Does homosexuality provide an evolutionary advantage?

[PepSky]

I was reading a thread on another board about same sex marriage in which someone posted a message about homosexuality potentially being an evolutionary advantage. I thought his messsage was very interesting. I'm not sure what the advantage would be. Maybe population control? Anyway - here is the message if anyone would like to see it and comment.

"Another interesting contribution of science: population genetics.

You see, deleterious traits are rapidly weeded out of a population by natural selection. For example, the cystic fibrosis mutation is present as a hetorzygote in about 1 in 45 people, and consequently turns up as a diseased child in 1 in 2000 births (this is in Caucasian populations).

This is actually considered a HIGH frequency for a genetic trait: many diseases like this show up at even lower frequencies (note, this does not include diseases that are late-onset, since they do not affect reproduction).

Now, let us look at homosexuality in this light. People who are homosexual often do not reproduce--a trait that should be strongly selected against. BUT, it is astonishing that 5-10% of the population is gay. Compare 1 in 20 to 1 in 2000 and you see what I am talking about.

Generally, if a trait is this common in the population, and there is an obvious downside (non-reproduction), it must be strongly selcted FOR, not against. Population geneticists have concluded that having homosexual traits in the population must therefore confer some evolutionary advantage. The science behind this is rock sloid, and really relies on simple math.

Now we get to the speculative part. Why? What is selected for? Biologists speculate that it is something to do with childhood mortality, or perhaps some behavioral trait that helps the carrier, not the homosexual individual. A good example of this latter is sickle cell anemia, where heterozygotes are much more likley to survive malaria, but homozygotes die of a nasty disease. But the contribution would have to be far more substantial than sickle cell.


So the take-home message is that homosexuality is probably doing something very positive for the species, or evolution would have minimized its frequency long ago. This is supported by the fact that most mammalian species demonstrate homosexual behavior, suggesting that the phenomenon is not primate-specific.

So far from being "unnatural", it is likely that homosexuality has been strongly maintained in human populations for solid biological reasons (and in the face of constant persecution). "

[Az]

1. There is speculation it is tied to population density

When population density gets too high various stress factors may impact the gestation process. This may lead to an increase in the proportion of homosexual offspring. This would decrease the birth rate but increase the care givers in the community.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

2. One flaw I can see in your theory

is that up until recently homosexuals DID reproduce. The concept of a distinct group called "homosexuals" is a very very new phenomenon, i.e. within the last hundred years or so. The idea that someone could be openly gay, even newer. It used to be that gay men would have wives and reproduce, and would have their homosexual relationships on the side.

That could explain why the trait wasn't selected out as your theory says it should have been.

In my opinion, homosexuality is biologically adaptive, however. Just because we're so darn fabulous!!

[Az]

3. Furthermore it does not appear to be tied to genetics

It is likely a hormone issue during fetal development. This could be impacted by environment and stress.

[TrogL]

4. Homosexuals still reproduce

I'm gay. I've got kids.

[Az]

5. Social forces are too new on the scene to have an evolutionary effect

Thus most species don't have a social group attempting to force them to procreate. So when homosexuals crop up they naturally form non procreative pairings. They will often take up strays when other parents die. This may explain one of the evolutionary advantages of homosexuality within a species. Our higher order complexity means that mammals require nurturing and learning in order to survive. In densely populated environments it is advantageous to have a part of the group nonreproducing but ready to care for young.

[durutti]

58. One problem...

First of all, it's wrong to assume that adaptation started 150,000 years ago or stopped 10,000 years ago. 6,000 generations have passed since the end of the Pleistocene. That is enough time for some minor changes to take place. Furthermore, it can be safely assumed that at least some traits are leftovers from ancestors that existed prior to homo sapiens sapiens.

In this context, it's worth noting that with the rise of agriculture, population growth became highly desirable.

[Demonaut]

15. so you are claiming genetic superiority?

so us hetero's are nuckle dragging throwbacks, just kidding of course.
I think the trait is more likely population control. I'm no geneticist but havent studies been done about disproportionate male/female populations one leads to an increase in same gender pairing. All I'm saying is that studies show we still have alot to learn abot relationships and sex.

[kevinhnc]

38. A flaw in that flaw

You have to think about the long-term, i.e. evolutionary time scale. Only very recently (on an evolutionary time-scale) did people begin persecuting homosexuals.

Humans evolved as a hunter-gatherer species (as evidenced by our omnivorous teeth). In a hunter-gatherer tribe, a homosexual male would provide an extra "hunter" without having to feed his own extra children. This could have helped in the survival of the population as a whole, as resources (in short supply then) were spread less thinly.

Then civilization came and messed everything up :)

[Az]

39. Care giving as well

Studies on mammals show that homosexuals of various species readily adopt young when their parents are lost.

[durutti]

82. There are no "homosexual" animals.

As I mentioned in another post, Alfred Kinsey argued -- and I agree -- that recent human social constructions like "homosexuality" cannot and should not be applied to non-human animals.

Male and female bonobos -- our closest relatives -- routinely engage in both "homosexual" and "heterosexual" behavior throughout their lives.

In several other species, there are many recorded instances of males having sex and reproducing with females, then driving off the female and raising the offspring with another male.

In other cases, there's ample evidence that animals turn to homosexual activity when they don't have a chance at heterosexual activity.

[durutti]

57. Two-Spirits

One defense of this theory that I can make (though I disagree with it) is that two-spirits in tribal societies usually were not expected to reproduce.

[shoelace414]

6. IMO

In my opinion, when talking about evolution and humans you are really only talking about pre-historic times. human civilization is changeing waaaaay too fast for evolution to keep up.

[Az]

8. Exactly

Human social structure is the current high speed evolutionary factor at work. Biological evolution can't keep up. Thus social forces attempting to force hetrosexuality on homosexuals is too new for biology to recognise. Thus we wind up with a disconnect in society and homosexuals are oppressed.

Homosexuality occurrs in nature. It may serve some purpose (perhaps a population density governor). Society has to evolve enough to understand its basis a bit better.

[treepig]

17. so which is it?

in post #3 you claim homosexuality does not have a genetic component.

now you do.

that's just a tad confusing

[Az]

19. No

Its not genetic. There is an advantage to the species. But it is not genetically selected for. At most the propensity for homosexuality may be genetically coded. But the trigger will be environmental.

[treepig]

21. trying to separate environmental and genetic factors is futile

for example, some have claimed that the propensity for being female is genetically coded. and even cite genetic evidence such as finding two "X" copies of chromosome 23 in most females.

however, based on your reasoning, an argument could be made that being female is entirely environmental, triggered by the fusion of an "X" sperm with an egg instead of a "Y" sperm.

clearly, both components are crucially important.

in the case of homosexuality, you propose that the presence of a hormone during development is the key determining factor. if so, this hormone is only present because one or more genes were expressed, which in turn produced this hormone. taking a step back, it is entirely possible that the expression of this (or these) gene(s) was triggered by an environmental factor. but, if so, there is no reason why evolution (which, btw always involves a genetic factor) could not have selected for or against individuals sensitive to this trigger. i could go on, but it's basically a chicken and egg thing all the way back. in other words the environment and genetics are so intimately intertwined, it is rather silly to expend effort to deconvolute them.

[Az]

23. Well we are a rather silly species

And thus there are some that will persist in attempting to untie gordian knots without the use of swords.

To be fair evolution and biology don't really care about boundaries. Whatever creates a situation for increased chances for survival of the species is what will be selected for. Thus you have a complex dance of genetics and development. So the genetic coding comes up with a means by which environment can trigger a response (certain species do switch gender based on environmental variables) which affects the development of the fetus. Thus while homosexuality is not directly genetically selected for the ability to be homosexual is genetically supported. Its within the biological parameters of our (and other mammalian) species. But unlike hair color it is not determined by the genetic coding of the egg and sperm.

[treepig]

29. just because homosexuality is more complex than hair color

doesn't mean that the genetic influence should be discounted.

a trait like hair color is determined by a small number of genes and therefore it's easy to produce mendelian-type diagrams to establish the genetic component.

homosexuality is likely determined by many genes, and therefore it's more difficult to pin down exactly what's going on. unfortunately, the bush administration has pretty much put the kibosh on research in this area, so the results that began trickling out in the late 90's have remained stunted and inconclusive. regardless, enough evidence has been amassed that it accepted by the scientific community that genetic factors do determine sexual orientation. The following abstract does a fair job of summing things up:

Annu Rev Sex Res. 2002;13:89-140.

A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation.

Mustanski BS, Chivers ML, Bailey JM.

Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA

This article provides a comprehensive review and critique of biological research on sexual orientation published over the last decade. We cover research investigating (a) the neurohormonal theory of sexual orientation (psychoneuroendocrinology, prenatal stress, cerebral asymmetry, neuroanatomy, otoacoustic emissions, anthropometrics), (b) genetic influences, (c) fraternal birth-order effects, and (d) a putative role for developmental instability. Despite inconsistent results across both studies and traits, some support for the neurohormonal theory is garnered, but mostly in men. Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes. Although it has been well established that older brothers increase the odds of homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been resolved. We conclude with an examination of the limitations of biological research on sexual orientation, including measurement issues (paper and pencil, cognitive, and psychophysiological), and lack of research on women.

[Az]

34. Responsive to environment

The trouble with this is that homosexuality seems to be responsive to environmental conditions. One study shows that the more brothers in a family there are the more likely that further males will be homosexual (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/05/020528074252.htm).

There are real differences in the brains of homosexuals and hetrosexuals but no genetic link seems to be found (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031022062408.htm).

Now while one must remain open to the notion that there may yet be a direct genetic cause for specific occurrences of homosexuality the evidence seems to lean towards it being an environmental variable. The fact that homosexuality occurrs in higher order mammals and is not represented in species that do not require a long term parental commitment may suggest that it is an advantage in nurturing.

[sangh0]

45. Something that's responsive to the environment

can still be based on genetics. IOW, in real life, things are rarely as simple as Nature vs Nurture. Quite often, it's a combination of the two.

[durutti]

85. It's *always* a combination. n/t

[mondo joe]

50. But Environment isn't Necessarily Separate from Biology

Even though there may well be environmental causes for homosexual offspring, that doesn't refute a genetic component. For example: Though some studies indicate that the younger of many brothers are more likely to be gay ---- but studies also indicate that it runs in families, through maternal lines.

So if some women are genetically predisposed to produce gay sons, we'er still looking at genetics. Or if some boys are genetically predisposed to respond to hormonal cues in utero, we're talking genetics.

Lastly, environmental effects can be as immutable as genetics. Schizophrenia we know to have a genetic component, but we also know there are environmental factors as well. In fact kids in schizophrenic families born in certain months are statistically moer likely to grow up to be schizophrenic than those born in others.

[durutti]

84. That second article was terrible.

1. Scientists, being mostly white, male, and well-off, often base their research in sexist assumptions.

2. The science press is similarly dominated by the white, male, and well-off. And reports of innate differences between the sexes appeal to a popular audience, and thus attract advertisers.

3. Humans are not rats.

4. Keyword: "may".

5. Reports of genetic findings are very frequently withdrawn shortly after they're issued. I'm going to check this one out at the library tomorrow.

6. Of course there are differences in male in female brains -- probably corresponding with different sexual functions.

7. It may well be the case that hormones act to make proportions of these genes more equal.

8. There are inherent difficulties in examining embryonic mice.

9. There is absolutely nothing -- especially not in this article -- to support Vilain's assertion that “Sexual identity is rooted in every person’s biology before birth and springs from a variation in our individual genome.”

10. Vilain says, “This anatomical difference may explain why women can sometimes articulate their feelings more easily than men,” he said. But the evidence for this supposed sex difference in humans is very slim. Studies have been conducted in societies where men are supposed to perform many of the tasks we think of as "male", and their performance was found to be as satisfactory as that of the males.

11. '“It’s quite possible that sexual identity and physical attraction is ‘hard-wired’ by the brain,” he said. “If we accept this concept, we must dismiss the myth that homosexuality is a ‘choice’ and examine our civil legal system accordingly.”' This conclusion absolutely doesn't follow. Even if there is a genetic component to homosexual feelings, it doesn't mean that there aren't environmental components as well (there certainly are) and it doesn't mean that homosexual behavior isn't a choice.

[durutti]

83. It's in a paper -- it must be true!

There are tremendous ideological and institutional pressures for scientists to produce biologically determinist conclusions.

Here are some more critical views:

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/privacy/gene-sexuality.html

http://iupress.indiana.edu/textnet/0-253-34057-8/0253108918.htm

[Occulus]

28. Does that mean human evolution

is due for a quantum leap sometime "soon?"

[durutti]

60. I mostly agree, but there's a bit of a contradiction here.

First of all, I think there has been enough time for some minor adaptation to occur. But it's certain that in any case, cultural evolution has far outpaced biological evolution.

That being the case, humans must be highly flexible, and it cannot be said that there's strict biological determination of many behaviors.

[noonwitch]

7. Female menstruation is what sets humans apart from animals

Humans are the only species in which the female can conceive 12-13 times a year, other than cats, and I think they're from a different planet anyways.

[KittyWampus]

59. Women Or Cats?

"and I think they're from a different planet anyways." :)


We are also the only species to have sex face-to-face.

In fact, the angle of vaginas did change to accomodate this.

[cushla_machree]

69. wrong

<I> We are also the only species to have sex face-to-face. </I>

wrong!

bonobo monkeys (a type of chimpanzee) have sex face to face, as well as engage in same sex behavior.

[KittyWampus]

70. Wow! Bonobos Are Interesting

Found a great article, thanks for inspiring the search:
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

Bonobo Sex and Society

The behavior of a close relative challenges assumptions about male supremacy in human evolution by Frans B. M. de Waal

[mondo joe]

9. Kin Selection

"Generally, if a trait is this common in the population, and there is an obvious downside (non-reproduction), it must be strongly selcted FOR, not against. Population geneticists have concluded that having homosexual traits in the population must therefore confer some evolutionary advantage. The science behind this is rock sloid, and really relies on simple math.

Now we get to the speculative part. Why? What is selected for? Biologists speculate that it is something to do with childhood mortality, or perhaps some behavioral trait that helps the carrier, not the homosexual individual. A good example of this latter is sickle cell anemia, where heterozygotes are much more likley to survive malaria, but homozygotes die of a nasty disease. But the contribution would have to be far more substantial than sickle cell. "

Remember the point isn't that the individual reproduce, but that the individual's genes make it to the next generation. Reproduction is a good wayto do it, but not the only way. I suggest you consider the many animals that NEVER reproduce but are an evolutionary success - like bees.

I suggest you also consider a couple of other details: men, more than women, tend to be exclusively hetero- or homo-sexual in their orientation. And the incidence of homosexuality in offspring increases with the number of make offspring (that is, an 8th son is more likely to be gay than a 1st or 2nd).

Kin Selection is the theory that one's genes can have an evolutionary advantage by a non-reproductive individual supports the offspring of their close biological relations. Hence most bees do not reproduce, but their genes keep going on because they support the reproductive effotrs of their sister who shares many of their genes.

Now if you look to humans, consider smallish hunter/gatherer family tribes. And let's create a couple of speculative families:

* Family A has 2 daughters and 3 sons, all of whom grow up to reproduce. Let's say the total number of grandchildren is 25.

* Family B has 2 daughters and 3 sons, all of whom reproduce except for the one son who prefers other men. Let's say the total number of grandchildren is 20, because this one son has no offspring.

Looks like Family A has the evolutionary advantage. Except times aren't good and the subsistence lifestyle is taking it's toll on the children, who are dying left and right.

Now Family B has the advantage - it has one more adult male who contributes to the efforts to feed the family, and fewer children to consume it at that.

So the children in Family B, though fewer in number, have more food, more protection, and are more likely to successfully mature and reproduce than the children in family A. And that one son's genes are carried on quite nicely in the offspring of his sisters and brothers.

[blindpig]

18. mondo joe gets the cigar

nicely put.

[mondo joe]

26. Thanks.

[outinforce]

37. Got A Link?

"the incidence of homosexuality in offspring increases with the number of make offspring (that is, an 8th son is more likely to be gay than a 1st or 2nd)."

Do you have a link to this fact?

The reason I ask is that I am gay. I am also the first-born within my family of five children.

There are/were, within my extended family of cousins, four other gay people -- three gay men and one lesbian.

All were first born.

[treepig]

43. see post #29

"it has been well established that older brothers increase the odds of homosexuality in men"

note: you'd probably have to have web access through a university to get access to the full article, or you could contact the authors for a reprint

[mondo joe]

48. It's just a tendency - not a rule

I know someone else pointed to a reference, so I'll just add that the incidence of gay sons being higher among later births is just a tendency. Not a rule.

There are plenty of only and first-born gay men. Including myself.

[durutti]

56. A few problems with this explanation...

First of all, the theory of kin selection is not undisputed. A major problem is presented by the fact that it's often difficult even for cogniticely sophisticated organisms to tell exactly who their relatives are and how closely they're related. In fact, it's believed that for a long time, humans didn't even understand that sex was linked to reproduction.

Another problem is explaining why humans behave altruistically toward non-relatives. Anthropologists -- most notably Marshall Sahlins in The Use and Abuse of Biology -- have surveyed altruistic behavior among foragers, and found such behavior not to be linked to kinship.

I personally think that altruism is better explained by group selection as reformulated by Sober and Wilson. Altruists will tend to group themselves with other altruists. These altruistic groups will grow faster than less altruistic groups, until the trait of in-group altruism is spread throughout the population.

Also, as I said in another post, the case for a "gay gene" (or genes) is hardly rock-solid, despite the fact that it's often made to seem that way.

[ForrestGump]

74. It's not kin selection

For one thing, it's not like gay men/women (assuming the ultimate etiology is the same for each sex) hang around to be 'helpers at the nest,' and switching the contribution to potential economic gain is bogus both in itself and in that women can also bring in income (sure, not for all that many decades yet, but it's no less spurious a link than the purported kin selection of homosexuality).

[mondo joe]

75. What period are you describing?

"For one thing, it's not like gay men/women (assuming the ultimate etiology is the same for each sex) hang around to be 'helpers at the nest,' and switching the contribution to potential economic gain is bogus both in itself and in that women can also bring in income (sure, not for all that many decades yet, but it's no less spurious a link than the purported kin selection of homosexuality)."

Are you describing contemporary western life?

Because human culture has evolved more radically and more quickly than human biology.

[arwalden]

10. I Wonder Why It Is That So Many Deaf People Are Gay?

What is it about the genetic makeup of people who are born totally deaf (or with profound hearing loss) that causes a larger percentage of that group to be gay than the percentage of the general population?

-- Allen

[Sapphocrat]

11. I've always wondered that too...

Having hung around the deaf/Deaf community for a long time, I am positively stunned by the percentage who are gay. I've asked Deaf friends if the local community was an anomaly, and everyone's just shrugged and said no -- there really are more gay deafies than gay hearies, at least across the U.S.

(Don't get too excited, LGBT singles: Unless you're deaf yourself, it probably won't work out; Deaf-hearing relationships have a historically high failure rate. You can learn all the ASL you want, but few hearies have any clue how unique Deaf culture really is.)

[FreeState]

27. There are not more Deaf gays

You are making a flow in comparing a community that is very open to the average American that is closed.

Ask any deaf person about deaf culture and you will see what I am saying. Deaf people in general have no problem with gay people, they are a very tight community that is very open about what goes on in their personal life. If the American culture was this was it would appear there are more gay people in the general population.

This was discussed on another board in depth...I can't find the link... however is you want more information or first hand opinion from a deaf person post a message at exmormon.org - however be sure to include some reference to Mormonism or the post will be deleted:)

[Sapphocrat]

33. I see what you're saying...

...and it makes perfect sense. In other words, if the "average" American were as open about his/her life, the "official" percentage of gay Americans overall would be greater simply because more of us would be out of the closet.

I hadn't thought about that -- but I certainly should have. As a typical hearie, it took me a LONG time to get used to the idea that if you are, say, late to a Deaf meeting because of an accident, everything will come to a standstill as you are expected to divulge every last detail of the accident, right down to the gory details of the gash on the other driver's head. This, of course, will be followed by everyone's input on accidents they've been in, injuries suffered, how long it took for a broken wrist to heal... :D

I know that sounds like a major generalization, but if you know the Deaf community, you know I'm not overreaching. If I could summarize the Deaf community in a single word, it would be "communication" -- or possibly "connection." There appear to be few things quite as important as finding a common bond -- particularly when it comes to 1) where you went to school, 2) if you're not deaf, who in your family is deaf, and 3) if no one in your family is deaf, what's your connection to the Deaf community?

But I digress, as usual. Anyway, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the valid point, FreeState -- and welcome to DU. :hi:

P.S. You're right about most Deaf not caring much whether a person is gay or not -- it's the Deaf connection that comes first. If only I could say the same about the rest of society. Just imagine a world in which the "human" connection mattered most of all!

[David__77]

12. I think a crucial human attribute is left missing in this debate...

I think it's crucial to note that human beings are not bio-determined. We have certain underlying dispositions, but they do not directly determine social behavior. Homosexuality, or any variety of sexuality, can arise from numerous sources. I think that genetics is a fairly small part of the puzzle. In other words, if scientists thought they had identified a "gay gene" and people tried to "engineer" homosexuality out of existence, that would not be the result of such an endeavor--not by any means.

[durutti]

87. I don't even think "disposition" is accurate.

People commonly use one of two models in describing the way genes interact with environment:

1.) The empty bucket. Genes represent "potentials" -- buckets of different sizes -- that are filled to different degrees with varying environments. Thus, if everyone is given the best possible environment, the genetically superior will rise to the top. The problem with this metaphor is that what the best environment for a trait to flourish is itself varies from individual to individual.

2.) "Tendencies". People are said to have innate "tendencies" to be overweight, to be obsessive, etc. The problem with this way of putting it is that if a tendency is observed, it can only be said to really be a tendency in the particular environment in which it was observed. Change the environment, and the tendency may cease or diminish.

[Raskolnik]

13. Neal Stephenson puts it well...

"It got Lawrence to thinking. From an evolution standpoint, what was the point of having people around who were not inclined to have offspring? There must be some good, and fairly subtle, reason for it.

The only thing he could work out was that it was groups of people--societies--rather than individual creatures, who were now trying to out-reproduce and/or kill each other, and that, in a society, there was plenty of room for someone who didn't have kids as long as he was up to something useful."

That passage is from Cryptonomicon, and refers to Alan Turing, a was a homosexual man that was of particular use to society in keeping hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers alive.

[Blue-Jay]

14. 5-10% ? That seems a little high of a percentage.

[Liberal Veteran]

24. No, that's about right.

Consider if you will, the extreme conservative sources put the number at around 2%, but the the extreme liberal sources put the number at about 13% and it would be safe to say that a rational estimate would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 10 percent.

Hell, I was on a ship in the Navy with 200 people and I knew at least 20 people on the ship who were gay. Granted, that's just anecdotal, but I can't imagine why it would have been out of the ordinary.

[Blue-Jay]

36. OK. Fair enough.

Also anecdotal, but I started thinking about all the people I know and I'd guess that around 3-5% might just be about right. Granted, I know a lot of theatre/musician/artsy-type people, but percentages was never anything I had considered.

[durutti]

63. The problem is...

The number of people who are exclusively homosexual is only about 1-2 percent. The number of people who are attracted to members of the same sex but not exclusively is much higher.

[defoliate_bush]

55. an even higher % of bisexuals

I am a lesbian, but I am willing to bet that the number of people with homosexual tendencies is twice as high as the number of true gays and lesbians.

[TNOE]

16. I read in some spiritual studies

some time back that it has to do with the yin/yang energy - there is too much "yang" on the earth which needs to be balanced out more evenly with the "yin" energy - so homosexual men carry the yin/yang energy within them. Also related to the fact that in "spirit" souls (we humans) are neither men nor women - we just are spirit. Could not tell you which book this came from - but made perfect sense to me. It actually could have been in the Conversations with God series of books in which it states "God" created homosexuals - so why on earth would have a problem with them or their sexuality?

[KittyWampus]

62. In Kabbalism Angels Are Indeed "Hermaphroditic"

Homo Sapien works towards evolving into Homo Spiritualis. And the pictorial representation of this state is an Angel (hermaphrodite).

In cultural anthropology we called gender crossers "berdache". Men who lived as women were able to stay amongst the females of the tribe and not only help protect them & offer their physical strength for doing this and that. Women were known to have also lived as men... but this is not as well known or documented.

About Berdache:

In some Native American cultures, male children who display feminine characteristics at an early age are valued by the tribe as a sacred trust. It is believed that the Great Spirit has sent this child to them as a go-between for males and females, a bridge between the sexes who understands both sides of the human condition.

Such a child is apprenticed to a shaman, or holy man of the tribe. In his training, he learns the traditional work of both sexes, dresses as a woman, and usually performs the functions of healer and arbiter for his people.

The European word for this person is "berdache". Among the Zuni, for example, it is "lhamana".



We'wha (1849-96), a Zuni berdache, lived in New Mexico. He is shown
holding a ritual vessel, dressed in women's clothing.

http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/gender/intersexuals/berdache_tradition.htm

[starroute]

20. I can think of at least five possibilities

One is the common argument about having more unmarried aunts and uncles around to help out with the kids.

A second would tie it to creativity. I don't know if a larger percentage of homosexuals is actually artistically or scientifically creative (does anybody know?), or if it just seems that way. But whatever caused human beings to start creating art 100,000 or so years ago must have had a strong evolutionary advantage. Ditto for whatever led to an upsurge in personal adornment about 20,000 years ago.

A third (which is closely connected with the second) would tie it to shamanism, which is often associated with cross-dressing and bisexuality. If homosexuality enhanced the ability to shamanize, that could have give it an evolutionary advantage back in the days when every little hunting band was dependent on its shaman for survival.

A fourth would be sexual selection. I read something a few days ago suggesting that there are two mating patterns among primates. In those where the males fight among themselves for access to females, the males tend to have long canines and narrow faces. Those where the females get to choose their own boyfriends tend to have small canines and wide cheekbones. (The article cited Johnny Depp, Viggo Mortensen, and Orlando Bloom as examples.) So perhaps human women by choosing cute guys over the heavy-duty testosterone types are unconsciously selecting for a higher percentage of gays.

A fifth would be the grandmother factor. A study a couple of years ago showed that in primitive societies, having a strong, supportive grandmother has a lot to do with boys' survival. Especially if -- as someone suggested above -- homosexuality is not inherited directly, but is linked to prenatal hormone levels, strong-willed, slightly masculine women might have an evolutionary advantage over the weak, fluttery types. (And those strong women might have been the ones who went for the cute boyfriends rather than the grunt-and-bashers.)

Or it could be some combination of all of these. Perhaps the sexual selection and child-rearing factors became important back around Homo erectus times when human reproductive patterns diverged from those of the great apes. That might have set up a tendency towards androgyny that would have been intensified when Homo sapiens moved to a lifestyle that was dependent on language and art and creativity.

[Sapphocrat]

22. Not to be a point-killer...

...and I do find your post most interesting -- but I'm afraid your question about a gay artistic/creative bent reminded me of an old one-liner:

If Michelangelo had been straight, the Sistine Chapel would have been painted with a a roller. :D

[FlaGranny]

25. I like that one and it has a ring of truth to it.

:-D

[treepig]

30. dna and sexuality

here's a tangentially related thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x10185

[rastignac5]

31. This theory assumes homosexuals don't reproduce

which is false. A large percentage of homosexuals marry and reproduce with women.

[PepSky]

32. Although there are such cases

I wouldn't call it a "large" percentage.

There were (rumored) cases of such events in England for example back with the monarchy. A king was rumored to be homosexual yet reproduced because it was expected of him.

Still most homosexual individuals would not reproduce I would imagine unless it was forced on them. (*this does not take in to account newer methods to reproduce with out male/female intercourse. though this has not been around anywhere near long enough to effect evolution)

[Nikia]

46. In the past, societal obligations were very important

In may societies, people were/are expected to marry and reproduce. In some societies, marriage is arranged with those married having no choice to marry or who their partner is. Since males tended to be the head of the household and responsible for intiating sex, it is possible that a man might choose not to have sex with his wife. On the otherhand, since having children was important and the wife might tell everyone if they blamed it on her, the man usually did have sex with his wife to get her pregnant. In many societies of the past and present, women were forced to marry and forced to have sex.
In the modern U.S., people are not forced to marry and have children to the degree that they were in the past. Marriage and children is the ideal encouraged by society and some families really encourage this. Homosexuals may want to follow this ideal, even though they don't really enjoy having sex with a member of the opposite sex, and try to live this way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. I've noticed a high percentage of gays and lesbians in the arts and

academia, and I wonder if there isn't something about brain chemistry or circuits that ties a same-sex orientation with say, musical ability or an interest in obscure scholarly topics.

Or is this a peculiarly American phenomenon in a society where boys who are into the arts or reading are beaten up and called "fag," so that only boys who really are gay stick with their artistic or scholarly pursuits? (That doesn't explain all the lesbian musicians, though.)

Or is it just that the artistic and academic subcultures are less uptight about sexuality?

[Nikia]

40. It was an evolutionary advantage for a woman to be bisexual

I have read this theory two different places. One book said that men tended away from monagamy. Since many prehistoric men would leave their female partners (or die), it was advantageous for a woman to have a partner who was not a man to help raise her children.
The other book had a similiar arguement except that it said that non alpha males tended toward monagamy. Alpha males tended toward monagamy with many affairs on the side. A woman with a guarenteed sterile partner (another woman) was an ideal woman to have an affair with. The alpha male could be assured that the children were his but be assured that his children had someone helping raise them.
I think that it makes some sense. Both books said that there are more bisexual women than bisexual men and that gay women becoming exclusively lesbian at a later age (old enough that they would have had a chance to have children) than gay men. I've seen varying statistics on this so I don't know.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

41. E. O. Wilson, in his book, "On Human Nature", discusses this topic.

He speculates that even though gays don't reproduce, there seems to be an association of gays in history with relative affluence and education/creativity and prominence in the ranks of professionals, religious shamans etc. (think Roman Catholic priests LOL). So that the perpetuation of this behavior as a genetic thing may be correlated with other successful evolutionary traits such as intelligence.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1087506031/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-0621518-0856931

[durutti]

65. E.O. Wilson has said a lot of things.

Among them, the idea that biology makes racism inevitable; that women would never be politically or economically equal to men; that scientists should be put in charge of some vague, nation-wide eugenics program; and has argued (using the same line of reasoning as Herbert Spencer) that the state shouldn't assist the poor.

Many people are familiar with the infamous incident in the 1970s in which students dumped ice water on him and called him a racist. Two notable facts are often omitted: the students were black, and after he was soaked, Wilson said that he felt like he'd "been speared" by "aborigines".

More recently, Wilson has allied himself with right-wing Harvard prof Stephan Thernstrom (who, with the assistance of generous amounts of right-wing foundation many, authored America in Black and White, in which he essentially argues that racism is a figment of black America's imagination) in trying to stamp out Harvard's women's and ethnic studies programs.

Not exactly someone whose ideas progressives would want to take seriously, I should think.

And don't bring up his participation environmental movement. It means nothing. The Nazis were conservationists too.

[ForrestGump]

76. Wilson is a dude

Marxist wackos -- Gould and (especially) Lewontin -- declared war on him after the 1975 publication of Sociobiology. Just another item in the long list of backstabbing and out-and-out conflict that's characterized the life sciences at Harvard...see Robert Trivers for related scuffle. As always, the truth most likely rests somewhere in the middle of these duelling egos' various contentions. Wilson was, is, and always will be a brilliant man, though.

[durutti]

88. I disagree.

I'm very into science studies, so I've read about the sociobiology wars extensively.

First of all, Gould was not a Marxist. His parents were, and he was to some degree an admirer of Marx, but he was by no means a communist. That didn't stop his opponents from accusing him of communist sympathies, of course. Lewontin actually was and is a Marxist. Neither were "wackos", but are in fact quite distinguished in their fields. Even Wilson called Lewontin "brilliant".

It's interesting that in all these debates, the sociobiologists are the first ones to bring up either party's political fealties. True, the original critique of Science for the People argued that sociobiology was tainted by ideology; but as anyone with a social science background understands, that's not the same thing as conscious political bias. Lewontin, Gould, Rose and the rest made valid, scientifically-grounded criticisms of sociobiology. The sociobiologists responded by denouncing them as "Marxists" and "feminists".

The criticisms of Gould, Lewontin, Levins, the Roses, Fausto-Sterling, Hubbard, Sahlins, Montagu, and others remain salient. They've not been rebutted in any satisfactory fashion. Theirs is, IMHO, the side of the truth. This fact is made apparent by the fact that today, very few anthropologists accept sociobiology.

And the truth is what I'm interested in. I don't particularly care about either side's political affiliations.

And reading Trivers to get an unbiased account of the sociobiology wars is like watching "Triumph of the Will" to get an honest account of the Third Reich.

All that said, I'll concede that Wilson is an accomplished entymologist. It's when he decided to become a philosopher that he took a wrong turn.

[yellowcanine]

42. Theory I heard is that it is a type of kin selection - gays take care of

nephews and nieces and thus make it more likely that they will survive - in effect the child has three parents. The reasoning is that the gay gene was selected for in an environment of high infant mortality so it was difficult for anyone to reproduce successfully. A genetic mechanism that would ensure more parental care from an aunt or uncle would confer a big advantage. Since the gay person has some genes in common with siblings, some of their genes are represented by the niece/nephew. The gay and lesbian people that I know do dote on their neices and nephews more than people who have their own children.

[LDS Jock]

44. that makes sense to me

I treat my neices and nephews like my own children, or how I would if I had children.

[leftofthedial]

47. since it is clearly not a reproductive strategy for the individuals

it must be thought to be some sort of collective, species-wide survival strategy.

Are there any other known examples of a collective human- or other species-wide adaptive strategy?

[mondo joe]

49. No - not a species wide strategy at all.

"it must be thought to be some sort of collective, species-wide survival strategy. "

It's not a collective species-wide strategy. In the kin selection model, gay men who provide additional suppotr and resources for their nieces and nephews are still only helping people who share their own genes. So they're not helping the species - they're helping their own genes.

[leftofthedial]

51. still, it's not an individual survival strategy.

there is no direct physical link between a gay man and his nieces or nephews.

this would clearly make sense as an intellectual decision, but I know no gay person (admittedly, I do not know a large number) who have chosen to be gay on that basis.

What I was asking is whether there are other examples of biological conditions in one member of the species serving to perpetuate the reproduction of other members while ensuring that the former will NOT reproduce. And what mechanism would accont for that?

[mondo joe]

53. It's an evolutionary strategy, not a survival strategy

"there is no direct physical link between a gay man and his nieces or nephews."

It's an evolutionary strategy, not a survival strategy.

Our hypothetical gay man's nieces and nephews carry some of his genes. In small family tribes probably more than in large populations.

There are numerous animal species in which most members don't reproduce but support their kin, thereby ensuring that some of their genes are successful. Not as good as half your genes - but better than none.

"this would clearly make sense as an intellectual decision, but I know no gay person (admittedly, I do not know a large number) who have chosen to be gay on that basis."

We're not talking about choices. We're talking about genetic predispositions and evolutionary strategies.

"What I was asking is whether there are other examples of biological conditions in one member of the species serving to perpetuate the reproduction of other members while ensuring that the former will NOT reproduce. And what mechanism would accont for that?"

Try bees. Try dingoes.

[leftofthedial]

61. "bees" is the answer I was looking for

so do you think humans are evolving a strategy of socially selective or elitist procreation? What about the other rigid stratification of bee society? It is a quite rigid caste system.

[mondo joe]

73. What a funny thing to suggest

"so do you think humans are evolving a strategy of socially selective or elitist procreation? What about the other rigid stratification of bee society? It is a quite rigid caste system."

If I thought humans are evolving a strategy of socially selective or elitist procreation I'd have said so.

I do not.

Humans have already evolved the reproductive strategies we've had for a very long time and which have not changed appreciably in the blink of recorded history.

In fact I gave you another example of kin-selection: dingoes.

I could give more. And they don't require a rigid caste system.

Lastly, attributing a "caste" system to bees is anthropomorphism of nearly the worst sort.

[leftofthedial]

78. perhaps "caste" is a loaded word,

but if you apply the "logic" of workers versus drones versus queen, etc. to humans, the closest parallel I can think of is a caste system.

[mondo joe]

79. That's the problem. You're looking for a human parallel.

"but if you apply the "logic" of workers versus drones versus queen, etc. to humans, the closest parallel I can think of is a caste system. "

That's the problem. You're looking for a human parallel.

Why not just appreciate that bees are bees, gorillas are gorillas and humans and humans. Most animals have some evolutionary strategies, or aspects of them, in common.

[leftofthedial]

81. I never intended this to be an argument

natural selection is the same process for all species.

I was asking if anyone could cite any other example in nature that parallels the hypothesized evolutionary advantage of homosexuality.

Frankly, I see none.

It may be better on balance for the human species if relatively large numbers of people stop reproducing, but that is not evolution.

I fully appreciate that bees are bees.

[mondo joe]

91. Who's arguing? Let's discuss the positions rationally.

"natural selection is the same process for all species."

Natural selection is a process. Different species benefit from it in different ways. That's what an evolutionary strategy is all about.

"I was asking if anyone could cite any other example in nature that parallels the hypothesized evolutionary advantage of homosexuality.

Frankly, I see none."

But I gave you two examples of kin selection - dingoes and bees.

"It may be better on balance for the human species if relatively large numbers of people stop reproducing, but that is not evolution."

No one suggested that any number of people stop reproducing.

And no one said kin selection IS evolution - but that it's an evolutionary strategy.

Do you know the difference between evolution and an evolutionary strategy?

[durutti]

64. Yes, there *are* collective strategies in humans.

Group selection theory is making a comeback. A theory of species-wide selection was proposed by Wynne-Edwards in the 1960s. His theory was certainly wrong, but he was often unfairly savaged by his opponents. However, new theory of group selection was proposed by David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober, and it's been gaining adherents ever since.

It's worth noting, though, that the new group selection doesn't posit selection "for the good of the species" so much as "for the good of te community".

[Deja Q]

52. Apart from the evolutionary disadvantage that we can't breed on our own.

But, heck, nobody's perfect... what's a little disadvantage like reproduction compared to all the evolutionary advantages we provide?

I agree with population control, especially in the grand scheme of things. Mommy nature was very clever and homosexuality can be seen in every species. (where's Fred Phelps denouncing the two male otters doing the nasty behind an iceberg?)

Well, now I'm off to go do something unnatural. C ya! :D

[durutti]

54. I doubt it.

First of all, this analysis is flawed in assuming that homosexuality can be selected at all. Genes haven't been conclusively linked to homosexuality, and I doubt they ever will be. The "homosexual", as such, is an invention of the modern era. In numerous earlier societies, people who we wouldn't today call gays or lesbians participated in homosexual acts. In ancient Greece, for example, men of distinction frequently had both female wives and boy lovers. If "some biologists" are assuming that homosexuality is genetically determined, let alone that it must confer some evolutionary advantage, then they're being very irresponsible.

Secondly, that post overstates the number of homosexuals in the general population. The percentage of people who are attracted exclusively to members of the same sex is around 1 percent. The remaining 4-9 percent are attracted to and generally have sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.

In recent years, there's been an unfortunate tendency among many biologists to try to explain everything as an adaptation. But many traits are not adaptations. As Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba pointed out, it's really more appropriate to refer to traits as "aptations". They could be adaptations; they could also be exaptations -- leftovers from our genetic past that we now use for a different purpose. The brain, for example, is arguably an exaptation in that we are able to use it to read, yet it couldn't have been made for reading, since we didn't use it for that purpose for most of our existence as a species. They also could be structural byproducts -- spandrels, as Gould called them. The human chin is a spandrel -- it doesn't by itself confer any evolutionary advantage. It was merely a structural requirement for building the jaw. Still other traits are products of neutral genetic drift.

It's also important to remember that the point of sex isn't only or even primarily reproduction, at least not in humans (or in close relatives like pygmy chimps). It also serves a social purpose, acting as a means to cement group bonds.

Note that this does not mean that homosexuality isn't "natural". To paraphrase Kinsey, any sexual act that humans are capable of performing is perfectly natural.

[yellowcanine]

68. You dismiss the genetic component too quickly.

The fact that the genetic component hasn't been proven doesn't mean we can't hypothesize as if there were a genetic component. When we do this it allows predictions to be made that can be tested. For example, are gays and lesbians more attentive to nephews and nieces than other childless aunts or uncles? There are ways to measure this. If the answer is yes, that suggests a genetic component - doesn't prove it but it is a start. To close one's mind by saying it is doubtful if a genetic component will ever be discovered stifles the curiosity that may be key to learning more about gayness, whether or not the genetic component pans out. Also your focus on human sexuality ignores the huge body of evidence that homosexuality is widespread among other animals and some of these may provide better models to study this trait because the social stigma is less likely to be present in animal groups.

[durutti]

71. Re: You dismiss the genetic component too quickly.

The fact that the genetic component hasn't been proven doesn't mean we can't hypothesize as if there were a genetic component. When we do this it allows predictions to be made that can be tested. For example, are gays and lesbians more attentive to nephews and nieces than other childless aunts or uncles? There are ways to measure this. If the answer is yes, that suggests a genetic component - doesn't prove it but it is a start. To close one's mind by saying it is doubtful if a genetic component will ever be discovered stifles the curiosity that may be key to learning more about gayness, whether or not the genetic component pans out...

You're right to say that there may be a genetic component. But that's crucial -- it's a component. There is no gene (or combination of genes) "for" homosexuality. We can reasonably assume that people engage in homosexual behavior for a variety of reasons, some of which may be linked to genetics. But certainly not all gay people have that component, and not all people with that component practice homosexual behavior -- people often learn to express psychological and sexual urges in a variey of non-obvious (even counterintuitive) ways.

What would be the purpose of finding genes linked to gayness? It wouldn't make it more socially acceptable. I can't imagine that it would improve public health. Why is a "gay gene" even worth looking for?

Also your focus on human sexuality ignores the huge body of evidence that homosexuality is widespread among other animals and some of these may provide better models to study this trait because the social stigma is less likely to be present in animal groups.

But we are humans. We are a distinct species. We should at least be looking primarily at our closest genetic relatives.

What do we see when we look at those relatives? The bonobo, with which we share 98.6 percent of our DNA, frequently engages in both heterosexual and homosexual behavior. The bonobo is bisexual by default. This seems to support by argument.

And there most certainly is not "a huge body of evidence that homosexuality is widespread among other animal", unless by homosexuality one refers only to homosexual behavior. I refer you to the article "Animal models for the development of human sexuality: a critical evaluation" by Anne Fausto-Sterling in The Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 28, Numbers 1/2.

[yellowcanine]

94. Genetic component means genes are involved

All I meant by saying genetic component was recognize that yes there is an environmental component as well. Many genes and probably all genes that "control" behavior have both a genetic and an environmental component. Even maleness and femaleness - while clearly under genetic control - have environmental components.

"What would be the purpose of finding genes linked to gayness?"

To know, of course. Knowing is preferable to not knowing. Knowing helps us understand. Knowing there is a genetic component would make it more socially acceptable, imo - or perhaps at least put a damper on some of the misguided attempts to "convert" gays to straightness. In that sense it might improve public health. It can't be psychologically healthy for a gay man to become convinced that somehow there is something wrong with him if he can't "overcome" his gayness and be straight. It certainly doesn't do much for healthy marriages to have gay men marrying women to prove their straightness.

[mike1963]

66. I sidestepped this thread for a long time, but read thru it, amazing!

And even though the subject isn't really all that political, it shows how vastly different a DU discussion can really be from something (anything, really) that'd be found at FR. I'll even describe it as scholarly, not to mention civil and thoughtful! Good job DUers!
:D

[leftofthedial]

67. wouldn't just plain celibacy

or sterilization or use of contraception be equally and similarly encouraged by whatever mechanism would be encouraging homosexuality?

[Peregrine]

72. It has no bearing on natural selection

The current thinking on homosexuality is that there is no allele for gayness, that homosexuality is determined in utero. The genes responsible for creating the uterin environment is most likely the ones responsible for the selection and that a mutation in these genes are responsible.

[Dogmudgeon]

77. Who knows?

Natural selection works randomly, and all a trait has to do to be incorporated into the genome is to not be lethal.

Besides, we don't even know what homosexuality is in objective terms. It means that a person will fall in love with someone of his or her own gender.

We're trying to take unknowns and force them into engineering concepts wrapped in evolutionary biology.

--bkl

[ForrestGump]

80. Flawed reasoning in a circular argument

I appreciate the intent, but that doesn't give this stuff a free pass:

"So the take-home message is that homosexuality is probably doing something very positive for the species, or evolution would have minimized its frequency long ago. "

No...no, it's not. Its existence does not imply that it is adaptive, or adaptive these days. Natural selection can result in some amazing things, but we still have an appendix -- everything is a work still in progress. Being gay may be neutral, in terms of its adaptive benefit...no 'reason' to select against it and no reason to select for it.

For that matter -- not that I can think of any evidence or logic that supports this -- it may even be somehow negative but maintained at a very low level as a kind of 'noise' in the spectrum of human behavior just because it can't be entirely lost. I'm not here trivializing anyone's sexuality, but playing Devil's Advocate, because at best any such genetic quality (good, bad, indifferent) may itself be 'noise' when compared to extrinsic factors -- as far as I know, nobody's nailed the for-sure causes of male or female homosexuality. Maybe the idea that we're all potentially plastic in our sexuality is the right one, with only 10% or so of us buying into the Gay Agenda, no doubt lured to that point by those infernal incentive toasters.

The bottom line for me is that I don't particularly care what the cause is...people are just people, and I have known gay people that I liked and gay people that I didn't like. More to the point, I have a sinking feeling that -- whatever the ultimate cause(s) turn out to be -- when we get that knowledge some homophobic bunch of SOBs are going to somehow pervert it to continue their programs of persecution and hate. People being people...

[Lucky Luciano]

86. My post is not about the evolutionary advantages

that may hav occurred since I have not really studied up on this...but I heard an interesting idea that may suggest why homosexuality exists:

The idea being of pheromones and pheromone receptors. Someone was suggesting that men usually have receptors for female pheromones, but gay men hjave the receptors for male pheromones - same with lesbians...bisexuals may have both...just a thought.

[durutti]

89. The fact that we look for "causes" of homosexuality...

...is an indicator of how homophobic our society still is.

[Lucky Luciano]

90. You don't think a cause could be interesting

as a matter of objective science? The hypothesis stated above could be true or total crap. If it were true, I would think it to be fascinating scientifically...it would tell us a lot that we did not know about the human body. You could extend the whole idea as to why some men and women are more attracted to each other as well - it doesn't have to only be about homosexuality. Don't tell me you are so washed up in PCland that such a study should never be thought of?

[durutti]

92. It serves no purpose.

How would learning why people are attracted to each other be a benefit to public health at all?

I don't really find it interesting. But hey, even if it was, I'm sure you could find Nazi prisoner experiments that were interesting, too.

If there are genetic components to homosexuality and those component are discovered, it sets the stage for profiling and "curing" of gay people. The potential costs far outweigh the potential benefits.

We don't ask why men are attracted to women. We shouldn't care why men are attracted to men either, as a matter of principle.

"PC", by the way, is a term that was invented by the Right to discredit the Left, and never had much of a basis in reality.

[Lucky Luciano]

93. Well, you are not the sole decider on what serves a purpose.

You can never know what purposes such science could serve. I am a mathemetician - many people ask "What the hell is the point of all that crazy zany stuff you do? I never see it in the real world!" Well, if people had the attitude of only studying that which had immediate application, then we would not have progressed very far as a technologically advanced civilization. The way things work in the sciences is that various people come up with components of a puzzle that may have deep applications and other people put those pieces together - that is how science works. The people who build the pieces do the study out of lvoe for science and not the applications that come immediately. Ask any PhD student how many people care about their work - most laypeople have your attitude - "I see no application so fuck it!" That is what Freepers say! They are supposed to be the anti-intellectuals - not us! We are higher than those turds.

Of course, such a study would require that heterosexuals be studied as well - for how could you possibly draw conclusions about gay people without studying heteros?? Really it would not be about studying gay people, but about attraction in general. Who knows what kind of applications could happen??? Maybe such a study could explain why some couples (gay or straight) become less interested in each other as years go by because their receptors for one another are not as strong as before - hey - things often weaken as we age - how is your eyesight for example (assuming you're older)? So, with such a study, perhaps we can understand some of the reasons why couples lose interest and can therefore find a way to maintain their interest for each other as time goes by - a way to keep the fire in the relationship! This is only the first thing that comes to mind - I am sure that there could be others....It could help people who have difficulty in relationships find a cure that is scientifically based - a true pheromone would have a few buyers and I am sure of that, but you would need to do this kind of study first! - people take pills for anxiety now - maybe they could take pills for this - who KNOWS - as I was saying...you should not discard things so easily.

That said, I do see your concern that now people will try to "cure" homosexuality, so I do understand where you are coming from, but I still don't like the idea of censoring something that may have basis in scientific fact.

We don't ask why men are attracted to women because it is obvious why!! The species dies without it, so there is a very very simple Darwinian answer, which is the whole point of this thread. In fact, your argument against me could apply to make an argument against this thread because people here are discussing an evolutionary reason for homosexuality - in otehr words a cause for it since if it was not evolved out of the species, the prevailing theory is that it has some benefit to the survival of the species. I did not wade through this thread at all - did you criticize this entire thread for propagating homophobia?

PC - Well, I got news for you. I don't give a crap who invented the word. It makes sense at times. For example, people who write "Womyn" have taken PC a little too fucking far if you ask me. I am not a big fan of saying "African-American" - too many god damn syllables - black works very fine for me - thank you very much and it has only one syllable. When I was a little kid, I remembered the phrase, "Black is beautiful!" Is it no longer beautiful??? Bullshit - trivial semantics will get nobody anywhere in establishing their equality. If they want me to say African-American, then I will demand to be called European-American - which is clearly taking things a bit far. What about Bill Maher, the host of "Politically Incorrect?" He is not right wing at all and yet he sees my point of view rather well. Take George Carlin - well known for having some very left-wing views, but he bashes PCness big time! If you listen to a lot of Carlin, then you will understand me because I see eye to eye with him on so many things. The bashing of PCness has its place - it is just that the right bashes it far too often and for the wrong reasons.

[durutti]

95. You're right I'm not.

And I don't pretend to be. I'm just expressing my opinion, which I have a right to do in a democratic society.

[Lucky Luciano]

96. Of course you are free to express your opinion!

I wouldn't have it any other way!

No hard feelings of course!
:toast: