the hammer of homosexuality

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

Homosexuality is not bred out of the gene pool because of kin selection; it appears to have conferred an advantage in tribal settings to have a small percentage of members of those tribes (roughly 1 in 20) who did not produce mouths-to-feed (for most of our hunter-gatherer history, food was a scarce enough commodity that it was all but impossible to support groups of larger than 200 on that system of living, due to the difficulties of overgrazing and having to move on), yet who could serve in both the child-raising role and the hunter or gatherer roles.

We saw this archetype in most of the hunter-gatherer groups observed in historical times, when "civilized" (primarily-agricultural, that is) peoples encountered those groups and sent anthropologists to study them. In Native American culture, they are called the "third gender", and were often treated as spiritually significant, like "Medicine Men" and spiritual guides of the tribe, for instance.

It is only since the advent of the Agricultural Revolution, when food became exceedingly plentiful by comparison, that the notion of "breed as much as possible" became possible, let alone advantageous.

Google the concept of "kin selection". Genetics is not a simple matter of pass-down-by-individuals, in social animals like humans, but a matter of the survival of the tribe and the family-gene-pools within it. It's why we see homosexuality in every social animal we observe. It's also why meerkats (for instance) have behaviors that seem detrimental, like the ones who stand in high, exposed places and cry out when they see an approaching predator, yet are actually survival-enhancing because the one who dies to the predator on occasion nevertheless ensures that his kin make it to their hidey-holes in time.

---

This.. 'explanation' would only work is a social communal setting where the homosexuals creatures were still having hetrosexual sex. which deletes the idea of the 'pure homosexual' (who can not supposedly be aroused by the opposite sex) Otherwise the 'gay gene' (if it truly ever existed) would have been bred out of the gene pool (Per Darwin's theory not mine) a few dozen generations ago. Why? Because if the gay monkeys gay people descended from could not reproduce/Could not be aroused by the opposite sex) then their pure gay gene died with them, no matter how useful they were to the non gay monkey men. Which means that your 'explanation' then becomes a social/psychological Choice and not one genetically programed in. (Monkeys had gay sex because it was fun for that particular monkey, and not because it 'had to.')

A good example that dispels your explanation would be all the supposedly gay animals who do not commune in herds or packs/families (as your explanation demands for it's validation.)  The fact that non social creatures(One who does not live in any of the social structures you described) who still have homosexual tendencies proves that those animals simply chose to have sex with what they wanted, because it is pleasurable to them, yet could serve no purpose, or rather had no influence on the genetic make up of the species as a whole.

Because again if they were genetically hardwired to only find the same sex attractive their genetics would die with them in just a few generations, million of years ago. That would mean a pair of gay birds, or lions, wolves, ect are not examples of a species propagating the illusive 'gay gene', but the opposite. The prove that gay animals have sex because they chose to have gay sex for whatever reason. The same holds true with social creatures as well. Again, even if they help the group survive, they themselves would not be able to reproduce the prominent gene that makes a creature gay. Which again over time/Millions of years this trait would be bred out of the gene pool.

Maybe that is why genetic science make no claims to "Coming closer to finding the gay gene" And it maybe also why "psychologists/sociologists" seem to be the only ones making those claims. Or so goes my last 3 google searches

Well, on the one hand, you're right... bisexuality is more common than outright homosexuality, in humans and animals both. It's not a binary solution-set. Look up the Kinsey Scale, if you want to know what I mean.

It is clear by this point that homosexuality is not genetic, but epigenetic, relating to the developmental genes which switch on and off at varying times and durations in order to regulate the hormone environment in which the sexuality-governing regions of our brains (and endocrine system) develop. However, it is a "fixed" thing in adults, wherever they wind up landing on the Kinsey Scale, as demonstrated by experiments like the pheromone-detection blind studies.

And even if there is  a gene which has a variant that tends to allow for that epigenetic cascade to occur, it will not necessarily be bred out of a population due to natural selection pressure, due to the "mid-setting" of bi- or pan-sexuality and due to kin selection effects in social species.

With the exception of the ultra-right-wing conservative Christian group the Family Research Council, every serious study on the subject has shown that homosexuality is a fixed trait, and not a choice in individuals who develop as "Kinsey 6" homosexuals. Your suggestion that non-reproduction would automatically breed out of a gene pool is wrong for the same reason that childhood cancers don't breed out of gene pools, why warning-alert behaviors that are deleterious to the lookout but not to his kin group don't breed out, and why altruistic behaviors don't breed out. The first one is an example of a combination of genes that may not be harmful except in a particular combination that results in cancer, while the latter two have deleterious effects in the individual but are helpful to the genes of others who share the same basic gene-set as the individual who has the "deleterious" combination.

Please try to actually understand evolution, rather than bending an oversimplified version to suit your religious prejudices.