How does evolution explain homosexuality? (Kingdom, celibacy, blood, experience)

[Francine]

Originally Posted by tomspug

This one makes no sense to me. Why is it that there are any homosexual tendencies in ANY species? Where do those instincts come from and why were they not weeded out by natural selection?

Did you ever rig a film projector? You have to put a little bit of slack in the film coming off the take-up reel, because the film in the gate is pulled by a series of stops and starts. Otherwise you could break the film. Mammals are born roughly one boy for every girl. Having some of the boys pair bond with boys, and some of the girls pair bond with girls creates "slack line" which lets the breeders pair up more smoothly. It makes up for temporary or local fluctuations in the sex-birth-ratios.

[Gaddock]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

You consider Plato to be modern?

Ancient Greece is a prime example of a society in which homosexual relationships were tolerated alongside and in addition to hetrosexual ones. Many married men would have sex with servents or other men and still be expected to have children with their wives.

Regards

Gaddock

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

You consider Plato to be modern?

On an evolutionary timescale, yes.

[Don Penguinoini]

I think its more to do with the mind then it is with the body.

[Somkid]

I don't think sexual preference has anything to do with evolution at all.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Gaddock

Ancient Greece is a prime example of a society in which homosexual relationships were tolerated alongside and in addition to hetrosexual ones. Many married men would have sex with servents or other men and still be expected to have children with their wives.

Regards

Gaddock

I was specifically addressing the statement:

2) The distinction of homosexuality as an exclusive sexual preference is a relatively modern invention.

Plato knew of exclusively homosexual men who married women and reproduced only because of cultural pressure.

Plato, Sym. 192a

Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children, but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind.

[Gaddock]

Indeed, a good example of why evolution would not screen out homosexuality even if we held there was a strong genetic element (which I personally think is minimal). Those with a preference for males breed with wives anyway, which is exactly my point. If you object to the use of the term 'preference' in my first post here I am happy to replace this with another term, eg 'practice' for the sake of precision, but the point in relation to evolution remains.

Regards

Dr Bruce

[tomspug]

It seems to me that homosexuality has simply ALWAYS existed and is not genetic. I think this was the point I was trying to make. Everyone's arguments seem to agree with this too.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by tomspug

It seems to me that homosexuality has simply ALWAYS existed and is not genetic. I think this was the point I was trying to make. Everyone's arguments seem to agree with this too.

I don't agree. I think that a genetic basis to homosexuality is plausible.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by tomspug

It seems to me that homosexuality has simply ALWAYS existed and is not genetic. I think this was the point I was trying to make. Everyone's arguments seem to agree with this too.

Then you need to read them again.