Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyThis commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect that of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.
June 23rd, 2009
Homosexuality has long perplexed evolutionary biologists. If natural selection is nothing more than the replication of genes, what benefit is there to a trait that is less likely to result in progeny?
A new report by Nathan W. Bailey and Marlene Zuk at University of California, Riverside, and printed in this issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution, suggests that in addition to being a product of evolution, same-sex behaviors may have driven selection as well.
This led Time’s John Cloud to speculate about five possible reasons why evolution may have selected for homosexuality. His possibilities include:
1. The boys-in-the-locker-room theory.
2. The emasculation theory.
3. The “oops” theory.
4. The let’s-see-how-this-thing-works theory.
5. The two-plus-one theory.
I’ll let you read them at Time and decide which, if any, of these appeals to you. But all of them, like much of the speculation from laypersons, seems to me to make a fundamental error: they seek to look to today’s environment and relational dynamics and look for explanations as to what happened before time began.
But natural selection doesn’t tell us what works today, it is a product of millions of years of factors warring against each other and most of them we will never know. There were climate variations, survival skills, predator avoidances, and millions of variables which have all disappeared from the planet. And we cannot ever truly know which was responsible for many of nature’s choices.
We do know this: twin studies tell us that sexual orientation is likely partly but not completely genetic, at least in humans. And studies suggest that this trait exists in all races across the globe in what appears to be a relatively consistent rate and has existed for as long as there has been recorded history. Additionally, same-sex behavior – often including pairing – exists in all branches of life, from insects to mammals.
This suggests that at some point in the past there was an advantage to species that adopted some measure of same-sex sexual expression. Further, the development of human emotion and intellect did not disallow for the continuance of same-sex expression and pairing. Thus, whatever the advantage, it was relevant over a long enough period of time to incorporate the development of dolphins, penquins, rams, and humans. Further, the advantages that led to the association of emotional connection to sexual behaviors in humans also led to same-sex emotional connections.
Beyond that, I suspect that those of us who do not study this field are best served by limiting our speculations about exact “causes”. We only end up looking foolish when the next round of studies proves our guesswork to be flawed.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.
When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.
In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.
On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"
At last, the truth can now be told.
Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!
And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.
Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.
Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.
Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
lurker
June 23rd, 2009
hm. rather biased and unconvincing. especially:
“What all these theories have in common is that same-sex sexual activity is either an accident or a quirky genetic method of helping males impregnate females.”
well, no. same-sex bird couples pair for life, and seem to have great affection for each other, and raise chicks together. As a queer person with a couple of degrees and a job in biological sciences I’ve wondered a lot about this, and read some too. Here’s another theory:
like the gene for sickle-cell anemia, the genetic stuff that makes an animal more likely to be queer (different in men and women it seems) also gives a slight advantage in some other arena of life, and so is not selected out, especially if the animal is bisexual and/or can contribute to the success of siblings.
the thing is that for species like us and many birds and other mammals, it takes so much cooperative work to survive together, that we have lots of hard-wired programming for building bonds of reciprocity (i.e., I scratch your back today, then you know I can be trusted, and we can work together). I think strong same-sex romantic/sexual attachment could be highly adaptive in creating these reciprocity bonds.
Burr
June 23rd, 2009
I don’t see why same-sex orientation has to have an evolutionary explanation. Traits don’t have to be specifically selected FOR in order to persist. They simply need to avoid being selected AGAINST. Hence why we have wisdom teeth, appendices, a backwards eye structure, etc.
Sexual attraction probably isn’t determined by a single nucleotide or gene, or we would have found it by now. The behavioral phenotypes exist along a spectrum, which probably means several genes and expression factors are likely involved. As long as those with a genetic makeup that can confer homosexuality to offspring continue reproducing themselves, it will remain a constant of life.
lurker
June 23rd, 2009
and that the article references “gay” humans in the title, then only talks about homosex, not homophilia, is so typical of the mainstream. I don’t think that evolutionary strategies for reproduction that involve homosex are nearly as interesting as the biological reasons (if any) for homophilia.
Hunter
June 24th, 2009
As a preliminary comment, and to expand on Burr’s comment above, I’d like to point out that, indeed, there is a fallacy here that seems to be fundamental to Western thought: the discussion seems to be founded on the idea that if a characteristic is not adaptive in terms of sexual selection, it must be maladaptive, which is simply not the case: characteristics can be neutral, neither conferring an advantage nor a disdvantage. The universe is not necessarily an either/or sort of place.
The whole thing is further complicated by human sociality (and remember in this context that evolution deals with populations, not individuals). It’s been proposed that, for example, a gay man may not leave offspring (and that in itself is a chancy statement, as we well know), but may provide other benefits to the group — particularly his near relatives — by his social role (caregiver, priest, shaman, etc.). And his siblings will carry the same genetic heritage, such as it is. Edward O. Wilson, all the way back in Sociobiology, posited a similar mechanism as the basis for altruism.
I’ll have to look at it again, and may post a comment on my own blog, but so far that article seems kind off-base.
Christopher Waldrop
June 24th, 2009
To throw out another possibility, if I remember correctly it was in The Naked Ape that Desmond Morris threw out the possibility that homosexuality served a purpose by helping to limit population growth. Being fruitful and multiplying is not necessarily a good thing, especially if a population grows so large its environment can’t sustain it.
I agree with both Burr’s and Hunter’s comments, and attempting to discern a specific “function” or “purpose” for homosexuality–to me, anyway–suggests attempts at finding “intelligent design” in nature. There might be such a purpose, or it might be that it’s something that simply occurs and that humans and other animals have found uses for it.
Bruce Garrett
June 24th, 2009
How about the “It Takes A Village” theory? The genetic differences between siblings are minuscule and the trait or traits can exist within the family genes and only be expressed by a few individuals. If the individual has no children of their own, yet the trait, somehow, contributes to the well being of the family/tribe as a whole, that family prospers, that family’s children prosper, and the family genes get to keep going more rounds. Thus the trait endures and eventually begins to spread.
I came across an article about how this works in peacocks some years ago and did a post on it…
http://brucegarrett.com/brucelog/240
…and I’m still convinced this is the more plausible explanation. When people say homosexuality contributes nothing to the survival of the species they’re flat wrong. It does provide a benefit, and that’s not only why the trait has endured over the ages, but why the male body adapted to it in one particular way. People keep missing that little adaptation, but it was hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of years of evolution that gave it to every human male that ever walked this earth, whether they had any use for it or not.
Richard Rush
June 24th, 2009
Perhaps this is far-fetched, but could there be a great irony coming in the future?
To whatever extent homosexuality may be genetically determined, is it possible that the number of homosexuals born would decline just as we are gaining increasing acceptance and equality?
We all know that many (or most?) people with homosexual inclinations have sought social acceptance by faking heterosexual relationships and producing children. But those social pressures are decreasing. Assuming that gay partnerships would always produce fewer children, is it possible that fewer homosexuals will be produced in the future?
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the anti-gay crowd, who want us to go away, discovered they could begin to achieve that by supporting full acceptance and equality?
CPT_Doom
June 24th, 2009
To add to Bruce Garrett’s comment, I have also wondered whether, in hunter/gatherer societies, it would also be beneficial to have members of the tribe not involved in child-rearing, but 100% devoted to acquiring food.
Rick
June 24th, 2009
My thought is that we’ve never had a shortage of offspring… though from time to time, we may have a shortage of offspring which *survive*. Here are my examples of how homosexuality could improve the survival rate of our progeny, with inspiration from behaviour our race exhibits even in modern times:
On the origin of homosexuality: assuming that primitive humans had social organization similar to super-advanced apes, the young males would be chased off by the alpha male when they matured. Homosexually docile male youths might not be chased off, and would continue to enjoy the protection of the tribe. Modern example: parents or stepparents who continue a consenual (or simply dependant) sexual and living relationship with one of the kids, into adulthood.
The young male exiles would form suburban gangs which would occasionally test the alpha’s strength, eventually replacing him in battle, or at least stealing some of his mates. Sex among the exiled youths could strengthen their own survival groups.
Homosexual bonds begun in youth could continue throughout adulthood and help clan or tribal groups to expand, where before there would be only an alpha male, mates and children with exiled beta males running amok in the woods around them. Modern example: “fishing buddies” and “hunting buddies” *wink* who raise their respective families together or nearby.
Having extra (“unmarried”) parents and teachers around to watch the kids, and take them hunting would probably increase their odds of survival, especially when birth parents are busy with a large family or warfare.
Lastly, established homosexual adults within an extended family or tribal group might adopt mature youths (and orphans) rather than exile them. Bonding behaviour between youth and adult would never actually turn the youth into a homosexual, and the arrangement would provide him with a legitemate place in the society until he was old enough to provide for his own family. Modern example: homeless kids and runaways who find an adult to take care of them, often while initially making a living through prostitution or being promiscuous.
It goes without saying, that my “modern examples” are generally illegal or considered uncivilized/immoral today. Indeed, it’s not the best way to grow up, but i’ve seen at least one example of each of these things which seemed to work for the participants.
Rick
June 24th, 2009
Bruce Garrett: is that adaptation which are you talking about, the conviently accessible position of the prostate gland? ;)
grantdale
June 24th, 2009
Aah yes, the intellectual depths are plumbed once again by Time Magazine.
/sigh
i) nice speculation. (Do dolphins, bonobo chimps or garter snakes have locker rooms? What a confused grab-bag Cloud elected to mention.) BUT…Unless someone I trust can confirm this (eg Emily K) — unless girls also walk out of showers and grab and waggle their airbags with a “Wo-Hoo!”… I’d rather think of this as an immature-maturing boy thing. As in, “Look at mine, worship it!” Yeah, yawn, we all got one. Maybe not as magnificent, but similar.
ii) nice speculation. BUT… Then again, that’s exactly why I jump on him and squash him flat on the futon — to deny him any heterosexual expression. He claims the same, so I guess we’re even. This seems to be working well as a strategy, as neither of us has expressed ourselves heterosexually with the one of us jumping on the other every so often. Of course, it offers little explanation for the way we don’t behave when apart for a week or two due to work…
iii) nice speculation. BUT… And you know, I’m always confusing Men from Women. Just the other day I referred to a 6’2″ guy with a beard and back hair as “Madam”… and boy o boy was he annoyed. I got out of hospital 3 days later. Bikers, got ta luv em.
iv) nice speculation. BUT… It’s good to know my 16 year relationship is merely a dry-run (snigger) for the Real Thing. When the velvet arrives, I’ll be ready. Not willing, mind, but ready. Not sure why or how this explains Alan Chambers and his ‘9 months’ delay… but… we’ll just have to put that down to an idle outlier.
v) nice speculation. BUT… You wouldn’t believe how many times I’ve tried to get a woman pregnant by forcing sex on HER husband. That, and sneaking an ‘enhanced’ Whopper his way when we all end up at (*Wellknown Burger Chain*) late of a night after being on the turps. No, really — there is a reason I take the order into the ‘rest’room when it arrives…
When someone declares “Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality should have disappeared long ago” I know damn well… they don’t want to understand diddly squat about evolution. Did they even take biology?
The fact that ‘no-one’ has offered an adequate evolutionary explanation for homosexuality misses the point — it exists, and does so in spite. Plainly, more is at work. Classic “God of the gaps” nonsense.
Ask not HOW, John Cloud, but WHY NOT.
Nature hates Conformity. That much is obvious. Start with that premise.
(ps: good to see you, Timothy, and Jim and et al etc are all still alive. Been awhile. Best wishes as always!)
fannie
June 24th, 2009
Too bad so many evolutionary “explanations” for homosexuality focus solely on the sexual behavior of males.
You know, because all gay people are men.
Bruce Garrett
June 25th, 2009
Rick: Yeah…that. I’m guessing most heterosexual males, including a lot of biologists, don’t even think to wonder about why that’s an erogenous zone because their libidos simply don’t even go there. But…there it is.
Bruce Garrett
June 25th, 2009
Fannie: I think that’s likely an artifact of how male dominated the sciences regrettably still are.
Rick
June 25th, 2009
My examples above were male-oriented owing to the fact that I am male myself, and these examples are easier for me to concieve from personal experience. I have also noted that lesbians tend to bare their teeth whenever a male has the audacity to try and analyze them or represent them. =P
Rev. Loush
June 28th, 2009
while i do not think that homosexuality must have an evolutionary explanation, i also think that it does. i think it may be natures way of human population control on a planetary scale. of course some native americans have a beliefe that two-spirit people which is their word for many types of people including those that belong to the g.l.b.t. community have a speaical spiritual purpose in being here and i definitly think that is true!:)
bb
L
Leave A Comment