Homosexuality and Natural Selection.

You may be aware that there is or was some lack of knowledge concerning whether a person was 'born' gay, or chose to be gay.That question is not often asked in regards to religion, but we DO discuss such possibilities very often at EvC. I am a religious person and I do not get upset when religion is discussed objectively as a 'genetic predisposition'. I think we have even had threads about 'why' nature selected for a religious mentality in humans. That's what goes on at EvC.Since there is some emerging science which links homosexuality to a genetic or pre-birth physical tendency, the next question is to ask why or if that tendency would be selected for in nature.

I have a good friend who just moved in order to help take care of his sister and her kids. Anyway, just curious, but is it possible that NS just over-looks homosexuality? I mean, is sex drive the same thing as 'desire to reproduce'? If an organism has one, it may be presumed to have the other, but I don't think animals have any actual desire for parenting. They have sex drive, and they have parenting instincts. If there is no gay-specific gene, then selection will be clueless about how a person's sex drive will be utilised?

I didn't read the entire thread, so yeah, I was taking a stab at the gist of the argument. Yes, I know sex drive exists on its own. Genetically, though, are there different 'genes' os something which control them, or is there just a sex-drive gene that 'gets lucky'? I don't think I articulated the question quite right. I think what I am saying is that humans are the only species that can 'choose' whether to parent or not to parent, regardless of 'desire' to parent, and based on externals like finance, age, etc. If both sex drive, and parenting desire are present in homosexuals, NS would not care if the person CHOSE not to parent. Well, it could be, but it makes evolution sound too smart.For a long time gay people got married to an opposite sex partner because it was 'normal', and nowadays gay people have committed same sex relationships complete with children and responsibilities. Although your scenerio is possible, it is like a hop, skip and a jump from saying evolution 'knows' the gay person has a sister or brother, that they have offspring, or that the person is not themselves committed elsewhere.

I am not trying to discredit your statement or change your experiences and views. I am just trying to get you to understand that yes, while we could all probably be doing something more productive with our time and energy, discussion boards are popular, EvC is one of the best, if not the best I have seen, and the dispassionate analysis of pretty much ANYTHING is perfectly licit here.If you are very concerned with life experiences, just remember that many people are learning more here than they may have ever known before.

Well, couldn't we ask why NS has not provided for a great sex drive in all humans? Obviously, no matter how good a job NS does, some 'undesirable' traits will come through...but if you use your 'gay uncle' idea, wouldn't a low sex drive also be beneficial to the rest of the dependent family? I don't see how that has to do with what I said.I don't know also why you make disparaging comments so frequently. I have not been in more than one or two threads about genetics. I know I am not thinking long term enough about evolution, but I can handle a reminder. If you read what I wrote, you would see that I said 'nothing' would make the trait go away, we don't even know that there IS a gene for it, and since humans have great intelligence and also great susceptibility to environment and psychological factors, there will always be some element of nature/nurture/choice when you look at the whole range of human behaviour. I don't get it.

Unless we knew of a precedent where change does occur in the fetus without a gene which is responsible. Unfortunately I don't have any kind of knowledge to say yes or no to that one. Right. Again, I don't know for sure, but I think some genes appear randomly? I also don't know that there has been a link in homosexuality being hereditary or running in families. If you think about it, if the whole 'gay uncle' idea depends on the uncle reproducing in order to pass the gene along, it defeats the purpose altogether, doesn't it?

I read your message, but I didn't quite get it.

Well, maybe you can tell me what my agenda is?I didn't say the gay uncle needs to reproduce, I was responding to Jaderis whom I thought was speculating about that, and you may notice I was saying 'no, I don't believe that need be'.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that someone couldn't still choose to do whatever they wanted. Not really, unless you can prove that people can't choose to be religious.

I understand perfectly. I was just pointing out that any trait which could limit offspring would conceivably have to go into the same category. At the same time, you have people who might say that fecundity is selected for.

I can't tell you anything about my agenda, because I don't have one.I don't see how I ignored any biological factors, when most of my posts were talking about how biological factors could escape the attention of NS. And please, don't bother reminding me that NS has no brain or no attention span. Even if I did think homosexuality was purely choice, I don't see how that would be an agenda and not an uninformed observation. In actuality, I mentioned choice mostly in relation to reproduction, because I didn't see how a gene would be passed on which presumably 'knew' a person would not reproduce, and would therefore be a better helper for the extended family. That was my silliness, and I get into those traps often.