Some possible roots of gay-ness.

[bhakti]

Well now, this article is terribly interesting. Apparently, several studies indicate that there is a correlation between the number of older brothers a man has, and his likelihood of being gay. Researchers see a likely causative relationship here, with more numerous older brothers increasing the chances that a man will be homosexual. It's not

Comments

[remj]

Wow, that's an interesting idea. I too often ponder what are the evolutionary 'uses' of homosexuality. If we are 'wired' to want to pass on as much genetic material as possible then wouldn't that imply that homosexuality is a hindrance to such intent?

[lifegivingsword]

Very interesting. I have dabbled with a theory very similar to this. It struck me once that, with human overpopulation becoming a very big and very apparent problem with no visible resolution, perhaps Nature somehow (I've no idea how, mind you) is engineering an increase in members of the species that will be unlikely to reproduce (i.e. homosexuality). The historian in me would be intrigued to see if there has been a rise in the tendency towards homosexuality as there has been a rise in the population. Who knows?

BTW, I have to thank you for bringing this up. I would imagine that many would feel reluctant to debate a topic like this, lest they be branded bigots of some sort. I am glad that you were brave enough to open up this discussion in a very tasteful and mature fashion. And I believe I speak for everyone on this thread in saying that this is in no way an expression of hostility, only neutral speculation.

Cheers.

[aleyhr]

This is the explaination given most often. Due to the fact that homosexuality is seen in nature most often when there is an overpopulation issue.

[lifegivingsword]

really? i wasn't aware that there was a prescedent (sp) for it. thank you for the input.

[divachiqua]

I was going to postulate something similar, but you said it first. I firmly believe that Nature is attempting to steer us in the right direction, but we just won't take the hint.

How's England, by the by?

~ Norah

[eroika]

This is extremely interesting! I like your thought process on this. In certain animal groups homesexuality rises as populations rises. I see that as a protective mode for survival as over population is as harmful as under and I see no reason why that can not translate over to human beings.

another theory

[aleyhr]

I just wanted to add another theory that I've heard. It has something to do with the amount of stress a woman is under while pregant. The idea is the more stress she is under the more female hormones she releases into her body, and therefore into the fetus' body. I unfortunately don't have any link to the research. However the more hormones (supposedly) the more effeminate the boy. Just one more to add to the pile.

[merlin_v12]

That was really thought-provoking. So much so, that something new occurred to me while reading it. Your thesis is a reasonable explanation for why a man might not be interested in women, but it doesn't explain why he would be interested in men. Does that make sense? If nature is looking to safeguard the eldest son's survival, or trying to cap the population, wouldn't we see a bunch of asexual people walking around? I'm not trying to be flip, and I can't offer an explanation for the appearance of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, but it seems to me that if you imagine sexual preference as a pendulum, your theory gets it to the middle. I don't know what makes it swing to the other extreme.

More stuff to chew on, I guess!

[bhakti]

It's absolutely true that the logic above would work just as well with asexual men as with homosexual men. However, nature doesn't get to tailor-make these situations; a variation has to arise organically in the population before it can spread through natural selection

[eliza_bennett]

This is extremely interesting. I have little else to add except to agree with Norah - this world's population numbers are extremely high and I have often wondered (with little scientific evidence to prove it) if homosexuality is simply a necessary evolutionary development.

But it doesn't really speak to bisexuality, does it? In reading about it lately, I've found precious little research on it; articles I've found barely address bisexuality, dealing only with hetero and homosexuality. Why is that?

You don't happen to know of any sources I could check out, do you?

[eliza_bennett]

Oh, and I love your icon. It's very ZANNE.