But now that we, as a species, have succeeded so spectacularly in creating new life . . . to the point of practically using up the planet’s resources . . . perhaps it’s time to admit that life may have other purposes than procreation.
One (probably incorrect) theory for why homosexuality exists is that it’s a form of kin selection: since they don’t have kids of their own, gays and lesbians can devote their resources to raising their younger siblings or their sisters’ kids. A very-slightly better supported idea is that it’s an incidental byproduct of selection for bisexuality, which has theoretical advantages in terms of social cohesion (see bonobos, which are famous for making love not war).
Premodern cultures that accepted male-male sex usually did so in the context of bisexuality (more or less; usually it was structured as pederasty, not two adult men in an equal relationship); not liking women has always been seen as odd at best, even in Ancient Greece and medieval Japan. But there have always been a minority of men who only like men/boys, despite social disapproval. (Lesbianism has basically never been seen as anything other than something kinky for guys to get off to.)
Growing up (well from puberty to early adulthood) I didn’t know if I was gay or straight. I played both fields, then got really hurt by a guy. I swore off men, and since I liked women, started dating women exclusively. I knew I was a lesbian and that I’d never be with a man again. After a while (and a lot of experimenting and soul-searching) realized I liked it all. I was bisexual. For so long, I thought bisexuals were cliches. Girls who pretended to be bi so guys would be intrigued. Lesbians who didn’t want to admit that they were. That kind of thing.
But I realized it is possible to like 'em both.
It happens sometimes, yes. Some people just “play lesbian.” Some really think they are. And some (like me) are just trying to figure it out.
Biologically, you have a point. But it should come as no news (presuming an emotional age greater than 14) that sex has many more functions in humanity than reproduction. It’s the endocrinal and behavioral underpinning of the loving commitment that makes marriage work. It’s the hormonal and behavioral underpiing behind courtship and romance. And of course for most people it’s good clean dirty fun.
Why do I hear a Quentin Crisp bon mot just waiting to be said? 
We enjoy sex because it’s in the interest of the species to enjoy sex, because for nearly all mammalian life up to this point, there was no such thing as birth control. We’re able to resist the purpose of sex (witness this every time a man uses a condom) but still enjoy that good feeling it gives us, which it originally gave us so that we’d have a greater desire to multiply. So, just like a man can wear a condom and still enjoy sex, two men can have sex and enjoy it. I’m not saying that we should live life simply to procreate, indeed atm I don’t know if I’ll ever want children. I’m just confused, from a biological standpoint, when people say that exclusive homosexuality is as natural for the species (not necessarily for individuals - I’m a firm believer that you can’t choose whether to be heterosexual or homosexual) as heterosexuality. People can think I’m a homophobe if they wish, I know the truth. I’m just curious as to the answers of some of these questions I have.
Someone mentioned kin selection earlier and I think that might be onto something. To use one of Dawkins’ examples; submissive male peacocks, destined to never reproduce, sometimes put on displays for the benefit of their dominant brothers, somewhat analogous to a girl help prepare her older sister for prom. Of course that’s not really relevant, but it has the same biological basis as what was suggested.
Whatever the reason, it’s something I’m intensely curious about.
You are assuming, Selfish Gene-style, that the phsyiological purpose of reproduction is the sole purpose. My point, perhaps ineptly made, is that sexual behavior fills a number of other social (in the sense of behavioral) purposes. Tomcats don’t pairbond because queans (female catd) don’t need assistance in childrearing or in providing for themselves while childrearing. Nor do cats care for handicapped spouses. Humans do. Humans mate for many reasons, and reproducing is only one of them. Even the Catholic Church recognizes this. There are quite real biological reasons beyond procreating why humans engage in sex. (Note too that gay couples reaching childrearing ages often discuss adoption, in vitro fertilization, etc.)
If that was true, then where does homosexuality in animals come from? There’s argument over exactly why it exists, but it seems clear that some some people and animals, homosexuality is their default.
That’s an incorrect view of human sexuality. Humans are not cattle; we aren’t made to have sex, reproduce and that’s the only function. We are built by evolution to have sex for reasons other than reproduction; it’s natural for us to have sex without the chance for offspring. We have a sexual drive at all times, not just when the female is fertile; and we have a very low fertility compared to animals like cattle, for whom sex really is just about breeding. We are built to have a lot more sex than is necessary for producing offspring.
This might sound like a meager distinction, but I’d argue that homosexuality, while it might be a default for those individuals who are homosexual, it isn’t the default for the species. The default for the species really is heterosexual.
I mean, I’m somewhat leaning towards the belief that people say that heterosexuality is no more a default than homosexuality out of a desire to avoid hurting the feelings of homosexuals or to sound PC. But thanks for all your responses to that line of questioning, guys.
This is an interesting one: Has there ever been a study determining the rate of homosexuality in the biological children (even if not raised by the biological parents) of homosexuals and bisexuals? I wonder how much of a nature vs nurture issue it is. I mean, I have no idea what sorts of things might trigger homosexuality, bisexuality and other gender identification states in people- I’m currently of the belief that simply being raised by homosexuals has no effect whatsoever on the sexual orientation of the child so I’m inclined to lean towards nature as opposed to nurture… but it seems like the sort of study that some curious individual out there might have undertaken.
This debate is a stitch.
I mean, think about it. How often do we delight in our evolution from mere instinct-driven animal to rational human? From a creature with no thoughts but food and procreation to one who cares about ethics, technology, culture, spiritualism, and other products of advanced thinking?
We’ve moved indoors from the harsh weather, we’ve clothed ourselves for warmth and to maintain our modesty and eventually for aesthetic value, we’ve solved medical problems through science and study, we’ve conquered the sea and sky where our forebears could only travel by foot, we dine and drink pasteurized/sanitized/processed foods and culinary delights far beyond a caveman’s ken… In countless ways have we advanced as a species.
But when it comes to sex, the idea that we as a species have grown and developed suddenly becomes anathema! Suddenly, the yardstick by which humans measure what’s “normal” is biology alone. I mean, the human race basically says “fuck you” to Mother Nature’s demands in thousands of ways, but with sex? Ah, here we must defer to the animal in us. All that matters is that we procreate, you see.
Sorry. I just find the argument “but it’s not what nature wants!!!” utterly absurd. You’re writing this on a computer wearing clothing in (probably) a temperature-controlled environment. We all of us tell nature to get stuffed every other minute of the day. So why should we give a rat’s ass what’s supposedly ‘biologically natural’?
Well excuse me for being curious as to why some people are homosexual, why many men are sexually attracted to other men and why many women are sexually attracted to other women. :rolleyes:
Oh, I’m sorry. But where exactly did you ask “why are some people homosexual and others heterosexual?” I don’t see that. Your posts have focused on your bemusement that a) homosexuality could be considered normal and b) we as humans may have purposes in life that matter as much as biology. (And you’ve also boasted a bit at how bravely oh-so-non-PC you are.)
Maybe you just weren’t clear enough – or you don’t realize how you were coming across.
Except by women? Or don’t the women get an opinion? Actually, I probably know the answer to that one.
My friend did this. He was in a 5 year commited relationship with another man, and was out and proud. He then decided he was straight. He now has 2 children and is getting married. Very odd.
I make arguments regarding what I currently believe to be the case and have listened and responded to people’s responses to my arguments. I didn’t come out and ask “why is this and this,” no.
Excuse me for not phrasing it differently.
Because of the desire to be politically correct, I think some people avoid trying to find actual reasons for things. “It’s just how they are and let’s leave it at that.” Excuse me for not phrasing that differently, too.
I guess not. It wasn’t my intention to piss anyone off.
I totally missed where you wondered why people are homosexual and your post answering choie didn’t help. Any help for the apparently blind woman?
Also, on a totally unrelated note, I love your username.
Excuse me for not asking it straight out. Why are people homosexual? Does anyone have any theories? 
Someone already mentioned kin selection and I responded to that. I’ve also asked if anyone knew of any studies regarding the rate of homosexuality amongst the biological children of homosexuals…
But I guess all of that doesn’t really address why people are homosexual. Clearly I’m just here to act bemused.
So do I!
Ding Ding Ding we have a winner!
Why does there have to be a why?
I mean, following your apparent reasoning, do you also demand explanations for anything that isn’t statistically average and/or that doesn’t contribute to procreation? Such as infertility? Female orgasms?