Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all bashing homosexuals, but I am curious as for humans, as in all species, we live to procreate, so just scientifically speaking, what advantages are there to being homosexual?
Also, birth rate in "developed" countries is so low that they basically stopped procreating anyway.
And, in high birth rate countries, homosexuality is not as promoted, as it is in liberal ones, so they will slowly take over the world.
ON a serious note...
Yes, they do multiply by propaganda.
Otherwise, it's dead end. Unless they will keep steady supply of children they can take from families that procreate the normal way and, that supply will be compensating losses from deaths, diseases and non procreating families, it will lead to slow population die out. Simple math. Each female on Earth has to have 2.5 children or humanity dies out.
Of course, if they can figure how to clone people...
Genetically speaking ... being homosexual doesn't make you sterile. It's a sexual preference. Not mine, but I too have subtle hetero preferences. I suppose you could say the same thing about people who "prefer" oral sex instead of intercourse.
I'm not trying to diminish your point, just adding the obvious. Rarely, few things are a binary choice.
Not at all bashing homosexuals, but I am curious as for humans, as in all species, we live to procreate, so just scientifically speaking, what advantages are there to being homosexual?
Biological organisms do not live to procreate. They live to see the perpetuation of their own genetic legacy. However, while procreation is the most straightforward means of doing this, it can also be accomplished by assuring the genetic legacy of close relatives, who will by definition share many of the same genes. Thus, J.B.S. Haldane's quote: "Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins."
His point being that to sacrifice his life to save two brothers or eight cousins would be to, statistically, save an equivalent of his own DNA. Think about worker bees. They don't reproduce. They can't reproduce. But by serving the queen and the hive, the assure the perpetuation of their own genes - or, at least, a portion of them.
This is known as kin selection.
Also, consider the sickle cell, responsible for certain hereditary blood disorders (such as sickle cell anemia). It is particularly common among those of sub-Saharan African ancestry. Why? Malaria. The sickle cell, for all its deleterious effects, conveys a protection against malaria. In areas where malaria has been traditionally a virulent scourge, the benefits of that protection overrode the downsides of possibly acquiring sickle cell disease. Similarly, genes that code for homosexuality may also code for something beneficial to an organism.
This is known as balanced polymorphism.
This is only a sampling of the reasons that it is not surprising that homosexuality has not been selected out of the gene pools of humans (and mammals, where homosexuality is documented in numerous species, and in primates in particular, a clade in which homosexuality occurs with even more frequency).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Genetically speaking ... being homosexual doesn't make you sterile. It's a sexual preference. Not mine, but I too have subtle hetero preferences. I suppose you could say the same thing about people who "prefer" oral sex instead of intercourse.
That's a very astute observation. The pleasure of sex in general and orgasm in particular is an evolutionary mechanism that drives people to have them. Of course, a side effect of this is that it leads people to seek sexual pleasure/orgasms in ways that may not result in the procreation behind the selection.
Not at all bashing homosexuals, but I am curious as for humans, as in all species, we live to procreate, so just scientifically speaking, what advantages are there to being homosexual?
None. Just as there is no evolutionary benefit to dwarfism or down syndrome, which is why they are few. But they and a host of other genetic variations occur regularly in tiny percentages of the population. The fact that they are disadvantageous to reproduction/survival disproves neither evolutionary theory nor the fact that they are born that way.
Not at all bashing homosexuals, but I am curious as for humans, as in all species, we live to procreate, so just scientifically speaking, what advantages are there to being homosexual?
It isn't always the case that individual organisms live to procreate. It may be the case that an individual can actually assist their close kin by not reproducing, with whom they share a lot of genes, and still be "genetically successful".
In any group of people, such as a hunter gatherer tribe, at any give time some individuals will be ill or injured and thus dependent on others to care for them. If you have a few homosexuals who don't have babies of their own, they might be able to help care for whoever happens to be sick or injured at the time and thus improve the group's overall survival rate.
There is no advantage for any human "condition" when you don't pass on genes. I can't say with any certainty, but as I understand homosexuality, homosexuals don't genetically produce more homosexuals.
Talking about evolutionary benefit assumes that homosexuality is genetically determined. While that may be so, it seems that there may be social or birth order determinants as well.
Assuming that the percentage of people who are homosexual for whatever reason is under 5% of the population, homosexuality probably doesn’t matter. People die for many reasons before procreating. Starvation, accidents, diseases, etc. The species continues regardless. If some small number of people are homosexual, it really doesn’t matter. The rest of the species continues, and every offspring has a random chance of being gay.
Ultimately, who cares? The theoretical evolutionary disadvantage of being homosexual is an argument usually advanced by people who are anti-lgbt as a way of attempting to discredit and denigrate the lgbt community. It is more likely brought up by a person who hates or fears lgbt individuals than a person who wants to discuss evolution.
Not at all bashing homosexuals, but I am curious as for humans, as in all species, we live to procreate, so just scientifically speaking, what advantages are there to being homosexual?
What is the evolutionary benefit to having an appendix?
What is the evolutionary benefit to having pale colored skin?
What is the evolutionary benefit to having blue eyes?
What is the evolutionary benefit to having a preference for synthetic perfumes?
Answer: it doesn't matter whether there's an evolutionary benefit to some things. They're just human traits, nothing more or less.
One theory I have heard is that there is a benefit to having uncles who are looking out for the offspring of their brothers or sisters. If there is an extra adult male who has an interest in the survival of certain children (who are genetically related) that would make them more likely to survive. (One example would be during wars -- if the father is killed, the uncle may still be able to provide and protect them and serve other roles of a male caregiver.)
There would be a similar benefit to an aunt who could take over a caregiving role if the mother died.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
