[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 460x307, obama_post_rect-460x307[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4687064 No.4687064 [Reply] [Original]

How does Evolution support Homosexuality?

>> No.4687065

It doesn't

>> No.4687069

imagine you had a population with a level of homosexual couples

they still have parental urges, without making children of their own

they will take care of other children in the event their parents die or they are out hunting or something, as will help the overall health of the pack.

if about 10-15% of the pack was homosexual, it would raise overall survival rates for the children.

>> No.4687072
File: 22 KB, 490x343, 1323098021497.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4687072

How does evolution support you, OP?

-That's the question!

>> No.4687080

Evolution has nothing to do with your closet, OP.

>> No.4687081

>>4687069

What about the homos that hate children.

>> No.4687088

>>4687081

i'm talking about parental instinct, that is hard to get rid of.
hating children is something people say they do, but if its a child you're involved with, its kind of impossible to hate them.

>> No.4687091

>>4687081
>>4687088

also, not everyone actually has very strong parental instincts

if thats what you meant, then whatever, they just wont have children.

doesn't compromise the overall percentages, some straight people hate kids too

>> No.4687093

I've asked someone this before and they basically said it doesn't in the same way that hereditary diseases don't either. Like it's a "defect" sort of (in terms of passing along genes and stuff.)

>> No.4687096

>>4687093
you're a defect!

actually in all seriousness, we don't really know what causes homosexuality.

it doesn't harm the population or health of the group though, so it can't really be called a "defect"

>> No.4687098
File: 29 KB, 382x322, 1327630239854.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4687098

Sexuality is a spectrum.

You're not required to stick to one side.

>> No.4687099

>>4687093
>>4687093
>>4687093
>>4687093
>>4687093

>> No.4687100

In the future, everyone will be bi.

sexuality is an emotional and mental thing, not purely physical as people seem to believe.

>> No.4687104

>>4687096
A defect just means shortcoming, and since homosexuality makes it harder if not impossible (unless they get some other people to help) to have biological children, it's a defect as far as the passing on genes part of evolution.
That's not to say that there's anything bad about it.
And sexiness causes homosexuality.

>> No.4687106

>>4687104
they have less chance to pass on genes, but the fact that it's still prevalent in many pack animals despite that seems to suggest it served some purpose.

we're not sure what it was, as we aren't exactly pack animals anymore.

well I mean we are. but we function as a hive now.

>> No.4687110

Ever notice how homosexuality becomes more acceptable in areas with high population density? It's probably genetically encoded from of population control.

>> No.4687112

>>4687106
Didn't know about that. Interesting. I also remember reading a story about some type of swan that will have eggs with a female duck, then kick her out, find another male duck and together they protect the eggs.
There's not a whole lot of lesbians in animas, it seems like.

>> No.4687114

>defects
> light skin and blue eyes, is consider a defect.

Everyone has them

>> No.4687117

>>4687112
that swan thing is interesting, didn't know that, makes sense from an evolutionary point of view though.

>> No.4687122

>>4687064
>How does Evolution support Homosexuality?
Why does evolution need to support homosexuality?

Answer: It doesn't.

>> No.4687125

>>4687122
so it is a choice!

>> No.4687131

Homosexuality is a mental defect. It isn't a bad one, but it is one.

>> No.4687134

>>4687131
So is male monogamy.

>> No.4687135

What does "support" mean, in this context? Evolution doesn't have an opinion...?

>> No.4687136

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
The bonobo is popularly known for its high levels of sexual behavior. Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions. This is a factor in the lower levels of aggression seen in the bonobo when compared to the common chimpanzee and other apes. Bonobos are perceived to be matriarchal; females tend to collectively dominate males by forming alliances and use sexuality to control males. A male's rank in the social hierarchy is often determined by his mother's rank.

>> No.4687137

Some guys just like being pounded in the ass.

It feels good dude.

>> No.4687140

>>4687069 but wait, since homos dont have children and dont pass on their genes, theres no increase in chance that the surviving generation will be any more homo than the previous. Generation A may be more successful than another colony because there are more homos, but generation, their offspring, isn't any more likely to have homos than any other population in the world.

>> No.4687141

>>4687131

"Defect" is really a matter of perspective. It's not a statement about objective reality, unless you believe that we are intentionally designed for a specific purpose.

>> No.4687142

>>4687140

That's only the case if it's controlled by a single gene, which it obviously isn't.

>> No.4687143

we don't know OP. people have theories, as you can see ITT, but there isn't a definitive answer right now (what's happening here is philosophy; nobody is generating any new knowledge they're just trying to find an answer by arguing for a while). sorry bra.

>> No.4687144

>>4687142

Why just a single gene? as long as its only controlled by any combination of hereditary genes, my argument stands

>> No.4687148

>2012
>still believing men don't produce enough seed to have sex with both men as well as women

fucking for men is cheap, semen costs almost nothing in terms of energy

>> No.4687152

>>4687144

No it doesn't, lrntobiology.

>> No.4687153

>How does evolution support homosexuality?
>How does the change in haplotype ratios in a population support different philosophical and theological viewpoints on human sexuality?

Hopefully you see now why this question makes no sense

>> No.4687154

>>4687152
care to explain? how are the offspring of a population any more likely to have a higher percent of homos if all their genes are from heteros? lrntologic

>> No.4687159

>>4687154

Because it's not 1 gene --> 1 effect.

>> No.4687162

>>4687159

youre not answering my question. how is person A, lets say whose parents are two heteros who have a gay friend, any more likely to be homo than person B, whose two parents are hetero but no gay friend. EVEN IF the first couple is more likely to reproduce because they have a gay friend. He isn't any more likely, and so homosexuality can't be propagated in this way

>> No.4687164

>>4687162
>friend

Not for a friend, but yes for a relative.

>> No.4687166

two possible reasons

the genes or process that cause homosexuality in men, cause benefits in women which give a net advantage. same for lesbians and straight men.

if a mother has a number of sons, one of whom is gay, this increases her chance of being a successful grandparent more than if she had just straight sons, competing for the same women.

>> No.4687167

>>4687164

...oh. that makes sense. whelp, now i feel like a retard

>> No.4687168

>>4687162

That wasn't your question. You were essentially saying that you can't carry genes for something without expressing it yourself, which is completely false. You can certainly have genes that correlate with being more likely to have gay relatives (without yourself being gay), and that could be an advantage.

Of course, I don't even think that's true, but it is plausible. More likely that's a very oversimplified account, as is anything that models sexuality in such a binary way.

>> No.4687170

What if you genuinely just get in a romantic relationship with a guy?
And for the longest time you thought you were straight

Answers?

>> No.4687175

"Oh look a freckle! What could be the historical reason for these?"

>> No.4687186

>>4687170

Pansexual?

>> No.4687198

>>4687170
That's called friendship. Just like you can be good friends with an ugly opposite sex that you don't find attractive at all, you can be friends with the same sex. You won't develop romantic feelings unless something about them attracts you, which won't happen if you are normal/don't have triggers that respond to males.

>> No.4687199

>>4687198
>inb4 butthurt over the normal comment

>> No.4687204

I get a boner when i see that rape scene in the movie "the deliverance"

Am i gay?

>> No.4687211

It's a defect, like a lot of things.

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it in terms of human society, however, since basing society on darwinian principles would be silly.

>> No.4687218

>>4687198

Well, I had bromantic sex with my friend.

>> No.4687308

Bumping for moar.
I know nothing on this topic, but it was interesting to read what you guys knew/thought.

>> No.4687313

Richard Dawkins explains how the gay gene was preserved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

>> No.4687314

Plenty of homosexuals still have kids, dumbass.
Many are in a traditional marriage with several children

>> No.4687326

>>4687313
awesome

>> No.4687333

Will it be possible, if enough generations of high populations of homosexuals come to pass (thousands of years) that we will be evolved to have both sets of genitalia and reproductive organs as the norm?

>> No.4687386

>>4687313
>gay gene
cool story bro

>> No.4687398

>>4687386

Did you even listen to what he said?

>> No.4687580

>>4687386

I'm with this guy ^

>> No.4687794

>>4687110
there's a simpler explanation for that

>> No.4687809

Honestly I think the homosexuals of the past were just afraid to come out of the colset and ended up having children.

I reject the notion that homosexuals gave tribes a survival advantage. Seems silly to me.