An Interesting (and different) Take on Homosexuality

[Ahso!]

I understand some of what appears to be a large and ever growing LGBT community is due to the fact that the 'Closet Doors' have been opening, but the question of Homosexuality itself lingers with me. I found the following article insightful even though it's not solidly proven as of yet.

So with all necessary caveats against reductionism and misappropriation, we can ask: should human societies conceive of themselves in terms of group-level selection? Have we already developed aspects of eusociality? And — just to make matters really interesting — could non-reproducing humans, such as (most) gays and lesbians, as well as heterosexuals who choose not to have kids, actually be a manifestation of this emergent eusociality?



Citing eusociality in defense of any lifestyle choice, even theoretically, could backfire: it implies a subservience of individual well-being to the greater good. But at least it suggests that certain unorthodox lifestyles might not be so "unnatural" after all.

Is Homosexuality an Evolutionary Step Towards the Superorganism? | Wired Science | Wired.com

[Lon]

You got me to the DICTIONARY to look up EUSOCIALITY. Very interesting. I doubt however that there will be an Evolutionary Step Towards the Superorganism simply because of the numbers of non gays out producing non producing gays. The percentage of gays to the entire population should stay constant I suspect.

[Ahso!]

It's difficult to know what percentage of the population is GLBT but most studies put it somewhere between 2 & 3. Add to that the number of individuals who cannot reproduce and those who choose not to reproduce and I'd suspect the numbers become substantial enough to warrant recognition. A good question is whether or not these segments of the population are indeed increasing - I'd expect to learn they are.

I'd argue that religions are examples of Superorganisms. Take the Catholic religion for example where many of the officials of the Church practice celibacy yet the Church as a whole is staunchly anti anything that inhibits procreation including the use of condoms. It appears the officials of the Church are there to assist in the upbringing of the offspring. I think all organized religions behave similarly.

[Bryn Mawr]

The most likely suggestion that I've seen put forward is that there are different genes promoting gay and lesbian behaviour and that neither gene is on the XY chromosome pair.

This raises the possibility that the gay gene expresses itself in females in a way that is species beneficial, thus, any detrimental effect in the male population is more than offset by a beneficial effect in the female carriers of the gene and the gene is species positive in its overall effect.

Obviously the reverse would apply to the lesbian gene.

[Odie]

Ahso!;1364021 wrote: I understand some of what appears to be a large and ever growing LGBT community is due to the fact that the 'Closet Doors' have been opening, but the question of Homosexuality itself lingers with me. I found the following article insightful even though it's not solidly proven as of yet.

Is Homosexuality an Evolutionary Step Towards the Superorganism? | Wired Science | Wired.com


I don't understand why it matters that much to you, its been going on for centuries, birds do it, bees do it, animals do it, siblings do it and so on.

so what if its becoming more common?

the reason is because more are admitting it... and coming forth.