Evilustionists, does homosexuality play a positive role in survival and reproduction of animal species?

For a long time I’ve been thinking about this, and I asked around and got different theories regarding this matter every time.

If homosexuality was disadvantageous for survival and reproduction, the gay genes (which some insist is a product of random mutations) should have been expelled long ago through…

Evolution has created a powerful drive to reproduce in all living things. In some instances it becomes misdirected, not just towards animals of the same sex, but also towards animals of different species or even inanimate objects (ever see a dog hump a chair leg?). In this respect, such behaviour is strong evidence for the evolution of the reproductive instinct.

Furthermore, in some species only a few of the fittest males get to mate with a harem of females while all the others have no mate at all. In some instances homosexual behaviour in such species serves to relieve sexual tension which could be counter-productive to the species as a whole whilst still ensuring only the fittest get to breed.

There are many instances where males take over part of the female role if they do not produce their own offspring – in many species this includes behaviour such as protecting the offspring of other family members. Some species even undergo a sex change – Clown Fish, for example live in groups dominated by one male and all the others are female. If the dominant male dies, one of the females changes to a male.

Sexuality is not such a black-and-white picture as uneducated religionists and bigots like to think it is. There may or may not be a “gay gene” (I doubt it myself) but what there is in all of us is a fine chemical balance which a variety of stimuli can alter and thus change one behaviour pattern to another.

~ Professional Scientist, degree in Physiology & Biochemistry

The “Theory of Evolution” is that species of living things change over time. Genes that get passed on due to promotion of survival is a function of what is called “natural selection.” However, due to the randomness of the world, other genes can also get passed on. There are of course, other forms of selection, like sexual selection.

Now you are assuming that homosexuality is a genetic phenomenon. That there is a specific “gay gene.” if it is genetic, it is probably dictated by more than one gene, which makes the issue more complex. However, I don’t think that homosexuality is solely genetic as there are other complex factors that influence human development. The evidence is in people who go through periods where, when their sexuality is developing, they wonder if they are “gay” or “straight.” Bisexual people would confound your question to as you would have to wonder what “genes” they have. Incidentally, I’m curious as to the scientific studies you are quoting about a gay gene. I’d also remind you that science is a process, not a body of doctrine, and that the question of the source of homosexuality is a a fairly new one that probably has a couple hundred more years of research ahead of it.

Now, “random mutations” not being “weeded out” by natural selection is a silly idea. How do you “weed out” a random event from happening. If it occurs randomly, then destroying every gay person in existence would still not solve the problem if it could occur randomly.

“- that homosexuality actually plays a positive role in survival and reproduction of animal species, which is why the gay gene keeps passing on from generations to generations.”
I agree with your liking of your third option. You could think of it as this: Homosexual couples, man & man, woman & woman, probably won’t reproduce on their own. Yes, they may use their option to have a doctor get them pregnant, but they won’t always do that. And, homosexual male couples can’t exactly get pregnant so their best bet if they want children is to adopt one that is already alive. So, really, doesn’t this make over population less of a worry. I mean, if there were more gay couples, there would be less reproduction. Automatic “birth control,” for lack of a better term.
I don’t think there is a gay gene. Gene’s indicate that it is genetic, hence the name. Being homosexual is actually an imbalance in the brain. High testosterone, or high estrogen I believe is what causes it. Now, yes “mental disorders” do run in the family (my mother’s entire side of the family suffers from depression which I inherited for example) however, you really can’t consider being gay a mental disorder as much as a chemical imbalance that would actually take place during development. Mental disorders can happen during development, or later in life.

1) The Theory of Evolution does not say that ONLY genes favorable for survival are passed on. There are plenty of unnecessary genes that do get passed on.

2) The genetic causes (if they are genetic) for homosexuality are far from concretely defined.

3) There’s really no reason that homosexuality would play a positive role in survival and reproduction.

4) Really the only option left. I think that homosexuality is a slight mutation of the natural urge to reproduce, such that they are attracted to those of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. I think it’s natural and doesn’t directly contribute to survival, but doesn’t directly threaten survival either. Clearly, if it is genetic, it’s somewhere in the code of heterosexuals as well or it would have died out. And by the fact that the Bible mentions it, it’s been around for a long time.

Also, why would you even use the word Evilutionists (which is how I’m assuming you wanted to spell it) if you’re not actually harboring an ignorant, petty grudge? It’s pathetic really. Second-grade name calling.

I don’t know how many times this has to be explained to you people, but for every homosexual there are plenty of straight people perfectly capable of reproduction. Gays have never been and never will be a problem, so why don’t you guys just leave these people alone already.

By the way, look around you. There are enough people in the world. We don’t need anymore babies right now.

You could argue that homosexuality helps with overpopulation, but also keep in mind that despite if a women is lesbian she can still give birth and the sperm can come from a straight male or a homosexual male. People seem to have this idea that if the DNA doesn’t come from both parents who are active parents in the child’s life, then it’s wrong.

Yet people divorce all the time and carry children over to new relationships, I don’t see how this is any more wrong.

I’ve been searching about the gay gene, it doesn’t look like it exists or has ever been proven, homosexuality doesn’t play any negative roles in reproduction, so I see no problem.

For the non-ignorant, we accept that you can’t help but like whichever gender you like, it’s amazing how interested people are in what others do in there own bed.

People have actually done research on this. Sorry, I don’t have the link for you.

I like to look at it this way: Evolution sometimes favors the survival of the group the gene is in rather than the individual that the gene is in. Could homosexuality have arisen as a form of population control? It seems true that there are more gays in crowded urban areas…

Homosexuality (which has been shown in many animals, all “higher” intelligence species such as bonobos, chimps, dolphins etc) Homosexuality does not of course lead to reproduction but you asked about survival. Female animals raise the young in many species and males protect them. In some emvironments it would be feabale to have either female/female or male/male bonding an advantage. The usual evolution explanation that I have heard (that makes sense to me) is the uncle theory (or aunt I suppose). Passing on genes is not only about having your own offspring its about passing on the same genes you have this can be done by family members as well. So although the “gay uncle” may not pass on his genes directly to his offspring if he helps raise offspring, gather food, fight off enemies and this benefits the members of his species that are closely related to him than he has gained “fitness” because they go on to have offspring that are also related to him

You are misunderstanding evolutionary theory. A trait does not need to be beneficial to survival to persist; but a trait that hampers survival will be selected against. (Traits that have no benefit or cost will survive at random).

Being gay seems to be more prevalent among youngest sons of mothers with multiple male pregnancies. Current thinking is that it shields the fetus from the mother’s immune system (which has learned to target male fetuses as alien).

Believers don’t know this. Which is ok. They wouldn’t understand anyway.

Homosexuality both male and female strengthened bonds in tribes and also provided non reproducing members of the tribe who would hunt or gather food but not have children to feed so they were a “More productive unit”

As far back as recorded history goes there has been homosexuality and as far as we can tell it remains at about the same percentage of the population.

In overcrowded conditions homosexuality tends to increase so it may be a societal as well as genetic factors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *