What is the biological purpose of Homosexuality?

[DevinSanders]

Maybe there is no "biological purpose" for everything, maybe some things just happen and we have no idea why, and will never know why

[StrongScience62]

Another way for nature to control the overpopulation of the human species, that's the theory I developed last year.

Think about it:

Why does disease altogether exist? To kill us off before we die of old age.
Why does Cancer exist? To wipe us off before we die of old age.
Why does aids exist? We're one of the only species to engage in intercourse for pleasure. Why not develop a disease to kill us off that we can contract engaging in our favorite pass-time?
Why does homosexuality exist? Humans (theoretically) mate for life. If a human forms a same-sex couple, they can not reproduce. Think about the amount of homosexuals in the world that are not creating offspring.

Now, consider this. What if Cancer and Aids were cured? What if homosexuality ceased to exist?

We would face overpopulation and die out within 100 years easily. Think about the amount of people that die from disease every year. Now try and calculate the planet's population in a century if disease did not exist, controlling for the average worldwide death toll per year. We would be schit out of luck and jolly well phucked.

there is just so much stupid in this post and I'm in no mood to go through it piece by piece.

[sliceofbread]

Homosexuality is a mutation which serves no beneficial purpose but it also doesn't increase chance of death. The mutation doesn't get weeded out.

Wrong it results in lower reproductive fitness and consequently does get weeded out, however the rate of de novo recurrences is obviously high enough to compensate.

[hoober]

lold at most guys in here, not knowing **** about evolution
The leading theory about homos is right now a combination of genes that makes women much more fertile (and even horny) while the same genes make a man horny
So, homosexual man have much more fertile sisters, mothers and cousins. So, that comibination gets passed down and is successfull.
Have in mind that homosexualls were a good thing for the early little groups of humans, they had no own children, but were strong (fabulous) men, so the group got stronger.

[lightsarefallin]

there is just so much stupid in this post and I'm in no mood to go through it piece by piece.

If you put all emotion aside and think about it rationally, it makes sense. It's difficult to talk about people needing to die, especially since we all know someone who has cancer, but in the end, you have to really contemplate why disease exists, and think of human beings as just another animal, and nothing more. I just think homosexuality fits in to that whole scheme of population control.

[Maestro]

homosexuality is a hoax (yes i said it)

mods delete my post if you want

Eh, no not really. Maybe the current influx of gays may be a some sort of "trendy fad" but there are still legitimate gays.

For example Alan Turing was a soldier and scientist during WWII. He was the the first person to theorize the idea of artificial intelligence created mechanisms to break encrypted codes and also happened to be gay. He was ostracized so much that he killed himself. I highly doubt he wanted to be gay, and it sucks because he probably would have revolutionized the scientific community with his theories.

[AJL1]

Another way for nature to control the overpopulation of the human species, that's the theory I developed last year.

Think about it:

Why does disease altogether exist? To kill us off before we die of old age.
Why does Cancer exist? To wipe us off before we die of old age.
Why does aids exist? We're one of the only species to engage in intercourse for pleasure. Why not develop a disease to kill us off that we can contract engaging in our favorite pass-time?
Why does homosexuality exist? Humans (theoretically) mate for life. If a human forms a same-sex couple, they can not reproduce. Think about the amount of homosexuals in the world that are not creating offspring.

Now, consider this. What if Cancer and Aids were cured? What if homosexuality ceased to exist?

We would face overpopulation and die out within 100 years easily. Think about the amount of people that die from disease every year. Now try and calculate the planet's population in a century if disease did not exist, controlling for the average worldwide death toll per year. We would be schit out of luck and jolly well phucked.

Clever thinking but I think you've missed the point slightly.

The key to understanding the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality is to think of evolution in terms of game theory. Having a gay-gene in conjunction with other genes means those genes are more likely to be passed on. I don't believe it's as simple as people being randomly gay; I think it's more likely that most people (if not everybody) has a gene in which the more children you have, the more likely each subsequent child will be gay.

Basically, if (arbitrary numbers here) if you have 5 hetero children, LESS of your genes will be passed on than if you have 4 hetero children plus a gay child, who will then help look after your children's offspring, allowing them to have more offspring and for your genes to propogate. This may not be the exact answer, but the fact that homosexuality has survived natural selection suggests there is some kind of reason.

Sorry if this isn't explained well, as it's difficult to explain. Just ask if you need me to clarify something.

Wrong it results in lower reproductive fitness and consequently does get weeded out, however the rate of de novo recurrences is obviously high enough to compensate.

For that individual yes. But you could say the same about bees, ants etc. Being a worker which cannot reproduce seemingly reduces fitness, but by supporting the queen it means that more of the genes which they share get passed on than if they reproduced themselves.

[mferrandi]

It's just a sexual perversion, do you think every sexual perversion is serving a purpose?

[Caxoo]

The way I see it is that nature, as a whole, is an all-encompassing adapting organism. While I do believe some proverbial 'super-virus' could be born out of current danger of overpopulation, I also believe that there are safeguards in effect already to prevent such a disaster. I don't think that nature would kick in just as things are getting really hectic.

This is very true, but it doesn't happen because it gives an evolutionary advantage to us (at least the way I am interpreting your theory). It's competition between us and the microbes and the viruses with overlapping ecological space, with each conferring evolutionary pressures to each other. It's an interesting hypothesis that the constant lingering around overpopulation may end up causing certain mutations that actually decrease fitness a little but in the long run increase fitness (maybe reaching overpopulation causes a drastic sudden population drop so traits that keep fitness and population just at a level below carrying capacity are beneficial), but I'm pretty sure that would be ridiculously complicated to test

Also humans rarely face overpopulation anyway, nevermind that stupid BS you hear about us tearing down too many forests and taking up too much space or whatever the hell

[SuperStars]

Humans' goal is to populate the earth, but since the earth is way overpopulated in theory it's a mechanism that kicks in that should correct the problem over time (since "it's a gene and not a choice"). Monkeys and other animals have displayed this behavior as well apparently.

Overpopulated? Lol no maybe in places like India but eveywhere else ? Nope

[lightsarefallin]

Overpopulated? Lol no maybe in places like India but eveywhere else ? Nope

It's not to say that the earth is at this moment overpopulate, it's to prevent overpopulation from occurring, just like disease.

This is very true, but it doesn't happen because it gives an evolutionary advantage to us (at least the way I am interpreting your theory). It's competition between us and the microbes and the viruses with overlapping ecological space, with each conferring evolutionary pressures to each other. It's an interesting hypothesis that the constant lingering around overpopulation may end up causing certain mutations that actually decrease fitness a little but in the long run increase fitness (maybe reaching overpopulation causes a drastic sudden population drop so traits that keep fitness and population just at a level below carrying capacity are beneficial), but I'm pretty sure that would be ridiculously complicated to test

Also humans rarely face overpopulation anyway, nevermind that stupid BS you hear about us tearing down too many forests and taking up too much space or whatever the hell

I don't believe it would be possible to truly test. I don't think humans are ready to hear the truth about issues they're so emotional and sensitive about.

[StrongScience62]

If you put all emotion aside and think about it rationally, it makes sense. It's difficult to talk about people needing to die, especially since we all know someone who has cancer, but in the end, you have to really contemplate why disease exists, and think of human beings as just another animal, and nothing more. I just think homosexuality fits in to that whole scheme of population control.

even if diseases didn't exist, our cells naturally die and our lifespan would still be about where it is now. the earth would still not be overpopulated or in danger of it. population control is based on available resources and we haven't maxed those out yet to the point where our species would die from starvation or thirst. so no, homosexuality doesn't fit with "population control" and it occurs in hundreds of other species.

It's not to say that the earth is at this moment overpopulate, it's to prevent overpopulation from occurring, just like disease.

bacteria and viruses want to reproduce like any other species. they can be viewed as predators, not population control. idk where you came up with this stupid idea but just stop.

[AJL1]

bacteria and viruses want to reproduce like any other species. they can be viewed as predators, not population control. idk where you came up with this stupid idea but just stop.

+1

More parasites than predators. I don't get why so many people think viruses/diseases are around for the benefit of the human race.

[GetBigBrah]

It has no biological function. Biological functions of sexuality is passing on your genes and producing as many fertile offsprings as possible.

Fitness=survival+reproduction


Homosexuals contribute nothing to the FITNESS of the human population as a species, and therefore have no biological function.


(no hate - simple bio)

[andishehhank]

Eh, no not really. Maybe the current influx of gays may be a some sort of "trendy fad" but there are still legitimate gays.

For example Alan Turing was a soldier and scientist during WWII. He was the the first person to theorize the idea of artificial intelligence created mechanisms to break encrypted codes and also happened to be gay. He was ostracized so much that he killed himself. I highly doubt he wanted to be gay, and it sucks because he probably would have revolutionized the scientific community with his theories.

good thing that he killed himself. a man that has no power over his mind is useless, and that's what all theoretical "gays" are. buncha normal guys who gave into their ignorance.

[arkskier]

to clean men's anuses.

[hoober]

It's not to say that the earth is at this moment overpopulate, it's to prevent overpopulation from occurring, just like disease.

did u ever have the topic "evolution" at school?
i dont think so :/

Nothing happens for a reason in the nature, nothing looks into the future
everything is for the purpose of a gene and combination of genes
even if it means the death of a whole population, if a gene is really dominant, it will be passed down
but in our case, homos have a purpose

homogene:
men love men, dont have children, will help take care of relative children
women with homgeneare more fertile, make more children
win-win

[AJL1]

Homosexuals contribute nothing to the FITNESS of the human population as a species, and therefore have no biological function.

(no hate - simple bio)

You don't think having a gay uncle around to look after your kids while you go off impregnating females and spreading your genes further contributes to fitness of the species?

[StrongScience62]

+1

More parasites than predators. I don't get why so many people think viruses/diseases are around for the benefit of the human race.

we are their "ecosystem" and our symptoms are them "pollinating". that other guy seems to think that lots of people or reproducing a lot is the same as the cycle of predation lowering and raising the amount of predators and prey in an isolated environment.

[lightsarefallin]

even if diseases didn't exist, our cells naturally die and our lifespan would still be about where it is now. the earth would still not be overpopulated or in danger of it. population control is based on available resources and we haven't maxed those out yet to the point where our species would die from starvation or thirst. so no, homosexuality doesn't fit with "population control" and it occurs in hundreds of other species.



bacteria and viruses want to reproduce like any other species. they can be viewed as predators, not population control. idk where you came up with this stupid idea but just stop.

So, what you're proposing is that all species are competing for the same living space? And some just have advantages over others?

I heard an interesting theory recently, I think it was from some comedian, where he was asking the question: are mammals just hosts for bacteria? He was referring to the amount of bacteria in 1 human's intestinal tract being larger than the entire population. Then he went off on a tangent about how we don't really know what's out there, that our galaxy might be a cell in a larger galaxy which might be a cell in a fat guy's nutsack and so on.

[StrongScience62]

It has no biological function. Biological functions of sexuality is passing on your genes and producing as many fertile offsprings as possible.

Fitness=survival+reproduction


Homosexuals contribute nothing to the FITNESS of the human population as a species, and therefore have no biological function.


(no hate - simple bio)

what is the biological purpose of an orgasm then if biological functions of sexuality have the sole purpose of reproducing?

So, what you're proposing is that all species are competing for the same living space? And some just have advantages over others?

no most occupy different niches. bacteria live inside us and feed on us. viruses hijack our cells to reproduce their own dna. its not the same thing as what you are suggesting. we are not all competing for the same resources or living spaces. each species has evolved to select for genes that aid in their survival or did at some point.

[Swaaagasaur]

Can't remember where i read it but some guy's theory was that back in the hunter gatherer days when the men would go out on long hunting trips they would leave the homos behind to guard the women and children and they didn't have to worry about them banging their women.

Fk'n lost it lol

[GetBigBrah]

So, what you're proposing is that all species are competing for the same living space? And some just have advantages over others?

Both of what you said is true, that's the basis of natural selection. The greater the niche overlap of two populations, the greater the competition. This basically leads adaptive radiation, whereby species fill different niches in an environment to reduce competition. 'Advantages' are nothing more than slight genetic differences in alleles, which give a phenotypic advantage. Natural selection acts on phenotypes which are coded for by genes/alleles.

[GetBigBrah]

what is the biological purpose of an orgasm then if biological functions of sexuality have the sole purpose of reproducing?



no most occupy different niches. bacteria live inside us and feed on us. viruses hijack our cells to reproduce their own dna. its not the same thing as what you are suggesting. we are not all competing for the same resources or living spaces. each species has evolved to select for genes that aid in their survival or did at some point.

The bolded confuses a lot of people because they can't grasp the concept of a 'selected gene'. What people need to understand is that:

1) There are genetic differences within a population
2) A particular allele gives an individual in that population an advantage (better ability to find/kill)
3) This individual is more likely to live longer, so they pass on their genes more often
4) Change in gene frequency
5) Over time, this gene is constantly passed on because of the advantage described in step 3

[lightsarefallin]

Interesting thread. Will sub for more theories.

[StrongScience62]

Interesting thread. Will sub for more theories.

you mean hypotheses. we are discussing biology, which is a science, which means these ideas are hypotheses. colloquially, theories, but with some reasoning (hopefully).

[andishehhank]

people discussing spineless theories while i'm chillin with real life experience. that's life.

[hoober]

you mean hypotheses. we are discussing biology, which is a science, which means these ideas are hypotheses. colloquially, theories, but with some reasoning (hopefully).

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...homosexuality/

women more fertile

its like
im talking the whole time
and nobody listening

many studies on this theory

[StrongScience62]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...homosexuality/

women more fertile

its like
im talking the whole time
and nobody listening

many studies on this theory

directly from your linked article

"This is called the “balancing selection hypothesis,”"

k.

[Caxoo]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...homosexuality/

women more fertile

its like
im talking the whole time
and nobody listening

many studies on this theory

Nah I got that it's good stuff