If being gay is natural....?

Question

(I am not suggesting it isn't by the way)

And we accept the Theory of evolution as correct.. does it not stand to reason that there is an evolutionary purpose for it. I mean it is too prolific amongsst the specied to simply be a rogue genetic mutation.

What could some of those reasons be?

Please just because the subject is a little delicate in modern society please try to respond rationally.

Picky people lol..

Yes of course it is not necessarily a trait supports the continuation of the species. However it may be so I am inviting you to consider how it may be of benefit to our species.

Assuming you are taking contraception the some of the men you know aren't just fxxxing themselves.

There is not reference to morallity in the question. I think maybe you are jumping to conclusions.

I disagree I think animals have sex because it feels good. I don't think they really motivated by procreation. That would require intelligent thought of the consequence of their actions.

To me nature is like our instincts.

For example as a surfer I know that if I try to plan my actions I will be fish food.

However if I follow my instincts and allow them to react without conscious thought I have an increased chance of riding the wave. It is evident that these natural reactions are not completely random as they are succesful. It is also obvious that they are not all ideal... however as the result is not random therein must lie some natural purpose.

Answer 1

Wow, there certainly is a lot of ignorance on this subject considering how many answers you got!

Yes, being gay is natural. It's like having brown eyes or being left handed. The fact is as you have already noted, being gay is completely widespread across humanity, which implies very ancient origins, predating skin color, and racial considerations.

Yes there is a genetic and therfore evolutionary basis for the existence of gays within any given population.

Most social mammals and even birds and some reptiles exhibit "gay" behavior.

This seems counter intuitive for an evolutionary advantage until you consider one important factor.

All members of a given generation of animals do not have to survive to procreate in order for a genetic tendency to survive and affect that population.

Using humans for example, remember that modern societies with millions of interdependent individuals in complex relationships all aiding survival is a new development in human history and has little to nothing to do with our evolutionary traits.

Go back to the cave days(say 100 000 to 25 000 BCE), when evolution was still selecting certain human characteristics for survival.

We ran from carnivores because most were still able to kill us. Food was not reliably available as agriculture had yet to be invented. Life was brutal and short. We learned to work together to survive.

Humans lived in small groups numbering no more than 200 and probably more like 20-40 individuals because that is all stone age technology could support in a small area.

If a mated pair of humans had 5 children over the course of their lives, at least half died before adulthood for a variety of reasons.

So of the 3 survivors say one is gay.

2 siblings have children, while "Uncle Fred" has none.
If Uncle Fred contributes to the survival of this little band of people by say, hunting or even just watching over the children while others do the hunting, he is contributing to the survival of HIS SIBLINGS' GENES, thus his own in the process!

This is how wolves survive despite the fact that only the alpha pair breed, or lions, or even ants and bees.

Because his own children never compete with his siblings' children, they in turn have slightly better chances for survival.

There is plenty of evidence to support that being gay is not a stand alone trait, although our society often treats this as so.

Gays generally are more creative, intuitive, intelligent (and schizophrenic and prone to mental break down) than non gays. It is a whole grab bag of complex features, but generally it is more beneficial than not to the survival of a small hunter gatherer group's survival chances.

Some gays also reproduce, so they directly have survival chances enhanced from generation to the next.

I would imagine that too much gay in a population would be counter productive for long term stability as male female pairbonds still work best as the basis for human society.

That is why only 2-5% of the general population is gay. Some may have benefitted a primitive group of humans, but too many is unworkable. Although there are gay advocacy groups who claim the number is higher, that is only claimed for political and financial reasons.

Social groups that found ways to remain cohesive would also have long term evolutionary advantages than harsher xenophobic ones. So gay is less important a trait than simple tolerance affinity in human populations.

Bisexual is more of a political description, all men I know believe that if you tried it once willingly, you are gay, just a closet case.

Answer 2

I can't understand how anyone can say it's a method to stop population levels rising. It would take a while for something like this to occur, and in a practical sense, nobody lives in overpopulated area. What is meant by the term is that too many people are causing a strain on public services and such. This is going to sound very un-PC, but I don't believe there's a clear reason behind it, therefore it is a genetic mutation that is a defect/abnormal. A naturally occuring abnormality? It stands to reason that it cannot be inherited.

I won't even touch upon the fact that there is no concrete evidence it is naturally occuring, or I'd be in big, big trouble I fear.

Answer 3

Well, this is a very interesting question indeed. First of all, let me start by saying that I don't think it a choice, it's not an illness and repressing it is just wrong. I think all of us need to follow our nature. Who am I to tell you what you are is wrong?
Now as far as I know there could be many reasons for it. Sometimes it has to do with our parental influences, or rather, the lack of them and maybe some other influence too. Anyway, when I took a course on psychology as part of my education, I read that Freud said that by the age of five our sexuality is already defined so I suppose everything is decisive prior to that age; not that I'm saying that people should take measures to "prevent" it from happening, I'm just stating facts.
Spiritually speaking, I don't know, maybe as we are a lot on the world maybe it's part of the design to have people not procreating. I don't know about naturalness or anything alike, that's up to every person. I think loving someone is natural, loving a partner, a child, your parents and siblings. Being kind to people, helping whenever someone needs it, that's natural to me. Whatever people do behind closed doors that's none of my business. Now, some people say they are going to hell, well I'm not so sure about that. What if they are wrong and this is hell, or maybe there is no hell at all and even if there was, what do you care if the one going to hell is not you?
Live and let live

Answer 4

It has little purpose per se, mutations on the genome lead individuals to have differing characteristics. These changes are designed to explore potential benefits but the vast majority of them are useless and or harmful. It has been shown that homosexual men have an over developed area of the brain similiar to a women's brain (i cant cite this but am going on memory) that aides the love of asthetics and encrouches on other local brain areas thus causing an array of characteristics that manifest as homosexuality. This is caused by random mutations. If said mutation had a benefit, i.e. made reproducing less taxing then it would be selected for. In our modern society homosexuality is not selected against and although homosexual men obviously dont reproduce those that are bisexual may and therefore could pass on genes that could lead to homosexual offspring. This is just a theory...

Answer 5

No, it does not stand that there is a 'reason' for homosexuality. Homosexuality just is. Do not confuse a 'reason' for something for the 'effect' for that something. By stating there is a 'reason' assumes that the basic evolutionary processes had a conscious, rational motive for the supposed 'rouge genetic mutation.' It did not. Mutations (none genetically designed by humans) occur without conscious evolutionary motives behind them.

Some mutations can allow a specie a survival advantage in a given ecosystem, thereby strengthening its ability to survive and to reproduce. Other mutations can lead to a species demise. And other mutations occur but have a negligible effect on its ability to survive.

Some argue that since it does not contribute to a species survival it is wrong. To those, I would respond that just because a 'rouge genetic mutation' does not contribute to a species survival does not make it morally wrong. It is silly to argue that survival of a species should be the underlying foundation upon which we build our morality. Does me looking out the window contribute to the survival of humanity? No. Am I then to assume it is then morally wrong?

Answer 6

There is no evolutionary purpose for it. Most animals merely have the instinct to preserve their species and among these animals sex is primarily for procreation. Same sex sex would be a waste of time for these animals. Humans are one of the few species where sex is mostly performed purely for pleasure and therefore we can choose our partners and accordingly are not restricted to partners of the same gender if such takes our fancy. And in case you're wondering it certainly doesn't take mine.

Answer 7

It may be, but not everything 'natural' is good for you. One could argue that nudity is natural, but it's not very nice to have a bare bottom sitting on your nice sofa. It is better to be 'unnatural' in this case. One could argue that 'Nature' has equipped us with the right bits to fit in the right spots and any other way would be unnatural. But the arguments have moved on and it's not a question of whether it is natural or not that's bothering people. People don't even bother with religious teachings against it.

As for the theory of evolution, it is able to argue both ways. You could say being straight is natural (and good) because it perpetuate the species, or you could argue that being gay is natural (and better?) because it avoids over-population, or is a mechanism for same sex bonding, something which may be helpful during certain times.

Answer 8

if u ask me i would tell u we are all bi. Some of us just dont know it. People made u believe it is wrong to be with the same gender. U were socially programmed to believe it is wrong and disgusting. But if u made your own decision u would probably see and feel that it isn't as unnatural as u might think.


well that is what i was going for before u could even develope ur sexual instincs someone programmed u to never touch another guy. Morality (supposed) stole ur natural instinc. Most animals have sex for fun too!

Answer 9

Freckles are an example of widespread genetic quirks that serve no usefull purpose- as are moles. Ailments such as diabetes are genetic. Just because a trait is present and widespread doesn't mean there has to be a benefit to survival.

Answer 10

It is for some people ... I think it is

But then again you have to think that there are a lot of people who don't accept evolution ... Apparently they haven't evolved enough to accept anything that the bible does not say ... They still think a book that was thrown together in pieces has all the answers so you can believe them and look and sound like a racist, sexist, idiot or evolution ....

But I really think we are all bi-sexual just society says its wrong ... I don't think it is and refuse to believe the bs that comes out of their religious hypocritical stupid mouths ... It's a waste of my time and patience