Ok. I don't want a bunch of fag got slurs on this question.I'll simply delete them under the new yahoo system

Question

But I have a degree in biology and strong beliefs in evolution. In order for a characteristic to survive in a species it has to have some very important value or it simply doesn't carry on from generation to generation. That being the case--what advantage does homosexuality play in the perpetuation of the species. I feel strongly that it must do something..I'm not talking about making babies here..I referring to a broader scale...something that homosexuals bring to a culture that is positive and helps it survive and that evolution feels is valuable.Please if you don't know what I am talking about don't answer.,

No I don't have a predetermined answer in mind..but so far I'm really enjoying all the answers I'm getting...and you are right I negelected people who choose not to reproduce

Answer 1

I read about this somewhere before...

There is one brain part, called the anterior commisure, that's bigger in gay men's brains than in those of heterosexual males. Most of my thoughts here are about looking at what that might mean, and how it might appear. (Reference)

So, what's it do?

It connects two structures together. The amygdala on each side of the brain.

So, what does the amygdala do?

Its a very, very emotional structure. And it's fast. If you suddenly notice a bus heading toward you, and you feel a 'burst' of fear, that's your amygdala; the one on the right. If you feel a burst of elation when someone looks at you with attraction in their eyes, that's your amygdala, too; the one on the left.

A gay man's brain has more connections between the opposite emotional centers than other brains.

The amygdala does an important kind of recognition, too. It recognizes other people, or more importantly, how they're feeling. It responds to facial expressions, tones of voice, and, I'd guess, body language as well.

My guess is that its important in seeing potential mates, and so, its the part that knows who you're attracted to, gay, straight, transsexual, bisexual or whatever.

The gay male brain uses the same parts to be attracted to a man that I use to be attracted to a woman.

I cannot help but wonder if the extra connections might allow extra recognition skills, and a wider sense of what a person's meaning might be. When a male brain selects people of the same gender as the focus for sexual feelings, it gives its owner a set of concerns and needs in common with women. Men become the people they want to be with, forcing them to pay attention to men's needs, and women become the object of identification, at least in some ways. At the same time they ARE men, so they still have to identify there, too. As a straight man, an attractive woman 'means' something very different to me than she does to a gay man. And guess what? The amygdala mediates our experience of 'meaningfulness'.

Such a person would be able to empathize with a very large portion of the total population; larger than heterosexuals of either gender.

Most evolutionary biologists will agree that if a species preserves a trait, its because that trait helps that species survive, or at least did so when it first emerged.

One of the traits of the human species is that close 10 percent (the number changes according to who does the counting) of our populations are gay. If Darwin (and some others) are right, the our species needed gay males when we first appeared, and we might need them now.

What for?

Well, gay men do not compete with straight men for one thing, but they understand many, if not most, uniquely male concerns, because they are men.

And they share enough in common with women that they understand women's concerns, too. Many lesbians are a bit taken aback by how indifferent many gay men are to feminist political concerns, but those aren't the women's concerns I mean. I'm talking about such things as 'cognitive style', 'linguistic patterns' and other things that you need a special dictionary to get.

Gay males might have enhanced their tribe's ability to respond to danger quickly. Their voice in the councils of the first human tribes could have been a profound advantage.

There are two things that help an individual be heard in human cultures. One is to be the boss, and the other is to have as few conflicts with others as possible.

Gay males, being less interested in war than other males, do not conflict with their tribal neighbors.

They do not compete with straight males for sexual opportunities,

And, they do not compete with women over the resources for their young. A hundred thousand years ago, this was probably VERY important. It takes a decade to raise a child, at least. In a ten-year period, most of our young probably had to live through at least one lean season. When it was going on, the gay man only had to find food for one. But he was quite strong and intelligent to find food for several, just like anyone else, if it was to be had at all.

Our species arose 100,000 years ago, and we were hunters and gatherers. Most of these societies today are a loose kind of democracy, and the chiefs don't really have the power to command obedience from anybody. Decisions were and are made in councils. In our earliest history, these decisions were sometimes a matter of life and death. Making sure that our populations produced some individuals who had extra empathetic skills might have given us more intelligent leadership than otherwise. The larger anterior commisure implies that gay males might be more able to perceive meaningfulness, too. "Meaningfulness" is an amygdaloid function - innocuous things become omens, possibly selected because the event taken as the omen has some association with a concern among one's people. (Stimulate your amygdala - learn more here)

One example might be what a storm cloud means when its windy outside. The extra left/right connectivity in gay males would give them a greater sense of the nuances and subtle implications of events in their world. Being men, however, they would have a greater ability to articulate their subtler perceptions, because the male brain is more 'single-tasking' than the female brain; it is more likely to use one or two areas at a time - including the language centers.

Because gay males have more communication between the hemispheres, they percieve non-verbal information (including the sort we call intuitive) more readily then straight males. Because they still possess male brains, their cognitive processes are more focused (less multitasking) than they would be in women, allowing them an advantage in getting non-verbal information into words, where it can be shared with others. An intuition becomes a channeled voice. A dream contains spoken instructions. A gay male, all other conditions being equal, was more able to go from a sense-that-something-is-wrong to seeing and describing a specific danger. They might also be better able to find ways to improve things, be more comfortable, and stay healthy.

Consider the stereotype that gay men are 'esthete' - they are gourmets when eating, film critics when seeing movies, interior designers at home, and fashion and grooming experts in front of mirrors. Nothing but the best. Now, imagine that same trait 100,000 years ago, and add to it the caveat that people acted for their tribe as much as for themselves, there being little one could claim as one's own. Nothing but the best and most sheltered campsite. Nothing but the clearest water. Everyone should be clean and attrective (by whatever standard his nation held) - as much as possible. With their extra emotional sensitivity, they would encourage people to be nice to one another. Further, freedom from many of the usual social obligations - like the need to let others save face - could allow gay males to be more vocal than other males might be. Someone demanding the best for himself in those days would have had to demand the best for the whole tribe.

I know I'm making many generalizations here, and many gay men do not fit the stereotype, but my point is that gay male traits, though held by only a few, can benefit many.

When a gay male had an opinion, a hundred thousand years ago, his people probably listened.

In our earliest evolutionary history, as hunter/gatherers, we were better able to survive our crises, and to avoid them when we could, by having a group with a different set of cognitive skills who tended to avoid the conflicts that were most pressing to everybody else. They probably were important peacemakers in our first cultures. And peace is one thing that we need to survive, and to raise our young.

One study found that women who were pregnant in Berlin at the end of World War Two delivered a slightly higher percentage of gay male children than others. Perhaps the response to war is to try and deliver more peacemakers.

That may be why our gene pool contains instructions for making our populations include 10 percent gay males.

So why should this man, and not that man, be gay?

There is a process that could create this difference. The emergence of a recessive, neotanous trait.

Neotany is the name used when an adult in a species retains a childhood trait. The best-know example is human curiosity. Other primate species are as curious as our children, but it stops with puberty. Our adults are capable of retaining the trait their whole lives.

Brains don't grow uniformly. They grow in steps. First one part grows outstrips the others, then another gets bigger. Then another. Then another.

My guess (speculation) is that there is a phase in the growth of every male brain when the anterior commisure has outstripped its neighboring structures. I also guess that there is a trigger that signals when its time for the anterior commisure to stop growing.

And that, in gay males, this trigger is absent. This kind of adaptation is called "Neoteny"

Some gay men say that they've 'always known' they were gay. Others have said that there was a single decisive sexual experience that brought it out.

Its possible that the anterior commisure has two growth spurts when it might be able to shed its 'stop growing' trigger. One during in the womb, and another after birth, but before puberty. Perhaps there are several such 'windows of opportunity' in the development of a man's brain. There isn't enough evidence at this point to prove or disprove the case. The simplest thing I can imagine is an environmental 'cue' of some sort, either in the womb or in the environment.

One more thing about the anterior commisure. Its in the limbic system, and the limbic system is now the strongest contender as the source, within the brain, of religious and mystic experiences. There are scores of studies to support this, most of them published in medical journals, and are still unknown in spiritual teachings.

Nevertheless, a conclusion appears: Gay men were probably our first spiritual leaders. Our Shamans. In that social position, they would have been free to expect that their words would be heard, they would have been able to exploit their cognitive skills to the maximum, and they would have been able to access many altered states of consciousness that would've been unavailable to others.

The trust and respect that a skilled gay shaman might have been able to command might allow him to induce the placebo effect in other during times of illness, too.

Gay men may once have healed their people, led them spirituality, soothed interpersonal conflicts, and help them anticipate and avoid threats to their survival.

Who knows? Perhaps gay male sexual preference is a by-product of a specific group of cognitive and emotional skills that helped us survive - skills that may be expensive for the individual gay man, but were essential for the population as a whole.

A 100 percent heterosexual population might have gone extinct.

But then, we don't have a 100 percent straight population, do we?

Source: http://www.innerworlds.50megs.com/gaybrain.htm

Answer 2

This is complicated, and the answers I offer are going to offend some...but unintentionally. Trait Characteristics seem to travel in clusters, genetically: Brown/Black Hair and Brown Eyes, darker and thicker skin; Blue Eyes, Blond hair, light, thin skin ; Could it be, then, that homosexuality, creativity, and sensitivity travel in a like cluster? Can the tendency towards elevated IQ travel in the same cluster? (Not all gays are brilliante, but I have known a very larger number of both Gays and Straights, I think that there is an average of higher intelligence, more than just a few points on the IQ Scale, in Gays. These are all positive traits...but! I have a problem here with the standard evolution format. Homosexuality, in itself, is a dead end propostition, as it does not reproduce. Even considering that it may be a sex-linked characteristic, is obviously a recessive cluster, ... without the recessive cluster meeting recessive cluster, or in cases of Sex LInked ( I think this is less likely, as there are almost as many Lesbians as there are Gays) without reproduction, over time, the recessive would fade away. THEREFORE (here comes the part that may get some people going), logically, the only reason these genes continue in the species is SOCIAL TABOO. Men and women who carry the genes ARE often reproducing only because of social expectations...they produce children, find they cannot live in that manner, and move to happiness in openly gay situations or remain closeted and in denial their entire lives. BUT, they produced children first! It is therefore IRONIC that the very thing so many societies use to prevent people from expressing their gayness , in fact, may be the very reason homosexuality continues in our species, i.e., if homosexuals were openly allowed to follow their instincts with no prejudice in society, would the trait have disappeared? Probably not, but it is an argument, nevertheless. This argument weakens in light that most species of animals have a percentage of homosexual members, and animals have no social taboos like we do. (yes, I know ...Pack behavior, etc....but in general, no taboo). The bottom line here is ...I have no real answer for your question, but only some theories which I have presented.

Answer 3

I think there is a biological or evolutionary reason. I think the most probable reason is homosexuality is a mechanism for producing workers to serve a function in society to produce materials and food, without contributing to future population growth. It's quite possible that our species needs a slight abundance of workers, but not for reproducers. If homosexuals did not exist, we would compensate by producing more heterosexuals, who in turn would contribute to exploding population growth.

Since this could be a built in throttle in our bodies, it could produce bi-sexuals as well because the body is imperfect. It's possible that conflicting biological responses could create bi-sexuals. Bi-sexuals will still have a reduced probability of reproducing, so they still fit well into the theory above.

If I were a scientist, I would look into island histories to see if there were increases in homosexuality during overpopulation times.

We just don't have enough data to know. Maybe you'll find it one day. Asking is the first step.

Answer 4

My guesses:
1. It takes out otherwise healthy individuals from the breeding population -- this cuts down on overpopulation.
2. Sex is a stress reducer. Homosexual sex between consenting humans reduced stress, especially during times of great trouble or when no members of the opposite sex were around.
3. It might have cultivated a sense of bonding with members of a group when they were forced to segregate, gender-wise -- as with males during a hunt.
4. The non-reproducing members of the group still carried on nurturing activities with the children, much the same way wolves do today -- instead of producing more offspring who could not be taken care of properly by just parents or grandparents.
5. For male homosexuals -- they helped free breeding females from the threat of numerous pregnancies by becoming temporary sexual partners for the breeding males.
6. For male homosexuals -- it might have been part of dominance/submission in the group, similar to wolves.

And the bisexuals could go either way, depending on the needs of the clan or other small group of early humans.

I have long believed what you are indirectly theorizing.

Answer 5

Some of the greats were reported as being homosexual and have
contributed many fine works to the world!

Considering the great number of humans on the planet, The planet is filled! Having children is now a detriment to civilization and not an asset. Look at China, They kept having babies to the point of destroying them selves. They could not feed them. That is why they have limited the number of babies they can have to reduce the over population! I believe the rest of the world should follow suit!

Answer 6

Well, judging from many of the answers I'd say you have much to consider, but permit me to offer a more theological possibility. I studied at seminary for two years (oldest son of Catholics, I was expected to be a priest, sorry Mom & Dad, I'm a happy gay). While in seminary, I was fortunate enough to have some rather interesting discussions in regards to God, Gays and nature. Here was what myself and another seminarian had come with. From the standpoint that God created man, and that man was designed to perpetuate the species, it occured to us that this drive was incredibly strong to the exclusion of almost all other things. In nature, some animals will even forgo food for reproduction ie: salmon. So, if man has within him this drive, it would mean that for humanity to evolve intellectually or more to the point culturally, he would need to abstain in some way or at the very least put aside his predatory tendencies vis a vis the opposite sex. We proposed that Gays (homosexuality) were in fact part of the grand design, in so much that, as "outsiders", homosexuals would be free to explore pursuits along the lines of science, art, music, culture and phylosophy. Now, this not to say straights don't engage in this, nor was this meant as a slight, but consider that throughout history, homosexuals have always been at the forefront of cultural changes. Even today, we see how gays tend to be ahead of the curve in fitness, music, design. The point being, as a species, it is not enough for us to simply procreate, eat and sleep, we need cultural diversions such as the arts, entertainment, music and such. It is conceivable that this is the purpose of homosexuality within the perpetuation of the species, afterall, a species such as ours, with all of it's complexity and unique positioning within this biosphere, it would make sense that diversions would in fact be necessary for the sanity of the species. I know it's an odd take on things but I have found that humans need diversion, they need to be entertained and challenged. Homosexuals, by their very existance do the job nicely.

You probably wanted a scientific answer, but I offer this as a non scientific 'how about', please take it for what it's worth.

Answer 7

I think it's a remnant from a feature of biology you see in other species. When certain types of fish and other animals are isolated by sex, some of them change sex to fill the gap, allowing them to continue. This may be something that's built into all/most animals, not the changing sex part, but the ability to be attracted to either sex. Look at prisons; segregated by sex, some of the inmates (willingly or not!) take on the oppsite sex role and pair off . This happens in male AND female prisons. Males actually have the ability to lactate if the right stimulation/hormones are used, and the female clitoris is analogous to the male penis. I think in a way its nature hedging her bets, like she always does. The ability to change sex may be gone, (not without a doctor anyway) but some of the other, psychological components remain.

Answer 8

Homosexuality has nothing to do with the perpetuation of our species. As human beings Its up to each individual to make the world a better , safer place for future generations.

Answer 9

Well, my gf and I have discussed this very topic.
Perhaps not having children, allowed gays & lesbians time to devote to help support/protect the children of their siblings. This might have given their nieces & nephews a better chance of survival, thus ensuring that their genes (albeit not exactly their genes, but their family's genes) were passed on.
I think there might be some occurences that support this type of theory in the primate world.
Does that hold any water?

Answer 10

My thoughts but i am sure some one has tried to prove this some where

Homosexuality has been thought by me to have been a mild case of gender dystera
transgender and transsexuals may me the next step from that being that the thinking of them is differant the normal person and
and intersexualism ( that many see as a deformerty) may be humans trying to evole into the next thing. intersex has been seen wrong in my eyes people have to much value in only the two genders

this may or may not make sence or be what you are looking for as an answer but it is food for thought

Answer 11

wow, great question,
I was thinking about the new series here on tv, meerkat manor, the dominant female is the only one allowed to mate and produce and she does it with the dominant male, the rest just have to supress their sexual/reproductive drive.
Im thinking in that situation, it would be better for the males to have sex with each other to satisfy their natural urges than to have sex with a female and risk the wrath of the dominant female
In this situation homosexuality would keep the submisive males satified without wrecking the status quo of the group who totally rely on each other for survival.
Great question, looking forward to reading other posts