Homosexuality is Evolution?

I am pondering an idea, a hypothesis. I have not studied it, and have not ever heard it suggested. This is just a concept that came to mind, and I thought I would put it here for you and look for your input.

Could our present place in the evolutionary process be the reason for a rise in homosexuality? Now first of all, maybe we are not experiencing a rise in homosexual behavior, but we just hear about it more. Maybe we are having a rise in homosexuals or maybe we will in the future.

Many years ago species fought to survive. Reproduction was high on the priority list. It was necessary for the survival of the species. Reproduction is no longer as high on the priority list for long term survival. Humans are not in danger of becoming extinct. It seem that a rise in homosexuality would not hurt Homo Sapien’s chance to survive at this point.

I also think that there may not be a need for out physical bodies to evolve any longer. We can built or create anything we need to accomplish any task we come across. Our bodies need nothing more. So what is the next step in evolution? Brain capacity! Could it be that our stage in evolution is mostly or strictly cerebral at this point?

It seems reasonable that our best way to move forward  is to think more and be more creative. We can understand our universe and we can create things never before conceived.

If, in fact, our creativity and mental processes are expanding could it be that we have reached a place where homosexuality is becoming more natural? Maybe, our natural sense of beauty has become more important, in a growing segment of people, than our natural instinct to reproduce.

It seems reasonable that if we are more creative or evolving our creativity we could see beauty in both sexes and we could find new ways to pleasure and be pleasured. Sexual variety would be stimulating.  We could more naturally explore stimulation when reproduction is not the driving force behind sexual encounters.

It seems that women naturally see beauty easier than men. In many cases, they can instinctively find other women attractive. Everyone likes comfort. Both men and women enjoy the softness and gentleness of a maternal figure. Could it be that those tendencies provide the base for creativity and sexuality to increase same-sex desires in women?

Could it be that men no longer need to feel as threatened by other men? Could the instinct to reproduce with females be subsiding a bit because our species is safe from extinction and we can dominate all other species? Men can explore their desires for other men without as much fear of a struggle for dominance?

Could it also be that an increase in homosexuality is better for us? Could we instinctively realize that a higher percentage of homosexuals could slow our population rate as we come to understand that our natural resources are finite? We need to fine ways to be more efficient with the earth, develop the ability to tap resources outside of our atmosphere, and even look to start expanding our habitat beyond our planet. Could it be homosexuality could be a evolutionary balance to human longevity and depletion of our habitat?

Could we be at a place where homosexuality is not just increasing, but is a part of our evolution? Could it be that homosexuality is useful or even necessary?

I would like your feedback!!!! It will be interesting to see where this goes!

 

 

38 comments

  1. Brad D · February 25, 2016

    In many other species that demonstrate homosexual behaviors, the primary natural purpose they seem to demonstrate is to take care of young when a heterosexual couple is no longer able to. Homosexual couples in nature are a marginal percentage of the overall population, and that number seems to stay fairly consistent.

    I don’t have any hard numbers for humans, and they would be difficult to obtain considering how many homosexuals remain “in the closet” as the phrase goes, but I’d be willing to bet the numbers we show would also follow this trend.

    Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · February 25, 2016

      Maybe so, but maybe our numbers will increase. We have set ourselves from all other species in so many ways.

      Like

  2. archaeopteryx1 · February 25, 2016

    According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, about 20 percent of the population is attracted to their own gender.

    In a study termed, “Behavioral changes due to overpopulation in mice,”

    Previous research has found that if a population were allowed to exceed a comfortable density level, then many catastrophic events occurred such as increased mortality among the young, cannibalism, homosexuality, and lack of maternal functions.

    I’m not implying that homosexuality is ‘wrong,‘ just that, in order to be perfectly objective, there may, in some cases, be mitigating factors.

    I don’t doubt that people of any persuasion would disagree that the world needs to reduce its human population – the stock market wouldn’t agree, as they need consumers, but ecologically, it’s a fact.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. oftenbetterthanfine · February 25, 2016

    Evolution (as I understand) doesn’t work primarily on the species level, but on the level of the individual. Does a particular trait provide a genetic advantage towards selection. There will be implications on the species level, but homosexuality would not seem to provide a positive selective advantage for the individual, unless it’s accompanied by other factors. This says nothing about ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’, it’s simply the way sexual selective pressures function.
    If homosexuality is primarily genetic then removing stigma and allowing freedom of sexual expression may selectively reduce its incidence within the population.
    If homosexuality is primarily socially conditioned then these same factors may increase its incidence.

    Is genetic selection, or memetic selection the more powerful factor?

    I have no idea, but I am convinced that it does reflect a maturity of human culture when we can accept other humans for whoever they are!

    Liked by 2 people

    • archaeopteryx1 · February 25, 2016

      At the risk of sounding like, “Some of my best friends are Black,” I have friends of all sexual persuasions. I’m heterosexual, and so far, no one has complained about that, so why should I complain about any one else’s sexual persuasion?

      Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · February 25, 2016

        Yeah, but have you ever had your “black friends” over for dinner?

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · February 25, 2016

        I invite a few to drop by on occasion —

        Like

    • adisillusionist · February 25, 2016

      So, the maturity of human culture to accept one another I think, has come about because of our evolution. That acceptance has allowed for our creativity as it involves in our sexuality to explore homosexuality in an increasing number of people because it we aren’t as internally motivated by procreation. At least that was one aspect I was pondering.

      Like

  4. awakeningToReason · February 25, 2016

    Fascinating question, and one I’ve wondered about! On one hand, while evolution doesn’t work _primarily_ on the species level, there still is that aspect, thus, for example, the rise of cooperative behaviors and even religious inclinations that lead to cooperation within a particular “in” group. Could it be that in many developed species, a subset of cooperative nurturers tends to develop – homosexuality being one characteristic that would encourage such a role?

    I have another pet thought coming from my senior year in high school (way back in the ’70s). It was a repressive and ugly time for sexual expression; homosexuality was looked at quite differently (as a pathology). Yet there may have been a silver lining from the types of studies that arose. I did a research paper and found a study that demonstrated homosexuality in mammalian species tends to rise dramatically in cases in overcrowding. Suppose overcrowding stressors lead to different genetic expressions; ultimately as a means of population control and greater good for the evolution of the species as it adapts to external competition? Nobody can argue that we are not far more crowded now – especially in our cities – than any species’ evolutionary norm. The mechanisms or survival rationale for such a theory need to be studied more, and no, I can no longer find the study. But it would be interesting to rekindle that question – and ultimately if it’s true, such knowledge could lead to better understanding, acceptance, and equality for all expressions of sexuality. After all, it would simply be one expression of a natural “population control” element in our makeup!

    Liked by 2 people

    • adisillusionist · February 25, 2016

      Interesting!

      Like

    • oftenbetterthanfine · February 25, 2016

      Yes, interesting.
      It makes me wonder about epigenetics which we’re only just beginning to understand.
      I wonder (and this is speculation, not scientifically supported at all) whether epigenetic influences might lead to increased incidence of certain traits. For example, overcrowding and constant social interaction with large numbers of people might lead to epigenetic traits predisposing towards (say) tribalism, sugar cravings, homosexual inclination, or any number of other things.
      I don’t know how you could test any of this scientifically, but I do wonder whether epigenetics has some role to play, which may make the “nature v nurture” debate re. homosexuality harder to untangle properly – at least for now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · February 25, 2016

        I had a science teacher once tell us that you can never separate heredity from environment.

        Liked by 1 person

      • oftenbetterthanfine · February 26, 2016

        I remember at School (my years ago) being told about Lamarckian evolution and everyone laughing at how idiotic it was, but I thought – I can’t help but wonder whether it’s trying to grasp at some truth which we’ll discover down the track.
        When I heard about epigenetics, I thought – maybe this is the mechanism by which organisms can react in a non-random way to their environment, so that evolution by natural selection involves (i) random mutation, (ii) non-random selection AND (iii) responsive/reactive adaptation?
        I haven’t kept up with the science at all, so don’t know what the current thinking is, but still, (in my ignorance) I find epigenetics very exciting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · February 26, 2016

        I will have to look up the whole thing. I am unfamiliar with epigenetics.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · February 26, 2016

        AD – I’m guessing you don’t have an email address, do you?

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · February 27, 2016

        I do, how can I get that to you privately?

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · February 27, 2016

        archaeopteryx@in-His-own-image.com

        You DO realize, I would hope, that you can easily create a throw-away email address anonymously, give it out, toss any unwanted emails into the spam folder, and when you no longer need it, delete it or simply never open it again.

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · February 27, 2016

        I have an anonymous email. Just easier for me to email privately than worry about deleting and whatnot.

        Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · February 27, 2016

        I don’t WANT to know who you are – if it ever got out, you would always wonder.

        Liked by 1 person

      • archaeopteryx1 · February 27, 2016

        I typed that before I got your response that your email addy was anonymous —

        Like

      • adisillusionist · February 27, 2016

        No problem, I always like the advice and hints

        Like

  5. tsentientpuddle · February 25, 2016

    Nice post. Some thoughts:

    “Many years ago species fought to survive. Reproduction was high on the priority list. It was necessary for the survival of the species. Reproduction is no longer as high on the priority list for long term survival. Humans are not in danger of becoming extinct. It seem that a rise in homosexuality would not hurt Homo Sapien’s chance to survive at this point.”

    Evolution does not look to the future for what is necessary for long term survival, and certainly not the survival of a species as a whole. It is a mechanistic natural process, working on individuals, that is not self regulating, and it only explains how something came to be, not how things might work well in the future. And because it is an explanation of history it is really only spoken about in the past tense.

    “I also think that there may not be a need for out physical bodies to evolve any longer. We can built or create anything we need to accomplish any task we come across. Our bodies need nothing more. So what is the next step in evolution? Brain capacity! Could it be that our stage in evolution is mostly or strictly cerebral at this point?”

    I think you are slightly misrepresenting things here. Evolution would not stop acting on the physical because there is no need for it. Rather there is no longer a “breeding” disadvantage to people with various physical attributes, so that the sexually selective pressure is no longer at work. The gene pool is not being affected in that way, or at least not as much as it was before the 20th Century let’s say. It seems to me that the same thing could be said about our brain capacity. Also, because air travel has effectively eliminated the separation of any members of our species, with the gene pool being spread world wide, it seems that selective pressure has disappeared as well. I think evolution has stalled a little bit because we have taken over the planet, and we no longer let physical (or mental) defects stop us from reproducing our DNA for another generation.

    “It seems reasonable that our best way to move forward is to think more and be more creative. We can understand our universe and we can create things never before conceived.”

    I agree, though I don’t think that evolution is going to help us there, unless we somehow prevent the less creative from having offspring. I don’t think that’s what you’re proposing, so really this is just a cultural change.

    “If, in fact, our creativity and mental processes are expanding could it be that we have reached a place where homosexuality is becoming more natural? Maybe, our natural sense of beauty has become more important, in a growing segment of people, than our natural instinct to reproduce.”

    Again, I think this is a cultural change rather than an evolutionary one. We become more accepting as a society and we make a safer place for all people. Does this increase homosexuality or just make it more likely for them to identify as such? As has been mentioned by others, that depends on the roll of genetics and upbringing on sexuality. It seems likely that there is a healthy mix of both involved.

    And if a growing segment of people become more interested in beauty than having offspring, then their DNA will die with them, and there will be fewer of them in the next generation. The next generation will have more individuals whose DNA is more concerned about reproducing. See how this does not bode well for some kind of equilibrium?

    “Could it be that men no longer need to feel as threatened by other men? Could the instinct to reproduce with females be subsiding a bit because our species is safe from extinction and we can dominate all other species? Men can explore their desires for other men without as much fear of a struggle for dominance?”

    The problem with this, is that we are not a hive species such as ants, who truly cooperate, with the majority of them not reproducing at all, but sharing a common genetic material that gets passed on to the next generation. We all have our own individual DNA, and the factors that make it reproduce better than another individuals DNA means there will be more of it in successive generations. Any gay individual is going to be less better at passing on their DNA than a heterosexual individual, for obvious reasons. What this means is that if there is a “gay gene” then it is probably carried by “straight people”. Assuming we are looking at “gay” and “straight” as binary opposites with most people at one end of the spectrum or the other. I think most of us probably exist in the 50 shades of grey in the middle. More on that below.

    “Could it also be that an increase in homosexuality is better for us? Could we instinctively realize that a higher percentage of homosexuals could slow our population rate as we come to understand that our natural resources are finite? We need to fine ways to be more efficient with the earth, develop the ability to tap resources outside of our atmosphere, and even look to start expanding our habitat beyond our planet. Could it be homosexuality could be a evolutionary balance to human longevity and depletion of our habitat?”

    Again, unfortunately, evolution does not look to the future, or even the present, and act in the best interest of the species. It acts on the individuals, and at the end of the day (actually at the end of a long period of time) what benefited the individual either helped a species to flourish or made it go extinct. Almost always it is the latter.

    Now as you say we are a special species, because we can look into the future and see what our actions as a whole can do to the survival of our species. But we can’t “evolve a percentage of society gay” because it will help us survive. Our individual DNA is going to do what it does and Evolution, to be blunt, will be nobody’s bitch.

    “Could we be at a place where homosexuality is not just increasing, but is a part of our evolution? Could it be that homosexuality is useful or even necessary?”

    There is one thing I want to address regarding homosexuality. It is generally put forward as an either or proposition, but I think it far more likely that the vast majority of us are bisexual to a degree, and we all exist on a sliding scale. I think people are a lot more malleable than the groups in which we are generally pigeon holed. For example, I am sure we are all aware of the one child policy of China, the lack of value of females in that society, and how, after a few decades, that has resulted in a country with a vastly skewed ratio of men to women. I wonder if the instance of homosexual males in that country would be likewise increased because of the situation they have created for themselves? I also hope it will give the value/power to the women in that society so they can kick some arse and sort things out.

    Anyway, that is a way I could see homosexuality increasing. That couldn’t be an evolutionary change, but rather a cultural one that was born out of our evolution up to this point. The need for love and companionship in conjunction with a drastic decreasing of the number of opposite gender partners available.

    Anyway, I’ve waffled on long enough. Someone disagree with me and tell me where I’m wrong. 🙂

    Shane

    Liked by 3 people

    • adisillusionist · February 25, 2016

      Very good post! First, I obviously am not an evolutionary expert. I am realizing that maybe I presented the concept wrong here. I don’t necessarily mean evolution is guiding man. I don’t mean it is trying to control population or our sexuality. I think it may be more that evolution has come to a place where our culture allows for an increase in homosexuality and our creativity and mental capacity embraces it. I was also thinking, because mutations that serve a purpose tend to stick around may be why homosexual behavior is being more accepted culturally.

      I so agree that sexuality is not a 2 choice subject. I thought about including bisexuals, transgender, etc., but I felt like the post was rather long and I had already bit off more than I can chew.

      I like your clever use of 50 shades!

      Liked by 1 person

      • tsentientpuddle · February 26, 2016

        “I don’t mean it is trying to control population or our sexuality. I think it may be more that evolution has come to a place where our culture allows for an increase in homosexuality and our creativity and mental capacity embraces it.”

        There are many studies that show that our sexuality is rooted in our experience is children. People with a foot fetish, for example, can have a strong memory from their childhood regarding their mother’s feet, or her shoes, or something like that. I think our base sexual preference, being straight or gay, is probably also based in childhood upbringing (coupled with our DNA). I think it would be very hard to try and nail down a cultural difference, that affected the raising of children, that caused an increase in homosexuality. And I think it would be harder still to show that evolution was responsible for that cultural difference. I am interested in any specifics that you can think of though. 🙂

        What I’m saying is, homosexuality doesn’t increase in a society just because it becomes culturally acceptable. It increases when there is an increase in the factors that cause homosexuality. So, if you want to make some proposals about how evolution could be responsible for an increase of those factors, and more importantly, what those factors might be, we can really try and get to the bottom of things.

        Of course, we still haven’t established that there is an increase in homosexuality. 🙂

        Shane

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · February 26, 2016

        Yeah, Like I said nothing but an idea. I am going to look into stuff people post here to look further into it. But I don’t want to just go find evidence for my idea. That is the wrong mindset. I just want to understand everything better and this post was a product of trying to look at things differently.

        Thanks for the post. More things to consider.

        Like

      • tsentientpuddle · February 27, 2016

        So your last reply reminded me of this. Beware the strong language.

        Make the observation. Ask the question. Form the Hypothesis. Conduct the experiment. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · February 27, 2016

        Cant watch it right now, but thank you. I will soon. By the way, there is no language that would offend me, but thanks for the heads up. Other’s may enjoy watching it and need the warning.

        Like

      • tsentientpuddle · February 27, 2016

        Yeah, it was more a “Don’t watch this with small children.” kind of warning.

        Liked by 1 person

      • adisillusionist · February 27, 2016

        Ok

        Like

  6. ubi dubium · February 25, 2016

    Most of what you mentioned wouldn’t affect evolution, because that is affected by reproductive success of individuals, not by what would be nice for our society. I can see a way that having a genetic trait (if it is simply genetic) of a fairly high incidence of homosexuality could be helpful: If my children have a gay uncle who also helps care for them and looks out for their interests, then they may have an improved chance of reproductive success. Especially in the days of large families, having a few of the many children grow up to be caretakers for their siblings’ children, instead of reproducing themselves, might have increased the overall reproductive success of the family. So having those genes passed down in the family would be selected for.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. RichardOfOxford · February 27, 2016

    In classical Greece, same-sex love and opposite-sex marriage coexisted comfortably, and often in the same man. So a tolerant attitude towards homosexual desire need have no impact on the reproduction rate.

    Yes, they allowed gays in the military. In fact, gays were welcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

    Here’s a different connection you can think about. In the days of “lie back and think of England”, there was a great deal of non-consensual sex supported by the structure of society, and probably also of involuntary chastity. So homosexuality, if approved, would lead to men being raped often. (As probably happened in classical Greece, except it would have been mostly slaves who were raped.) Therefore it was disapproved and driven into the shadows. But in the last few generations, as sex became another area in which individual rights were recognised and respected, the idea of letting men make advances to other men became less frightening, because those other men could simply say “No”, as I have done on more than one occasion.

    Liked by 1 person

    • archaeopteryx1 · February 28, 2016

      Yes, they allowed gays in the military. In fact, gays were welcome

      Actually, it went further than that, young mean – boys, really – were apprenticed to older soldiers. The older soldiers taught them the art of warfare, while the apprentices were expected to serve and service the experienced soldiers. War is hell.

      Like

  8. archaeopteryx1 · February 28, 2016

    AD – did you encounter a problem using the email address I left for you? I’ve been watching for an email that hasn’t so far come.

    Like

    • adisillusionist · February 28, 2016

      I am having trouble on my end. I have been two days without being able to get into my email. I will be in a different city tomorrow. I will get to that email to you tomorrow or Monday.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 · February 28, 2016

        No problem, I just didn’t want it to accidentally get caught by the Spam filter, so everytime I see a piece of spam in the spam folder, I check to see if it’s from you. Take your time, I just wanted to be sure the problem wasn’t on my end.

        Like

      • adisillusionist · February 28, 2016

        Nope, it is on my end.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Alan · February 29, 2016

    It sounds a little like you think homosexuality is a recent thing, or a humans-only thing. Neither is the case. First, remember that ancient civilizations had people with same-sex attractions in them (which is why the Old Testament comments on the topic; it was already a thing 3000 years ago, and it probably predated writing). Furthermore, same-sex attraction has been observed in hundreds of non-human animals, and appears to be widespread in the natural world. There’s nothing new or unusual about gay people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

    Liked by 1 person

    • adisillusionist · February 29, 2016

      Actually, I not believe either. I was just contemplating how homosexuality and it’s acceptance is changing. I was also trying to think of where it may be going in the future. Then that lead me to postulate why that might be the case.

      I really had no evidence to support any of it. I really just wanted to throw the idea out there and get feedback.

      There are so many intelligent people that I would never get to pick their brains and learn from if it wasn’t for this blog. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to learn.

      I appreciate your post and link!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s