http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html [rquoter]Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality 18:00 16 April 2008 by Michael Le Page There are numerous evolutionary mechanisms that might explain homosexual behaviour, which is common in many species of animals "Simple reasoning shows that evolution cannot explain homosexuality - how would a homosexuality gene get selected for?" "Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?" Such arguments are surprisingly common - and completely wrong. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds of species, from bison to penguins. It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population. A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common. Reasons why Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words. It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair. Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others). For your health Or perhaps homosexuality is neutral, neither reducing nor boosting overall fitness. Attempts to find an adaptive explanation for homosexual behaviour in macaques have failed, leading to suggestions that they do it purely for pleasure. Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common. For instance, gene variants that cause homosexual behaviour might have other, beneficial effects such as boosting fertility in women, as one recent study suggests, just as the gene variant for sickle-cell anaemia is maintained because it reduces the severity of malaria. Homosexuality could also be a result of females preferring males with certain tendencies - sexual selection can favour traits that reduce overall fitness, such as the peacock's tail (see Evolution always increases fitness). Given that, until recently, homosexual behaviour in animals was ignored or even denied, it's hardly surprising that we cannot yet say for sure which of these explanations is correct. It could well turn out that different explanations are true in different species. [/rquoter]
Thanks for inadvertently proving my point. It's only when homosexual bison and penguins behave like heterosexuals that they are allowed to reproduce. This reinforces my point.
You haven't made any point. Science has pretty much conclusively shown that homosexuality is hard-wired into brains. It's not a choice as you make it, nor is it a disease. And there are republican, conservative homosexuals as well TJ. Being homophobic isn't going to advance you in life. You have nothing to fear from homosexuality. It's not a threat to you or your way of life. No more than the right to bear arms is. You are more likely to die from a gun shot wound then you are from someone who is gay liking you. In fact, I am pretty sure you don't have to worry about the latter. So what's your beef with gays?
You asked about evolutionary reasons for homosexuality. Evolution isn't about every member of the species being able to reproduce. In fact natuaral selection limits reproduction.
TJ is proving that the position against gay marriage has more to do with homophobia then viewing marriage as a religious institution.
I don't necessarily agree with that 100%. But I am beginning to think that homophobia is the underlying reason.
Nice try, but I could just as easily say that the pro-gay marriage crowd is simply anti- anything the Church stands for. Marriage is a religious ceremony, so therefore the extreme left is auto-default against it's legitimate application and definition. Honestly, I can't see how anyone who goes to Church and actually listens could ever vote Democrat. They are just working against the Church itself by empowering the people who trample on Christianity every chance they get.
So only Republicans can be good Christians? You think Democrats are evil? I think you and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have a lot in common.
Problem is you can get maried by just going to the court house. When this and pther wedding chappel arrangments got involved in marriage it became a legal right now a church ceremony.
For the past four years, you have been contractually obligated by the US government to have and to hold till death do you part.
i think you should just stick to letting people define marriage how they want. the irony in this post related to your "let everyone define it as they wish" is THICK!!!
Yes, NewYorker, I know who you are and am attempting to put that into the past. Isn't that what you want? I'm going with the newer, more "honest" version.
