Why are there so many gay people?

Factual Questions
61

Like what? It’s not a “big issue” but it’s interesting. To me, anyway.

This is true, and Dawkins thinks it’s partly why we have such close family bonds, because allowing our siblings to survive and propagate is a way of propagating our own genes. But I think it’s clear that, given the choice between not reproducing and helping to nurture your family, or doing both, the latter is more likely to be effective from a standpoint of evolution. Rendering yourself unable to reproduce, as strict homosexuals do, seems like a pretty bad evolutionary strategy to me (again I’m all in favour of gay rights on a social level, I’m just thinking in terms of evolution).

I meant suicidal depression in general, not amongst homosexuals. How does a condition so widespread and so debilitating become so common? What’s the possible benefit? Or what’s gone wrong?

62

It still might be an environmental issue in that regard. Overcrowding increases production of the stress hormone cortisol, and there have been some studies in rats that show that groups of rats who were exposed to high levels of cortisol in utero are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than the control group. (There’s also a higher rate of aggression.) So, it’s possible that homosexuality is a response to an out of control population.

63

I’ve seen the same idea touched on throughout this thread, but on first read-through I’m not sure I’ve actually seen the word BISEXUAL yet.

I mean, sure, 100% gay types in a forbidding society back when might well have found it pretty difficult to get drunk enough for sex with their spouse that one time to directly pass on their genes, and so would maybe need the explanation about helping to raise your brother’s kids or whatever. But if we postulate that some folks have a genetic predisposition to bisexuality, albeit with something of a preference for same-sex partners, then hiding your inclination from a frowning society would, à la the classic formulation, be more like opting for hamburger over steak – and maybe you still sneak a preferred steak on the side whenever possible, and maybe you don’t despite craving it, but the point is that (a) you don’t mind hamburger, per se, and (b) sometimes you’re even in the mood for the right hamburger.

None of which prevents 'em from passing on a preference for steak, after all.

64

Not sure what you are suggesting here.

The study seems to suggest that the gene(s) responsible for homosexuality also make females more successful at reproduction (fecund).

A trait that favors women in this way is far more powerful than the downside of homosexuality from a survival of the species aspect. One male can father numerous offspring with ease. So what if one or two guys in the tribe don’t want to have sex with the women? Plenty of other males are available who gladly will and it does not take many.

From the female perspective being able to produce more offspring is, generally, a good thing. Pregnancy is difficult for a woman and they can produce only one per year (give or take) compared to a single guy whoul could sire dozens. Yes over crowding and such can happen but usually more children means a better chance some will survive and see her genes survive into future generations.

65

“It’s your turn outside of the barrel.”

(Yeah, I know this doesn’t really fit with the meanings of “top” and “bottom”.)

66

I was suggesting exactly what I said - that from the description of the article that maybe a woman who pops out a lot of children will end up giving birth to gay children as a population control. I haven’t read the article so was extrapolating from the description here, I didn’t realise that it was suggesting there was a like between the supposed gay gene and female fecundity, so my supposition is wrong.

67

There are more gay people because it’s has become a lifestyle that is more accepted.

68

There have been at least two studies on this, and they haven’t found that gay humans babysit/look after/whatever you want to call it… their young relatives any more often than straight humans do.

Do you know of any study (not anecdotal evidence) that found that gay humans do?

69

Could this be due to modern factors such as geographic dispersal? In past times, people stayed in their locality, so the singletons would be at hand to help, and because they were single, more able to help.

70

I’m with Quartz on this - sure they probably don’t NOW, but we’re talking about a trait that would have had to have survived tens or even hundreds of thousands of years of tribal/pack living.

71

But there’s no empirical evidence that it existed back then, either. It’s a hypothesis without evidence.

72

There’s a fairly recent study that seems to provide some evidence in favour of the indirect evolutionary benefit of kin selection. It’s about exactly that, the role of gay (male) relatives as additional “helpers in the nest”:

Study reveals potential evolutionary role for same-sex attraction

73

I’m not saying this has ANY relevance in human context, but in animals the “benevolent uncle” theory doesn’t always hold up. ('Course nearly nothing “always” holds up.) Anyways, I sat through a presentation a couple years about some male sea otters that were raping other male sea otters to death - regardless of familial relation. Made me wonder how sea otter male on male sex works, and what, besides the general violence, made it so lethal. Or how they knew that rape, and not just fighting, was going on. The presentation was pretty scientific, but those juicy parts were not really relevant to the point, I guess.

74

One could equally look at the cheetah, where siblings mate with the same female.

Sandwood’s cite strikes a nerve in me. TTBOMK I’m not gay - leastwise I’ve yet to find myself attracted to other men - but I am single, and I’d love to spend more time with my nephew and niece. Which would give my brother and his wife some valuable ‘us’ time too, so strengthening their relationship.

75

I read it years ago in the newspaper–not the greatest source for science info–that blood relatives of people with depression are more creative. It kind of makes sense: If nerve connections suddenly switching into a new arrangement is the physical manifestation of insight, someone whose brain does that more easily would be more creative. A very flexible brain might also be more likely to switch into an abnormal configuration. You’ll never forget your kid sister Grogina who jumped off the Great Cliff. The loss became more bearable after that time you figured out how to get past that hungry lion, the story of which making hot, fertile cave babes swoon into your arms ever since.

Again: years ago, newspaper. Just a thought.

76

There’s a slightly more reliable source that says the same thing - a book called Touched with fire by Kay Redfield Jameson which explores the link between mental illness and creativity generally, and concludes that there is a statistically significant link between them. She didn’t go into the why of it, just showing that it’s pretty clear the link is there.

77

In our primate relatives, there are many reasons why homosexual behavior exists and is maintained.

In some species it is related to general sexual expressiveness. Japanese female macaques form sexual courtships and they aren’t picky about individuals. However, when they desire sex, they can be very pushy about desiring it. They will sometimes mount males in addition to forming courtships with and mounting other females. This increased sex drive means that they are more likely to produce offspring because, even if they spend a few courtships with other females, they’ll (usually) end up in courtships with males too. Female-female sexual relationships tend to follow the same evolutionary patterns that male-female sexual relationships do, as in, they avoid incestuous pairing. Since the female-female sexuality has no negative impact on overall female fertility, there is no reason for this high level of overall sexuality to be reduced.

Capuchin monkeys (who are thought to be similar to us in terms of their social evolution) also have a high sex drive which sometimes leads to same-sex pairings. However, they also use male-male sexual behavior as a way to form male bonds. Males form sexual relationships with each other as a way to promote brotherhood and express affection. Males will also make up after fights with sex. The use of sex to form bonds is such that individuals will behave aggressively towards two males having sex together if they don’t want those males to form bonds. Generally, the more two males have sex with each other, the stronger the bond is between them. Since capuchin males do a lot of intergroup fighting (like humans), these bonds are absolutely essential for a male’s survival and reproductive ability. Males that have stronger bonds with strong mates survive longer than those without. When individuals try to overthrow the alpha, those who have strong alliances do a much better job at succeeding than those trying without support from other males.

Because these male-male bonds are so important, there is a lot of male-male sexual behavior in general. Adult males don’t always have sex with the individuals that will be most beneficial to them. In one of our groups an adult male, Pitufo, developed quite the crush on a younger male named Thoreau. As Thoreau was young, low-ranking, and would be emigrating from the group, there was no benefit to Pitufo in forming this bond. This bond might’ve helped Thoreau had Pitufo been nearby when he was attacked by a boa. By the time Pitufo arrived on the scene, it was too late and, although Pitufo fought off the snake the best he could, Thoreau died and Pitufo went quite crazy with grief, acting even more upset and angry than Thoreau’s father. These non-beneficial male-male relationships appear to have developed as a side effect from a selection towards increased male-male sexual activity in general.

In humans, similar activity has been observed with several cultures which had ritualized male-male sexuality that was associated with warriors. In parts of Europe, Japan, and Malasia, male-male sexual activity was part of the warrior cult and helped promote greater male cohesion during conflict. Selective pressure on male bonding in both humans and non-human primates could very easily result in individuals who engage in male-male sex for the majority of their sexual pairings.

Like capuchins, bonobos also engage in homosexual behavior in order to form friendships and increase bonds, although, as most groups consist of male kin living with male kin, their homosexual behavior tends to involve more females. Humans live and work in groups where both males and females are forced to work with and rely on non-kin (more than any other primate species), so increased bonding on both sexes would be very helpful.

Among chimps, there isn’t such a need for the bonds to take place. Chimps live in small groups where the males are all closely related and the females forage in such an environment that forming bonds with other females is more costly than beneficial. However, we do observe homosexual behavior in chimps, even to the point where there is a recorded instance of a female chimp who only showed sexual interest in the other females and never permitted a male to mate with her. The mechanisms of why this would develop in chimps has not been fully answered and it may have remained because of evolutionary history. That is, homosexual behavior may have been beneficial in the past and hasn’t yet been selected against because it isn’t deleterious enough for the species to be removed.

Although humans are less kin-selected than a lot of species (a lot of insect societies have individuals committing suicide for the good of the group), we still exhibit a surprising amount of behaviors that suggest there still remains evolutionary pressures to put the group ahead of the individual at times. Although group selection is a relatively weak force, it can be really influential, especially for primates which live in large groups and have intense social bonds. We send our children off to war, to religious institutions, and humans are known to devote their lives to causes which result in no offspring for themselves. Contrary to being evolutionary puzzles, these behaviors make sense when you consider the net benefit to a culture which enables that culture to overtake over ones. For example, when Christianity was trying to spread through pagan Rome, the practice of Christians caring for individuals who were sick with the plague resulted in more individual Christians dying for the sake of the group, but in the increased spread of the group itself. This behavior isn’t contrary to evolution at all. It’s simply contrary to an incomplete idea of what evolution is and how it works. Too much selfish behavior and the group breaks down and no one benefits. Most supposedly selfless, non-reproductive behaviors can be evolutionarily explained.