What's the purpose of homosexuality in humans?

[Iceblink]

#2. if human homosexuality is ever proven to be caused by genetics and genetics alone we will be the only species whose sexual variances are not caused by hormones. Do you want to place a bet on those odds?[/QUOTE]

It says this in the article:
It’s hard to use these techniques to detect genetic variants associated with male homosexuality, because many gay men prefer not to be open about their sexuality. It is even harder because twin studies show that shared genes are only part of the story; hormones, birth order and environment play roles too.

[CellarDweller]

Why does it have to have a purpose? Why can't it just 'be'?

[Virge]

The same basic thing that causes wrasses and clownfish to change sex and mole rat females to transform into adults and increase their length 30% in 45 days ----- STRESS FACTORS. Any of many stresses on pregnant mothers could lead to her doing something hormonal that triggers a hormonal response in the fetus... but heterocentric science is too busy looking the other way on the issue.

We know that a gay male fetus is the result of low fetal testosterone from 6 to 14 weeks gestation... AND
We know that a gay female fetus is the result of HIGH fetal testosterone....

So ..............
what happens to a female fetus that gets the low testosterone that produces a gay male?
What happens to a male fetus that gets the high levels that produce a gay female?

ALL of these four possible sex variances would be of more benefit to a stressed out clan's survival than plain old "banalis heterosexualis."

[Borg69]

... perhaps we're looking TOO hard into this. Isn't it pretty well known that BC, the Ancient Greeks/Pagans were to a greater degree at least bi, up until the Christian brain washing took over convincing us all that same sex relations are a forbidden sin?

[Bowyn Aerrow]

My old long theory is that when humans where hunter gathers living in nomadic tribes, they required a few more adults to tend to the young.

With more recent findings that women who are more fertile tend to have more gay male offspring at a certain later age, this seems to uphold the aspect that evolution did not make a mistake. higher fertility means more kids, if 1 or 2 later in the birthing years are gay, this is off set by the 4-6 that were born and will produce offspring.

As for my theory that its a need for more adults, I base this on the number of homosexual males and females I know that have an affinity toward mentoring children, be it as a teacher, or be is as the great Uncle or Aunt that the kids love and adore and that the parents always seem to leave the kids with.

Now with new findings that gay parents make slightly better parents, and that children seem to be more comfortable around gay men than straight men, it would appear (to me) that not only does homosexuality serve in the fertility department, it also gave a social use for the gay/lesbian members who would grow up, become productive adults without stressing or over loading the tribe with more children needing attention and adults to feed and take care of.

Considering that most of human history surrounds the large family, with several generations living all under the same roof, the on going need for more adults to tend the young seems to have been present as a social pressure to keep some of us from being procreatory, but still able to tend to the young.

No one else dares approach the subject in this manner. Most fear that I'm saying that the nuclear family is unnatural, sick and depraved.

BTW, the nuclear family IS unnatural, sick and depraved. Its a product of the consumer era as a way to sell more houses and households full of crap.

[matty7]

I agree with Cellarweller , its is what it is ,,,nature has its ways

[Virge]

... perhaps we're looking TOO hard into this. Isn't it pretty well known that BC, the Ancient Greeks/Pagans were to a greater degree at least bi, up until the Christian brain washing took over convincing us all that same sex relations are a forbidden sin?

Borg hold that thought and bring it up later!!!!!!

I have researched that so far back it'll blow your mind! Don't blame it on christians. That's the simple view and its wrong.. Bring that up again after this thread

[Virge]

My old long theory is that when humans where hunter gathers living in nomadic tribes, they required a few more adults to tend to the young.

With more recent findings that women who are more fertile tend to have more gay male offspring at a certain later age, this seems to uphold the aspect that evolution did not make a mistake. higher fertility means more kids, if 1 or 2 later in the birthing years are gay, this is off set by the 4-6 that were born and will produce offspring.

As for my theory that its a need for more adults, I base this on the number of homosexual males and females I know that have an affinity toward mentoring children, be it as a teacher, or be is as the great Uncle or Aunt that the kids love and adore and that the parents always seem to leave the kids with.

Now with new findings that gay parents make slightly better parents, and that children seem to be more comfortable around gay men than straight men, it would appear (to me) that not only does homosexuality serve in the fertility department, it also gave a social use for the gay/lesbian members who would grow up, become productive adults without stressing or over loading the tribe with more children needing attention and adults to feed and take care of.

Considering that most of human history surrounds the large family, with several generations living all under the same roof, the on going need for more adults to tend the young seems to have been present as a social pressure to keep some of us from being procreatory, but still able to tend to the young.

No one else dares approach the subject in this manner. Most fear that I'm saying that the nuclear family is unnatural, sick and depraved.

BTW, the nuclear family IS unnatural, sick and depraved. Its a product of the consumer era as a way to sell more houses and households full of crap.

THANK YOU BOWYN!!!!!!!!! YOU understand the entire idea! I've thought it back and researched it back to the lowest common denominators and it is the same basic story in all social species.>>> each adapts a sex strategy that best benefits the family and the species. The benefits of just 4 homosexuals PLUS their mates in a group of 100 hunters/gatherers is a huge advantage for their survival over groups without eight non breeding adults.

[MikeW]

Any of many stresses on pregnant mothers could lead to her doing something hormonal that triggers a hormonal response in the fetus...

I always suspected mom made me gay. To get back at my overly macho dad, if nothing else.

Seriously though, "many stresses" "could lead" doesn't give us much to go on in terms of scientifically verifiable hypotheses

[MikeW]

THANK YOU BOWYN!!!!!!!!! YOU understand the entire idea! I've thought it back and researched it back to the lowest common denominators and it is the same basic story in all social species.>>> each adapts a sex strategy that best benefits the family and the species. The benefits of just 4 homosexuals PLUS their mates in a group of 100 hunters/gatherers is a huge advantage for their survival over groups without eight non breeding adults.

Another problem here is you're *assuming* that homosexuals *do not breed*. I don't think history bares out this premise. To my anthropological knowledge, there is no 'unattained by western civilization' tribe that had 'non breeding adults', let alone exclusively given 'child rearing' responsibilities. (There certainly *have been* studies of unsullied tribal peoples who engage in socially sanctioned homosexual acts but this in no way related to our concept of 'sexual orientation').

This also begs the whole question of sexual orientation as it is understood and practice by humans outside our social (western) history.