I was trying to think of any evolutionary advantage of homosexuality in animals, which does exist. Because really being gay is Panda tier, and according to the laws of natural selection it really shouldn't exist. Okay so I posit this: perhaps homosexuality exists to give animals a companion and sexual satisfaction without increasing the group's population to an unsustainable number. Is this a retarded theory?
I'm not a scientologist but I think natural selection works in broad strokes and isn't capable of eliminating every negative fluke in a species.
And now I'm going to give my opinion because fuck it: people read way too much in homosexuality. Is it a good thing? No. Is it a bad thing? No (even the argument of preserving the species falls apart because a gay man can still dick a woman). It's also pretty bullshit to say people cannot become gay and its strictly from birth. Sexual preferences (at least in my experience and from observation) are fluid and not static.
K well some fish and frogs can change sex, usually female to male, if the population is uneven so they can reproduce
It's definitely a positive trait for the species, but I posit some species can become homosexual to ensure they don't reproduce at all
That's an interesting position but I'm pretty sure species that exhibit homosexuality still overproduce. Animals population control is regulated by their environment and not self regulated. They over produce and starve and produce less.
no that actually doesn't exist. Human gay rights activists would like you to think it does because they want you to think that its normal.. even though the percentage of other animals that are "homosexual" compared to the ones that aren't are a hilariously absurd low percentage.
In any event, they portray "bisexual" tendencies. Just because it may boof a wrong hole every now and then doesn't mean they stop attempting regular mating procedures.
In addition, other animals know nothing of "gay culture" or anything along those lines. They don't know what it means to be "oppressed" or bullied, or to wear short shorts.
I've seen pictures taken of dissected human brains proving that homosexuality and gender dysphoria are real things. The male human brain and the female human brain are different enough that if all you have is the brain and nothing else of the body, then you can still positively identify the physical sex of each brain. What happens in gays and non cis people is that for whatever reason the part of the brain that is in charge of "being male" or "being female" goofs up and doesn't develop along the normal pathways for that physical sex.
So yes, homosexuality does exist, it's a physical deformity in the brain. It's basically on the same tier as being autistic.
I had heard that homosexual animals are likely to adopt orphans, so though they don't breed themselves, they can help hetero animals with potentially good genes reach adulthood. But I don't know how common it really is.
I don't know about homosexuality specifically, but adoption in nature is actually quite common. So much so that female wolves evolved to start lactating when in the presence of puppies, regardless of their position in the pack or if the puppies are their own. Obviously this helps out the entire pack, but they can and do use it when it's a single female wolf who finds an orphaned litter.
So yes, if adoption among certain species is that common, then it makes sense that having homosexual relatives will help your specific genes survive. Because even if that specific relative of yours doesn't reproduce, you still carry the same genes as them, so if you die, your and their genes will live on when they adopt your orphaned children and raise them in your place.
Population has nothing to do with it. Animals have been getting their rocks off for ages, be it with females, males, immature individuals, dead individuals, different species or inanimate objects. Fur seals don't benefit from their genes or population by raping penguins to death(or sea otters raping baby seals to death or hell, male sea otters may even kill females of their own kind while mating because it's so aggressive), but it happens anyway. Animals also engage in non-reproductive sexual behavior like masturbation and autofellatio.
For social animals, homosexual activities can be very beneficial. Sexual activity and intimacy can be a form of bonding and building a relationship, which is important in social animals. Bononos, which are basically the mascots for this shit is the best example. Their constant fucking relieves tensions, builds companionship, settles disputes, etc. Male elephants will form 'lasting' relationships with other males(males largely do not stay with female herds, but will hang out around each other, spar, roughhouse and be affectionate with each other. it's been noted that young bull elephants really need the older bulls to keep them in check and the young bulls need to learn from them).
Most animals aren't 'homosexual' in the sense that they will ONLY engage with partners of the same sex, so that doesn't make it what you would call an evolutionary dead end. Male couple swans however, may mate with a female and chase her off when she laid eggs or steal a nest from other swans. Chicks hatched by male coupled swans are more likely to survive because they're adult male swans - big huge assholes that can defend more aggressively and a larger portion of land.
Also pandas are not an evolutionary dead end either. If pandas were a 'mistake', they would have been dead a long time ago instead of surviving since branching off from other bears 20 million years ago-ish. The only reason why pandas got fucked is because of human activities. Adults have no natural predators and through millions of years they have adapted to a specific diet and chill ass lifestyle that takes up little energy. Pandas breed just fine and normally in the wild just as any other animals do, its just that in captivity they don't care about fucking.
>Panda's are a mistake
God doesn't make mistakes. And if you're an atheist, go educate yourself on basic fucking evolution, because the process of evolution isn't self aware, therefor there are no mistakes.
You fucking ignorant pleb.
This, pandas are basically the bear equivalent of sloths. There's so much food (as long as humans don't deforest individual panda territories) that they long since lost fast metabolisms since it isn't required.
And pandas breed just fine in the wild, everyone forgets that the rest of the bear species reproduces as little as pandas do, but unlike pandas, they hibernate. So therefor it's somehow "ok" for them to produce so few offspring.
The problem with pandas born and raised in zoos is that they bond with their human handlers, and therefor don't recognize their fellow pandas as potential mates. Same with any other animal raised by humans.
Because their food is/was everywhere. They only had to move between two 'zones', and to avoid each other.
Pandas don't mate in captivity for whatever reason, but many animals do not mate readily in captivity. There is a load of reasons why animals may not breed in captivity, which could be anything from lack of a proper diet, temperature, unsuitable mates, light levels, etc. Some animals are more sensitive than others and they are taken out of their natural environment into a controlled one. They don't migrate or travel, thats their territory and its usually not as big as most wild animals are and they can't expand it. They cannot allow potential mates to come, nor can they go to another's territory looking to mate. Keepers are the ones that pair them up and keepers monitor pandas VERY closely, disrupting their 'life' to keep an eye out for their fertile times despite that captive breeding in pandas is more successful when they're left alone and have a lot of privacy. These a solitary animals that prefer to live in remote forests.
On top of that, there is no official gestation mark for pandas because it can be anywhere from 3-6 months(bears can 'halt' an egg and it does not implant into the womb until later). When it does actually implant finally, gestation is shorter than other bear species but keepers again, heavily physically monitor pandas which could be disrupting them.
You read that far into a meme. You are a mistake, just like anime and pandas.
No really, they're too specialized. They'd have gone extinct from natural causes in another few hundred thousand years without us. Maybe a few million. Not long on earth's time line.
not everything in evolution has an advantage.
in fact things can be harmful so long as they're a side-effect of something that's an advantage.
Homosexual behavior in animals is a neutral side effect of a great advantage - strong sex drive.
also outside of humans and goats I don't think strict homosexuality has ever been observed. Animals that engage in homosexual behaviors also breed.
Homosexuals allow a population to add resource producers without a corresponding increase in reproduction or sexual competition. This allows a population which is low on resources or females to stabilize and gain more producers while avoiding the destabilizing factors of adding more mouths to feed or losing producers through competition for existing females.
Male lions are incredibly gay for one another. Not surprising for such a social animal species. In the absence of a female; male lions would mount one another.
>In the absence of a female
and that's the key phrase right there.
most mammals and birds will engage in homosexual behavior when there's nothing better to do. That doesn't mean they don't breed when they get the chance.
How about the thing that fair number of homosexuals get/got (especially in the past) into heterosexual relationships, including marriage, out of social pressure?
Or maybe they did some soul searching, I don't know. Life is a learning experience.
>Homosexuals allow a population to add resource producers without a corresponding increase in reproduction or sexual competition
This was kind of what I was getting at but you phrased it better
>ignores all of the gay as fuck penguins in zoos who mate for life with a single individual of the same sex.
>ignores all the gay as fuck swans.
>ignores all the gay as fuck giraffes.
I said in nature.
strictly homosexual behavior has never been observed in nature outside of domestic goats and humans afaik.
if you know of a real example I'd love to read it.
Key word there is "observed"
The vast majority of animals do not form a monogamous relationship, so of course you wouldn't see it. Plus very few animals actually "enjoy" sex.
you've given a couple very good reasons why it doesn't exist.
and that's the problem with OP's question.
He's trying to explain a problem that -as far as anyone can tell - simply doesn't exist.
It's disadvantageous, and this is why it's rare. It exists due to the same reason as hemophilia exists.
Sometimes an error happens during the creation of an animal's DNA. This particular animal one most probably won't pass this particular mutation on, but such a mutation can happen independently, in some other animal.
Numbers of individuals with such errors will be low though, since they probably won't breed.
I'm having no trouble finding observations of it.
I think you have a poor understanding of "reason" here. The only reason for something to exist is evolutionary, otherwise it's a side effect or something akin to a disease or other non-adventageous trait. It can exist without having s reason. In the case of homosexuality you can't see something like companionship as evolutionarily advantageous. I know some people think it's important to find value in homosexuality, but I don't think you're going to find that value through evolution, or even science in general. You should be careful to avoid using science in an ideological debate, it never works out and it's very damaging to the public opinion of science in general.
Homosexuality is connected to another unrelated trait through genetic linkage, and that trait is under selective pressure.
Alternatively, it's a selectively desirable trait in one sex but results in homosexuality in the other- there being multiple forms of this.
>Because even if that specific relative of yours doesn't reproduce, you still carry the same genes as them, so if you die, your and their genes will live on when they adopt your orphaned children and raise them in your place.
If that specific relative doesn't reproduce, then those genes mean nothing. The "homosexual" adopting mother doesn't just magically pass those genes on.
>In any event, they portray "bisexual" tendencies. Just because it may boof a wrong hole every now and then doesn't mean they stop attempting regular mating procedures.
Someone I know used to intern at some dolphin place and they had a dolphin that absolutely refused to mate with females and would only try to mate with a specific male. Maybe just one of those weird freak of nature things.
How do your homosexuals reproduce and put their gene into new homosexuals for allowing the others that are not homosexuals to reproduce ?
And it's completely fake, when a specie do not have predator, this specie do not become gay, she become invasive and we have to exterminate it.
But isn't it like ants? Most of them don't reproduce, but genes that select for that kind of behavior are still selected for? Basically your attention is concentrated in the wrong place.
Being honest, I'm guessing it's some sort of developmental glitch. Really, I don't give it too much thought. There are plenty of people on the planet already. I can contribute to society in ways other than bringing another resource sucking existence onto this planet.
I could still donate my splooge if we had some sort of shortage of people.
The person I linked above also has another article on eusociality that shows some interesting statistics on how sometimes it's more evolutionarily advantageous to ensure the survival of your sibling than to actually mate yourself.
Otherwise interesting, but it did feel like the writer was going for the "noble savage" narrative. It's a bit rich to call western world homophobic when the story is quite opposite: there are countries where you face execution over being gay.
But then again in both US or Russia-centric, you have your religious extra-conservatives, who might as well be sister groups to some of the crazier sharia-supporters according to their views.
>person A and person B are siblings. Both inherited pale skin which is an advantage in their native region because they can absorb more vitamin D from sunlight then their darker skin counterparts.
>person A is heterosexual, person B is gay.
>person A successfully conceives a child. This child inherits pale skin. This child is person C.
>person B wants to have children, but gay. Dick in ass does not produce children.
>person A dies. Nobody else within the community wants to raise child with pale skin. Person C will be abandoned and left to die in the wild if not adopted.
>person B adopts orphaned person C.
>person C grows up healthy and strong. Produces many healthy offspring which all grow up healthy and strong thanks to person B contributing to their well being despite being old as fuck. Half of these children inherit pale skin.
>person B dies.
>person C has many grandchildren and several great grandchildren now. 50% of these people have pale skin. 4 of them are as gay as their great uncle, person B.
Do you see how evolution works now, dumb fuck.