Originally Posted by tore (Post 911991)

Of course not. As with the fish, the efficiency of a strategy depends on the environment.

Imagine that the whole world is full of women and gay people who refuse to have sex with them. What do you think the fitness would be of the one heterosexual male in that population? ;) Unless he was a hideous monster, it would likely be quite high and his heterosexual male children would thrive in such a world. Remember that a strategy that does well when a few does it may not be good when the majority does it. It's efficiency depends on the environment - which changes.

You are applying your idea of evolution to a whole species, talking about the "darwinian success" of homo sapiens and homosexuality. You can't do that, at least not without a solid educated foundation in evolution. It makes more sense to talk about the fitness of f.ex a specific gene in a specific environment. As that gene as well as others increase or decrease in the human population, the environment that gene is evolving in changes and, in response, so does it's effect on fitness.

Originally Posted by tore (Post 911991)

Of course not. As with the fish, the efficiency of a strategy depends on the environment.

Imagine that the whole world is full of women and gay people who refuse to have sex with them. What do you think the fitness would be of the one heterosexual male in that population? ;) Unless he was a hideous monster, it would likely be quite high and his heterosexual male children would thrive in such a world. Remember that a strategy that does well when a few does it may not be good when the majority does it. It's efficiency depends on the environment - which changes.

You are applying your idea of evolution to a whole species, talking about the "darwinian success" of homo sapiens and homosexuality. You can't do that, at least not without a solid educated foundation in evolution. It makes more sense to talk about the fitness of f.ex a specific gene in a specific environment. As that gene as well as others increase or decrease in the human population, the environment that gene is evolving in changes and, in response, so does it's effect on fitness.

Originally Posted by Harry (Post 912019)

I sincerely doubt homosexuality is a reproductive efficiency strategy... considering it is counterproductive to reproduction since reproduction is between a man and a women which is why facades and illusions such as 'love' exist. And if the fertility thing is, then the homosexuality is just a side effect.

Originally Posted by Harry

Say there was no society, or anything of that sort, just bare instincts... you think it would somehow be beneficial to have random homosexuals and that it would be not a genetic anomaly

Originally Posted by Harry (Post 912031)

Beneficial to reproduction, obviously, which would be the only thing (besides eating, breathing, sleeping) that we would be present for without society.

There are plenty of people walking around with other genetic ailments, too. That doesn't make it natural just because it's there.

Let me clear up that by natural I mean no genetic mistakes/differences in chromosomes/etc what-so-ever. Not that they create themselves, or anything. Just that as being birthed with social anxiety or something of the sort, it's not 'natural'. (not putting the two on the same plane, just saying) I think you're having a difficult time understanding what I mean by that.

Originally Posted by tore (Post 912037)

Okay .. You need to understand things from a gene point of view.

Imagine that you are a gene. You work in a way that you decrease fecundity in males, but at the same time, when you are in a female, her fecundity is increased so much by your presence that on the whole, having you in a population of 50/50 male to female ratio leads to a net increase in overall fecundity. Is your presence in a population "beneficial" to reproduction or not?

When discussing stuff like this, you have to look at the evolution of the genes - the genetics - not the people who possess them. I think you have a hard time getting your perspective right.

Originally Posted by Harry (Post 912040)

Your point still makes no relevance to the naturalness of homosexuality. It, in that case is a SIDE EFFECT. It is not the homosexuality that benefits, but the supposed fertility you mention that is what it happens to accompany.

Originally Posted by tore (Post 912046)

Okay, so if you accept that a healthy human population contains genes that normally result in a minority of homosexuals, do you consider this minority unnatural?

The way I see it, it's probably been with us for millions of years and there are a lot of homosexual people in the world, so one shouldn't call it an anomaly or something unnatural.