Gay Functional Hypotheses

NOTICE: All ZUers who find homosexuality spiritually immoral, this is not a place to discuss it here. That's what the marriage thread is for. Also, if you disbelieve in evolution, on some wild chance that you do, ignore this thread. This is a thread based on those who take the scientific view that evolution occurs on the macro and micro scale, and that the Creation of all living things as literally depicted in the Bible are myths.

Alright, the thread on Gay Marriage made me think about an idea I had about a possible evolutionary function of homosexuality, or possibly a long-lost social one.

It's pretty evident that not every human being is sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and some to the same, and some to none, and some even just to themselves.

So, I thought up a few hypotheses as to why homosexuality exists as a behavior of the human psyche, just like it occurs in the numerous species that also practice it.

Population Control, in some unconscious way. Homosexuals are not very likely to sexually reproduce, and it seems there are more homosexuals today than ever before, but that might just mean that the same percentage in the past were closeting in societies that forbade it. But if the numbers HAVE increased, it could mean that the gene pool is trying to thin itself up a bit, or hinder it some.

Social Bonding. In earlier human societies, I thought it possible that, due to selectivity (mainly female selectivity since males are more inclined to be sexually dominant and aggressive as shown through history and other species as well) among members of a species, the libido of some ancestral groups of humanoids, like Homo Habilis, may have engaged in homosexual sex as a type of bonding while not procreating.

After all, a human may only typically have a few kids, but they will be sexually active for QUITE a long time, since the sexual organs are always active in a healthy male or female. When not for reproductive purposes, this could be a functional thing that while not evolutionary and social, could clearly be something that was phased out by certain religions that instilled a nobility in following a proscribed set of asceticism that required abstaining from gay sex. This could vary throughout cultures, but I'm talking before the dawn of Homo Sapiens here, so it doesn't count the Pederasty of the Romans.


So, what do you think of these ideas, are they credible, and does anyone else have any hypotheses like these that they'd like to share?

Or defect in the 21st chromosome, which was genetically proven years ago?

Originally Posted by Prince Shade

Homosexuals are not very likely to sexually reproduce, and it seems there are more homosexuals today than ever before...

The human population has grown at an exponential rate in the past 40 years.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Or defect in the 21st chromosome, which was genetically proven years ago?

Sources, please? And that still doesn't mean the defect hasn't gained a place of its own, like the rare beneficial mutations that occur from time to time.

Originally Posted by Seran Aileron

The human population has grown at an exponential rate in the past 40 years.

But is the CORRELATION the same, is what I'm curious about. Whether the population of homosexual individuals in the world population are a greater or lesser percentage of the whole population today, or if it has remained stable. This is a good question, I think.

We couldn't accurately count the number of homosexuals in the world at any point in history.


We still can't do it.

Originally Posted by Virtigo

We couldn't accurately count the number of homosexuals in the world at any point in history.


We still can't do it.

True, we cannot. Mainly because it's abstract and lacks an intrinsic existence to sexuality in general, like heterosexuality.

Originally Posted by Prince Shade

True, we cannot. Mainly because it's abstract and lacks an intrinsic existence to sexuality in general, like heterosexuality.

You just said nothing. "an intrinsic existence to sexuality in general"? What?

That said, it is very hard to find reliable numbers of homosexuals in the world, largely sexuality is fluid, and homosexuality -- understood as a disposition, not a behaviour -- can only be self-reported. Self-reports are unreliable as long as it remains so taboo.

I think it's reasonable to look at surveys and assume that there are significantly more gays than self-report.

Originally Posted by Trico

You just said nothing. "an intrinsic existence to sexuality in general"? What?

That said, it is very hard to find reliable numbers of homosexuals in the world, largely sexuality is fluid, and homosexuality -- understood as a disposition, not a behaviour -- can only be self-reported. Self-reports are unreliable as long as it remains so taboo.

I think it's reasonable to look at surveys and assume that there are significantly more gays than self-report.

I basically meant what you said, concerning my statement. Sexuality is sexuality, straight and gay is just a convenient terminology for a massive gray gap with two polarities that are very hard to distinguish as strong or weak. What you call it has always just depended on the shapes and forms of what you say you're attracted to. Sexuality is just that, and very fluid. And I agree with what you said. Especially considering the numbers at gay pride parades.

There is probably no evolutionary advantage to homosexuality. Evolutionary change is driven by the selection of individuals. Something like homosexuality or infertility, despite being advantageous to the population, is detrimental to the individual's Darwinian fitness (their ability to pass on their genes). In order for a trait to become common, it must be beneficial to either the individual or those very closely related to the individual (a phenomenon called kin selection). Homosexuality is probably just a condition that either pops up from time to time, or is inherited. There is evidence of both genetic and hormonal (in the fetal stage) causes, and it could always be a combination of the two. If it is hormonal, it definitely has nothing to do with evolution, because hormonal changes aren't inherited. But a lot of research still has to be done before we can draw clear conclusions.

A possible evolutionary advantage to homosexuality you say? I think we need to get Richard Dawkins in for this discussion.

I can't think of anything right now, but I will try to think of something that makes some kind of sense.

Somewhat off topic: I've heard from sources in the past that the occurrence of homosexuality greatly multiplies with the number of older brothers one has, though the explanation (if there even was one) escapes me. This trend is not seen in females.

More on topic: I'd agree that homosexuality is probably not at all advantageous evolutionarily speaking. Individual organisms are not particularly concerned with the "good of the species." Their goal is the propagation of their own genes, which homosexuality obviously prevents. Given this, it is a wonder that homosexuality persists--the only explanation I can put forth is that it is not a gene linked phenomenon. Or at least not exclusively so. And if it is not dependent on genes, then it is going to be very hard to relate it to evolution at all.

I think the most likely cause is probably a hormonal imbalance. An excess of estrogen production in a male or an excess of testosterone in a female. But this is surely an over simplification. People still don't really understand it.

Originally Posted by Eldin

Somewhat off topic: I've heard from sources in the past that the occurrence of homosexuality greatly multiplies with the number of older brothers one has, though the explanation (if there even was one) escapes me.

I heard it has something to do with the woman's ability to "masculinize" the embryo. They all start out as a neutral gender and can recieve testosterone and grow testes and such. Each time a boy is born, the mother's body has a harder time doing it. This results in homosexuality in men, maybe women if you stretch it a bit. That is what I heard, I know it is from television, one of the Colbert Report guests said it.

Also, I thought of something. If the above is true, then wouldn't that make places in older times, where people were encouraged to have many children, preferably male. Of course, they would also dislike those who were different, so even if there were homoesexuals they would probably still have children, having children could even be part of their culture, and pass the gene on to some of their offspring.

Take, for example, the glowing pigs. They passed the glowing gene to their piglets, so the same principle should apply to the gene that causes homosexuality, or brown hair or whatever.

How does that sound?

Somewhat off topic: I've heard from sources in the past that the occurrence of homosexuality greatly multiplies with the number of older brothers one has, though the explanation (if there even was one) escapes me. This trend is not seen in females.

I've read of at least one study suggesting that in some women, there is essentially an allergic response to the male fetus, which increases each time a male fetus occurs. There is dramatically increased chance of miscarriage, and also a change in hormone levels.

From what I understand, it is particularly in children of these women that rates of homosexuality in younger brothers is seen to increase, likely due to the hormonal changes.

Interestingly, my mother had three miscarriages of boys before my older sister was born -- I'm the only boy she had and a youngest child, but I am also very very gay.

It's also possible that there are more homosexuals making themselves known today because it's not looked down upon AS MUCH as it used to be. If there's one thing celebrities can do for us, it's reshape the way we thing. Freddie Mercury and Elton John came out, and all of a sudden it's okay to be gay. Delightful how we have to have a celebrity do it first, though, isn't it? >_>

Originally Posted by Asci

It's also possible that there are more homosexuals making themselves known today because it's not looked down upon AS MUCH as it used to be. If there's one thing celebrities can do for us, it's reshape the way we thing. Freddie Mercury and Elton John came out, and all of a sudden it's okay to be gay. Delightful how we have to have a celebrity do it first, though, isn't it? >_>

Probably not the best examples...

Queen's sales plummeted in America when the penny dropped about Fred