Study reveals potential evolutionary role for same-sex attraction

This doesn't explain anything about how homosexuality continues to perpetuate given the fact that homosexuals are much less likely to reproduce

This only explains how the eventual gene or something else might have value in nature; not what it's composed of. How come it suvives, in it self?

Actually, homosexuality is an artifact of all bird and mammal life, including humans, and has continued through the ages quite irrespective of any kinship behaviors, laws, persecution, discrimination, etc. One can only conclude from this data that homosexuality is intrinsic to all animal life, INCLUDING humans. Sex is good. Bonding is fostered by sex, all sex. Period. Full stop. It doesn't need to be explained. It just is. What needs to be explained scientifically is why anyone in their right mind continues to take exception to this rather unavoidable fact, or study it.

Increasing the odds of your nieces and nephews survival preserves part of the homosexual's genetic heritage because each of them has half of their uncle's genes. If there is one gene pair that is critical the homosexuality, each niece and nephew has half of the pair.

This kind of seems like grasping at straws to me. Completely removing morality from the debate, homosexuality does seem at this point to have a genetic component, but it obviously has a cultural component as well, and it seems very unlikely that every homosexual harbors this preference because of their genes. A more likely explanation is that it is simply a random mutation that pops up in a certain percentage of most species. There is a big difference between a mutation and an adaptation. And there just isn't really any way to spin homosexuality as providing some kind of reproductive advantage for the individual.

The limitation to this and similar studies is that they view homosexuality as a trait on its own, rather than as simply one of the more obvious of a genetic "grab bag" of traits. Homosexuals are born the way they are, there is no morality or choice invloved. However, homosexuals display a greater tendency towards left handedness, creativity, cleverness, schizophrenia and emotional problems.

These traits in a primitive setting where evolution has sway, alongside their ability to act as "super uncles" would create a slight advantage genetically to their relatives.

Intuitively, if the number of homosexuals in a given human population were too large, it would likely be unstable. The reason that homosexuality is common in certain animals is that it confers this small social advantage. In nature, even raising a survival/reproductive advantage 5% would mean a huge advantage longterm (generationally).

Homosexuality is only advantageous to social animals

Hehe couldn't help but throw in that last line of preaching, eh? Otherwise, great article.

Homosexuals are born the way they are, there is no morality or choice invloved.

Maybe so maybe so- who knows? May be epigenetic: expectant mothers see their population as filled to capacity and therefore 'neuter' a child in the womb. The animal kingdom has many examples, for instance a doe rabbit will absorb her unborn fetus if a warren is filled to capacity. Genetic advantage could be seen in the improved chances for survival of her other offspring or relatives, or herself. This could be the reason why Samoan society accepts their '3rd sex' so readily- islands experience chronic overpop problems.

Ignore the troll- shes exposing herself again.

I think the researchers miss the point. The homosexual individual does not gain as much in terms of passing on of gene content from helping the children of their siblings as the parents of the homosexual individual do. Having an additional child that does not compete with your other progeny for limited and available reproducing individuals would be a boon to the survival of your own genetic content.

This is why, I think, you will see those people who otherwise campaign against or object to homosexuality will be more likely to be accepting of their own children if they wind up being homosexuals. Not that they justify it this way, or think about about it at such a scientific level.

This article doesn't mention the role of homosexual men during a time of a crisis. These men would play a very positive role during conflict since they would be less likely to be in a "warrior" cast. I think the role of homosexuals being protectors and providers when fathers and brothers are off fighting is a very advantageous trait.

This article doesn't mention the role of homosexual men during a time of a crisis. These men would play a very positive role during conflict since they would be less likely to be in a "warrior" cast. I think the role of homosexuals being protectors and providers when fathers and brothers are off fighting is a very advantageous trait.

Then why is the armed forces full of homosexuals?

What about an evolutionary population control mechanism?

BookBinder : Bonding is fostered by sex, all sex. Period. Full stop. It doesn't need to be explained. It just is. What needs to be explained scientifically is why anyone in their right mind continues to take exception to this rather unavoidable fact, or study it.

Your thinking would take us back to the Inquisition! Yeah, the sun DOES rise every morning ... so why bother studying it!..
You are anti-science, or, at best, merely misunderstand its nature (pun intended!)

Wow i came to the conclusion about it dying out years ago. My theory involves homosexuality being a product of epigenetics. An increase in homosexuality in modern times could be due to exposure to chemicals such as BPA, the synthetic estrogen hormone found in plastics, which have become much more prevalent.

The scientific problem is not homosexuality but exclusive homosexual desire.

It also concerns phenotypic displayed homosexuality in modern societies that might not have been so openly expressed in nonWestern ones.

Most male homosexuals in Western societies would not adopt fa'afafine like roles in any society. Instead, they would as most did before gay liberation have married and have had children [even exclusive homosexuals will engage in heterosexual if they lack choice]. Lacking heterosexual inclination they would have have lacked extramarital offspring. In some circumstances that might have lead them to devote more resources to their offspring and avoided the costs of intermale conflicts that occur with chasing after other men's women. That would be enough to select for such genes that now are openly expressed in exclusive homosexuality.

"homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men" and "homosexuals are much less likely to reproduce"....
Implies a remaining chance (lol). Of course maybe they mean homosexuals reproducing hererosexually, but those people are bisexuals. Bisexuality seems to always get lumped into homosexuality, but it seems there are plenty of strict homosexuals, so its incorrect to lump them together.

Do Samoans have any problems with their homosexual uncles lusting after their young nephews?

Typically when you accept someone openly for who they are, the incidence of deviance within the population drops.

Happier people perform fewer socially unacceptable acts. Oppressed people become depraved. Perhaps you should include that in your viewpoint. Rabid homophobism causes deviance, not the other way around. Be a little more open minded. You don't have to like it, but you have to get over it.

What the article seems to be saying is that a homosexual man can ensure that his genes are continued by ensuring the survival of two newphews or nieces who would othwerwise have died.

This makes soem sense arithmetically (since if a brother or sister shares half his genes, two of that persons chidren likely carry that half (1/4 each) into succeeding generations - whic his genetically the same as the homosexual man producing one child himself (1/2 his own genes into the next generation)

Two seems a little high, though we are talking about pre-industrial society.

taking the last paragraph of the article at face value - does the loss of directy (i.e. life saving) kin influence of homosexual men in an increasingly separated society mean they are in danger of breeding themselves out of the gene pool?

P.S. The people above making veiled moral commentary on this scientific debate need to get a life.

"Of course maybe they mean homosexuals reproducing hererosexually, but those people are bisexuals.

Not neccessarily, cultural or social constraints also determine who produces offspring, especially in more ancient societies. I expect in history, many more gay men fathered children heterosexually without being bisexual.

This research team is confusing homosexuals with transgender people. Only a small percentage of homosexual men can be described as feminine (I dislike the term effeminate because it is unnecessarily derogatory) and engage in stereotypically female behaviors. If given access to hormone replacement therapy and modern surgical techniques, I wonder how many fa'afafine would transition to female? Although a male to female transgender person is still transgender whether or not they've under gone any kind of medical treatment. Surgery doesn't 'make' anyone male or female if they didn't already identify as so to begin with. A woman with a penis who identifies as a woman is just that, she's not a man.

This article even explicitly states that the fa'afafine are a THIRD gender, that's not the same as being homosexual! Seems to me that Vasey and company need to go through a little trans-inclusive LGBT 101 before continuing to receive funding for these projects.

More info on the topic:
http://www.amazon...88160044
The 'public' front end of a broad research project on human sexuality.

Baker puts an interesting statistic in the bucked: When all 'homosexual' persons, both bisexual and strictly homosexual' are placed together in a group. The birth rate of this group is higher and the age of first child birth is a couple of years earlier. These data holds for all the western world.

Taken in this light the proliferation of the homosexual genes (there are probably multiple) is an easy one, they have more children as a group.

A second observation was that the age of first sexual intercourse (both home and hetero sexual) was on average 3 years earlier for this group. Most homosexual contacts were in younger years. This explains the success of this sexual strategy: learn young, get better at it than your age peers and get more children later on.
These are group statistics, individuals are unique

Do Samoans have any problems with their homosexual uncles lusting after their young nephews?

The article states:

The fa'afafine tend to be ... exclusively attracted to adult men as sexual partners.

But:
Do Westerners have any problems with their heterosexual uncles lusting after their young nieces?

Frajo, while I agree with the sentiment of slapping the idiot marjon for his/her moronic drivel, I wouldn't give them the column inches by replying.

while I agree with the sentiment of slapping the idiot marjon for his/her moronic drivel, I wouldn't give them the column inches by replying.

I fight opinions, not people.

Typically when you accept someone openly for who they are, the incidence of deviance within the population drops.

Happier people perform fewer socially unacceptable acts. Oppressed people become depraved. Perhaps you should include that in your viewpoint. Rabid homophobism causes deviance, not the other way around. Be a little more open minded. You don't have to like it, but you have to get over it.

We should embrace NAMBLA's philosophy?
Practical issues still remain concerning all male locker rooms.
If that is not an issue then co-ed locker rooms and toilets should not be an issue.
Hetro-sexual men should be encouraged to be girl scout leaders too if homo-sexual men should be boy scout leaders.

I do think we should support our Marlon Brando look-alikes. He was a good actor. Locker rooms are irrelevant, heterosexuals are far more likely to do bad things to the gay guy in there than the other way around. There are heterosexual men who are girl scout leaders and have been and probably still are homosexual men who were boy scout leaders and fewer of them abuse their charges than their heterosexual counterparts have done.

We should embrace NAMBLA's philosophy?

You keep reverting to your inept comparison of abuse and molestation being akin to a consenting adult action.

Perhaps you are the one who cannot discern right from wrong.

Since you're such an advocate of adult interaction being akin to molestation, should we repeal the laws concerning the age of consent in your world as long as those engaged are of opposite sex?

Since you're such an advocate of adult interaction being akin to molestation, should we repeal the laws concerning the age of consent in your world as long as those engaged are of opposite sex?

In some cultures the age of consent is puberty.
I was just asking if the uncle persuades nephews he is attracted to or is that taboo?

We're not talking some cultures, we're talking YOUR culture. Answer the question please.

I was just asking if the uncle persuades nephews he is attracted to or is that taboo?

Is it taboo when an uncle persuades nieces he is attracted to? Just asking...

Bonding is fostered by sex

Another myth of the 'sex is something separate from reproduction' crowd. Sex is an extravagent waste of energy for anything other than propagation, in all animals including us. It has been redefined, as it always has been, when pops have reached capacity and alternatives are needed to conception.

In pioneering cultures (the US until Jerry Lee Lewis) it is inextricably bound to procreation, in order to grow pops quickly. The laws governing these distinctions are some of the most severe effected; an indication of how vital this particular aspect of Husbandry is. There is no explaining the moral disparity any other way, other than that it is Contrived. In Canada, with much land left to fill, the age of consent is still 13 (with caveats) if I'm not mistaken.

Arguing with a troll is like shouting at your tv set. Why bother? you just annoy the neighbors-

Just to clarify for all auslandern, Jerry Lee Lewis the early rock star married his 13 yo cousin; ok for Louisiana pioneering culture in the 1950s. Jerry Lee takes his bride with him to Britain where he is booed off the stage and sent packing when his fans find out. Britain is an island culture which has battled overpop for millenia, employing everything from colonization to castes to boys schools. And of course war. Understandably their mores are somewhat more restricted; sort of.

This incident and others served to change things in the US (which why it was staged); laws were rewritten, Playboy redefined the proper woman of desire, masturbation and gaydom were no longer vile sins against nature, and sex became a form of recreation, and 'bonding'... again. And adolescents became children... again; the bar mitzvah just another party. Nothing new under the sun.

I fight opinions, not people.

Trolls dont have opinions, only desires... to be noticed, acknowledged, attended to. Theyll say whatever it takes to elicit a response.

Sex is an extravagent waste of energy for anything other than propagation, in all animals including us.

Not so. Take a look at the bonobos:

http://en.wikiped...behavior

I was just asking if the uncle persuades nephews he is attracted to or is that taboo?

Is it taboo when an uncle persuades nieces he is attracted to? Just asking...

According to a Samoan blog, marrying too close to family IS taboo. 1, 2, 3 cousins consider each other brother and sister and some uncles are younger than their nephews and consider each other siblings.

it's not the bachelor uncle who is poorly adapted to the world, but rather the modern Western world that has evolved into an unwelcoming place.

Quite judgmental for a science article.

We should embrace NAMBLA's philosophy?

You keep reverting to your inept comparison of abuse and molestation being akin to a consenting adult action.

What is abuse and molestaton?
The 25 year old female teacher seducing her 16 year old male student?
Romeo and Juliet were just barely past puberty. Did they abuse or molest each other?
NAMBLA considers man-boy love to be natural. Why are they wrong?
Modern western culture promotes sexual activity among all ages as long as it is consensual and not forced.

Take a look at the bonobos

From what I understand most contact is repro-oriented? Bonobos are just as cognizant of group size in relation to predation and resourse availability as we are (or rabbits). Theyve been studied in the atmosphere of liberal 'blank slate' morality and the articles and tv programs about them colored as such; I'll bet their behavior has as much to do with survival as ours does (or did back in the Pleistocene). Sex is about propagating, and a slow, weak species needs to do a lot of it. Do they exhibit more sex-oriented behavior than rabbits? Probably not-

When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity

Or is this the biological desire to increase their numbers in response to an increase in resources? These 'penis-fencing' males- are they exclusively homosexual or is this another preparatory exercise? Chimps are very warlike- bonobos may be using alternative sex to reduce conflict over resources caused by population pressure.

NAMBLA considers man-boy love to be natural. Why are they wrong?
Modern western culture promotes sexual activity among all ages as long as it is consensual and not forced.

You answered your own question. When it comes to man-boy "love", it's very difficult to conceive of a scenario where it's both consensual and not forced. Adults have a great coercive and authoritative sway over children. Moreover, most (perhaps all) children don't find adults to be particularly attractive or erotically arousing... Lastly, a child can't be expected to make responsible decisions, particularly ones that can affect his/her long-term physical and mental health. Therefore, in light of all these considerations, any adult-child sex is automatically suspect and is, far more likely than not, abusive.

But I fail to see the relevance of pedophilia, when the topic at hand is "evolutionary role for same-sex attraction". The two are about as compatible as a dog and a cat.

Chimps are very warlike- bonobos may be using alternative sex to reduce conflict over resources caused by population pressure.

No population pressure required. It is a simple calculation: fights are a lot more expensive than sex. It is much easier, less stressful, not to mention more enjoyable, to resolve conflicts and maintain group cohesion through sex instead of aggression.

to resolve conflicts and maintain group cohesion through sex instead of aggression.

Only if that sex does not result in unwanted pop growth and the resulting struggle over finite resources. Making love inevitably leads to war. Chimps dont have contraception (banana peels?). Neither did we (nor do we throughout much of the world now embroiled in conflict). Chimps wont let their babies starve and neither will we.

Only if that sex does not result in unwanted pop growth and the resulting struggle over finite resources.

Supposedly, bonobo fertility is down-regulated to compensate for the more frequent sex. On average, bonobo females give birth about as frequently as chimp females. So it all works out.

Which only goes to show: there's more than one way to skin a cat, screw the pooch, or pick your favorite metaphor... =)

Naw come on, sex is bad, admit it. Its like ice cream-its nice to have but if it didnt exist we wouldnt miss it. Its the root cause of all the worlds problems. How much distraction, how much time wasted? We would live twice as long if these organs of ours didnt consume so much energy and cause so much damage. Another obsolete animalism which causes far more trouble than its worth. Dont worry- it will be bred or engineered out of us sooner or later; it endangers Stability and Progress-

Therefore, in light of all these considerations, any adult-child sex is automatically suspect and is, far more likely than not, abusive.

Who defines the age of 'child'? As I mentioned, in some cultures, childhood ends at 8 or 10 or 12 years. Just 2-3 hundred years ago, boys of 11-13 were serving on ships as midshipmen.

The vast majority of pedophiles, while male, are also heterosexual (i.e. man-girl, not man-boy, dominates the agenda), so this whole tangent is pointless and OT.

But if you really wish to explore the boundary of "childhood", you could start with puberty (the Biblical method.) Or you could define it as boys growing facial hair (and roughly same age for girls.) Or you could get a bit more modern, and look at maturation of the brain, which only begins to level off in the early 20's.

The vast majority of pedophiles, while male, are also heterosexual (i.e. man-girl, not man-boy, dominates the agenda), so this whole tangent is pointless and OT.

But if you really wish to explore the boundary of "childhood", you could start with puberty (the Biblical method.) Or you could define it as boys growing facial hair (and roughly same age for girls.) Or you could get a bit more modern, and look at maturation of the brain, which only begins to level off in the early 20's.

How precise and scientific!

Or you could get a bit more modern, and look at maturation of the brain

I believe the brain stops maturing around age 15 and thereafter begins to deteriorate because it is simply too overevolved and energy-hungry. We were not designed to live much past age 26- about the mean age of Pleistocene ancestors. We peak on all counts during adolescence, which was the adulthood of the stone age.

marjon,

Looking at your views and the opinions that drive them one must question your history if you cannot understand coersion vs consent.

-In case someone zapped me because of my comment re: overevolved energy-hungry brains, this is the kind of info I was referring to;
Maturation in teen brains:
http://www.scienc...3341.htm
-Our brains are oversized- much supportive evidence for this, including premature birthing in comparison with other mammals, the pain and danger of human childbirth (especially after adolescence) etc. Common sense tells us that adolescence is when we would most need cognitive skills in combat over females, and that this monster in our heads would begin shrinking soon after the optimum reproductive age because it is simply too large to maintain. The high mortality rates of Pleistocene women was in large part due to difficulties during childbirth.

One point I wanted to make about the first study; post-adolescent brain 'changes' do not necessarily indicate improvements. We continue to change in various ways throughout our lives. The research community is rife with the same sociopolitics which seeks to maintain the current definition of adolescents as children who are incapable of surviving without adult support. Which of course in today's world, in western culture, they are not.

Scheiße- I notice in my first post I am missing the link to the first study I was referring to in the subsequent post, so here it is:
Teenage brain deterioration, loss of gray matter:
http://www.edinfo...ains.htm

Please stay on topic. The article is about how the trait of homosexuality survives in modern humans supposing the majority of homosexuals do not have offspring.

The thing that confuses most people, in my opinion, is that evolution is not a biological phenomena, it's a mathematical phenomena and it's inescapable.

Is it possible all species have some built-in protection against over-population in which certain specimens in the herd would not desire offspring? Because really our sexual desires are rooted our survivability instinct. We know we don't live forever so we do things like have kids and create music and art so we can "live forever".

Anyways, I'm just rambling, but really stay on topic, please.

Herr topic nazi

Is it possible all species have some built-in protection against over-population in which certain specimens in the herd would not desire offspring?

How would you know if people are on-topic or not if you dont read previous posts? This notion has already been outed.

Discussions of the primary topic often bring up related issues which are nonetheless important to making a point, which the casual, critical browser may not be aware of.

Is it possible all species have some built-in protection against over-population in which certain specimens in the herd would not desire offspring?

How would you know if people are on-topic or not if you dont read previous posts? This notion has already been outed.

What does this mean, that the idea that members of some species have mechanisms that limit the success of reproductive behavior is false? Because it seems certain that they do. After all, some species possess the reproductive capacity to produce millions of offspring per act of mating, while others may mate multiple times before the successful conception of even a single offspring. Some species even routinely produce infertile members at a regular rate in certain environmental conditions. And the energy-intensiveness of mating varies by species too. Some species spend their entire lifetime's worth of energy to mate, while in humans, the act of mating can be no more intensive than a brisk jog

Is it possible all species have some built-in protection against over-population in which certain specimens in the herd would not desire offspring?

When you remove environmental reinforcers those safeguards fail.

That being said, the human safeguard is war as disease eradication has become relatively easy for us.

marjon,

Looking at your views and the opinions that drive them one must question your history if you cannot understand coersion vs consent.

What is the age of consent and why that arbitrary number as cultures around the world use and have used quite different ages?
A 65 year old has consensual sex with a 12 year old. Where is the coercion?

Wow, so, someone picks a random social custom, practiced on a remote island by an infinitesimal percentage of the species and then draws "conclusions" about the role of homosexuality in evolution?

Amazing thing this is, the "science" of psychology. Where are your degrees from, the Hogwash School of Advanced Magic?

The article ignores that some genetic mutations are always represented as 1% of the population. Specific birth defects, diseases, or extraordinary deviations, including homosexuality, are frequently counted as 1% of the population.

There may be enough unique mutations existing at 1% each, for 100% of the population to be some kind of mutant 100% of the time.

Wow, so, someone picks a random social custom, practiced on a remote island by an infinitesimal percentage of the species and then draws "conclusions" about the role of homosexuality in evolution?

Welcome to the world of Soft Science where the role of applied sociopolitics in reinforcing social agendas is only a little more obvious. Just look what the Blank Slate did for free love, contraception, abortion, and the resulting zero pop growth in western societies. Propaganda for everybody!

I think it's absurd that every trait needs some explanation -- somethings just come as a byproduct of a very complex system. Sex is needed for survival, the organism's brain is primed for it, a few parameters go off a bit and you have attraction to the same sex. It's probably something that cannot be "optimized" out by evolution due to other competing factors (hormone levels, degrees of desire etc).

"In a soft, smooth voice, she explains that "the difference between our fa'afafine and your gays is that gay men make love to each other." Fa'afafine, on the other hand, have sex only with straight men�usually young ones. "ln my time, a man�s first sexual experience was with a fa'afafine," Tania says. Samoan girls tend to have few partners early in life, so boys "practice" with fa'afafine. "That does not make Samoan guys gay�they see fa'afafine as women," says Tania. In other words, most of the macho, muscular men in Samoa�the rugby players and the tattooed taro farmers--have had sexual experiences with other men, whom they consider to be women."
Fa'afafine seem to provide a sort of sexual relief valve to an otherwise repressed culture. "We know how to satisfy men better than women do,"
http://www.lauraf...ine.html
This adds another wrinkle. Fafafine as sex partners for men which would certainly help with population control and temper male aggression in a society with limit

Just look what the Blank Slate did for free love, contraception, abortion, and the resulting zero pop growth in western societies.

Your recurring mentioning of the fictitious dangers of population growth is fascinating. I'd like to coin it plithismophobia.

What, fear of this?
http://en.wikiped...i/Plinth
-Arguments such as yours against this chronic, ancient problem- the worst we face and will ever face on this planet- always leave out pertinent facts. There's only one which need be considered: that being the 1 BILLION abortions which have taken place since ww2, in countries which beforehand were full of strife And conflict, and which now are not. A load of humanity the size of the pop of India, and their offspring, who were not born. Oh many modifiers you say? Economic factors which limit? People will always tend to produce that extra generation above the critical line of instability, above which war is inevitable. Some religionist cultures will mandate it. 'Any species will produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' For humans, starving children means war or revolt.

On topic? Yes of course. Nature can regulate it's pops but man has circumvented that equation. There are Those in the world, as I continue to claim, who strive to reinstate these controls over man the animal and so preserve a future for us all. They prefer to use the tools already present; homosexuality being one provided by nature; and employ them at the proper time. 'Everything is beautiful in it's own time... There is a time to embrace and a time to refrain...' etc. The People who wrote those words knew all about overpop and exactly what to do about it. Timing is everything in love and war.

On topic? Yes of course. Nature can regulate it's pops but man has circumvented that equation. There are Those in the world, as I continue to claim, who strive to reinstate these controls over man the animal and so preserve a future for us all. They prefer to use the tools already present; homosexuality being one provided by nature; and employ them at the proper time. 'Everything is beautiful in it's own time... There is a time to embrace and a time to refrain...' etc. The People who wrote those words knew all about overpop and exactly what to do about it. Timing is everything in love and war.

Why don't people like you have the courage of your convictions, stop consuming valuable resources and save the planet?

So I am not a scientist, etc, and is the reason that the inheritability of female homosexuality is not studied, is that it is recognized that human females rarely had the option of not reproducing?

And given that most females were not allowed to remain single by choice, couldn't the homo gene be passed on through women?

But regardless of that, it makes no sense to assume that EVERY mutation survives because that mutation has a positive quality. It seems like some mutations should survive if they have only a neutral quality and did not directly create a negative.

Lol, yes I was kinda forgetting to mention that "the gay gene" isn't validated. Some studies have indicated that gayness may be encouraged by fetal exposure to certain hormones but I don't think anyone really knows for sure what causes it.

Homosexuality is most likely a mis-wiring of the brain and its associated actions towards sexual behavior. In the world of the construction electrician common mis-wirings occur over and over again with the same results. These mis-wirings are well known and great effort is taken to eradicate them but they still occur. They still occur because the process of screwing it up begins anew with each job as the passing of instructions is not perfect and each job is different in some way so the eradication process must also begin anew. It's easy to rewire a building if you get it wrong, not so for a brain.

Perhaps this is more psychological than we think, maybe your sexual orientation is created in the very first 1-2 years of life by family members. Perhaps it is a(n) hormonal balance issue during pregnancy or puberty, or even the "sex gene".

I'm going to ask a question. What if there were a society that embraced sexual freedom among both sexes? What if society portrayed all men and women to be bisexual, and everyone you knew was, would this conjure more bisexual persons in that society? If so does that say that the "majority" of people are able to be shaped and influenced, and then there are some (maybe close to half) that are more set, so to speak, on one sex?

There have been stories of older women residing over to women (due to the higher death rate among older men, leaving older women alone), so if one group is that flexible, couldn't the rest of us be? I'm not saying sexuality is ONLY formed by society, close people (such as family members), I'm just asking a few questions.

Economics and growth of cultures and their downfall has not been discussed. Our civilization lies in the wake of these changes. I care about us as a country and the predictable examples of past history. In many cultures the rise of deviant norms and the debates of those norms are declared normal and even praised as better. It also happens to mark the peak of a civilization. From that point on it is a decline. Growth of population, comes from solid norms, common identity and strong families. They are the cornerstone of growing strong civilizations. I am sorry to say that deviant forms of behavior and identity are not atrributes of civilization. It is a return to animalistic chaotic barbarian attributes. No exceptions in history. There is nothing new under the sun except for new tech. Our societies function exactly as they did for thousands of years. Technology has only accelerated the process like a catalyst. Explaining these behaviors is not rocket science

What if there were a society that embraced sexual freedom among both sexes? What if society portrayed all men and women to be bisexual, and everyone you knew was, would this conjure more bisexual persons in that society? If so does that say that the "majority" of people are able to be shaped and influenced, and then there are some (maybe close to half) that are more set, so to speak, on one sex?

What if we had a society that only cared about immediate gratification and pleasure?
I think there have been and are many examples of such societies and they do not lead to long term survival.

Do Samoans have any problems with their homosexual uncles lusting after their young nephews?

No more than heterosexual uncles lusting after their young nieces.

I am sorry to say that deviant forms of behavior and identity are not attributes of civilization.

And who the hell are you to decide what is deviant and what is not?

I am sorry to say that deviant forms of behavior and identity are not attributes of civilization.

And who the hell are you to decide what is deviant and what is not?

Excellent point. When considering the broad global anthropological context, both in space and in time, it is rather the Judaic religions' virulent homophobia that is clearly deviant. And not just the homophobia, but the general sex-o-phobia, evident in draconian norms of "modesty" and "propriety". The Puritanical cultural norms in this regard, still hanging about America neck to this day, are surpassed only by the brutal tyranny of the modern Islamic states.

1) The prevalence of homosexuality is too high to be considered a "random mutation" that pops up in populations. If it is a genetically constrained phenotype then it must be either adaptive or a byproduct of other adaptations.

2) Some people are missing the way in which kin selection works. Kin selection means that I don't have to pass on my genes directly. I can get the same benefit of direct reproduction by ensuring that a certain number (depending on genetic relatedness) of my relatives live to a reproductive age and pass on their genes.

3) There is other evidence that supports this idea. For example, homosexuality seems to be matrilineally biased (on the mothers side). This makes perfect evolutionary sense as only females know 100% if a child they produce is theirs. A male's paternity is always in question. As such, a mothers brother giving-up his own reproduction to aid his nieces and nephews (who he knows he is related to) supports the kin-selection theory.

I am sorry to say that deviant forms of behavior and identity are not attributes of civilization.

That isn't what was said. Deviance is a result of the society which is a result of the state of the civilization. And, yes, yes it is. It's called the progression of decadence hypothesis.

And who the hell are you to decide what is deviant and what is not?

Deviance isn't necessarily a bad thing. Allowing blacks to attend University with whites was deviant in the 50's. It's a deviation from the societal norm. Try to ignore the improper connotation that the word implies.

The Puritanical cultural norms in this regard, still hanging about America neck to this day, are surpassed only by the brutal tyranny of the modern Islamic states.

Uganda and the upcoming slaughter of homosexuals isn't too far off from the same type of brutal tyranny that Islam represents to so many, while those same traits are conveniently ignored in Judaic traditions, probably for social acceptance reasons.