Replies

There is evidence (not overwhelming) that homosexuality may have genetic influences. There is even a good argument for genetic homosexuality. It goes like this. Ahem (visualize weedy professor here, chalk dust on nerdy pants with one of those sweaters with the elbow patches.)

The human condition for most of human existance has been tribal. Wolves have packs, sheep have flocks, cattle herd, and people lived in tribes.

Now visualize an advantage to family groups where, say, a couple of guys never "mate" (with women.) They are going to be somebodies brothers and uncles. They bring in game from hunting, or make arrowheads, whatever. The thing is, their "income" is given to the family units of their brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces. Not their own.

They don't have to reproduce themselves. For recessive genes, the genes will be passed on by their brothers and sisters. So - there is a selective advantage to having a small (say 2% or 3%) of the males to be oriented to not mate with females. The advantage goes directly to their immediate extended family and then to the tribe.

They produce more resources than they consume! This can be significant when you consider how close to the edge of survival exist most tribes. A tough winter, a mammoth stepping on a couple hunters, etc. Having a couple contributors who don't have continuously pregnant "wives" and a pack of kids who would otherwise get first dibs on their provinder...that can make the difference on a tribe surviving or not.

This hypothesis explains why there may be a genetic advantage to having a small percentage of males oriented towards homosexuality. (There may be an equal number of females so oriented, but in a tribal society, unless they become shaman/witches/herb girls and so have enough value to be left alone, they get "mated" whether they will or not.) Note this works only for tribes or packs, but not herds (where a dominant male will mate with most females.)

Got it? So there is a hypothesis that explains why there could be a genetic predisposition for a small amount of homosexuality among humans. (Doesn't prove it one way or another, of course.)

Pretty far fetched hypothesis, imo.

Also...if it is genetic then why don't gays have physical characteristics that accomodate this? For example: Gay men should have vagina like qualities to their anus to accommodate their different mode of sexual intercourse. Women should have -- I don't know -- something to accommodate theirs. As it is now all they do for "intercourse" is mutually masturbate. According to the Democrats, that isn't sex.

In short: If gays evolved that way then why didn't -- in the course of natural selection and evolution -- they also get different body parts that support their behavior?