The Evolutionary Advantage of Homosexuality

[SaintRichie23]

You know what's one thing that bothers me? People who say that homosexuality has no evolutionary advantage. Am I gay? Nope. Should I care? Probably not, but I'm sure those of same sex behavior (SSB) and other genders do. So here's to you guys! Fingers crossed that a shitstorm is not produced from this.

The line of reasoning that SSB is a disadvantage to humans is the obvious fact that SSB partners cannot reproduce on their own, therefore they can't take a piss in the oh-so-wonderful gene pool that is the human species. It makes sense, granted, and some people counter it as a solution to overpopulation, but there is more to it than that.

1. Gay Tendencies Have Existed Long Before Humans Thought It Was Cool

Scientists have identified over 1,500 species that display homosexual tendencies. Lions, dolphins, chimpanzees, apes, flies, crabs, worms, I could keep going. Wanna know why? Because scientists are still going themselves. Their approach isn't, "Which species show homosexual behaviors," but "Can we find a species that doesn't have SSB behavior?" It's that common. (Source)

These animals have been around much longer than us, having more time to evolve and flush out unwanted traits and alleles. Why not get rid of the one trait that causes one specimen in a community to be evolutionary "useless" compared to the heterosexual ones? Its because there is an advantage to it, as it is persistent in so many gene pools of hundreds of different species (and counting).

2. Its in the Genes, Not the Mind

The basics of genetics is this: most genes have several different alleles, which can be dominant or recessive to other genes, but each person has only two alleles of any given gene (50/50 from mom and dad). For instance, for the gene that determines eye color, there is a slew of various alleles that determine just that. If a particular allele is present, it could take priority over the other one and vice versa. Cool. Now, some genes are affected by other genes, so if a particular gene has a certain allele, there is a pretty fair chance that a linked gene will also have a certain allele. For example, there is a link between your finger lengths and your gender. They are not related in an obvious sense, but they are linked to one another due to more genetic magic that I rather not bore you with. Straight males, for example, tend to have longer ring fingers than index fingers, while gay males tend to have both of the same length. The opposite trend is found in women. In summary, one gene can have affects on other genes.

Recently, studies have been conducted on fruit flies. Surprisingly, the common fruit fly have many genetic similarities to humans, and genes we identified on them have actually been found to be homologous (similar) to human genes. Anyway, male fruit flies that showed homosexual tendencies tend to have female relatives that were more fruitful (pun intended), and the genes associated with this behabior were passed down the paternal specimens (the Papa Smurfs). Is this relevant? (Source)

3. You Bet Your Rosy Butt Cheeks They Are!

Andrea Camperio-Ciani from the University of Padova found that gay human males had female relatives who were more fertile and who also had more children (Source). Additionally, in societies and communities where said community is small and tight-knit, gay people are actually given a high status and role. If you're a gay man in Samoa, you are considered a "helper of the nest" and you help your mom and sisters out with caring for their children (Source). This is an example of a theory that is being thrown around the scientific community on whether animals will risk their life for the better survival of others. This theory is known as kin selection, but it needs more time to develop and receive more data and research, and its a topic of some debate.

4. Genetics is Still Pretty Complicated Though...

You may have noticed I have done a lot of talking about explaining the advantage of gay male behavior, but not of female behavior. This is where some scientists begin to scratch their heads. Studying these behaviors in men is a lot simpler and easier to do, but women tend to display what is considered "erotic fluidity." Where men's sexuality is pretty reliant on their genes, women are more sensitive to environmental influences. Lisa Diamond from the University of Utah found that women's sexual orientation seems to be molded more by positive/negative experiences, cultural influences, and intensified feelings of affection/love (Source). Well... is it still genetics, or can a girl be flip-flopped on their sexuality based like an indecisive middle-aged man at Taco Bell?

5. Still Boils Down to Genetics

Despite Dr. Diamond's studies, other studies show a pretty heavy reliance on genetics. You just need to study some twins.

Identical twins are 100% identical, hence the adjective "identical." A 2011 study found that, in women, if one twin was a lesbian, the other one was too as well. This shows that there is a genetic relationship between your genome and your sexuality, although said sexuality can be reshaped by your environment and life experiences. Dr. Alan Sanders did the same thing with male twins, finding similar results and also narrowing down the location of the gay gene to chromosome and/or the X chromosome (Source).

In Conclusion...

TL;DR: gay people are not just around to prevent overpopulation. The genetics behind it allow their relatives to be more fertile and reproductively successful. There is still a lot of research that needs to be done to find more advantages as well as the location of the "gay" gene as there hasn't been too many extensive studies on the topic thus far (talking about most studies being about 10 years or so). Homosexuality is here to stay, and it helps us all at the end of the day. So go on and love one another in the way you and your partner(s) see fit!

One Last Point:

It is an evolutionary advantage for Neil Patrick Harris to be gay, as there wouldn't be any women left for the rest of guys on Earth. Any questions?

Sources used and referred to... unlike most articles today where the source is from their brown balloon knot:

1. https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pbm/summary/v050/50.4vasey.html


2. https://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.short


3. https://www.psych.utah.edu/people/files/diamond54a5.pdf


4. https://www.truthwinsout.org/pressrelease/2014/02/39457/


5. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gay-fruit-flies-show-homosexuality-5772574


6. https://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

[OlderAndWiser]

I m glad to see a myTake that actually quotes sources for factual statements. I do not accept or reject your arguments, as I think the science is far from definitive.

1. Quoting the UK Mirror as a source detracts from your myTake.

2. Your argument is premised on homosexual behavior being determined by genetics and that is a leap from the current state of knowledge. If SSB was determined strictly by genetics, then every pair of identical twins would either be both heterosexual or both homosexual. That would be a compelling finding but I have never seen any research which presented that as a conclusion.

3. While some percentage of SSB may be related to genetic, all cases are not. Find one pair of identical twins with a heterosexual and homosexual twin and that point is established.

4. In those cases where SSB is determined genetically, the hyperfertility of siblings may be related to closely linked but distinct genes which tend to remain together during meiosis.

5. Your myTake was obviously not written for the mass of most G@Gers, and that's okay!

[SaintRichie23]

I understand that homosexuality is not determined solely on genetics, but environmental factors as well. I do see that as a flaw in the myTake. I mention it, but I feel like I didn't emphasis it enough (can't edit it after its submitted though). I also agree with the UK Mirror comment. There wasn't much I could've done, as they were just reporting their results thus far, and were still researching the topics.

Thanks for the feedback!

[OlderAndWiser]

Keep writing. I enjoyed it!

[LightsOff]

I'd like to clarify one thing that people don't seem to get.

Normal =/= good.
Abnormal =/= bad.

That is all.

[Hubris]

I'd like to clarify for you that abnormal =/= special snowflake to be treasured and treated differently from every other human alive, either.

[LightsOff]

@Hubris well that doesn't really apply to all cases considering that, for instance, some disabilities require a person to get treated differently/special treatment. Like a person in a wheelchair obviously can't walk up stairs, so they need ramps and such to get around in public. They need that special treatment to be able to get by comfortably.

But yes otherwise I see your point and I agree.

[OpenClose]

There's another big one, too. Social cohesion.

Humans are outrageously horny compared to many/most other animals. Humans have sex during non-reproductive periods, year-round, and in ways that could not possibly result in reproduction. We used to think this was just a product of higher reasoning, but now we notice these behaviors in highly intelligent, highly social creatures like bonobos and dolphins. And the reason being: Being highly sexual results in higher cohesion within an intelligent group. It helps cooperation and empathy. It encourages bonding with the relavant parents. And these social purposes have arguably proven stronger than the simple need to reproduce. That is, we evolved to use our existing sexuality as a means to promote emotinal intimacy, The most important human-human interaction there is.

Once you have established that sex is not primarily about reproduction, then non-reproductive sex just naturally fits into this paradigm. Though the pressure is usually more towards bisexuality, but it applies to having higher homosexual populations as well.

So if anything, homosexuality is one of the most human relationships there is. The fact that sexuality transcends reproduction should be celebrated, not shamed.

I mean shit, it's not like we need more people around, anyway.

[SaintRichie23]

Very true, thanks for your input!

[thebestgirl22]

The problem is that men with lack of self-esteem, humiliated, fucked life, become gays because of fetish and not for being something normal who some people want to pretend, I know that I can make some straight little boy become gay and effeminate if I work in some social engineering to destroy his self-esteem, masculinity, pride, instinct, everything against him and he will become sad, humiliated, emasculated, feeling like loser, or at least will be something heavy in his subconscious even when he don't think in this because is already damaged, they will be alone because will lose social skills with his depression and lack of self-esteem, lack of pride, but will try to hide this, will be depressive but always trying to have hope but he is already damaged as a male forever by something made against him directly or indirectly maybe with him being part of a group and seeing themselves like losers, then try to have fetishes because they can't feel like men being the representation of loser, feeling like loser by default because of his personality or something who he born and is related to him, then they with lack of self-esteem, think being women is easier than being a man who has destroyed as a man, and these people develope gay fetish, they aren't normal gays, I think the majority of gays are sad depressive who become losers and developed gay fetish and some gays are really normal gays, but the majority of gays are just result of social engineering, depression, lack of pride in masculinity related to themselves, being heavy attacked, mocked, related like losers, learn to live like shit loser man tribe instinct, etc..

Basically, in the time of the wars, without internet, these things, we lose the quantity of gays because the majority of gays are result of problems, depression, lack of self-esteem in his masculinity, submission, subservient, and become alone and with gay fetish.

Some gays can be normal gays, really gays without being a fetish, maybe even because of hormones or something in the brain, but the majority of gays are gays because of fetish and the result of the social engineering of his own life.

I know some people would hate to know this and want to live in denial about this and nobody never will want to say this because they want to deny that a lot of gays are just men who developed gay fetish, and aren't real gays, and in the times of the war we have less gays because the men become men, feel some pride, masculinity, no depression and fetish

[CityBoy773]

So what you're saying is all gay men are feminine men? That masculine gay men don't exist? That non-depressed masculine gay men just aren't real? I'm getting that vibe from you.

[thebestgirl22]

No, sorry, I'm saying that the majority of gays aren't true gays, the majority in my opinion are men who develope a fetish because of these things, but have gays who could be real gays and born gays, and have real tendency to be gay, the difference is that have many men who become gay for fetish and social results of his own life. He is not a true gay but someone who become gay because of results in his social life and developed fetish for this while could have other gays who are really gays and not because of his life but because they born with this tendency and is not result of his life.

Have real gays who could born with this tendency to be gay and is not a fetish.
Have men who become gays because of his social life, problems, and develope a fetish.

[SaintRichie23]

@CityBoy773, so are you still just as confused as I am at what she is trying to say?

[CityBoy773]

Are you drunk, high, both, or just stupid?
@thebestgirl22

[thebestgirl22]

lol.

[tenofthepeaks]

you're either on drugs, or need to learn good English. or read a bonafide medical text..

[MaiNameIsSunshine]

Opinion owner, were did you get this information lol? You're tripping man.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Am I right in saying that not only do you think most gay men are progressions of broken men, but you strongly blame them for it?

[Belleza2]

I actually have to agree with this because I know so many people who turned homosexuality into a fetish, everyone is doing it - its like wearing the new black and those who disagree - think about it! And no not saying that there are no real gay or lesbian people but its become a complete fetish "I want to do it because everyone is doing it"

[thetundrawolf]

At what point will genes weed out STDs?

healthland.time.com/.../

www.cdc.gov/.../STDFact-MSM.htm

Even with sex ed, even with condoms being cheap and everywhere, we still have this:

www.independent.co.uk/.../...s-levels-9117108.html

Even the CDC has a page devoted to 2-5% of the population (homosexuals) who are responsible for 3 out of 4 cases of syphilis.

Oh my gosh, reality hurts, doesn't it.

I have lived a homosexual lifestyle for several years. I slept with random men. Most gay men do, or there wouldn't be a leg to stand on for these statistics.

Stop grasping at strings and trying to support a lifestyle you know absolutely nothing about.

[thetundrawolf]

Remember, genes also make people more vulnerable for cancer (Why a doctor asks you if you have any family history of disease) and manner of diseases and ailments. Even if homosexuality was genetic, that does not mean a thing. Some mental illnesses are also genetic, so should we lather schizophrenics with praise, too? Please.

[SaintRichie23]

I'm not too sure what you want me to take from this... diseases that affect specific communities of people are seen in many cultures and races. That isn't the topic of this myTake though...

I'm not sure if you're trying to say homosexuality is a mental illness (it isn't, and hasn't been considered one for decades), but, again, the take was just that homosexuality has heavy proof of genetic and environmental advantages for the species. When every aspect, feature, and chemical of our body is made from our genetic makeup, saying that it doesn't mean a thing is just ignorant.

It is such a thing that there is an entire branch of science dedicated to studying evolution and the genomes of various species.

[thetundrawolf]

You do not understand... You say homosexuality has a genetic advantage, yet they are putting a tremendous burden on our medical system. Their loose lifestyle is spreading diseases at what should be an alarming rate. Any evidence you can find of it being some how "Advantageous" is nullified by its staggering penalty to society. HIV and other STD's do not stay isolated to homosexuals, they can be passed by blood and saliva contact in some cases. How is that an advantage?

Also, genetics is very important, as I said, it can mean life and death. But because something may, or may not be genetic, does NOT mean it is advantageous in any way, shape or form. That is what I am trying to say.

[SaintRichie23]

No one ever said that everything genetic is good.

HIV and STIs are viral infections that are not governed by a person's genetic makeup. As you said, it is only passed by contact with bodily fluids, and since heterosexuals can also be infected, it is not restricted to homosexuals i. e. is not an evolutionary disadvantage to those individuals specifically - it just sucks that they are more likely to be infected, which is solely based on the environment they are in, and not their genetic makeup. As there is with any disease, there are groups of people who may be more prone to it.

Sleeping with random people without knowing their medical history is nothing more than stupid and reckless, but not a habit that can be inherited.

[Scrambled]

I am reading a book called Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton. She goes on about gay men and some of their sexual interactions and what everyone can learn from them. Im not gay at all, but I love the fact how she says gay men just go up and ask for sex, and they may get a yes or no. Then they just move on or get on with it. Apparently everyone at these gay bath houses are happy because there are no mind games, no power plays, no bullshit: just consensual yes or no. That NEVER happens in hetero relationships. So that's another thing I give a thumbs up to gay men.

[SaintRichie23]

Just you wait until studies come out showing that married gay couples have a significantly lower divorce rate than hetero couples hahaha

[Scrambled]

Man I cannot wait for the day when statistics show gay marriages beat hetero ones. Take that church!

[RationalMale]

The flip side is that they're excellent and spreading STD's in a group... despite all the pushes for condoms for decades now, the CDC says men who have sex with men in the USA have 56% of HIV cases, 75% of primary and secondary syphilis cases, and 17 times higher rate of anal cancer.

[SaintRichie23]

Nowadays, everything causes some sort of disease or cancer, so what else is new? Focusing on a group of people for the sake of getting that message across is a bit redundant.

[Scrambled]

Yes, gay men spread more HIV in 1st world countries. But globally, HIV is more prevalent in heterosexual relationships and women make up the majority of carriers (sub Sahara Africa mostly guilty). But yeah anal sex is risky for heaps of things and that is a flip side to it. Those bath houses are additionally HIV hotspots.

[LightUp]

I KNEW IT , I always felt that gay people had better relationships than Us straight people

[randomhobo]

The idea that evolution only produces traits that help survival is a stupid myth that goes around. Evolution works on things that survive and stick around do survive: some help us some don't.

you can easily see this is certain biological things on humans that are insanely pointless throwbacks that we don't need but we haven't lost because they stuck around. Like the appendix, we no longer eat grass so its not needed-and it randomly kills you: but its still there because it stuck around.

[SaintRichie23]

The difference between your comment on the appendix and homosexuality is that there have been studies showing that homosexuality improves the fertility rates of females, which improves survivability, especially in dwindling populations. The fact that every species so far has been shown to have SSB behavior also adds to the fact that its useful enough to keep. If it was useless, then there would be some species that evolved out of it by now, considering they have ancestry that can be tracked back millions of years.

[randomhobo]

Oh no im not saying that homosexuality has a detriment to humanity at all. I meant that when people use the argument "evolution doesn't let things survive" is flawed and gave an example.

[SaintRichie23]

Oh ok, guess I read that wrong :P

[meowcow]

Well, your logic behind the appendix sticking around is severely flawed. I don't think you have much of a biology background.

All animals and plants have some rudimentary structures from their ancient ancestors. Organs or structures that was once useful, but not currently. There is no evolutionary process to eliminate a feature of a species. For example, when the appendix stopped being useful, the selection of genes for survival simply did not focus on the appendix anymore. The organ became useless over time, but it will never be removed from the genome. This is why humans have tailbones, wisdom teeth and hair.

However, when people say "homosexuality happens in nature - therefore it's normal" is a dumb argument. Do you know what else happens in nature? Albinos, babies that are born blind, physically deformed, mentally handicapped with various diseases (Down's syndrome)... etc. These all happen in nature. But nobody thinks it's "normal". This is the case with homosexuality as well.

[SaintRichie23]

You do realize everything happens in nature. You do realize nature is not defined as a forest or a jungle, its the ecosystem. You keep bringing up 'normal and abnormal' but I really don't think you understand what they mean. Normal is just the occurrence that falls within the standard deviation, abnormal being traits that are outside the normal standard deviation. Only 1-2% of the world's population has green eyes. That is considered abnormal, but its far from bad.

Most things that are abnormal are due to a mutation in the genome. Most cases are bad, but some mutations benefit the species and contribute to its evolution. There are studies showing homosexuality doing just that - contributing. I don't think you have much of a background in biology or genetics, and if you do, its probably outdated.

[MaiNameIsSunshine]

@Floyd790 let me share share your opinion about me disagreeing with you. He messaged me:
Gay people brains differ you dumb slut and homosexuality was classified as a disease in psychology now they took it away not to offend little slutty cunts like you.

And since he blocked me right after that, let me share my response
Where did you get this information lol. Also I'm a virgin so you obviously have no idea what slut means. I am also not a female gonad, so learn that definition too☺. Oh yes and what a big man you are to be too afraid to do this in front of every one else. And to resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with your beliefs, speaks volumes of your character. Good day sir, learn yourself some respect okay?

[Minxxie]

Floyd790 is literally scum he's the worst person on this site and I think everyone should report the fuck out of his disgusting ass.

[ObscuredBeyond]

There is no straight gene, and the "gay gene" hoax is even less viable than global warming hockey sticks. Pervertsexuality has been around as long as Ham and Canaan, not that much longer. And if there were no one to make it popular, it would not be so. Every animal displaying same-sex attraction is shown to suffer a brain disorder or have poison in their food or be deprived for too long of the opposite sex while in captivity.

The "genetics" thing is so laughable in its defense, I seem to find a new article disproving it every single week. Moreover, you still fail to demonstrate how just because it's become more common to embrace Templar abomination, that this somehow translates to better reproduction of the species. Therefore, both God and Darwin are still laughing.

[SaintRichie23]

Then please, I enjoy being corrected if it means I learn something - post your sources and citations. According to you, you should have loads of studies to show me from reputable sources showing that same sex attraction is a disorder... especially since no major science organization or association in the world has called it that for a few decades now.

[Minxxie]

Homosexuality is also most common in species that live in communities like humans, monkeys, penguins etc. Their presence is either good to just help raise young or if needed to adopt any orphaned young to help ensure the survival of the next generation. And I know this site is filled with ignorant bigots with low intelligence so you can spare me the hate comments :)

[hellionthesage]

I was going to mention most of those points but I guess I didn't need to. Having a homosexual male in the family would be very beneficial since instead of producing resources for his offspring he doubles the resources and security of his sisters offspring increasing survivability. While he may not pass on his genes his families genes will have an increased survivability. I would point out that identical twins are not actually identical. There are diffrences in gene expression and as with everyone as time progresses mutations occur resulting in incredibly similar but not quite identical genetics. Good take, especially appreciative of the use of sources.

[bethhh29]

Nice take. I always thought that most gay people are gay due to environmental factors. I feel like the reason why I'm bisexual is because boys bullied me so much when I was younger, the fact that my father was never really around, and all of this made me distrust guys. My gay friend says that he thinks he's gay because his father was never around and that he always longed for a male figure in his life, but never had one as a child, therefore leading him to be gay. Are there any studies on environmental factors or something else psychological, like chemicals in the brain, causing homosexuality?

[SaintRichie23]

I couldn't find any studies on just environmental factors. I could just be looking in the wrong places, but it seems like something difficult to study without first getting a solid understanding on the genetic side of it first. When you make a study, you'd want to know if your subjects have any biological conditions that could skew the results. Then of course there is the issue of trying to measure the variables. What situation that may have changed one person's sexuality may not do the same for another.

But in regards to chemicals in the brain, yes. Chemicals and hormones are made by proteins, which is made by DNA. Androgen and estrogen levels have been studied in SSB and hetero people as well as its environmental effects (taking steroids, supplements).

All-in-all, both the environment and genetics has an effect on it. Your friend could've been gay to start off with, maybe not.

[thetundrawolf]

You nailed it, hon. I was molested (raped) as a child by my peers, and although my childhood is almost entirely blacked out (i do not remember it) I have a strong feeling adult men were also abusing me. When sex is happening, our first instinct is to enjoy it, even if it horrible rape. I believe I did try and enjoy it, and instantly wires in my mind were crossed.

We are very sensitive, very complicated creatures, us humans, and there is a spiritual side of all of us. So when our wires get crossed, it is hard to repair, because there are so many emotional factors.

Do not believe that genetics is a factor in homosexuality. Remember, it is also a factor in cancer, arthritis, bone diseases, and alzheimers. Just because it is genetic does not justify it or make it good.

[meowcow]

The argument that, "because homosexuality occurs in nature, it means that it's normal for humans to do it", does not hold water. For such a notion to be true, it assumes that everything that happens in nature is "normal". We know that to be untrue.

When any animal, including humans, are born blind, malformed, missing a limb, conjoined twins, heart defective, brain defective, Down's syndrome... etc, we do not consider that normal. In fact, we call it a physical or mental handicap. So just because it happens in nature does not mean it's "normal".

In most species where homosexual animals exist, they do not contribute to raising the offspring of their heterosexual siblings.

[SaintRichie23]

Hahaha, well please then, define what is "normal." I have blue eyes, why isn't that abnormal if most people have brown eyes? My hair color is also pretty abnormal compared to the normal brown color.

No reputable scientist or doctor will agree with you. Homosexuality has not been considered a mental disorder for years now, mainly because there are studies (mentioned in the myTake) that show an evolutionary advantage to having homosexual individuals.

I'm convinced you did not read the myTake, otherwise you would have literally read about how homosexual individuals allow their female relatives to be more fertile. Some human communities, as well as most other tight-knit animal species, also show signs that they do help raise others' offspring.

Dr. Vasey has studied animals and their homosexual behavior (he is cited here, but he has other journals and books). The University of Oslo also did similar studies (also cited). I have my sources, where's yours?

[meowcow]

My examples of "abnormal" are quite obvious. Physical and mental deformities, missing limbs, Down's syndrome are all obviously abnormal. Somehow, the best example you can come up with to question what is normal is eye color?

There is a fine line between "scientific evidence" and "political correctness". The two diminish each other. While the younger generation of westernized countries are accepting of homosexuality, I would estimate that 90-95% of the world's 7 billion people are against homosexuality or indiferent. So there are actually more scientists who agree with me, than you.

Think of the world's most populous countries: China, Russian, India, most middle eastern and African countries (punishable by execution). They are predominantly anti-gay, and they make up 70% of the world's population. The US makes up 5% of the world's population and about half the country is anti-gay (mostly southern US). It is only the small percent of influential western media that is pro-gay.

[SaintRichie23]

I will be honest, I lightly skimmed that. Just because you believe that most of the world is homophobic does not make scientific research any less true. You would have been one of the morons to tell Cornelius that the world was the center of the universe just because that is how most of the world felt about it, despite him having scientific evidence that you're talking out your brown balloon knot.

If so many scientists agree with you, please cite them. Otherwise you're just rambling about your own opinion. Scientists have their journals and studies peer reviewed. No one in the science community is going to accept and pass someone who considers homosexuality abnormal when, again, studies have proven otherwise.

[meowcow]

The fundamental flaw with your logic is that you've already made a decision in the absence of proof. Many of my responses are intended to make the asker think, because their position is often biased. I actually have no opinion regarding homosexuality, mainly because I do not care, and believe there are more important matters in this world.

However, most people would agree there is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is due to a single causative factor. People have speculated that it may be genetic, psychological, a result of certain factors while being raised, hormone imbalance... etc. All of these are "naturally occurring", but somehow, you have concluded that "naturally occurring" is equivalent to "normal", which is where you err.

The purpose is to make you think, because everything you've posted thus far is the result of internet searches, rather than actual scientific studies. Most laypeople end up reading scientific studies, and misinterpret the findings, as you have done.

[SaintRichie23]

*sigh* oh geez... "In the absence of proof."... "internet searches, rather than actually scientific studies."...

You are just a special kind of stupid. Look at the sources that are cited in the article (they're numbered at the bottom). They are links to scientific studies. I never said there is one causative factor, that's an assumption you pulled out your ass. I repeated so many times that the environment and genetics play a role on sexuality.

You still haven't cited any sources supporting your viewpoint, so "in the absence of proof," I'm inclined to just disregard anything flapping out of your mouth. You say you have no opinion, yet you gave one and are definitely sticking to it, making you a hypocrite. If you are just going to dodge and dance around my questions and go off on tangents, I think I'm done talking to you, as you have nothing to actually share other than your opinion.

You're not making me think, I'm just losing brain cells reading your drivel. Cite, or sit down.

[meowcow]

As I said, a study is not proof. All of your citations are only supportive, and not conclusive in themselves.

This is why there is no giant elephant in the room that says "homosexuality is caused by _____".
This is why there is no front page news article on CNN stating that homosexuality is normal.
This is also why the chain of messages from everyone else's opinion is not conclusive. You have guitar94 saying it's not due to a gene. Then you have oddwaffle saying the gay gene needs more research. The truth is, nobody knows the cause of homosexuality. Your opinion is simply your opinion, and it's not worth anything. Just as my opinion isn't worth anything either. The difference is, I am aware that people have not solved this life riddle. You have not.

[SaintRichie23]

Why would CNN... ugh, forget it. Psychological organizations define homosexuality as normal, and they have for years, decades. I have organizations and associations backing up my points, you have comments from a GaG article for yours, apparently. Great job. I will believe a scientific study from a reputable source that is based off years of work before I believe someone's comment on the Internet.

But anyway, you're still off on a tangent. No where did I say "this is conclusive evidence," rather, "studies have shown this and that, showing signs leaning towards this." This article was about the evolutionary benefit of homosexuality, not conclusive evidence of a gene or whatever. You originally made a comment saying homosexuality is abnormal, then dodged it when I said that no scientist or research organization will agree with it. Then you turned it into, "well, this isn't conclusive."

I think I'm done here, wow...

[ThisIsAUserNameFact]

I don't think it's important.

I mean no disrespect of course, but people do things all the time that are of no benefit to our race, scrutiny is not placed permanently at their door, they do not need to cry out "GENETICS" or "EVOLUTION".

If someone wants to be in a same sex relationship that's their perogative (yes that includes people who aren't even attracted to their partner), personally I find it hard to understand how people have the time to make such matters their business, in a world full of challenges.

[SaintRichie23]

Is it so hard to believe that some people are so curious on a topic, they're willing to spend decades trying to get an answer? There are certainly things the human race does that does not benefit the species, but if we find out something that is a benefit that was previously seen as a fallacy, its better to correct that point, lest we become ignorant to everything around us.

[ThisIsAUserNameFact]

Curiosity yes, curiosity as in researching the matter for your own satisfaction. You are not asking a question this was a take and you were making a statement.

I was addressing the needlessness of the statement from my perspective.

I have been curious about the topic of human behaviour for a long time as have many people, I was not attacking that position at all in my post.

[Lolomon]

AS I agree with you on a lot. Might i add its not 100 % proven being gay is genetic. and yes, homosexuals are attracted to the pheromones of the same sex. We humans can smell pheromones wether we realize it or not modern science proves this. But its also been proven that sexuality and sexual norms is influenced by society, this is where psychology comes in. is there a advantage to being homosexual , yes in a way there is because you can still have or create children. but most of the info is narrowed to a view researches and its not accepted across the science world

[RationalMale]

Genetics?
The Royal College of Pyschiatry claims it's nature and nurture...

www.charismanews.com/.../43990-people-are-not-born-gay-affirms-royal-college-of-psychiatrists

The American Psychological Association has dropped their claim it's genetics and say now that people think it's nature and nurture.

https://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97940/

And it's not surprising that if one twin is homosexual, the other is likely to be to. You realize they are probably going through the exact same upbringing, exposed to the same people, and the twin that first decides he's homosexual will have a strong impact on his twin?

[SaintRichie23]

I never said it was just genetics, I mentioned that there are environmental factors that can affect sexuality. THird sentence after the Olsen Twins pic.

Your first link agrees with me, "They now say that the causes of homosexuality are a combination of 'biological and postnatal environment factors." Biological being genetics/hormones (hormones being produced according to your genetic genome). The second link seems to discredit itself (which is kinda funny tbh). In the article, Dean Byrd admits that the APA has "strong activist overtones" and that "There is no mention of the research that influenced this new position."

I also hate to discredit your last paragraph, but that has been discredited too :P www.livescience.com/...importance-of-genetics.html

I don't have time to find the specific scientific journals, but you could find the doctors' names to look it up yourself. Numerous studies have been done on twins who were separated at early age/birth, and they still show similarities after being reunited years later.

[FakeName123]

"Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained.34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment.00, and the individual-specific environment.61-.66 of the variance."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

Doesn't necessarily need to be genetical. Chances are there are genetical predispositions, but the individual environment is of more importance.
Furthermore another advantage of gays is that they cut themselves out of the genetic-pool and thus do something against overpopulation.

[RajeshTheJeshter]

"The genetics behind it allow their relatives to be more fertile and reproductively successful."

How is Barney's gayness going to make his sister "more fertile"? That makes no sense.

This seems to make the argument that gay people are like worker bees. Doesn't sound like a good deal for the worker bee in my opinion.

[thetundrawolf]

It is completely illogical and nonsensical.

[Master-Fuuk]

"gay people are not just around to prevent overpopulation. The genetics behind it allow their relatives to be more fertile and reproductively successful."

So gay people being gay is an advantage for heterosexual people not gay people. That's basically not an advantage in nature where everybody's fighting for survival.

Fair enough...

[SaintRichie23]

Fitness of a species is determined by their ability to reproduce. If there is a trait that improves the fertility (and hence, reproductivity) of another individual, then it is advantageous, especially in more tight-knit communities.

[SilenRose]

Homosexual tendencies in nature is about dominance. Humans and dolphins are the only ones who have sex for pleasure. Everything else is about fertilization.

[SaintRichie23]

Very true, my message is just that homosexuality actually aids in fertilization, rather than hinders it.

[oracle12c]

It's also important to point out, we don't see homosexuality in animals at all. We see same sex platonic relations in some, same sex experimentation but heterosexuality when possible in some, used as domination (like in prison) in some cases.
But only humans shows examples on pure homosexuality, as a sexual preferences for pleasure.

In any regard it's still not natural in the sense, as designed. Yes, it's natural as, can exist in nature (in part anyway), but so is cannibalism and child killing. So natural, doesn't mean natural for HUMANS or natural as in good or productive.

That said, I really don't care about homosexuals, they can do whatever they want, as a Christian I am against homosexual practises for moral and religious reasons, but non Christians can do whatever they like.

Christians who are homosexuals have to abstain from it's practise though, otherwise they don't qualifies as Christians, that is also a fact.

[thetundrawolf]

Bingo, you nailed it. Male wolves will mount other male wolves to dominate them, to subjugate them. No anal sex happens, no anal penetration happens or the submissive wolf would turn around and tear the dominant wolf to shreds. Homosexuality as most understand it is mating, you will not find any actual, true mating (Anal penetration and insemination) in nature. That study, like this entire take, is grasping at strings.

[CincinnatiRedsfan]

I do think homosexuality is genetic but the problem is, you DO have people who act like they're gay/lesbian/bisexual solely for attention. If you ask me, these people ruin it for the entire LGBT community, because the bigots will claim "YOU ALL DO IT FOR ATTENTION AND IT'S NOT REAL."

That is all.

[AdamThomas]

Other studies involving twins showed that only in around 11% of cases for men and around 14% of cases for women are both twins homosexual. Many studies contradict the study you mentioned, there's no solid evidence that homosexuality is genetic. An easier argument to make is that "some people are gay and it's none of your business".