Evolution and Homosexuality in species

PopeOfEruke

I started wondering the other day how homosexuality could evolve in species, humans for example, assuming the main purpose of evolution and natural selection is for creatures to reproduce and pass on their genes to another generation.

Obviously for natural selection to favour homosexuality there must be benefits to the species which outweigh the disadvantages of no/less reproduction patterns of homosexual members of the species.

I found an article that certainly offers some suggestions to solving the seeming "puzzle". It's only theory of course, no one knows for sure.

For example, it is an advantage for males who are less aggressive and show more caring, let's say "more feminine" traits, as these make better fathers. They are less likely to be killed in fights with other males, for example, and would be happier to stay at home or the nest and help more with raising the offspring.

It's really interesting reading.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html

Has anyone ever thought about this before? Any science experts here who could offer some insight?

Pope

Sam87

it is an advantage for males who are less aggressive and show more caring, let's say "more feminine" traits, as these make better fathers. They are less likely to be killed in fights with other males, for example, and would be happier to stay at home or the nest and help more with raising the offspring.

I could be wrong on this but wouldn’t that be impossible because to reproduce the father would have to have sex with a female to have offspring, so how do you get the offspring for the father to lovingly raise if the father is gay? It seems to cancel itself out.

Sam87.

PopeOfEruke

Sam,

from what I understand the article is saying, natural selection allows for less aggressive males as these make more-caring fathers.

But the genetic makeup of less-aggressive males also makes homosexuality more likely. Also males who are "less-masculine" also have lower sex drive and so reproduce less. So it's a trade-off somehow.

The other argument the paper makes, is that the species is strengthened by having the genetic and/or cultural diversity of hetero- and homo-sexual individuals.

Man there is a lot we don't know about ourselves!

Pope

PopeOfEruke

And what about lesbianism? That theory doesn't quite work in reverse. More aggressive females make better Mothers?

I think we are what we are because the Earth wants us to be here. Whoever we are. We are needed.

Pope

Sam87

But the genetic makeup of less-aggressive males also makes homosexuality more likely. Also males who are "less-masculine" also have lower sex drive and so reproduce less. So it's a trade-off somehow.

this doesnt actually mean you are more attracted to the same sex though, males being "less-masculine" or more feminine doesnt mean you are going to prefer the same sex, it could just mean that your sex drive isnt as strong, it really point towards homosexuality from what i can see.

And what about lesbianism? That theory doesn't quite work in reverse. More aggressive females make better Mothers?

this is a very good point pope

The other argument the paper makes, is that the species is strengthened by having the genetic and/or cultural diversity of hetero- and homo-sexual individuals.

Once again it doesnt really mean you are homosexualy just because you are "less-masculine" or more feminine, to me it would sound better if they said

the species is strengthened by having the genetic and/or cultural diversity of "less-masculine" or more feminine individuals. (to me this doesnt mean someone is gay it just means they are less-masculine" or more feminine, thats not sexual at all).

Ive gotta say though it is very interesting, great thread pope!

Sam87.

Sam87

oops i stuffed up... i meant to say this in the second paragraph

this doesnt actually mean you are more attracted to the same sex though, males being "less-masculine" or more feminine doesnt mean you are going to prefer the same sex, it could just mean that your sex drive isnt as strong, it really DOESNT point towards homosexuality from what i can see.

sorry everyone, lol

PopeOfEruke

The argument is: natural selection creates the male who is "less-aggressive" by his receiving more "feminine" genes. Gentleness and nurture are typical feminine traits.

And what are normal females sexually attracted to? Males!

So a male who gets too much of the "feminine" genes/whatever becomes attracted to males, just as a normal female does.

Sort of makes sense....

Pope

Satanus

The less aggressive, more passive men often match up better w the less feminine, more aggressive females. The offspring can inherit those same traits. These do not need to be to the point of being homosexual, but, if the characteristics happen to be stronger in the offspring, then homosexuality can result, which is a deadend. How's that for a partial explanation of how it works? Not sure what the advantage in this is. Maybe more cooperation between the sexes?

S

PopeOfEruke

I think that's a fair summation Satanus.

The other thing I found interesting concerns the evidence which shows that males born later than other siblings are more likely to be homosexual. One reason for this could be to offer less competition (sexually) with the first born males of the same mother.

I must say, I don't quite understand that one.

Pope

Justahuman24

Well, this "theory" is all wrong. There are homosexual men who are not femenine or more gentle or more caring or better fathers just bcz they're gay. And not all lesbians are butch or worse mothers or more paternal. Also, the majority of gay people don't have kids so the main point/argument of this "theory" is moot. justahuman - but super nonetheless

Evolution and Homosexuality in species

Share this