know what the statistic are but aren't most gay people born to

heterosexual couples not gays that cross over? Don't most gays that did cross over (due to societal pressures) have straight children? There must be something more than just genes. I am severely lactose intolerant and I can find no one in my family that is likewise predisposed. I have had a problem since I was a child but it may be closer to an allergy than just intolerance. We do not have clear answers to these question and I await the science.

[lysosome]

109. Wrong from the get go.

Evolution doesn't care about the individual, only the species. Look at bees (yeah, I know, it's the birds and the bees all over again). Most bees don't have a chance to spread their individual genes, but what is in their collective genes is absolutely important to the survival of the hive.

[jgraz]

154. Another way of saying that is: evolution cares about *genes*

Genes are the unit of biological replication. If a gene bestows a trait that causes itself to be passed on, it will survive. It's almost certain that gay people give some benefit to their community, making the local gene pool more likely to propagate.

Along with the possible benefits listed above, there's reduced competition for mates among males. Instead of having potential rivals killing each other, the community gets to keep all their eligible bachelors AND their sassy sidekicks with great color sense.

There's also a good chance that homosexuality is the result of epigenetics. These are traits not caused directly by genes, but by genes being activated by conditions in the womb. There was a study (don't remember where, sorry), that showed that a tiny drop of hormone at the right time will make a fetus much more likely to be gay.

Again, this epigenetic effect could be an evolved trait to produce more or fewer gay people based on external conditions like food supply and security.

[jobycom]

203. "traits not caused directly by genes, but by genes being activated by conditions in the womb."

Which falls under what I was saying, even if people seemed to think otherwise. A gene which caused homosexuality exclusively (or any other trait that blocked or hindered reproduction) would not be passed on from the beginning. So the gene must have other purposes, and only occasionally results in homosexuality. If a gene cannot be directly passed on, it cannot be passed on, no matter how helpful it might be to the species.

I didn't make that up. I read it in Dawkins, and I read it in Coyne. So far none of the replies to what I said even show that the responder understood what I said, much less that it was wrong. Yes, a trait can be useful to a species, but no, if that trait blocks reproduction it can't be passed on, no matter how helpful it is to the species. Which means that whatever causes the trait of homosexuality in humans cannot cause it every single time. It must be a side effect, so to speak, of a gene, not just a gene that causes homosexuality. That's even what you just said.

[GodlessBiker]

224. How does any gene which prevents an individual from reproducing continue in the species?

There are genes which cause the death of the individual before sexual maturity. How is that gene passed on if the individual dies before being able to reproduce? By your argument, shouldn't that gene disappear in the species?

[BrklynLiberal]

238. Recessive genes....

[GodlessBiker]

239. Of course, but he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge them.

[lysosome]

266. Eh? Not quite so simple.

Ants and bees have a horrible ratio of reproducers per group, but their genes get passed on. Likewise, the genes that cause homosexuallity might be supposed to help the group, rather than just the individual.
But yeah, regressive genes seem to have something to do with it. It would seem to be a multifactorial trait. Look at the Kinsey Scale.

[jgraz]

262. Epigenetic traits work exactly this way

The extreme example is bees. All females have the genetic potential to become queens or workers, but it's due to an external factor (royal jelly, in this case) that takes effect during development.

It's likely that all humans have the genetic potential to be gay or straight, but it takes an extra bit of hormone at the right time to make the "gay" genes turn on. That trait gets propagated because it's the most powerful kind of adaptive trait: the ability to adapt.

[GodlessBiker]

221. +1

[BrentWil]

146. Very interesting read

Thanks

[immoderate]

258. Natural selection doesn't care about the individual. It cares about the gene set.

--imm

[David Zephyr]

74. There are more distinct possibilities. See my post #68.

.

[Lorien]

116. I do believe that there's a genetic link. I have several gay and lesbian family members

but only on one side of my family, and all are closely related. From an evolutionary standpoint there could be several functions. My Native American cousin informed me once that one tribe thought that it's gay members were blessed with a special ability to understand the minds of each gender equally and bridge the gap between the two (most tribes are less than tolerant, but the one in questions was an exception to that). Also, when the planet is burdened with 7 billion "miracles" homosexually may be natures way of combating overpopulation, though I really don't know if the percentage of gay people has increased over the decades. I think it's 2-3% of women and 10-12% percent of men currently. Another (out there) possibility; as humans adopted agrarian lifestyles, perhaps nature jumped ahead, realizing that overpopulation would be a possibility, and created a percentage of the population that would be less likely to breed but more likely to contribute creatively and intellectually to the species, and would have more time to do so because most weren't raising children. It's a very broad generalization, but nearly every gay and lesbian friend and family member that I have is freaking brilliant.

[Jamastiene]

269. I love this answer...

...especially the "freaking brilliant" part. :evilgrin: B-) :pals: :woohoo:

[urgk]

120. Thank you for answering the OP.

I thought the question was interesting, but your answer is even more so. I love the theory of a genetically non-competitive extra hunter. I heard a few years back that the youngest son in a multi-offspring family was more likely to be gay than first or second children. I haven't heard since whether that's been supported or refuted, but if it were true, it would support the idea of the non-competitive help.

[hedgehog]

163. No access to the source right now, but I also recall reading that

younger children in larger families tend to have a higher proportion of gays. That's a slight tendency, and I don't know if having a large number of surviving children has any effect. If true, it would tend to back the theory of having extra hunters around.

[Swede]

5. Why,no one knows yet.

But it is as natural as any other hereditary trait.

[Lucian]

6. Why are people straight?

Same stupid question.

[dsc]

8. In fairness no it isn't

being straight clearly is a benefit toward passing on genes. Being gay isn't a direct benefit toward doing so.

[REP]

15. Maybe there's more to life than passing on genetic material

At any rate, big human brains have made it possible for gays to pass on genetic material (donor sperm, donor eggs, etc) if they wish.

[dsc]

20. there certainly is from a fullfillment standpoint

but from an evolutionary one, there really isn't. To the extent one is an evolutionary scientist, only traits which help to pass on genes can be explained.

[tigereye]

210. the irony here is that I have many gay friends, male and female, with kids!

:rofl: So that kind of reduces the "not passing genes on" argument.

[dsc]

230. depends on how those kids came into being

but it also bears comparing gays with non gays in that regard. Clearly no one says it renders it impossible for you to have kids if you are gay but it does make it less likely. That does make it an evolutionary puzzle.

[KansasVoter]

25. The question wasn't stupid except to simple minds.

[Lucian]

28. It's a stupid question.

It's like asking why some people have blue eyes and some have brown. People are born the way they are. That's it.

Stupid question.

And I appreciate your smart ass comment, even though the one I gave wasn't directed at you. :eyes:

[dsc]

30. actually I would be amazed if there isn't some evolutionary theory

behind those eye colors, as there certainly is with skin colors. I admit to not knowing what the theory is, but I bet there is one.

[KansasVoter]

64. "People are born the way they are?" Wow, not a thinker are you? Read Darwin!

[urgk]

126. "Scientific enlightenment BAD! Intellectual curiosity hurt Hulk's head!"

Geez. For a lot of people, the question of why blue eyes versus brown is incredibly interesting. Why do albino animals have pink eyes? Why are blue-eyed people more light sensitive?

And what about the rest of the genetic/evolutionary questions? Why have humans become less hairy than their ancestors? Why does there seem to be a kind of too-perfect face (one much, much better looking than mine) that inevitably leads people to label a man gay? Is there a genetic answer, a sociological one or both? Why do dogs look more like human babies when we breed them based on inclination to have affection toward humans?

The world is such an amazing set of questions that I can't imagine having an instant disdain for anyone asking them.

[uncommon]

139. Actually, eye color is directly related to the genes of the parents - and

there are scientific explanations for body pigmentation.

[BrentWil]

144. Who would ever want to know why someone has brown eyes?

Not big into the whole science thing, are you?

[handmade34]

165. the cliche is usually

"there is no such thing as a stupid question" ...usually the stupid comes from making a judgment before you understand the answer

some people are more curious than others...

[chrisa]

274. And we shouldn't ask why?

If we don't ask questions about ourselves, we'll never understand ourselves.

[jdp349]

289. derp derp

[urgk]

121. Well, people are straight to encourage hetero recombination of DNA in offspring.

So, clearly the answer isn't exactly the same to both questions. The OP wanted a scientific answer to a question of evolutionary advantage and I think it's a fair question. Why, over billions of years was it genetically advantageous (read: "Good") for homosexuality to occur as a biological possibility? The question assumes that same sex attraction helped pass itself along in the gene pool or it would have disappeared. Which I find immensely interesting.

[stopbush]

288. A more-basic question would be why did evolution decide that

it was genetically advantageous to have separate sexes, rather than continuing down the path of parthenogenic reproduction.

[urgk]

296. Probably for the benefits provided by two caregivers, rather than one.

But that's just a guess. And maybe it could have happened with one or both of a set of female-female or male-male pairs, but for some reason, that just hasn't taken a foothold in the species I'm aware of. Maybe it's the advantages brought by a combination of two parents as caregivers with clearly delineated competition between A's for the attention of a B, or between B's for the attention of an A.

Hmm.

[uncommon]

137. Not really. Heterosexuality has a direct link to species survival.

No disrespect meant, but there is no comparison here unless a link to species survival can be proven for homosexuality.

[hlthe2b]

7. You mean what is the evolutionary advantage?

I have seen several theories. Here are a couple:
Some evolutionary scientists say that human homosexuality may have evolved because of the benefits of having additional non-reproductive members contributing to the needs of the wider community. They say that as long as enough people continue to breed then there would be very little evolutionary pressure against homosexuality.

Others say that the flexibility of the human brain and the wide range of reactions to early childhood experiences will naturally result in a wide diversity of adult sexual behaviors. They say that homosexuality is common because it unites a diverse minority of people, giving them an opportunity to fulfill their physical and emotional needs, in the same way that the diverse majority of straight people are united by their heterosexuality. From this point of view, the commonality of homosexuality would be largely cultural.

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/homosexuality.html

I don't know the answer, of course... but I do think there are probably many advantages seen over time for populations.

[JohnnyLib2]

18. Thanks for responding directly to the OP.

Refreshing to see. :thumbsup:

Edited to add: I see that several others have dealt seriously with the question. Thanks to them as well.

[REP]

10. Why are people?

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Who says it's not evolutions way of population control?

[area51]

85. +1

Not trying to do flamebait, but if it weren't for gay people who don't reproduce, and straights who don't want children, this planet would be even more overpopulated than it is now. Whether that's evolution at work, I don't know, but it's an interesting theory.

[annabanana]

132. heh.. . . Or *GOD'S* way of birth control. .

Take THAT stupid fundies...

[stuntcat]

209. any 'God' I'd believe in would care more for how we take care of Earth than about the sex we have.

:headbang:

anyway, humans made me an Atheist.

[stuntcat]

196. for real

.

[eridani]

13. Because human children require a lot of resources to rear them to adulthood

Gay people facilitate the reproductive success of theri straight relatives.

That's one possibility. See Biological Exuberance for another.

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

Group bonding and smoothing out social relationships. Also, the fact that sex has to be a strong drive, and an overabundance (from the standpoint of reproduction anyway) of sexual energy is going to go all over the place. Think of a computer that is powerful enough to do spreadsheets and other complex business-oriented tasks. That much power is inevitably going to spill over into ebay, Tetris and LOLcats.

[mix]

23. +1, great answer nt

[Odin2005]

17. Genetics.

A common hypothesis that I hear is that a hypothetical allele (variant of a gene) that enhances fertility in once gender causes homosexuality in the other. Another hypothesis, given how common gay people are in "artsy" fields, is that homosexuality is a side effect of a creativity-promoting allele (or alleles, given that sexual orientation is not a strict dichotomy).

[asdjrocky]

19. Why are you straight?

[dflprincess]

21. In a right handed world why is a fairly consistent percentage of people left handed?

A trait that was also once considered "wrong" and in need of correction.

[boppers]

244. Ooh, how sinister!

:evilgrin:

[Jamastiene]

270. My aunt is one of those that got her knuckles hit by rulers

when she tried to write left handed. My grandmother also did everything in her power to MAKE my aunt be right handed even though she was left handed.

The result is that she can hardly write anything legibly. Good luck reading her writing. I've ciphered enough of her grocery lists to recognize part of the scribble and STILL get the wrong thing sometimes. But she is ambidextrous in other activities involving hand usage.

The simple answer to explain why there are just enough left handed people, imho, is that the world needs enough lefties to provide us with great first base players in baseball*. B-)


*There are 9 defensive positions in baseball. It is better to have a lefty on first base to be able to throw to home base, to the pitcher, and to second base easily. Righties have to turn more to do that. Lefties can just throw without having to turn as much.

[snooper2]

278. Training?

I write and shoot a rifle right handed...

One day when I was oh around 14 I picked up a pool stick. Used my right hand for a bridge and have done it that way ever since. One day after that I was playing with some friends from school learning basic Engwish and come to find out I was shooting left handed. I thought since my right hand was on the table I was shooting (right handed) the whole time- And still do to this day :)

I also tend to do things like wisk eggs with my left hand...

[whyverne]

22. Everything that can happen does happen. n/t

[MilesColtrane]

170. That explains the floating, glowing wombat speaking Ukrainian in my bedroom last night.

[uppityperson]

187. Sounds like a relative of Oscar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=624815

[blogslut]

24. Being gay doesn't stop a person from wanting children

n/t

[begin_within]

26. There are 4 causes

1. Nature
2. Nurture
3. Money
4. Beer

[Tsiyu]

81. No

It's the Toasters.

It's always been about the free Toasters...

Who doesn't love toast?

[begin_within]

159. I never got mine

But then I never signed anyone up.

[Tsiyu]

193. Oh

Then you should have gotten a week's supply of Rice O Roni, at least.

;)

[begin_within]

228. Oh! so THAT's why that came.

Mystery solved at last.

[Starry Messenger]

27. I know more than a few gay people with kids.

:shrug:

[a la izquierda]

36. My mom has 3

:)

[Starry Messenger]

42. I remember you mentioned this. I have other friends with gay moms or dads.

My cousin and her wife have a little girl. I don't know where this gay=no children idea came from. Whether through adoption, early straight marriages, sperm donation, or just "whoops", gay people are parents all across the country.

[dsc]

44. from an evolutionary standpoint

adoption wouldn't count at all, and sperm donation would only count for one of the two. the rest, of course, would count from an evolutionary standpoint.

[Starry Messenger]

50. Why wouldn't adoption count?

I'm just curious...humans weren't always in the "nuclear family" units found today. Large family groups in pre-city civilizations are often groups of sibs. If the mother died, her brother was responsible for her children.

[dsc]

53. evolution wants you to pass on your own genes

adopting and raising an unrelated (by blood) child doesn't pass on your genes.

[Starry Messenger]

56. Gotcha.

Humans are social beings though, I like to think that social relationships were also a part of our evolution.

[lysosome]

110. Meh, close enough.

Your brother or parent has half your genes, including, presumably, the genes that would make you a gay parent. Hence, yes, your actions can spread your gay genes. Again, I use the example of honey bees. What is in a honey bee's genes is absolutely required for the survival of the hive, yet only queens and drones pass on their genes. If queens and drones don't pass on the genetic ability to make workers, then they are screwed - so the worker's genes are passed on even though they don't have the sex.
Birds, on the other hand, I have no idea about.

[Jamastiene]

271. From a strictly evolutionary standpoint,

I don't see why sperm donation wouldn't count. All it takes is a turkey baster and the genes ARE passed on by both the mother and the father in that case.

[krispos42]

71. Well, the earlier straight marriages would presumebly because society...

...would convince these gay people to be straight. Only when the gay people are able to throw off the contraints that their family and/or religion placed on them are they able to accept who they are and see out a same-sex partner.

In pre-historic times, such pressure (religious, for example) would not have existed. So we're talking basically sexual experimentation or sexual assault.

[Starry Messenger]

78. Or they could be bisexual.

;) There are so many other historical human family groupings that are *not* the nuclear family, that I find this whole conversation kind of strange. Humans are complex and trying to just wedge us into an evolutionary box is kind of weird.

[BrentWil]

148. If you read my question, I said less of a chance

Of course you can have kids. However, it reduces the chances of that happening. It would be the same way that a dislike of honey would reduce ones chance of eating honey. They can do it, they just dislike it so will avoid it.

[Starry Messenger]

204. You're funny!

:hi:

[tigereye]

212. I think the answer to your question is incredibly more complex that some of

the responses would suggest. (or than the OP would suggest!) :D

[valerief]

29. Life really doesn't matter. It's all random mutations that either survive or kill. nt

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

34. "as long as gay's don't bother straights and come on to straights"

Spoken from a place of unearned heterosexual privilege.

[keep_it_real]

38. "Spoken from a place of unearned heterosexual privilege."

What does, "Spoken from a place of unearned heterosexual privilege" mean?

Explain yourself; make it plane.

[MrMickeysMom]

45. I think you should "get it" without having it explained...

When I read your comment, I thought, "gee, why are you speaking for other straights?" That's not the way I feel. Maybe you think you have a right to speak for me, so that's rather presumptuous of you.

I might have been naive in the past, but I actually think anyone coming on to me is flattering, and I've always been able to handle it, straight or gay.

[keep_it_real]

79. Explain it so I will get it - if you can?

"I actually think anyone coming on to me is flattering" - speaking for yourself of course I'm sure you're not speaking for all straight peeps; some straights are amused by the come on of gays, while some are not and feel DIS-RESPECTED for their straightness.

[ruggerson]

95. This is a parody, no?

[muffin1]

152. Sadly, no.

Just homophobia on full display. :puke:

[donco6]

186. I wondered at first.

And "plane" for "plain" - I mean, really. But now I'm not so sure . . .

[Raster]

291. No, unfortunately not. His sacred straightness envisions the world coming to an end if another man

...checks out his ass. My advice to Mr. Sacred Straightness: Don't flatter yourself. Most Gay men are gifted with gaydar. We can tell who is interested (BUSTED!), and who is not. We can also get a pretty good vibe as to your standing on the PSYCHO scale, 1 to 10. Most of my Gay brothers would prefer not to encounter the psycho-drama.

[uppityperson]

188. Thank you mods! Save me having to reply.

[Jamastiene]

272. I was floored by the fact that they managed to make it to 1000+ posts

without that obnoxious crap coming through earlier. I'm so happy I saw your post. Seeing their posts was disheartening.

[uppityperson]

285. been watching that one for over a yr. Glad it is gone.

[MrMickeysMom]

211. Speaking of amusement...

... I WAS speaking for myself while you were trying your very best to explain away your high level of stupidity, matched by a good dose of homophobia.

Go home to dinner and have a nice cup of STFU.

[JackBeck]

49. It means straight people go through life with privileges that gays don't.

Using just one of the repulsive statements you made in your post, you claim gay people deserve equality as long as they don't come on to straight people.

You perpetuate bigotry and stigma by making such statements. You are able to easily create those parameters for gay behavior because you enjoy heterosexual privilege that you did nothing to earn, but enjoy without even knowing it exists, since you have grown up in a heteronormative world.

[keep_it_real]

67. WHAT "privileges"? Are you talking about?

WHAT "repulsive statements"? Prove what you say! Put forth you logic! of "repulsive statements."

[JackBeck]

77. There's quite a long list, but for starters:

Do you ever worry about holding your partners hand while in pubic (regardless of your feelings of PDA)?

Does a simple peck on the check or lips with your partner fill you with anxiety because you don't know if someone is going to physically or verbally assault you?

Are you able to display pictures of your family on your desk at work without fear of losing your job?

When you go for an interview, do you have to ask if the company carries domestic partner benefits, and then wonder whether or not you didn't get the job because you just outed yourself during an interview?

Do you ever have make a choice where to worship because of your sexuality?

Did you ever have to come out to your parents as 'straight'?

I could go on all night long, but when you make statements like you did above about being down with gays as long as they don't hit on you, it really depletes you of any credibility.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

153. There is no victimization going on here.

It's the reality that most of us live with and recognize in order to survive on a daily basis.

Just take a moment to recognize how there are privileges that you have as a heterosexual that are completely unearned. Meaning, you didn't have to fight for social, legal or legislative equality in order to enjoy them.

[tigereye]

213. not sure that anyone should have to "earn" the right to be treated fairly

or with respect... :shrug:

[JackBeck]

227. I'm discussing how unearned privilege exists, and is often unacknowledged

By those that enjoy all the benefits from those privileges. Unearned privilege isn't a bad thing, but sometimes makes those that don't acknowledge these privileges feel defensive.

I can easily access my male, white, able-bodied, cisgender privilege at any time, while at the same time processing how I don't have access to heterosexual privilege. Just because I'm gay, doesn't mean I don't enjoy the unearned benefits my sex, race, gender and able-bodiedness give me.

As someone who works in and fights for social justice, I'm not fighting to 'earn' equality and respect, I fight with others so that marginalized groups be treated with respect and fairness.

[David Zephyr]

117. Well said, JackBeck.

:)

[muffin1]

136. Thank you, JackBeck

There is a much longer list that was posted somewhere in the lounge about a year ago. I've been looking for it, but I can't find it (yet). But if keep_it_real :eyes: doesn't "get it" from what you posted, he just doesn't want to. Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that life is much more difficult as a gay person than as a 'straight' person. I worry about my best friend every time he leaves his house. There are bigots out there who would just as soon kill him as look at him - just because he's gay. I don't worry about my heterosexual friends getting beat up simply for being who they are. He's not dating right now, but when he was, he and his boyfriend would have to tailor their body language to 'fit the venue'. They could not simply be themselves in certain places unless they want harassment - or worse, much worse.

Jesus, campaigns in this country are sometimes built around keeping gay people from getting married or adopting children. There was a HUGE 'Marriage is between a man and a woman' sign on an off-ramp in our area during the 2006 election. Can you just imagine what seeing something like that in your community does to one's psyche? Me and hubby could, too. That's why I still laugh a little inside when I remember how we pulled over the car one night, and ripped that fucker right out of the ground and threw it into the trash!

There was even a thread last night about Jim DeMint declaring that gay people should not be allowed to teach, fer christ's sake. I doubt keep_it_real :eyes: has ever had his sexual orientation maligned in such a way.

[TheWatcher]

200. Let me make it "plain" for you.

You're a homophobic piece of shit.

Doesn't get any "plainer" than that. :)

[keep_it_real]

52. Oh, and just what is "unearned heterosexual privilege"?

And if there is "unearned heterosexual privilege" is there also, "unearned homosexual privilege"?

Is the reverse of the coin true?

[JackBeck]

61. No, 'the reverse of the coin' is not true.

Privilege is enjoyed by the dominate group of people who have historically kept minority peoples from enjoying the same benefits that they unknowingly take for granted.

[SlicerDicer-]

82. I think the point being made is that.... ignorance :)

Straight women trying to tackle a gay guy is normal and basic plumbing so to be stuck to and thats that.
Straight men trying to tackle lesbians?!?! Talk about HAWT!!! Lets find another rite rite?

However reverse that abit and for some reason people find it "evil" and that they are just wanting to shove whatever wherever. This is simply not the case I know when women have come after me even knowing I am gay it does not make me angry.. There is no reason to get angry and I try to let them down as much as possible without destroying them as likely it was done in weakness..

People are not perfect and people dont carry around a gay sign.. I confess my gaydar is broken badly.. I been with my partner 10 years and I cannot tell for the life of me who is gay anymore... Anybody else have this kinda thing happen?

[Lyric]

51. Science will never prove that being gay is a choice.

The very idea is absurd. And frankly, I find a lot of VERY uncomfortable vague insinuations in what you said.

--You seem to think that there's a possibility that being gay is a choice

--You seem to think that there's something "wrong" with a gay person hitting on a straight person.

Tell me--do you walk around wearing a sign that says "I AM A HETEROSEXUAL"? Do all of your hetero friends? No? Then how exactly do you expect gay people to avoid "coming on" to "straights" when there's no foolproof way to TELL someone's sexual orientation at a glance? Are you saying that if a gay man flirts with you at a bar, that such a thing would be "wrong"? How is HE supposed to know whether or not you're gay? Why can't you just do the same thing that you'd do if a woman that you weren't attracted to decided to flirt with you, and say "No thanks" without the weirdness and judgement?

Sometimes I think that the REAL reason why certain straight people get squicky at the thought of being "hit on" by gay people is that the thought of being mistaken for a gay person is horrid to them. How tragic.

[keep_it_real]

65. "Science will never prove that being gay is a choice."

Really? Truly? Is that you "opinion" as a "scientist" or as a laymen?

[Lyric]

102. It's my opinion as someone with the ability to reason.

In order to prove such a thing, you'd have to have the ability to fully and accurately read the minds and memories of every man, woman, and child on the planet. That's the ONLY way you could definitively "prove" that being gay is a choice. A "choice" is a decision--a series of thoughts. Unless you're a God, you cannot scan the minds of every human being on the planet, looking for those memories. Even if we developed the technology to do it (which is highly unlikely), do you really think that all the humans in the world would simply hand over their minds and say, "Here you go! Rummage around at will. Privacy? Who needs that?!" Yeah...not likely.

And just scanning people who identify as "gay" wouldn't be enough--you'd have to scan all of the straight people too in order to see if THEY made a choice. Because if being gay is a choice...then so is being straight. It has to work both ways, or it doesn't work at all. And you can't just scan a random sample, because if even a handful of people exist whose minds do NOT contain memories of a "choice", then the entire theory falls apart. You could no longer definitively say that being gay (or straight) is a choice.

[lysosome]

115. Are you gay? Do you think you could choose to be? Just like that?

I can't ever see my self doing that. I like girls. I don't know how it is for you, but for me it's not a choice. For some people, apparently it is. And for others still, being gay is not a choice.
Seriously, there are a lot of people who would prefer not to be gay if they did have a choice.

[Starry Messenger]

70. Being gay is not a choice.

Why would you think it is? Gay people are terribly oppressed and often murdered in our culture. Who would choose that?

[keep_it_real]

83. Christians were terribly oppressed and often murdered and fed to the lions

But they stood up as Christians and were willing to die and be killed for the belief of who they were - is that true? Where they born Christian or was it their choice that they were willing to die for? And today Christians are accepted. But are they "born" Christian or Christian by choice?

[Starry Messenger]

88. All Christians are Christian by choice.

Gay people existed before Christianity so I'm not sure what your point is. Christians were the first to make being gay against the law. I am a former Catholic who threw off the chains of the church. I am a non-Christian by choice. I will never be attracted to my own gender, I just don't have the biological drive.

[SwampG8r]

94. being gay was against rabbinical law for 3000 years before jesus

read the old testament and tell me again that christians are the first to make being gay against the law
btw except for this statement you and i are in full agreement

[Starry Messenger]

131. The Old Testament is not a state legal document.

Perhaps they did. Did it apply to the entire Empire? Or was it just to co-religionists? Law to me means civil law.

http://www.well.com/~aquarius/rome.htm

The Historic Origins of Church Condemnation of Homosexuality


On May 14, 390,<1> an imperial decree was posted at the Roman hall of Minerva, a gathering place for actors, writers and artists,<2> which criminalized for the first time the sexual practice of those whom we call "homosexual" men -- this had never happened before in the history of law. The prescribed penalty was death by burning. This law was promulgated by an emperor who at the time was under a penance set by St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan,<3> and the law was issued in the context of a persecution of heresies. Homosexual men at the imperial court had been powerful opponents of Catholic doctrine during the fourth-century conflicts over the nature of Jesus Christ, known as the Arian controversies.

Prior to 390, both religious and secular laws had targeted only one particular form of homosexuality: when a man or youth who otherwise exhibited a virile attraction toward women nonetheless agreed to or was forced to play a female role in intercourse with other men. For example, Biblical laws against homosexual acts call it an abomination and prescribe death as a punishment when "a man lies with a male the way one lies with a woman."<4> Meanwhile, only heterosexually-oriented men (including bisexual men) would properly be called "male," since potency with women was the primary proof of masculinity. Augustus Caesar's law against adultery likewise prohibited intercourse with "males,"<5> and may well have provided the impetus for a widely-attested wave of castrations in the early empire -- in order to supply sex partners who were not "male."<6> As late as 342, Constantius II issued a decree imposing an "exquisite punishment" for the crime which occurs "when a male gives himself in marriage to an effeminate and what he wants is for the effeminate to play the male role in sex ," thus for himself to play the female role.<7>

[SwampG8r]

281. rabbinical law was the law of israel

quote what you like it wont make you correct

[Starry Messenger]

290. You haven't quoted anything

and you are totally wrong. :D There! How's that?

[Lyric]

99. Yes, ancient Christians chose to be Christian even in the face of oppression.

However, they fully expected to be rewarded with eternal paradise (and kept safe from eternal torture) in exchange for their sacrifices. They believed that there was a cosmic payoff in it for them.

There is no payoff for choosing to be gay rather than straight. Nobody would deliberately choose oppression that doesn't have some kind of reward built into it unless they're masochistic or crazy.

By the way--would you like to share with us your own experience? Tell us all about how you chose to be straight. I'm sure it was a choice that you agonized over for a long time. On one hand, you could be discriminated against, assaulted, accused of pedophilia, blamed for practically every social misfortune, have your rights ignored, potentially hurt your family, be considered abnormal, and otherwise complicate your life in endless ways. On the other hand, you could fit right into society's cookie-cutter norm, have children easily, and be considered perfectly "normal".

With choices like that, I'm sure it was a really tough decision for you. Please do tell.

[keep_it_real]

106. The pay off and reward for being gay is to enjoy being gay even

Unto death as the Christian chose death than to decant being a follower of their Christ.

For all we don't know, there may very well be a "GENE" that causes peeps to face oppression and even death for a belief such as being gay, or straight or Christian - the correlation between SCIENTIFIC biology and belief is not not in yet - so lets reserve judgment - ok?

[Lyric]

107. Sorry, your reasoning is wrong.

When people suffer in order to gain a "payoff", the payoff must be better than what they'd have gotten if they HADN'T suffered for it. To use your example of the suffering Christians--obviously, they believed that Heaven was better than Hell, so their choice was pretty easy.

However, being gay is not better, or more pleasurable, than being straight. In terms of sexual and romantic satisfaction, both experiences are pretty equal. If anything, being straight could be seen as a more positive experience because it's easier--it provides effortless comfort and stability in terms of social acceptance and identity, and precludes an enormous amount of stress, pain, frustration, fear, and grief.

But there is certainly nothing inherently superior about the experience of being gay. There is no pleasure or reward for being gay that is not also and equally available to people who are straight. So again--why choose to suffer when there is NO payoff? Christians had their belief in Heaven and their relief at avoiding hell to spur them into their choice. Gay people have nothing of the sort.

As for a gene that makes people willing to endure unnecessary pain, abuse, and trauma for no provable positive end...in other words, a gene that makes people completely irrational...well sure, I suppose it must exist. Goodness knows there are lots and lots of irrational people in the world who continually subject themselves (and others) to misery for no apparent reason. However, there's a much simpler term for that sort of thing. We call it "insanity".

:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

130. +100,000

I went to bed and missed his reply. Thank you for fielding that so masterfully. :D

[Lyric]

175. Hey--check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9244769#9244878

:hi:

[uppityperson]

192. This link is even better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=258114

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

202. *************MOD NOTE *******************

keep_it_real is no longer a member.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover

[tigereye]

214. hmm that seemed to be coming...

How are ya, wakeme? :hi: Long time no see!

[Jamastiene]

273. Thank you! n/t

[Lyric]

233. ?

:shrug:

I don't get it.

[uppityperson]

255. oops, linked to the wrong poster. Red face and apologies to all. Here...

I hope I got it right this time. sorry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=204306

[donco6]

185. Recant honey. Decant means separating liquid from solid.

Jeez, when the uninformed attempt to put words on to paper, the most amazing things happen.

[uppityperson]

190. comparing religious choice with sexual orientation? Am glad you posted so much

thanks for making your views so apparent.

[Tsiyu]

206. Is that why some Xtians turned around and oppressed everyone else?

Many people have been oppressed. Jewish people, Native American people, Iraqis, Black South Africans.

There have always been people convinced that they are holier than others. Because there have always been people willing to treat others as "refuse" in order to make themselves feel more holy and sanctified. And in order to steal the stuff that belongs to the human "refuse."

We fight oppression, we don't justify it.

I think Christianity is a farce, personally. But I would never oppress anyone for being a Christian, whether they choose to be one or not.

[xfundy]

87. LOL

I can't tell you how many str8 guys have "come on" to me, especially when it's clear they won't be able to bed the women they tried to impress with locker room talk and subjects related to braggadocio concocted to intimidate other guys. The best part is when I say, "you can't be serious," and they get a hurted look on their face. ("Hurted" was not a misspelling, just a reference to the juvenile nature of same.)

Of course, some gay guys are content to ingratiate themselves to idiots who demean them, just as some women are. The 50s mindset still infects many, but it's dying a well deserved death. Too slow for my taste, but dying nonetheless.

Quit coming on to gay guys. And, if a gay guy talks to you, he's not necessarily coming on to you. In fact, he's probably sssssensitive to the fact that you're kind of out of place, or, if you're lucky, he's looking for a pity fuck.

Get over yourself.

[Zhade]

93. HOMOPHOBIA FAIL

NT!

[VMI Dem]

112. As long as gays don't bother straights and come on to straights? WTF?

[urgk]

122. Back when I was single, I tried an online dating service...

Some of the women replied in all caps, with exceedingly bad grammar and portrayed themselves as so ordinary that it turned me off. I'd get replies like "I AM A CLASSY WOMAN THAT LIKES WALKS ON THE BEACH AND A GUY MOVIE TOO. I LIKE TO CUDDLE DON'T GET ME WRONG THOUGH I CAN KNOCK BACK A BEER OR TOO AND STILL SHOOT STRAIGHT."

Here I was presented with people I had 0 chance of being interested in. Not that I'm perfect or wanted to meet "perfect" women, but the shouting non-writers just weren't the right combination of strengths and weaknesses for me to be interested. So, what did I do in response? Ignored them. Or politely declined to meet them.

I'm not sure why any heterosexual couldn't do the same in the face of an advances from a homosexual. Why is it different than anything else that would automatically make you completely uninterested in another person? It should be something that automatically puts them in your "no" column. I mean, what's the fear? That you'll catch gay? Why can't we, if and when we're ever presented with an advance from another man, just politely decline?

[ruggerson]

253. +1

Secure, straight guys usually handle it exactly like you. Many, who have gay friends, are even flattered by it.

As you say, what's the big deal in saying "hey, you're not really my type."

As a purely anecdotal side note: I've noticed that the straight guys who have close gay friends are usually good looking. OTOH, the straight guys who are worried that a gay guy will come on to them are quite often fugly as hell.

[muffin1]

142. WTF

If a gay person hits on you, couldn't you just brush it off like you would if a heterosexual person you weren't attracted to hit on you? And besides, something tells me this is something you really don't have to worry about too much.

[mentalsolstice]

157. Whoa, and black people are okay as long as they "know their place"

I remember a time when people would actually say that...and think that everything was equal.

[muffin1]

161. +1

Yep. It was said the same way one would say the sky is blue - as if it was just matter of fact. But I'm sure keep_it_real didn't mean that statement the way it sounded. He probably has lots of gay friends and even let's them use his bathroom. :eyes:

[mentalsolstice]

166. As long as they're not too effeminate and all that.

Effeminate="uppity", doncha know?

[muffin1]

184. Damn!

Edit window closed. I meant lets them, not let's.

[bemildred]

33. Maybe it's the old recessive trait that has advantages if you get just one?

But seriously, "gay" covers a variety of different sexual "orientations", and many "gay" people do have offspring. And it is well worth remembering when this sort of question comes up that evolution is both very messy and very wasteful, there is no cause and effect at work which guarantees stuff gets weeded out or promoted.

[Freetradesucks]

35. OK, as long as this is a light hearted, open thread..I have a

question. Really. A real question, I really want to know. Please don't jump on me.....

Where does the "gay accent" come from? Why do a lot of gay men (not all) have the same affect, accent, or whatever you want to call it? Is that developed to make yourself more identifiable, or is it in your genes, like you are born with it?

I swear to god I'm not being condescending, I just want to know, if anyone really knows.

[MrMickeysMom]

48. ...

:eyes:

[urgk]

123. A lot of my generation has a sort of Canadian non-accent...

Despite coming from thickly accented parts of the country. I have West Virginia, Indiana and Texas friends who sound identical. My guess has always been that our accent is from seeing so much "You Can't Do That On Television" growing up. I mean, that it's probably not a conscious choice, but more of an adaptation to surroundings.

It might just be a sort of unintentional adaptation to a sub-culture of some sort.

Beyond the guess, though, I have no idea. Does anyone with a background in linguistics or sociology have a more educated opinion handy?

[uppityperson]

194. a :"gay" accent? W.T.F? Not condescending, but you are something.

[JackBeck]

254. What is the 'gay accent'? Can you please elaborate? n/t

[Mimosa]

261. Re: Urgk's question

I know exactly what you mean. No matter where some gay males live a few -and it's not universal- sometimes assume a sing-songy higher octave vocal mode. This goes back a long way. There's a similarity to the U.S. Southern drawl even when the speaker isn't southern.Let me give two well-known examples: Tennessee Williams and Truman Capote. Both were Southern Americans.

However I've had gay male friends who were New York, Arizona or other areas who adaped a variant of those kind of 'accents' after they came out. One of my close friends, now deceased, was ostensibly straight until he was 36. For a few years before he came out he used to be the biggest 'gay hater' one could imagine. He used to call gay guys cocksuckers, faggots and all that garbage. Working in the publishing field, he rode a 'tuff' motorcycle, leather jacket and hung out with Charled Bukowski. He'd been married, divorced, and lived with a younger woman. He got into a fight with a magazine's gay drama critic and punched him out.

This guy's work took him to NYC. While there he came out with a bang! During the early 1980s he hung out at the kinkiest leather bars. And he assumed a Tennessee Williams vocal style he'd never had. It wasn't accidental. It was part of his post coming out shtick. We talked about it a little.

It's an identifier. Some gay guys are as good at turning it on and off as some blacks are with the 'ebonics'. Some gay guys probably pick it up young and don't even know they did. Some gay or bi guys never pick it up at all.

[Freetradesucks]

292. It's the kind of feminine lisp that a lot of gay men have..

Not sure why you are playing dumb.

Are you really going to tell me that you don't know what I'm talking about? Is it so shameful that it can not be spoken of? What the fuck?

[JackBeck]

295. Not playing dumb.

Figured you were working with old, antiquated stereotypes.

Do you think that "a lot of gay men" are light in the loafers and walk around limp-wristed, as well?

[Freetradesucks]

297. I was just asking an honest question

that a lot of people have. If you don't know the answer, just say so! You have to admit though, from a purely scientific point of view, it is interesting to wonder where it comes from.

I do find it interesting that I haven't got one real response yet, from anybody, and yet it's a legitimate phenomenon.

Anybody have a thoughtful explanation?

[NMMNG]

267. Simple, really.

You can get it for only $4.99

http://amzn.to/cm6Bx5

[muffin1]

277. There's a class

for learning how to speak 'Teh Gay'. Shhh...don't tell anyone, it's a secret. :crazy:

[Lex]

37. Many gay people have children. No all straight people have children. nt

[WestSeattle2]

39. Human sexuality is fascinating! I absolutely believe people are

born gay; just as people are born straight, some are born bisexual, and some are born asexual. We are what we are. Those who attack others based on human sexuality are ignorant, fearful, and idiotic. If you're gay, heterosexual activities feel abnormal; if you're straight, homosexual activities feel abnormal. It doesn't make either one of them "wrong"; it's just human sexuality for crying out loud.

I've told two generations of family offspring - ignore social taboo's - they're for weak people who can't or won't think for themselves. Enjoy and take care of your body - it's a gift, embrace who you are, and do what feels natural to you- as long as it's consensual!

End of story.

[handmade34]

167. you are a wise soul n/t

[Zax2me]

40. Just too broad a question,

Same for someone straight, or bisexual. I'm sure you would get different answers from different people. You could argue a definitive answer and try to weigh averages in an effort to reach a conclusion. Good luck!

[smalll]

43. Well, for one thing, I think the question is muddied by the fact that today's society assumes

that people are either "gay" or "straight." We're not; we're on a spectrum. But for various reasons, we tend to assume it's either one or the other, particularly for men. History, as well as the histories of instututions (prisons? navies? English "public" schools?) shows this hard-and-fast dichotomy to be laughable.

Not to offend gay people here, but let's analogize being gay to being short and being straight to being tall. If we really DID live in a world where the vast majority of us were tall and a small minority was quite noticeably "short" we'd ask the same kind of question you are -- why, evolutionarily, didn't these short people die out? (Smaller legs so less likely to escape the sabre-toothed tiger, less likely to be favored by prospective mates, etc.) But that's not the world we live in -- some people are very tall, some people are very short, and there are other people of differing heights between them -- because we all know this, no-one asks "why are short people still here?"

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. A combination of genetic and environmental factors

The same answer for why people are heterosexual. There's no "gay gene," nor is there a "straight gene." The notion that one is "born this way" is insufficient, while the notion that one "chooses a lifestyle" is ridiculous and refuted by common experience. This is why searching for the "evolutionary answer" will always fail on this question (and many others, despite current fetishes of biological research).

I think we've lost a great deal of insight into sexuality when we scuttled (Freudian) psychoanalysis as unscientific, preferring the biochemical (i.e., silver bullet) answer.

[tigereye]

215. but Freud's explanations would have been infinitely more offensive on some

level :rofl:

[alcibiades_mystery]

222. I agree that

Freud's analysis themselves were greatly flawed, and, indeed, far more offensive. At the same time, the scuttling of the unconscious puts us in a "born this way"/"choice" situation, where both those options are incorrect on their own. It also leads to stupidities like trying to "find" the evolutionary basis for sexual behavior.

[tigereye]

226. well, everything is multifactoral I think, but questions about the unconscious

are very interesting ones.


I think scientists are interested in every aspect of human behavior - sometimes excessively so. Few things are totally brain-based, or genetically based, or culturally based. It's usually a combination of factors.

[kevinbgoode]

47. Because we are God's chosen people. . .

after all, it was the heterosexuals who could not resist temptation in the Garden and thus doomed the entire history of mankind to paving paradise to put in a parking lot. . .

And ever since that time, we've had plenty of people passing along those same genes that ruined humankind's chance at paradise. They still do so today - the worst offenders call themselves "conservatives."

[kevinbgoode]

55. Well, let me explain it better. . .

in the beginning, God actually meant for the world to be homosexual. After all, you have this big sky daddy who only needed to take a lump of clay and make someone in "his" own image. . .which indicates that God was likely homosexual. He didn't even introduce intimate relations. . .or. . .sex, until he intimately messed with Adam's body to create Eve. Heck, we don't even know if Adam really had a penis or any sperm before Eve was created.

Now God's real intention was to make Eve as nothing more than a "companion" to Adam. . .someone to go shopping with or do each other's hair, or occasionally fight over who gets to hold the television remote control. If the two hadn't acted out against God's authority, he/she might have had the same intimate relationship with Eve, and then Eve would have had a woman companion. But no. . .the pair managed to mess up life in paradise before God could finish his big plan, and the two were banished into the cold, cruel world. That is when sexuality was invented as God's way of giving Adam and Eve a fighting chance at survival, perhaps in the hope that eventually they would produce enough gay people to lead to world back to paradise.

[keep_it_real]

57. Sounds like you're say it is a heterosexuals right, privilage and ABILITY to resist temptation?

[donco6]

189. And sounds like you're say -

. . . er, what the hell IS it you're trying to say?

[uppityperson]

198. it's dead

[tigereye]

216. ha ha !

:rofl: Ah, such a fun afternoon.

[SwampG8r]

97. so thats what happened to

that steve guy the righties are always referencing
he is still in eden

[annabanana]

135. :- )

good answer :applause:

[TK421]

54. Why don't you alter the headline to your OP? you have to explain why it should

be offensive in the body of your post anyway

save yourself aggravation, and a few sneers

[TrogL]

59. you should examine bisexuality

[The Traveler]

60. It might be something along these lines

Individuals as such do not evolve ... population groups do. While the mechanism is individual procreation, the survival of progeny is entirely dependent upon the survival and prosperity of the population group. Human kind has developed the capacity of culture, an invention which facilitates binding population groups together and passing knowledge and technique from one generation to the next. In that context, I consider the long line of contributions made by homosexual people to our culture.

Just a thought, and it is kind of a derivation from the "extra hunter" notion, which I find also likely.

Trav

[yurbud]

63. two theories on passing on genes:

1. Until very recently, it was not safe to be openly gay, so gays would often marry, have kids, and have their gay relationships on the side. Sort of like Ted Haggard and a lot of closeted Republicans.

OR

2. Human offspring are very labor intensive to raise, and if gays don't have kids, they can invest time, energy, and money in the survival and success of their siblings' children, which would advance their genetic line.

OR

3. the gene is passed by doorknob.

[David Zephyr]

68. There is no more a "gay puzzle" with evolution then there would be a "masturbation puzzle".

First of all, your OP is a bit offensive, even though you tried to immunize yourself by saying you hoped it wasn't. It was. I hope it was in innocence.

Here it is:

Sex is sex. People fuck because they like fucking. It's a great thing. It's a wonderful thing. And, of course, there is an evolutionary component to it, but..

Straight guys will fuck another guy (visit any prison on earth regardless of the culture, religion, race, etc.) and you will quickly discover that homosexuality is everywhere. No evolutionary concerns. No worrying about projecting their genes into the future. And, because I know someone will go "there", all sex in prison is not rape. That exists and is tragic, but most homosexuality in prison is Just good, old fashioned (really old fashioned since it comes from the dawn of man) sex.

Women engage in homosexuality equally, if not more than men. Or at least are more honest about it in this country. The majority of Americans have had some homosexual activity at least once in their lives. They may be uncomfortable saying so, but there it is. Over 30% of Latin American men openly admit to having had at least one gay experience.

Trying to limit homosexuality into the prism of one aspect of evolution is, well, limiting.

Everyone here since 2001 knows me as being gay. Well, I am "gay" as much as Barack Obama is "white". It was easier for him to say he was "black" rather than explain to idiots the rest of his life that he was mixed. Likewise, I choose to call myself "gay" because I'm in a long term (hopefully for life, over 30 years) relationship with my partner and it's just easier than explaining. But I also am a father and I love women. I mean they are amazing.

So, homosexuality is not an "evolutionary puzzle". Neither is masturbation an "evolutionary puzzle". No procreation there either. Neither is oral sex an "evolutionary puzzle". Do you have questions about how masturbation and oral sex fail at "passing your genes on to another generation" or is that concern only limited to GLBT people?

Your question is offensive. Sorry to tell you, but it is.

When I was young, I rarely ever met any guy that I couldn't have sex with if I wanted to. Very rarely. If I wanted it, they willing participated. Women on the other hand, could be more "work" if you wanted action fast.

The answer to your question is this: It's just sex.

No puzzle. Nothing to do with evolution.

Just sex.

[cliffordu]

104. excellent, excellent reply.

:applause:

[David Zephyr]

113. Well, now I've outed myself as a bi-guy. Oh, well.

;-)

[boppers]

246. It's okay. We won't take away your ruby red slippers ....

...yet...

;)

[stopbush]

72. Last I looked, gay men can father children and lesbians can bear children.

Nobody has lost their biological ability to have children, which is why we evolved reproductive systems. A gay person has just as much chance of passing their genes on as does anyone else. You could just as easily make a case that people in monogamous relationships have less chance of passing their genes along than do those who screw whoever they can. Oh, wait, that's actually true on a evolutionary basis - men are not anything if they're not impregnating machines.

There isn't really a question of there being a "self-defeating evolutionary trait" associated with being gay, anymore than it is a self-defeating evolutionary trait to be monogamous, or anymore than there is a self-defeating evolutionary trait to female widow spiders killing their male mates after copulation.

So this isn't really a question of evolution as it pertains to reproductive biology at all. It may well go to societal evolution, and if we go there, we can't just assume that human male-female relationships/reproduction are "normal" and that homosexuality "developed." After all, we and all organic life on this planet evolved from the same single-cell organisms, none of which had a gender to them. If one looks at the history of the planet, male and female life forms have not been "the norm" for the bulk of earth's existence, and life had no problem "passing on its genes" long before male and female life forms developed.

Evolution does not proceed along an ever-upward path to "better" organisms, especially organisms where the human perspective decides what is progress and what is regression. There are species of fish who had developed eyes and whose eyes lost the ability to see clearly because the fish were living in murky water and who then redeveloped better eyesight when the waters they lived in cleared. Humans would assume that excellent eyesight automatically made you a more-advanced species. Evolution - which is literally mindless - doesn't think so.

Besides, how are we to know that evolution may not be leading humans to develop to a point where we all can reproduce offspring asexually (parthenogenesis), as do plants and bacteria? "Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some species, including lower plants (where it is called apomixis), invertebrates (e.g. water fleas, aphids, some bees and parasitic wasps), and vertebrates (e.g. some reptiles,<1> fish, and, very rarely, birds and sharks). It is sometimes also used to describe reproduction modes in hermaphroditic species which can self-fertilize." (Source - Wikipedia)

[SoCalDem]

73. Why do some people have blue eyes, and others, brown eyes?

Why are some people tall & others short?

Why are some people nice and others mean?

Why are some people male and others female?

Why are some people mellow, and others "edgy"?

Why are some people artistic, and others not?

Why?

Because the human race is diverse, and there are many variations on a common theme:)

[ismnotwasm]

75. Why do women live past menopause?

Clearly, if passing DNA is the only trait for adaptation, women should drop dead around 50 or so. Men, who can breed indefinitely, can pass superior wigglies until a very old age.

Depending who you listen to, there are various theories on why, but most have in part to do with social evolution. My point is, that relying on one trait, in this case passing on DNA through breeding is not the only requirement for adaptation. We are complex creatures.

I can think of many reasons that homosexuality is very adaptive, indeed, I believe society suffers greater from rejecting this very essential part of ourselves dealing with human interaction and human relationships in the manner some do. It's maladaptive, to say the very least.

We will continue to suffer and our social evolution will stagnant and even regress unless and until being gay is no more thought of than something like blue or brown eyes. Or superior muscle strength. Or a bit higher IQ. Or great dexterity. Or natural altruism etc.

[David Zephyr]

76. Thank you!

See my post #68 above. And thanks for your brilliant perspective and wit. :)

[uncommon]

140. Once upon a time, most of them didn't.

Blame medical advances for that particular mystery.

[ismnotwasm]

158. I like the 'Grandmother' theory

Which very briefly says older women held things together at the home front, allowed younger women to go out and gather food, or did the gathering themselves when mothers couldn't do it, helped with other children, helped to pass on survival knowledge--essentially allowed a group, band or 'tribe' of people to survive.

Another theory is that women would die unable to care for the several young they already had, if breeding wasn't cut stopped.

So although women died in great numbers--you are very correct, I believe menopause is adaptive and valuable.

[uncommon]

280. No argument from me, that makes perfect sense.

[pinto]

80. Got me. But I sure wish folks would get over it and get on with the basics ->

Al Green - Love and Happiness -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfWPDGWP568

[tigereye]

218. another good answer!

:hi: Pinto!

[Lilith Velkor]

84. Why not?

[the redcoat]

86. I have a theory

This isn't meant to belittle the gay community, and there's no scientific backing, it's just a possible conclusion I came too:

So, scientists agree humanity is still evolving. I think that one of these possible evolutions/adaptations is to "produce" more homosexuals when too many humans are living too closely together.

Basically, when there is no absolute need to reproduce (too many of us) evolution copes with raising the level of homosexuals to regulate numbers. Reproduction takes a backseat.

[SwampG8r]

100. i find it intriguing

and as a theory yours actually holds a lot of water
many species are natural sex changers depending on population needs
fish amphibians and even some mammals
what we dont know about homo sapiens the species interests me because we study others so much without really making ourselves part of the equation

[uppityperson]

89. Because. Everything isn't explained by evolution, by passing on of genes.

As much as we might like everything to be explained so, it isn't.

Because.

[seabeyond]

92. exactly. todays cult like obsession with the new religious evolutionary behavorial theory

has gotten to the point of explaining every behavior stemming from tens of thousands of years ago, that are guesses and assumptions.

[seabeyond]

91. Why are people gay?.. all kinds of reasons for people to be beyond happy. nt

[ruggerson]

96. God's way of messing with the people in GD-P?

[cliffordu]

101. BINGO!!!!!

:rofl:

[David Zephyr]

111. :)

You are truly a quick and wicked wit, ruggerson. Now, how do we get your genes into the future? :)

[VMI Dem]

114. ...

:spray:

[lightningandsnow]

103. Does it matter?

[left is right]

118. Weren’t gay men often the shamans of the tribes?

[WinkyDink]

119. I don't know; I'm a curmudgeon, myself.

[justiceischeap]

124. I have no answer to your broader question

However, I do have opinions. I'm a lesbian...I didn't choose to be a lesbian (I was even married to a man for a bit, I chose to be 'straight' because society told me it was oh so wrong to be gay). When I got no emotional satisfaction from my "straight" marriage, I finally decided it was time to be honest not only with myself but everyone else. Too many straight folk get hung up on the sex and having same-gender sex does not make one gay. I was able to have "enjoyable" sex with my ex-husband but it didn't satisfy a deeper emotional need. I don't know if the whole emotion thing is the same for gay men (they're still me therefore just cause they're gay doesn't mean I understand them any better :P).

I know some time ago scientists were looking at the brains of gays and lesbians to determine what makes them "gay." I suspect it will take a while for their test results to quantitative because they were dissecting and examining the brains of DEAD gays and lesbians. I know I'm not lining up for that study. The initial results, if I recall correctly, basically, gay folk saw sexuality differently then straight folk (i.e., we're wired this way).

All of my opinions aside and your question too, if "evolution" didn't want us to be the way we are, we wouldn't be.

For the "it's okay to be gay as long as you don't hit on straight people" guy, can I turn that around and say it's okay to be straight unless your straight guys hit on me? Or better yet, the straight guys that think all lesbians need is the "right" man. Talk about overinflated egos. And what kind of places are you hanging out that us homos would even be able to hit on you? I mean, I'm not gonna hit on someone I don't feel pretty certain doesn't want to be hit on, so if I hit on a woman, it's most likely she's given ME some sort of signal saying that it's okay. If I'm wrong, I apologize and try again.

[muffin1]

143. +1

Amen, sister. I fucking hate that "I'm okay with gays as long as they don't hit on me" shit. I'm a heterosexual woman, and I went on a date once with a guy who said that. And he didn't stop there. He went on to say that after he was hit on by a guy, he had to go home and take a shower immediately. Of course he didn't think he was a bigot, either. That date ended right then and there.

Gawd, how can people be so ignorant?:banghead:

[pipoman]

125. Interesting question to which I have no real opinion

To the question of choice over genetics, my opinion sprung from an unusual source....the late Sam Kinison. Back in the early 1980's, being a testosterone driven, young, heterosexual male, I was perfectly happy walking around believing the gays chose their gayness. Then one night, back in the days when comedy central was actual comedy, I was watching Sam in concert. He had a bit about gays, and in his typical style, he found the most offensive way to make his comedic point. He said, "How can one man fall in love with another man's hairy ass?". Suddenly, as if a switch was flipped, I understood. I knew there was no 'choice' associated with my preferences..for instance I have never been into obese women and there is nothing which could change that, as there was/is nothing which would make me attracted sexually to another male. This was an epiphany to me at the time and I have convinced other hetro men over the years with this same discussion.

[WVRICK13]

127. I Used To Ask

why am I gay? Obviously it was not a choice or I would have known the answer. From the time of my earliest memory I was attracted to men and not women. I like women I just am not attracted to them. As a four year old I remember watching westerns to see the handsome men, I hated the story line even then. My guess is it is just the way I am programmed, like it or not.

[Iterate]

128. There may be dozens of biological reasons, all of them interacting.

Many of the discussions here focus genes or sets of genes, by metaphor sort of a flipped switch, which could have evolutionary consequences. But even if they are true, it doesn't preclude a host of other genes that result in useful (and even somewhat linear) variability in a population, or in utero epigenetic changes, some have which may have occurred generations back.

Truth is, we don't know, and nowhere have I even seen a study or model that might even suggest how many factors are in play. I'm sure we could say the same about a host of other behaviors, many of which are apparent at a young age.

Moreover, the questions that we ask ourselves (and of our science) are themselves culturally biased. I don't see the question often asked "Why are there hyper-aggressive males who have so little impulse control?" If ever there was a group destined for a Darwin Award, it would be that lot, but we don't even have a simple term for them.

I just wish we could accept our biology, see the benefits of variety, and do the research.

[spanone]

129. why are people asking why people are gay?

[howard112211]

134. Scientific curiosity.

The same reason why people want to know why rocks fall or why eyes have a certain color.

[spanone]

169. why do rocks fall and why are eyes a certain color?

[howard112211]

133. There was an evolution biology explanation on why it gets passed on (if it is genetic)

that basically said because gays make good uncles and aunts. In order to pass on a gene, you don't necessarily need to procreate yourself. You just have to make sure that individuals that share your genes survive. If having a homosexual in the close family increases the probability of survival for childs in that family, then the genes which form the building blocks of a gene combination that would generate homosexuality would be passed on.

[MineralMan]

141. Why would anyone bother to ask that question?

Look to your own affairs. That's my advice.

[BrentWil]

149. Science

Actually read the OP

[Douglas Carpenter]

150. Alfred Kinsey concluded about 50 years ago that homosexuality and heterosexuality come in degrees

Interviewing people about their sexual histories, the Kinsey team found that, for many people, sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex was not always consistent across time. Though the majority of men and women reported being exclusively heterosexual, and a percentage reported exclusively homosexual behavior and attractions, many individuals disclosed behaviors or thoughts somewhere in between.

0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual

1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6- Exclusively homosexual

http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html

I believe that this view is accurate particularly if one considers how many non-Western cultures benignly accept homosexual behavior even when some of these same cultures do not always accept a person defining themselves as homosexual or gay.

As far as the question as to why some people are exclusively or almost exclusively homosexual in their internal attractions and other people are exclusively heterosexual or almost exclusively heterosexual in their internal attractions - I think evidence points toward genetics.

[WinkyDink]

156. Kinsey used male prisoners only for his studies.

[tigereye]

220. I don't think that's true...

[Douglas Carpenter]

276. not at all -but one could fault some of his samplings which were conducted 1938-1963

Scope:
To describe individual and group variations in human sexual behavior using taxonomic methods (primarily concerned with the measurement of variation in series of individuals that stand as representatives of the species being studied) from biology. Kinsey sought to accummulate "an objectively determined body of fact about sex" (p. 5 Male) that readers of the reports could use to make interpretations that fit with their understanding of "moral values and social significances" (p. 5, Male). He looked at quantifiable male sexual "outlets" to orgasm: masturbation, nocturnal emissions, heterosexual petting, heterosexual intercourse, homosexual relations, and intercourse with animals of other species; and at what factors might account for variations in sexual behavior, including marital status, age, educational level, occupational class, rural-urban background, religious group, geographic origin, and age at adolescence. He then compiled data for the female. Data was gathered from 1938 to 1963, when the project was closed.

Sample:
5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. (This part of the sample is referred to as the "College Sample.") Kinsey tried to compensate for volunteer bias in his sample by interviewing 100% of the individuals available in a given organization or group. Approximately 25% of the sex histories came from these 100% groups. (Kinsey did not believe a random sample was possible.)

Method:
Kinsey used in-depth, face-to-face interviews by highly trained interviewers. In each history a subject would be questioned on up to 521 items, depending on his/her specific experience (the average in each case being near 300). Histories covered social and economic data, physical and physiologic data, marital histories, sexual outlets, heterosexual histories, and homosexual histories.

http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-data.html#Scope

[BrentWil]

151. I found this order on Birth Order and Homosexuality

Thought it was very interesting

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20060626/birth-order-may-affect-homosexuality

[elehhhhna]

155. BORN. That. Way. God DID make Adam & Steve.

[begin_within]

160. That damn Steve though. He never calls.

Why did he even bother to leave his phone number... typical man.

[Codeine]

162. "God did it" is not an adequate explanation for anything.

Never has been. Never will be.

[elehhhhna]

182. It is when you wanna shut up a fundie. Totally effective.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

234. Well, yes and no.

There was no "Steve". Dad & I DID create Adam & Eve because they were the first of your species, and procreation was the whole point. We created the gays later.

[elehhhhna]

241. Welcome to DU. We totally need you here.

You're saying they were a tweak? An improvement? Kewl.

WTF happend to Dad, anyway? Seems he's dead or demented now.

[hedgehog]

164. In defense of the original question, it reminds me of the similar question about

why the traits for bi-polar disease and depression persist in the genome. (Not to suggest that being gay is the same as having a disease! Wow, this subject really is a minefield!)

Any how, while being depressed or having bi-polar disease can cause problems for the individual, some argue that having such individuals around is advantageous for the group. Going a little deeper into our heritage, having one monkey always nervous and anxious and looking around for a leopard allowed the other monkeys to take it easy.

We know that if the members of a species come from a limited gene pool, that species is more likely to be wiped out by a single disease or weather problem. Having a range of behaviors and characteristics gives a species resiliency.

[Locrian]

168. sexuality?

Is it possible that "gayness" is the far end of high sexuality?

For example do gay men have higher testosterone (or some other levels of hormones or ??) that would also be advantageous for reproduction, but also tend toward "gayness" ? Or maybe not hormones etc but other good traits of caring etc?

So it's the same "survival enhancing" trait, just in extreme?

[mentalsolstice]

173. No offense at the question, but it does get tiresome to be asked.

For the record I'm straight, and it would be presumptuous of me to answer for my GLBTQ brothers and sisters. Also for the record I have been disabled from birth, so I think some shared experiences and assumptions exist.

Here's why I find the question tiresome...let's say we do find the answer as to why certain people are the way they are. What are we going to do with that information? A lot of people would say we should use the information to "fix" the problem/person. Do you see where I'm heading? As long as people see other people as in need of being "fixed", they will continue to marginalize that population from greater society, or even worse, will discriminate against them.

I get tired of others as seeing me as something that needs to be fixed or eliminated. As a former attorney/advocate for persons with disabilities, I have been part of an advocacy movement that has the attitude that medical research is well and good, but societal inclusion is even better. Let's face it the world is going to end before we can fix or cure all human conditions. So inclusion/acceptance is the better way to go. In doing so, it sends the message to the person that they can accept themselves as they are, that they have an equal place in society as do others, that they deserve the same inherent rights as anyone else.

It's natural to ask why, however, sometimes the answer may lead to more bigotry, nonacceptance and intolerance.

[BrentWil]

174. I am simply looking for the evolutionary reason the trait developed.

Science doesn't lead to bigotry.

[mentalsolstice]

183. I have to disgree with you there!

As long as there are telethons and fundraisers for medical research (science) to try and eliminate cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, etc., the people that have these conditions will continue to be marginalized...inclusion (which is not science) is the better way to go. Ask the question, but be aware that it can be hurtful. My heart hurts every time I hear a gay person say "it's not a choice, as I would not have chosen to be this way." If we found the answer as to why homosexuality came into existence and why it continues to exist, what will we do with that information. Will we use that science to make society more inclusive for them, or will we use it to eliminate the condition/person. If we use science to eliminate, it will be a long process, and what is the the message that is given in the meantime...that the world would be better without homosexuals...or people with disabilities? Imagine being one of "those" people. I don't have to imagine, because I am one of "those" people that got the message that the world would be a better place if my sort could be eventually eliminated, through the use of scientific research.

The questions can be hurtful. As a kid, every time there was a big March of Dimes telethon on TV, it always hurt to go to school the next day because the message was out there to myself and to others that there was something "wrong" with me that needed to be fixed or even worse eliminated.

[uppityperson]

197. There is not an evolutionary reason for every trait.

It can be that simple.

[David Zephyr]

229. I like you. A lot.

Tiresome? Yes, it does get tiresome. Thanks for your wisdom and your heart. :)

[mentalsolstice]

257. Back atcha!

I cannot imagine the world without homosexuals. It would not be a place I would enjoy. Yeah, we can ask why...but what is the point? I imagine a world where there is acceptance and inclusion...not to "fix."

I like you too! :loveya:

[AzNick]

176. How are people bi? And straight? A-sexual?

The question makes little sense. Sexual appetite and the object(s) of this appetite is something that is engrained somewhere in the brain and that is not quite explained yet.

Sexual fetishes in male are usually explained by the fact that young males have a brain that is less developed at birth than female, and therefore what is likely to stimulate them sexually is not completely defined.

Incidents may happen which will trigger a sexual response and create fetishes. It is also very cultural, often linked to a time period: female attire such as high heels, physical punishment such as spanking, etc...

As for exactly why a man would be attracted to men and a woman to women exclusively, this is not quite explained as of yet. Theories, only.

Now how about bisexuals?

[Heidi]

177. I very much look forward to the day when people are as curious about why people are blond/e,

short or tall, hazel-eyed or brown-eyed, or dark or light complecte;, why some have a natural affinity for mathematics or the creative arts, why some people yearn to be parents and others have no such desire, for instance.

Clearly, people _are_ all of these things, but it seems our curiosity is generally limited to what makes people "other." Perhaps -- just perhaps -- our perception of what is "other" is skewed by our own biases and understanding of what is "normal" or "natural."

With respect to the OP, who I take at his word that he wants to understand, why is there not the same level of curiosity about the jillion other "others"?

[tigereye]

223. many scientists are - there is a wealth of brain-based and genetic

research related to many human traits.

[Jade Fox]

178. Based on the many gay people I've known in my life....

I'd say that for some being gay has definite biological basis. (Quoting a friend: "The first thing I knew about myself was that I was gay.")

For others, it is clearly more of a personal preference, and they choose to mate with their own sex.

[2QT2BSTR8]

179. In resonse to BrentWil

I come from being a 40 year old gay man myself, so I hope that counts as experience. Ha! Ha!

I thank you for your question to which I would love to reply. First I am not a scientist so I can not explain the genetic reason for it other than the chromosome/gene facts that have been published. Just Google gay genes.

I would first point out that there have been many examples that just because gay people are gay, do not assume that all gay people do not desire to pass along their "genetic information". I point out the following article: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_gay_people_have_babies

My husband and I have been together for over 12 years now. We have actually often thought about adopting. However we believe that it is more responsible to take care of a child that is orphaned somewhere, rather than just passing along our genetic information. We don't speak for all LGBT people by any stretch of the means, this is just how we feel. We have 7 gay couples, as close friends and they all have adopted babies, and it is amazing to see those children that once had no hope, are growing up in loving happy families.

Regarding when did evolution deviate, I pulled the following from Google.

"The first recorded evidence of homosexuality is found in Mesopotamia, circa 3000 B.C. where artifacts have been discovered depicting same sex couples. Alexander the Great is also recorded as having had a same sex relationship. Both predate the Romans and even later Greek culture -- in the case of Mesopotamia -- by a great deal. I'm not sure about earlier recorded evidence.

There are other types of recorded evidence roughly the same age however, for example, in the ancient necropolis of Saqqara in Egypt there is a very old tomb for a male/male couple who oversaw the Pharaoh's manicurists. That tomb is from the old kingdom and dates to between 2600 and 3000 BC also.

Anything older would be in the East (China, India and the Indrus valley) and archaeological work of the type that would turn up such evidence is much rarer there. The oldest known writing on the topic from the Chinese Empire is from "Master Yen's Spring and Autumn Annals" and refers to a ruler in 547. There certainly were older records, but whether any survive is a different question, and whether, if they do, they will be recovered and available as sources in the West during our lifetime, even more so." http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080620060847AAQ6H9N

Message me if you would like to talk further.

On a totally unrelated side note, I have to close with the following. LGBT high school bullying has hit a high this week with 6 LGBT people taking their own lives because of in school anti-gay bullying, hate speech, and invasion of privacy. Please support and repost: http://www.thetrevorproject.org/float-nav.php?u=thetrevorproject.wordpress.com&t=TrevorBlog

[pinstikfartherin]

180. I am pleasantly surprised..

That this thread hasn't spiraled out of control. As one who has never really thought of the "why"... very interesting thread!

[tigereye]

225. yes, I am surprised too - some very interesting comments

[BrentWil]

235. I just wish some poster would read the thread before they post

[tigereye]

282. well, to be fair, you had to have known you would raise some hackles and

make some folks feel singled out unfairly when you posted the OP...


:shrug:

[Iggo]

181. Jesus Fuck.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

Hey, that's NOT My middle name!

For Dad's sake, it's bad enough that thousands of people think My middle initial is "H.".

[Iggo]

242. Oops!

:hide:

[ProudDad]

191. The "gay" is nature's rational response to overpopulation...?

As Rachel might say...

[Arkana]

195. Genetics.

[Bluebear]

217. Good gravy.

[Rex]

231. Homosexuality is seen everywhere in the animal kingdom, it is NOT just

a human trait. Why nature chose some of us to be gay and others straight is the way of the world, trying to figure out why is like trying to figure out why we have blood and not lava in our veins. Why our brain is made out of fat and not velcro. It just is. That is the way, some things require no explanation imo.

[TonyMontana]

232. Why are people black?

:shrug:

[Karenina]

236. To give you an easily recognizable enemy.

[BrklynLiberal]

237. Mother Nature's way of dealing with population control...and helping get kids adopted.

Sometimes the best genes in the pool do not always get passed along...'tis a pity.

[GSLevel9]

240. that's a LOT of reading... LONG THREAD!! nt

[BrentWil]

249. I agree. I say it is time for thread #2 of this.

[tigereye]

283. nah, I would suggest you quit while you are "ahead" Another one would

probably end up being locked. People have been remarkably and amazingly civil about this.

[WeekendWarrior]

243. WHY does anyone CARE why?

I mean, honestly, does it really matter why anyone is what they are? They are what they are. As long as they aren't imposing their will on you, then why can't we just leave them the fuck alone?

I've never understand this need to explain why gay people are gay. It's nature. It is what it is.

I mean, you might as well ask, Why are people black?

[BrentWil]

245. People are black because they are advantaged in locations closer to the equator

Skin cancer and such.

Knowledge and science isn't a bad thing.

[WeekendWarrior]

248. Oh, please

Great way to obscure my point.

[BrentWil]

250. THat is actually why you have darker skinned people and lighter skinned people

Lighter skinned people have the advantage of creating more vitamins E I believe. Very important in colder areas.

Not trying to obscure at all.

[mkultra]

260. well, that happens to be the truth and pertinent

black folks aren't to be punished or devalued because of their natural features. Homosexuality seems to take a beating from the those on the right for being a choice. Recognizing that being gay is not a "choice" is a key element in educating people out of bigotry.

[uppityperson]

264. Is that why people from Central America are black?

[Xithras]

293. People from Central America aren't genetically from that area.

The real answer, as currently understood by science, has to do with Vitamin D.

Humans evolved in Africa over millions of years, and originally we were all black. Evolution pushed black skin in humans (as with other hairless mammals) as a protection against cellular UV damage. An originally unrelated evolutionary detail was the fact that humans require vitamin D, and that we manufacture vitamin D in our skin when we're exposed to sunlight.

When humans moved out of Africa, we moved to places with less natural sunlight than we'd evolved to deal with, and we began covering ourselves with animal skins to ward off the colder climates we were moving into. The sudden reduction in sunlight making it to the skin reduced vitamin D generation, damaging health and reducing reproductive success. The result? Human skin, outside of Africa, began to lighten. Lighter skin allows more sunlight through, which increases vitamin D generation. The further north you went, the lighter you got (before you bring them up, the Inuit are an exception because of their vitamin D heavy seafood diets). This process took, by some estimates, about 50,000 years to complete.

The ancient ancestors of the Native Americans, including those who live in Central America, originated from what is today Siberia, Mongolia, and other parts of eastern Asia between 35,000 and 15,000 years ago. None of them (or too few to matter) came directly from Africa, so none were black. None (or too few to matter) were from northwestern Asia, so none were white. Virtually all came from that "brown" middle, so those were the only genes that carried foreward.

When the first natives moved into Central America, they found a heavily forested region where sunlight reached the surface only in limited areas, or not at all. Because sunlight wasn't unlimited, there was no evolutionary push to darken the skin again. Even if there was, population migrations over time haven't yet given evolution the opportunity to darken them up. If you deforested Guatamala, prevented anyone else from moving in, limited the amount of clothes they could wear, and then checked back in 50,000 years, you'd find a bunch of black Guatamalans.

And that's why Central American's aren't black. Evolution.

This is also why it's important to learn the answers to questions like "Why are some people gay?" Answering seemingly trivial questions like that can often open up huge windows onto our history and evolutionary past. They teach us things about ourselves that can change our perspectives on mankind as a whole.

[BrentWil]

298. Thanks for the answer

Very informative.

[Hosnon]

252. Science, knowledge, understanding... you know, all that jazz. nt.

[RainDog]

247. Animals are gay. Nature isn't just about the selfish gene

although it has been popular to engage in this reductionist rhetoric for years, the reality is that there are animals across the animal kingdom that are gay.

there is no societal reason for this. there is no selfish gene reason for this. it is simply a trait of some members of some species.

[boppers]

251. A totally basic lesson in genetics and evolution:

Evolutionary mechanisms do not go in any direction. At *all*.

For example, there is no "drive" to reproduce found in all organisms, it just happens to work out that the ones that reproduce more often tend to survive more events by nature of their diversity, and number of their species. It's just random variation, and some variations last longer than others.

IOW, there is not a "reason" for anything genetic, there's just what genetic material manages to survive... since there hasn't ever been a selective pressure that would eliminate the sexual playfulness of primates (homosexual and bisexual behavior predates the emergence of homo sapiens sapiens, as it's found in many of our evolutionary relatives... *and* as others have noted, it's all over the animal kingdom), it's just something that's been carried forward.

As others in this thread have noted, there are group/family *explanations* for why an individual tendency towards same-sex sexual interactions might be beneficial, but there isn't any deeper reason *why* genetic variations happen.

Evolution knows no reason. It's just random.

Some random changes have an effect over a longer period of time, other changes don't. In the case of the sexual spectrum, the variations found in primate (human) sexual diversity keep getting carried forward because there hasn't been any species-wide event to wipe variation out, *and* prevent it from ever happening again.

That's the part of the "puzzle" that you're not understanding, because there is no puzzle. You're trying to find order, or reason, in a random mechanism.

[and-justice-for-all]

256. Because even mother nature needs birth control..nt

[mkultra]

259. ive heard that gay men have large amygdalas and that their brains are structered like women

both from scientific studies. Who really knows but it seems obvious to me that it must be nature not nurture. I never made the conscience choice to be straight but i did watch a friend of mine grow up seemingly gay but acting straight until his mid 30's when he seems to have just relented to his internal voice.

Seems silly to comment on such a thing being straight though.

[Jamastiene]

268. Overpopulation maybe.

The planet is overpopulated. That is a big part of why we are having all these resource wars (oil, clean air and water). There is already not enough energy and clean air and water to go around. The planet can only sustain so much abuse before it will start fighting back or die, pick one.

Not everyone WANTS to produce offspring, but gay people who do want to reproduce can. It's not that hard to buy a turkey baster, talk to gay friends and allies of the opposite sex and go for it.


A second idea as to why might just be that not everyone feels the NEED to reproduce. With so many Duggar types running around, really, not everyone needs to reproduce. Pretty soon, Octomom and the Duggars are going to need their own zip code, the greedy bastards.

Homosexuality even exists in the animal kingdom and in the plant kingdom, it's more of an orgy. Just think about next time you go outside and sit on a bench covered in pollen. That's tree sperm. Yup, they send it EVERYWHERE and to EVERY species that walks through it or sits in it or uses their windshield wipers to wipe it off the windshield of their vehicle. That's tree sperm.

The bees and other bugs who get the pollen on their bodies and go from flower to flower and tree to tree are the turkey basters of the plant/tree kingdoms. No biggie.

Trees are very GENEROUS with their sperm, aren't they?

My theory on why there is gay sex in the animal kingdom is that they just want to and have no religion trying to make sex seem like some kind of "sin" or some other such nonsense. Still, no biggie.

Why gay people exist in countries that kill them for being gay? That answer is very simple. Extremist religious zealots exist in every religion and in every country. The more extremist and zealous they are in their views, the more places they exist. That type of thing is a form of bullying. They are allowed to force their beliefs on entire countries and kill anyone that gets in their way.

The bigger question on my mind is why does our species allow THAT shit. No gay person is going to kill you if you aren't interested in having sex with us, but the damn religious extremists will kill you if you dare try to stop their bullying and their hateful, deadly crusades.

And our society allows and even encourages that type of religious fervor. That is something to seriously think about.

Those are my theories. :shrug:

[AngryAmish]

275. Fucking Magnets, How Do They Work?

[snooper2]

279. Because some people don't like the penis

and other people don't like the vagina..

Some people enjoy both..

Some people enjoy neither..






And then you have Furries :P

[Taverner]

294. Probably Chromosomes 7, 8, and 10

...The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.
The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene