What's the purpose of homosexuality in humans?

[MikeW]

...I never said gays can't procreate, however given their proclivities to not do it the old fashion way (and unless I'm mistaken prehistoric man did not have turkey basters), they would most likely not have bothered with having sex for the purpose of having children. …

First, the comment to which you were responding was directed at memechose's hypothesis. But even so, you're assuming a sexual identity that for all we know didn't even exist in prehistoric cultures. Do we have *any* archeological evidence of prehistoric homosexuals *period,* let alone abstaining from heterosexual activity?

You go on to criticize the influence of civilization on archaic humanity--with which I would not argue too much. Through it we've gradually lost contact with the intimate rhythms and cycles of the earth and its place in the cosmos (especially since the mid 1800s).

But the point I'm making is that we (the inheritors of more than 2 millennia of civilization) are *assuming* these prehistoric people experienced their sexuality much the same way we do. You're assuming homosexual men in those cultures would have abstained from sex with women, just as most of us do. I seriously doubt that. I seriously doubt it even occurred to them to look at sexual activity and divide it up that way.

I seriously doubt these archaic people experienced life much the way we do *at all*. I'm of the opinion that each culture experiences a reality quite unique from any other and any attempt of one culture to "understand" another is bound to be limited to the number of cultural correspondences between them. There are so few areas of correspondence between contemporary technological humanity and prehistoric cultures I don't believe we can even begin to imagine what they *saw*, what they *felt*, what "reality" *was* for them. They didn't SEE the same world we do, the same universe we do. Everything--and perhaps especially sexual activity--"meant" something for them that we know little to nothing about.

Of course I could be totally wrong. Just saying what I think, here.

[MikeW]

I know homosexuals can and do breed. Listen to Dawkins tell about the "sneaky fucker theory" in the video Jaxc put up.

I think his more interesting point is toward the end when he's talking about the "gay gene only manifesting as gay behavior under certain environmental circumstances." This (to my psychedelicized brain) makes more sense but is still a bit too much of a culturally biased (near clinical) perspective.

I think that to understand this question we need to understand *what sex itself is* and *what it is for* beyond the obvious of procreation. Absent that we're apt to chase our tales for a very long time.

Edit to add: HINT: It is *the* one universal experiences of ecstasy that all human beings across all cultural boundaries share in common and, apparently, have from the beginning.

[larafan25]

The thing about straight men turning to gay porn, I'm like... I'm the reverse of that.

Anyways. I developed the idea that the purpose of homosexuality was the same as heterosexuality, as it doesn't seem different to me. I'm horny, isn't that the nature instinct to reproduce?

I mean, I'm basically a chick I guess.

I mean, if someone can be born with a twin attached to their back, can't this whole deal mutate as well?

IDK. But these are seriously interesting theories. I love the idea that I'm ... like... a purposeful, scientific animal creature. I would love to go back in time and see our monkey-ish ancestors treating my kind with respect and a strong, familial bond.

[Virge]

Do you have brothers/sisters? If so, chances are high that they share your exact genetic material (Same mom, same dad - IDK, where their milkmen around your conception date? :tongue.

The majority of families of several siblings have one or two homosexual members the rest are straight. The survival of the DNA is met through your brothers/sisters.

Being gay you are most likely susceptible to allowing others to use you to their advantage, I bet your sister calls you at all odd hours to ask you to watch her kids and you agree because you are the sensitive type, not wanting confrontation - besides you love your little nieces/nephews - so it works for you - well on those lonely single Friday nights where your totally through with men as it is and this gives you a great way to deny you are totally turned off by the prospect of going club jumping to find a potential mate. your other straight gay friends will be disappointed, but they will understand that the needs of the nieces/nephews come first.

In the end, your being gay makes you available to watch the nieces and nephews today. Back in the day when families stuck together it meant that when you joined the hunt or the foraging, your productivity being equal to any other adult but with no direct offspring to feed yourself meant the whole tribe (who were largely blood relatives mind you) benefited.

While you may not have personally passed on your genetic code, your brothers/sisters did and you helped to insure that DNA survived by all the hard work you put in all for the interest of your nephews and nieces.

This all fits very well with survival of the species, survival of the DNA.

IF we uncover evidence that this is the purpose gays, I doubt that we will see a mass purging of homosexuals, instead we may start to understand that the needs of children is far more than just one or two parents can meet and we may actually start healing that horrific wound to the real family unit.

Bowyn you are reading my thoughts! I'd call you a cupid stunt but I'm gonna do a triple layer tin foil hat and hang my cookie sheets on the ceiling to stop it. LOL.

See the video Jaxc posted.

[Virge]

Running with doggers is *always* more important than anything else (especially happening online). Hope you're having oodles of fun!

They are really cool about telling me what time it is... I swear they can tell time.


One thing I have forgotten to add into this...... What causes a human brain, in let;s say a female to be so masculinzed that the woman feels like a man trapped in a female body? Hormones during the 6th through 13th to 15th week in the womb.... the same as produces homosexual males and females due to lower levels of the same same hormonal influences. No genes involved.

[MikeW]

I can only describe it by today's vocabulary... back then, sex was recreational with whomever willing, and also used for reproduction. There wasn't the stigma of same sex coupling there is now. I'm sure it even went much deeper than that too (no pun) as often in the animal kingdom males will mount males to show dominance. I'm sure humans did that as well, too.

I think this is fairly accurate but attitudes about sexual activity *and its meaning* varied across cultures. Here is one of the oldest artifacts we have from prehistoric times:

The oldest rock art ever found in Europe reveals an interest in the female form - and the type of décor that the first Europeans preferred for their living spaces.

The new discovery, uncovered at a site called Abri Castanet in France, consists mainly of circular carvings most likely meant to represent the vulva. The carvings were etched into the ceiling of a now-collapsed rock shelter about 37,000 years ago, researchers reported Monday (May 14) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

…

The site is among the oldest rock art spots in the world, White said. Though modern Homo sapiens arose almost 200,000 years ago, our ancestors left no traces of art until about 40,000 years ago, he said. What the Aurignicians were doing was groundbreaking.

"It's important to think of all of this as an invention," White said.

Vulva imagery may have been of special interest because of a preoccupation with fertility and the mystery of birth, he said….

Source.

Well, alright but is it a "vulva"? I see a circle crossed by an incised vertical line which can be seen as *either* an opening *or* a penetration *or both at once*: Thus, a symbol of unification of all things (much like the yin/yang); the prototype of the axis mundi and world tree…







Which would become the Great Work; the unification of heaven and earth:



ETA: The "decoration" comment in the description of the most ancient artifact can't be allowed to stand. It is dismissive and diminutive. These are symbols that represent our ancient ancestors' ability to abstract from their experience fundamental, universal concepts such as unity within diversity. These were not "decor" they are truly sacred aspirations that lie at the foundations of our human consciousness.

[Virge]

I acknowledged in my first post that yours is a reasonable and interesting hypothesis. My question is, is it testable?

I'd like to throw into this discussion the following diagram:



For the first 200,000 years of human habitation, global population remained below (ETA *well* below) 1 billion. However, it has quadrupled in my lifetime alone. This is a staggering historical anomaly due in large measure to the successful application of science to agriculture and many other things. However, it should also be evident that population growth of this magnitude is unsustainable in a closed ecological system with limited resources. Thus, population growth now threatens species survival as it never has before. This would suggest significant stress in the global population due to competition for resources which, if your hypothesis is correct, should be leading to increased birthing of 'non breeders'. I've yet to see any research suggesting that homosexuality is increasing at a rate disproportionate to the population. Yet as we see, if there were ever a 'survival need' for 'non breeders' (an assumption I question), now would certainly be it.

How do you see this in light of your hypothesis?

Click on the graph and see the years in which the population begins to escalate.
Just before you posted this I mentioned the early 1800s when people made the connection between sanitation and the diseases that had held the population down at a relatively stable level for eons... How does it fit into this model? In terms of all aspects of evolution you're talking about a blink of an eye between 1800 and 2014.... Not enough time for the new stressors to cause in any difference in the percentage of sex variances in the human population.

I also think the reason that this is purely hormonal may one day be proven that a stable percentage of sex variance was such a vital part of human social development that it wasn't made genetic where interbreeding and cultural isolation could alter it and upset the balance... just imagine a remote island population developing a 25% non breeding sex variance... They'd be extinct in a few hundred years. as a genetically determined sex variance continued to increase.

[MikeW]

I'll never understand this "saved post" feature that won't allow you to quote someone you're trying to reply to errgggg

[MikeW]

I also think the reason that this is purely hormonal may one day be proven that a stable percentage of sex variance was such a vital part of human social development that it wasn't made genetic where interbreeding and cultural isolation could alter it and upset the balance... just imagine a remote island population developing a 25% non breeding sex variance... They'd be extinct in a few hundred years. as a genetically determined sex variance continued to increase.

This is a valid point. Are we sure it hasn't happened?

[Virge]

So, I read. I try and follow. I sort of understand. Its still a stretch.

In the flotsam and jetsam of the comments, two stand out:
1. homosexuality is in essence in place for population control or to strengthen the population by having fewer 'breeders' Non breeding sex variation in humans at pretty constant low percentages in family clan populations provides a disproportionally better chance of the survival of the family's gene line over populations with no non breeding sex variations. Look at the way wasps work, or mole rats, or wolves, or beavers, or many others.
2. homosexuals may or may not breedtheir primary purpose is not to breed but serve as "extra hands" in all matters, food, protection and all forms of crafts that would enhance the survival of the gene line they are in. Just consider having three strong resourceful gay men in a clan who attract and form pair bonds with with three more just like them... then you see how that would be a HUGE benefit to a small band of hunter gatherers.

Fuzzy logic on both of these. Its seems that somehow in the processes involved in creating the homosexual individual, that the individual also became sterile. I say this for homosexuals are still able to reproduce - not generally same sex to same sex, but across the sexes. We know people on this forum with biological offspring that were conceived through the tried and true male-female coupling process.

I am totally missing something here.

[COLOR="Red"]Just start thinking of sex variations instead of homosexuality which will include transgendered people who are just examples of the extremes of fetal hormone levels on the developing brain,

As I mentioned to MileW earlier I have a communication problem expressing complicated abstract ideas in an easily digested format --- but in my mind all of this is as simple as first grade math.

Answering questions is the best way for me to explain it. So ask.[/COLOR]