Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 3673169" data-attributes="member: 29746">Of course, I agree with this.Where's my <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> smiley when I need him? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />This is where I think most explanations of the trait in evolutionary terms fail- people stop at the "well, it leads to not making offspring, so the gene can't get passed on and will die out. QED." The problem is this: from the perspective of evolution, the individual is irrelevant. What we must concern ourselves with is the survival of the gene (or whatever causes it- kahunaburger and Shemeska are of course correct pointing out that mere genes don't actually have much direct influence over complex traits like this), and that is typically carried by more than one individual.In other words, the survival of an individual does not matter in the long term, from an evolutionary perspective, as long as relatives of that individual- carrying many of the same genes- survive. Individual survival and replication doesn't matter so much as survival and prosperity of the family or clan, to put in in human terms. Thus, the question to ask is not whether a "gene" leads to homosexuality and thus its own eventual self-destruction, but rather- how such a "gene" enhances the survival of the homosexual's clan or family. Even if the homo never has children of his own- and note that, due to social pressures, many actually do even today- most of his biological traits will be shared by members of his family or clan, and so if he enhances their survival he thus enhances the survival of his genetic line without direct propagation.My own idea on this topic is that the studies that hint at homosexuality (in males at least) being related to an overabundance of testosterone in the womb, or even the homo's own body, are leading us towards the survivability enhancer. To wit, the prime characteristics of testosterone psychologically are that it increases sexual desire and aggressiveness. Add to this, the demonstrable fact that humans fight far more fiercely when defending things they love, and especially people they love.Now, most studies I've read of mankind's primitive beginnings suggest that our ancestors were loosely organized in tribal bands, with males typically providing hunting and front-line fighting, and females providing gathered food and defense. There's no particular reason to suspect that either males or females were more inclined toward crafting of tools or leadership, aside from the tendency of most male primates to try to force themselves into leadership positions and bully everybody else into going along with them. Child-rearing would be done mostly by the females and any adolescent or elderly males too young or too old and infirm to hunt reasonably well.If we accept that scenario of the dawn of human society, what use then would a homosexual male be? If he occurs as a result of more testosterone than his hetero clanmates, it would mean he's more aggressive than they are. This, in turn, would mean that when moved to fight, he would fight more fiercely. More interestingly, since a man would not typically hunt by himself, but rather with companions from the tribe, this primitive homosexual would spend much of his time near the healthiest, most virile and strong members of his clan- and would be placing himself in danger with them regularly. It is quite likely that he'd fall in love with one or more of them, at least on some level. This, in turn, means that he would fight more fiercely to defend them without even having other members of the tribe around. He would, in fact, fight more fiercely than a hetero man placed in the same situation. And in a life-or-death struggle, fierce fighting can often make the difference between life and death, as our friendly neighborhood D&D Barbarian teaches us. Finally, since combat is by nature dangerous and sometimes leads to deaths of clan members, we must look at the fact that if a straight man with one or more children was out hunting and got killed, this meant that the children would be down one parent and thus harmed by it. But if they lost their homosexual uncle, who had no children of his own, it would surely have a less traumatic effect in a social perspective.So to state my idea, finally and clearly, I believe that homosexual males were "designed by evolution" (if you will pardon the obviously-unscientific phrase) to be a clan's supply of expendable, front-line combat troops. We were Nature's own military for the human species. If this explanation is correct, it makes the anti-gay stance of several modern military organizations around the world more than a little ironic! If nothing else, this idea has some potential for coming up with fantasy civilizations and scenarios.</blockquote>

Verification