Being Lesbian in Chile

Of course, if we do not want homosexuals, we also ought not to allow straight people to conceive or raise children - since nearly 100% of gay people are born to, and raised by, straight people.

In Search of the 'Gay Gene'

By Jack Lucentini
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, February 19, 2001; Page A15


Evolutionary biologists have long wondered why homosexuality exists. Since homosexuality does not directly result in the passing of genes to future generations -- evolution's driving force -- it seems odd that it persists in so many societies.


A small but growing group of researchers, however, says evidence from both human and animal societies suggests that same-sex attraction does, in fact, have an important evolutionary function.


"The recognition of how widespread same-sex courtship is, and that it has an adaptive significance, is a growing trend," said Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University.
The primary function that same-sex attraction provides, scientists like Roughgarden argue, is that it promotes the formation of alliances that help the parties involved outlive, outperform and even outreproduce competitors.


"We're using some newer concepts about sexual behavior," said Frank Muscarella of Barry University in Florida, who offered support for this theory in the fall issue of the Journal of Homosexuality.


Mainstream scientists remain skeptical. The new theories rely on studies suggesting that same-sex relationships are, or have been, far more common than traditionally believed, a conclusion that skeptics question.


"My feeling is that evolutionary theory mainly helps us understand why most people are heterosexual, and why homosexuality is rare -- it's not reproductively productive," said Lee Ellis, a sociologist at Minot State University in North Dakota. "Evolution isn't very good at explaining oddities," he added. "It mainly explains where most people are."

group is different - it doesn't have anything with relationship, it's more like "females taking care of children, males getting food for all of them" thing.
I mean, I am not saying that you are not right at all, you might be right...I haven't heard for animal lesbian couple raising kids, but I am not saying that it certainly doesn't exist...

But proponents counter that most human and animal societies have been teeming with same-sex attraction -- the real fluke is Western culture's recently developed aversion to it.
For another thing, they say bisexuals far outnumber homosexuals. This idea allows them to raise the possibility that an animal could use benefits gained from a homosexual liaison, such as higher status, to reproduce more or care for offspring better.


"Most individuals who engage in homosexual behavior are, in practice, bisexual," wrote R.C. Kirkpatrick, a biodiversity specialist with the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group, who authored another paper on the subject in the June issue of Current Anthropology.
Both researchers advocate dropping the distinction between "gay" and "straight" individuals. Nature makes no such distinction, and neither did most humans throughout history, they say. Research should focus on a more neutral, simple concept of homosexual or homoerotic behavior, according to the researchers.


The two researchers cite an array of examples that they say show how such activity could boost one's chances of survival and reproductive success. Kirkpatrick's paper cited studies on animals and on various stages of Greek, Chinese, Japanese and U.S. culture.


Among the Sambia of New Guinea, homosexual interactions among warriors may solidify ties vital for mutual defense, Kirkpatrick argues. In some Melanesian societies, 17th-century Japan and ancient Athens, men were actually expected to be attracted to other men. The ancient Greeks' propensity for homoerotic bonds usually involved an older, higher-status male and a younger "client," who gained prestige and status through the liaison, the researchers say.
In each case, homosexual bonds helped bring success and status, the authors argue. For males of most species, higher status means more access to mates.


This sets up a classic evolutionary argument: Organisms displaying homosexual activity would produce more offspring, passing their traits to successive generations.


The examples the two researchers cite aren't limited to humans, or to males.

Among bonobos, a type of chimpanzee, young females typically emigrate to a new group, where they promptly initiate sexual contact with dominant females. "They form 'friendships' and alliances with established females that allow them to become integrated into the group, and more importantly, allow them access to food resources," Muscarella wrote.


He acknowledged that the theory has yet to pass crucial tests, such as a study of whether homosexually leaning animals indeed have more offspring.


The new research draws in part from a 1999 book by biologist Bruce Bagemihl, who also wrote that homosexual activity serves underappreciated social and family roles.


The book, "Biological Exuberance," offers evidence from the animal world that homosexuality is common: lesbian pairs in several gull, goose and tern species raising young without male help; male black swan pairs raising cygnets on their own, using the female as little more than a temporary device for procreation.


In a book scheduled for publication next year, "Evolution's Rainbow," Roughgarden speculates that same-sex relations may have evolved as a glue for coalition-building among animals, including humans.


This hypothesis "also explains homophobia," she said. "Same-sex coalition building is usually a threat to a hierarchy. That sets up a tension, and the alpha male is going to try to break up the coalition."


No one has documented such events among animals, she acknowledged, but then again, "no one has looked."


Attempts to explain homosexuality in evolutionary terms aren't new. In past decades, some scientists speculated that evolution retained a "homosexuality gene" only because it occurred with some other, beneficial gene.

dlowan wrote:

Of course, if we do not want homosexuals, we also ought not to allow straight people to conceive or raise children - since nearly 100% of gay people are born to, and raised by, straight people.

you are right. or, you would be right if anyone here would say that it's not okay to give children to homosexual couple because of possibility they will become homosexuals.

if "no they haven't - four of them" was also aimed to me - I was talking about children which is clearly noted in one of previous posts and I think it would be really really nice to read posts before just jumping in out of context. Not that you have to. I just think it would be nice.

="L.R.R.Hood"]Sam1951, I do not believe it is genetic. There is no scientific proof of that.

Poeple have the choice to be whatever they want to be, and I have the choice to feel however I want to feel about that. I wouldn't stand in their way to do anything that is legal... but if it were up to me, I wouldn't let gay people have children... sorry, that's just my opinion.

I know I'm not the only one who feels that way, but I bet those who agree with me would not want to post it openly.