Possible explanations for homosexuality explained.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

The please explain, and disprove that a genetic condition that would inhibit the propagation of a species is not a defect or flaw.

You haven't shown either that it's genetic, or that it inhibits propagation of the species. Most species, including humans, have homosexual members. We have always had gay people and gay relationships, yet we continue to increase in numbers. Your assumption (as usual) is incorrect.

It is true that gay sex is not reproductive. It does not follow that it inhibits human survival or reproduction. It appears to contribute to it in an alternative positive way.

As I say, we don't need more babies; we need more grownups to take care of babies, including gay grownups.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by OmarKhayyam

you really like that SC case. I wonder if has occurred to you that several SC decisions are now regarded as shall we say - questionable.

Dred Scott v. Sandford
Plessy v. Ferguson

Seemed like good ideas at the time. We who live in 21st century would differ.

I think it's one of the greatest cases in the nation's history. However, it does not stand for what madhatter is trying to make it stand for. One of the things it stands for is the important idea that marriage is a fundamental right, contrary to madhatter's assertion that it is a privilege. He has yet to acknowledge this error. One of the reason's it's a fundamental right is that is central to our very survival. It does not follow that this includes only different-sex marriage, or that this right does not extend to same-sex couples. In fact, several courts (Iowa, California, Hawaii) have held that it does. As usual, madhatter's reasoning is fundamentally mistaken.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

Sounds like someone is angry with the world and/or doesn't have the facts straight. Birth rates are already in steady decline.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2127rank.html

But the global population continues to increase, because it's still way above replacement level.

If it were a natural evolutionary response to overpopulation, a substantial number higher than 3% would be the case. However, it's not.

No, it doesn't appear to be that. It is present at all times and places.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

Individually we are all capable of the same parenting (except studies have shown women are better nurturers, but at the same note girls with an absent father are more likely to be sexually promiscuous), co-parenting is a completely different story and adds an incredible number of complexities to individual parenting.

Actually, every sound study shows that children of same-sex parents do at least as well as different-sex parents. In addition, gay people do not contribute to the huge number of unwanted, unplanned for children.

Homosexual behavior does not, and will never have the capacity to reproduce as long as we remain a sexually reproductive species.

Yup. So what?

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

It is true that gay sex is not reproductive. It does not follow that it inhibits human survival or reproduction. It appears to contribute to it in an alternative positive way.

Could you expand on this point? Do you mean that same sex couples contribute by parenting children (to which I agree), but I am not sure I would extend to say that it contributes as an alternative in the sense that it is largely necessary for heterosexual activity in some form to produce the child in the first place.

Surely it is logical to say that exclusive homosexual couplings do inhibit reproduction rates (though obviously the picture becomes more complex when we remove the term exclusive)?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Could you expand on this point? Do you mean that same sex couples contribute by parenting children (to which I agree), but I am not sure I would extend to say that it contributes as an alternative in the sense that it is largely necessary for heterosexual activity in some form to produce the child in the first place.

Surely it is logical to say that exclusive homosexual couplings do inhibit reproduction rates (though obviously the picture becomes more complex when we remove the term exclusive)?

I agree that there appears to be an evolutionary paradox, in that homosexuality tends to be counter-reproductive.

Before we even figure out what's going on, we can safely assume that there is some evolutionary benefit, as the trait persists and is ubiquitous. (From a religious point of view, you could say we should trust God's plan, if that's how you see it.)

For a specific answer, the female one is long and I will lay it out if you are interested. Also it's speculative--my personal hypothesis, reached after thinking, talking and reading about it for 20 years or so.

The research is tentatively pointing in an interesting direction for males. It looks like there is a gene that makes some women more heterosexual, and this gene is transmitted via the x chromosome to their sons, who are then more likely to be gay. In other words, it's a gene to enjoy sex with men. So the gene is pro-reproductive, and the gay sons are an accidental, or vestigial result that are sort of nuetral, so you end up with more babies in the long run.

Finally, these homosexual adults help rear the resulting children, so make a positive contribution.

In modern society, the contribution is solely positive, because we have too many babies, and need more adults to help take care of them. There is lots of research from the fields of economics and sociology that indicates that societies with a higher proportion of adults to children do better in terms of prosperity and lower crime rate.

[Jeremiah]

Roughgarden’s first order of business was proving that homosexuality isn’t a maladaptive trait. At first glance, this seems like a futile endeavor. Being gay clearly makes individuals less likely to pass on their genes, a major biological faux pas. From the perspective of evolution, homosexual behavior has always been a genetic dead end, something that has to be explained away.

But Roughgarden believes that biologists have it backwards. Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that’s been carefully preserved by natural selection. As Roughgarden points out, “a ‘common genetic disease’ is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington’s disease.”

So how might homosexuality be good for us? Any concept of sexual selection that emphasizes the selfish propagation of genes and sperm won’t be able to account for the abundance of non-heterosexual sex. All those gay penguins and persons will remain inexplicable. However, if one looks at homosexuality from the perspective of a community, one can begin to see why nature might foster a variety of sexual interactions.

According to Roughgarden, gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along. Homosexuality evolved in tandem with vertebrate societies, in which a motley group of individuals has to either live together or die alone. In fact, Roughgarden even argues that homosexuality is a defining feature of advanced animal communities, which require communal bonds in order to function. “The more complex and sophisticated a social system is,” she writes, “the more likely it is to have homosexuality intermixed with heterosexuality.”

Japanese macaques, an old world primate, illustrate this principle perfectly. Macaque society revolves around females, who form intricate dominance hierarchies within a given group. Males are transient. To help maintain the necessary social networks, female macaques engage in rampant lesbianism. These friendly copulations, which can last up to four days, form the bedrock of macaque society, preventing unnecessary violence and aggression. Females that sleep together will even defend each other from the unwanted advances of male macaques. In fact, behavioral scientist Paul Vasey has found that females will choose to mate with another female, as opposed to a horny male, 92.5% of the time. While this lesbianism probably decreases reproductive success for macaques in the short term, in the long run it is clearly beneficial for the species, since it fosters social stability. “Same-sex sexuality is just another way of maintaining physical intimacy,” Roughgarden says. “It’s like grooming, except we have lots of pleasure neurons in our genitals. When animals exhibit homosexual behavior, they are just using their genitals for a socially significant purpose.”

Roughgarden is now using this model of homosexuality to reimagine heterosexuality. Her conclusions, published last February in Science, are predictably controversial. While Darwin saw males and females as locked in conflict, acting out the ancient battle of their gametes, Roughgarden describes sexual partners as a model of solidarity. “This whole view of the sexes as being at war is just so flawed from the start. First of all, there are all these empirical exceptions, like homosexuality. And then there’s the logical inconsistency of it all. Why would a male ever jettison control of his evolutionary destiny? Why would he entrust females to serendipitously raise their shared young? The fact is, males and females are committed to cooperate.”

The Gay Animal Kingdom § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM

[Jeremiah]

Homosexual behavior has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behavior is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observed that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

When you see a colony of black-headed gulls, you can be sure that almost every tenth pair is lesbian. The females have no problems with being impregnated, although, according to Petter Boeckman they cannot be defined as bisexual.
"If a female has sex with a male one time, but thousands of times with another female, is she bisexual or homosexual? This is the same way to have children is not unknown among homosexual people."

Indeed, there is a number of animals in which homosexual behavior has never been observed, such as many insects, passerine birds and small mammals.

"To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behavior has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."


....

Masturbation is common in the animal kingdom.

"Masturbation is the simplest method of self pleasure. We have a Darwinist mentality that all animals only have sex to procreate. But there are plenty of animals who will masturbate when they have nothing better to do. Masturbation has been observed among primates, deer, killer whales and penguins, and we're talking about both males and females. They rub themselves against stones and roots. Orangutans are especially inventive. They make dildos of wood and bark," says Petter Boeckman of the Norwegian Natural History Museum.

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Sounds like one hell of a party.

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

So are you saying that people like the OP are repressed bisexuals?

more than likely