Homosexuality, Darwinism & Evolution

[bcohen7719]

If gay men can't reproduce, why hasn't

evolution squashed them?

 

BC

 

[video=youtube;AGN18KtPmEg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGN18KtPmEg

[+ Gar1eth]

If gay men can't reproduce, why hasn't

evolution squashed them?

 

BC

 

[video=youtube;AGN18KtPmEg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGN18KtPmEg

 

I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I'll give it a shot-

 

1. Some gay men/women do reproduce.

2. It could be spontaneous mutations in either the ovum or the sperm which give rise to gayness in the offspring.

3. Gayness or straightness may be a sliding scale- someone happily married but maybe who could have been gay or bi if circumstances had been a bit different in their life- but the circumstances weren't different- might give rise to equally flexible offspring who might express themselves as gay.

4. There is a slight increased chance - extremely slight chance of being a gay male the more sons your mother has birthed before you. They aren't sure what the cause is- as I said it's very slight increased chance. They theorize it might be some type of reaction of the mother against foreign male antigens. By they don't know.

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

If gay men can't reproduce, why hasn't

evolution squashed them?

 

BC

 

[video=youtube;AGN18KtPmEg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGN18KtPmEg

 

I just watched the program. I'm not sure all of it applies to me. I can definitely say I am no where near as fabulous as Bryce. I think my gaydar would have picked him out pretty quickly.

 

Gman

[Nvr2Thick]

If gay men can't reproduce, why hasn't

evolution squashed them?

 

BC

 

 

Because gay men are produced as a result of human reproduction. If, hypothetically speaking, all gay men were wiped out today the next generations of humans would include more gay men.

[AdamSmith]

One explanation: http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality

[+ Gar1eth]

The question of why are there ( why are we) gay is fascinating in itself just because it's not the way the majority of human males are. But there can often be other less lofty goals for searching for it. I believe part of the interest no matter how enlightened we and friendly straight people are is that if we can prove it's inheritable whether through genes or epigenetic factors well then obviously we are off the hook for choosing to be gay. It's out of our hands, much like someone who is colorblind. You can't blame someone who is colorblind for not being able to distinguish between red and green. If we were all really enlightened- and I'll be the first to say that I am not- aside from the scientific curiosity of determining why the difference, there really is no good reason we should have to defend our gayness by saying that we were born this way. In a truly accepting world it shouldn't matter if we were born or if we chose to be gay.

 

And even if it is inherited in some fashion, it's probably extremely complicated. For example many of the factors listed on the Canadian show don't apply to me. My maternal ancestresses going back at least to my great grandparents haven't had more children than my paternal ancestresses. The only other gay person in my family that I am aware of is female and is a paternal 1st cousin once removed. And female sexuality is, I think, considered to be a lot more complicated than male.

 

And again wondering about causes- my mother was on bedrest to try to prevent miscarrying me from early on in the pregnancy. I think she was given various hormones to try to prevent miscarriage which are not given now, but I'm not sure. If she was , I wonder if those might be responsible for being gay. But me wondering that is very close to wanting there to be a gay gene. If external factors made us gay, then the onus of choice is removed.

 

Gman