Give reasons for homosexuality being worth conserving in human evolution?

Question

Assuming that homosexuality has a strong genetic component, what reasons can you think of for natural selection to conserve this genetic component? What reasons could there be for such genes to be retained and transmitted to new generations?

I am glad there are so many bright and accomplished gay people. But that is not what I am asking. No one knows whether these same people, if not gay, might not retain all their wonderful qualities. This is a question within the framework of evolution, and specifically, natural selection's ability to favor those who will leave more offspring. It is not in any sense a homophobic question.

Some excellent answers here, but of course, they have not all been exhaustively tested, so there there is no simple answer. Non-reproduction may be an epiphenomenon, a phenonemon bound to an ordinary genetic process, not completely understood.

Answer 1

Why is anomolous color vision (mistakenly called "color blindness") preserved? Why left-handedness? Why blue eyes?

There are many examples of variation where a certain genotype is in the minority, and yet is preserved indefinitely in the species.

The example I like to use is left-handedness. People assume that you are either right- or left-handed. You are not. There is a wide range of preference ... some people are *strongly* right-handed (like me) or *strongly* left handed, while others (like my brother) are quite ambidextrous, but a slight preference emerges early in life (my brother throws with his left hand, writes and draws with his right). So *most* people have a slight or a strong inclination for right-handedness, and left-handedness is a minority ... but well within the normal range of variation preserved in the human gene pool.

Sexual preference is similar. You are not either 'gay' or 'straight', but fall in some range in between. And it is not a genetic absolute, but a *tendency* towards one or the other. And whatever combinations of genes that make someone predominantly homosexual will be in the minority (and many will hide it), but well within the normal range of variation preserved in the human gene pool.

A simpler example ... I like red-headed women. Always have. I feel *wired* that way ... it was never a conscious choice. Is it genetic? Who knows (my brother likes redheads too). But there's no reason all ranges of the "likes redheads" genotype would not propagate just fine in the human gene pool.

--- P.S. ---

In my experience, homophobic bigots (like bystander1212 below) generally turn out to be borderline homosexuals themselves ... i.e. right in the middle of that range. If you are comfortable with your own sexuality, there is absolutely no reason to be uncomfortable with other peoples' ... i.e. there is no psychological purpose served by shunning or hating them. It's only when you are somewhere in the middle, that somewhere in your life you develop homophobia as a defense mechanism. The more someone uses words like 'queers' and '*******', the more they are subconciously *terrified* of their own gay tendencies. It's called overcompensation.

What, gay-hating, self-proclaimed conservative "Christians", actually closet homosexuals? Can you say 'Senator Mark Foley (R-Fla.)'?

Answer 2

There are several reasons, or ways, in which a genetic component for homosexuality could be continued.
First, many homosexuals do reproduce. This is not a black/white issue. Many people are married and have kids, then come out of the closet as gay. Some are bi-sexual and have lovers of either sex.
So saying that homosexuals do not reproduce is incorrect.

Also, our genes are more similar with our closer relations.
So a homosexual man whose brother has offspring is assisting his 'close' genes by helping out those nieces and nephews. Making their life easier (with money or other support) makes it more likely they will pass on their genes...which are close to those of the uncle.

Answer 3

Homosexuality is not something that has anything to do with reproduction. It is not passed down or inherited. Evolution deals with genetics that aid in survival and can be passed down through reproduction. It has nothing to do with natural selection. It is simply something that has a chance of being formed within some animals. Many animals have been observed having homosexuals within a population.

Answer 4

Interesting question but if you think about it it's not about "homosexuality being worth conserving" but about "the genes which cause homosexuality being worth conserving". A subtle difference but an important one. Studies show that the mothers and female relatives of homosexual males tend to have, on statistical average, higher testosterone (ie. a higher sex drive) and more children. So male homosexuality at least may be 'conserved' as a consequence of selection towards women who have genes that cause them to have more children.

But also many gay(ish) guys do have children. Even though it may not be their primary pre-occupation, I imagine guys towards the gay end of the spectrum do have an advantage in one way in that they understand women better than straight guys. It's obviously not the same thing but I think of 2 gay parrots I used to have in among a bunch of other parrots. All year long they would be practising their courtship dance to each other - they were very good - and when breeding season came they were never scrambling around in dirty tight nest-boxes regurgitating their food to their partner - they were so fit and healthy and looked beautiful. But a funny thing would happen, more than once I saw one of them mating with female birds in the breeding season. They were Casanovas when they felt like it.

Answer 5

The same gene can have differing expression in the different sexes. This is a favorite theory of mine and many others that explains homosexuality for just this very reason.

Answer 6

I believe that gay people have evolved into existence because the earth is becoming over populated. Homosexuality is the result of nature trying to balance itself. Gay people generally don't have children, and that there by reduces the population. As the population of the world continues to increase, you are going to see the percentage of homosexuals increase as a result.

The genes are there for every species to produce homosexual offspring. It is genetically paramount that we keep the genetic component for homosexuality for this reason. This doesn't even take into account all of the various scientists, artists, musicians, politicians, etc. who are gay that have enriched all of our lives.

Yes, I am gay, and no my idea isn't homophobic.

Answer 7

There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality has any genetic basis. If it did, then it would quickly be removed from the population, since homosexuals almost never procreate. But even if there were a genetic basis, so what? Many abnormalities are inherited. It would be pretty difficult to propose any way in which a characteristic which prevents reproduction would be beneficial to a population or a species.

Answer 8

Just look at an ant or a bee society and you can see how some individuals can help to pass on the genes of their relatives, without passing on their own genes.

Answer 9

So the queers can eventually all die of AIDS? Don't take this personally, just asking.
I can only imagine the responses this is going to get. My wife (she is a woman) thinks I shouldn't submit this answer. She's afraid you ******* might find out where we live and kill us.
But I know that you are a very tolerant group. Live and let live, right?
I guess I need to be more compassionate towards you. Anyway, I don't believe in evolution because I am a right-wing conservative Christian. I don't go to church, because organized religion doesn't agree with me. I guess that's all I have to say for now.

Answer 10

If everyone were the same, how boring would life be?