play gay flash games. gay leather pride flag. gay marriage in cuba. chateau le gay bordeaux. neon trees vocalist gay. gay bars in pattaya. best gay dance music. celine dion gay icon. gay bars midland texas. brent everett gay tubegay hotel cancun mexico gay people near you. mature gay man gallery. old compton street gay. gay boy justin bieber. gay male escorts brazil. brent everett gay tube. article on gay marrige. free gay outdoor sex. brooklyn gay pride 2012. gay black thug dating. free gay frat hazing. gay tours buenos aires. gay gran canaria hotel. matt damon gay rumors. is rich franklin gay. salvation army and gay. gay camping in florida. chat gay y lesbianas. free gay insest videos. american gay boy sex. young amateur gay tube. gay hotel lyon france. gay male anal massage. buenos aires gay guide. tom cruise gay movie. david brian actor gay. gay and co ballarat. gay people in public. under armour anti gay. gay calendar new york.
I know I'm 2 years late, but I highly recommend a lecture series on Human Behavioral Biology by Robert Sapolski on the Stanford channel. I think it's in the 22nd or 23rd video that he address the biological proof that no one actually chooses to be gay, straight, bi or trans. It's amazing!
Well there's also the factor that for most of our history homosexuality or at least homosexual relationships have been frowned upon. This would lead to many or even most homosexuals deciding to enter into heterosexual relationships.
People keep asking me why I didn't answer the question. That was the point, I wasn't a thorough as I thought I was because people keep asking me this. But like I said the question is malformed and asks of evolutionary theory things that it does not need to explain if the basics are understood. There doesn't necessarily need to be a reason, because evolution is the outcome, not the cause. It happens to a population not an individual. Also there are more straight people that don't want children than gay people, but we don't ask what their evolutionary "purpose" is, in evolutionary theory they are a part of the component that makes up genetic death. If your alleles are not passed on this is not some failure on the part of the person or a failure of evolutionary theory.
" _your asking for the holy grail of homosexuality._" The problem posed to Dawkins was apparently that " _there seems to be no linear Darwinian reason to possess this trait._" 0:45. I don't understand this to be a question about purpose, but a question for the _Darwinian_ mechanisms to explain the occurrence of the trait, which seems to be an entirely reasonable question to ask.
+Caren Ami ah, your asking for the holy grail of homosexuality. Well, that's just it, there are so many explanations, I'm banking on epigenetics, that is some thing that happens after or on top of already inherited traits. Something as simple as a few genes/alleles or complex of alleles, that are normally off somehow get switched on after reproduction and during maturation. That will probably be the subject of another video in the near future.
But like I said in the video, Dawkins/Nye's answers weren't really my issue, it was the questions. Their answers we quite astute, I myself am gay and a biological father, and am always looking into this, Dawkins " sneaky fucker theory ", is a nice one too. I have no desire for women, yet I want children, and now have one, so my alleles got passed on because of my persistence, lol.
Hey Atticus, I was just wondering on how much weight you thought social factors have in one's sexuality. Though there are many people who from birth never have any attraction to a given sex, it seems like the majority of people fall somewhere in the middle of the attraction spectrum, but simply don't entertain attractions to members of a certain sex because of societal influence. E.g A man only ever having sex with women even though he feels some amount of attraction towards men, because he has a stronger aversion toward men due to fear of gayness. Throughout history in cultures where homosexuality was less frowned upon, it was a commonality and at times expected of a person to have sexual and romantic relationships with members of each sex. Do you think someone's sexuality is always predetermined by genetics, or do you think "nurture" plays a role in it. I hope that made sense. Thanks!
Hey, I just found you and love your videos =)
Anyway, in regards to this I heard of some recent research, that the genes that would partly influence whether or not you become/are gay, also have a positive influence on the amount of children a lady with those same genes would have. According to that it would make perfect sense that such genes survive evolution.
I am not sure if it is true since I never bothered finding the research on my own, but it is certainly an intriguing possibility.
Homosexuality is apart of all mammalian species and it has NOTHING to do with morality. Homosexuality is a way to keep the numbers of the species in balance without any real risks to the species in general.
Insightful video on homosexuality. Of course many factors can be implicated as it is a vast spectrum. But for the laymen this video pretty much sums it up. Of course, as you said, not everyone believes in evolution.
And, for your moving and superb intellect you earn.... a SUBBIE! :D
We agnostic and atheist gotta stick together.
Hey, I thought your answer/s were great and to the point :) I also thought some people interested in what you are talking about might be interested in this article form IFLS:
Christian dogmatism of marriage and social pressure to reproduce probably also helped spread the allele as far as they have gotten. Basically social and dogmatic pressure to override the attraction problem, I am not saying this is the sole reason. When you look at the society created by the church centuries ago, you are pushing any sexual gene outside of heterosexual to reproduce. Thus furthering the spread of those alleles.
And while not solely responsible, I am not sure if those alleles would be nearly as wide spread today had the church not stepped into everyone's bedroom. Though maybe alleles would be wider spread without them, since there wouldn't have been the horrendous laws if someone was caught.
But this is more modern times, not addressing millions of years. I think all it would really take is one evolutionary successful* animal to ensure it goes any allele, recessive or dominant spreads far and wide.
*reproduced a lot is what I mean in this context.
In evolution, the only "normal" is variation itself. Some of those variations are bound to effect sexuality.
... Also, Dawkins' "sneaky fucker" (as he calls it) is relevant. Bisexual hunter-gatherer is slightly more effeminate and left out of the hunting party. He fucks the hunters' wives while the hunters are away. TA-DAH, the children may inherent the gene-pattern (in their gene "switches") for that sexual variant.
+DogMechanic Some tribes had great respect for homosexual men, they provided 2 functions - helping as a care-giver for offspring and being a man in the camp, should it need defended while the hunting party was away..
I fear that my point will be garbled in such a small space,
but I will press on.
There is strong scientific evidence to indicate that
altruism benefits humanity overall.
I personally believe that the benefits of homosexuality to
society are significant.
A more selfish and individual benefit is that homosexuality
demonstrates that as humans we select mates based on a personal compatibility
and preference. Not simply the one human
that is most easily accessible that we think will best promote our genes and
create the strongest or most advantageous offspring. (Simply put, it proves we don’t pick people
based solely on who will make the best babies.) T
Doesn’t it demonstrate that we are selected as mates because
we have qualities that our mate is attracted to? The vast majority of people select mates based
on preference and I believe that homosexuality is nature’s way of saying there
is a place for this selection even if it includes non child bearing
Again simply put, when we see childless couples in love it strengthens
our bond to our mate, which children tend to strain, by reminding us that we
serve a purpose outside of child rearing.
I am not saying in any way that homosexuals should be
confined to childless relationships. If we have evolved as a species to
consistently have 3 to 5 percent of our species be homosexual, there must be a
reason, perhaps related to our natural altruism. Could it be as simple as ensuring that there
would be childless couples to care for those children who were abandoned or orphaned?
Imagine the perfection of two perfectly healthy intelligent
people with no children of their own, yet possessing the desire or urge to have
children. Their urge and altruism as
humans makes them a natural choice to step in and fill the role especially in
times when food scarcity or illness would impact a Male/female family’s
willingness and availability to care for non genetic offspring.
Perhaps those couples were meant to act as built in surrogates
for orphaned children.
Prior to the days of medical intervention, options for childless
couples were limited. During this same time, life expectancy for natural
parents did not always equal the length of childhood.
Such a short time in the history of humanity has been recorded.
It’s time to rethink the concept that only male/ female relationships are
natural. I don’t chose to be straight
any more that I choose to love my kids. It comes naturally to me. Homosexuality continues to endure for a
reason. It is natural and has a beneficial place in our evolution.
+Finite Atticus The one idea I had that as far as I know is not backed up by anything - is that - maybe having homosexual is "good" for survival because it limit's the population? But I think the more likely explanation is just bio-diversity. And it happens a ton in nature (other animals) bleep we even have a video of a monkey doing a frog! So, yeah, animals be crazy just like us. That being said if only you were not a turtlist we could tots gay marry now. But NOOOOO you have to be a turtlist! I forgot what I was complaining about now.
Why do the men picture not kiss open mouth like the girl picture? Men need to learn to kiss better. You should teach how to gay kiss.
Somewhere this post derailed.
Oh those pesky Bonobos and primate sexual behavior!
Fundies, like 5 year olds having tantrums and cannot stand the visuals of a guy "jizzing" with another guy. It really just comes down to that. Yet no one seems to want to say it.
But then again there is me who will.
I don't think you've really answered the question properly either.
You've explained that having gay people in the population isn't necessarily harmful but you didn't explain why homosexuality has evolved in the first place.
Btw I'm not having a go at you - I'm just saying that this is an tricky question that is difficult to answer.
+andy4226uk Meh, if they say that " unnatural ", then arguing about evolution won't do any good, even if they understand and accept evolution. This was more for fun and my own piece of mind. Just some simple stuff.
FYI I'm pro gay rights, pro gay marriage, accept evolution etc.
My feeling though is that while you make some very good points, this isn't going to appease the homophobes who say that homosexuality is unnatural and a choice
+andy4226uk That's the point of the video, that question, " why did it evolve?", is what people wanted to know, I had a problem with their questions, so I summed up what was wrong with their questions. It presents a misunderstanding about evolution itself, same sex attraction is well documented throughout the animal kingdom, and is natural from that viewpoint, It's only in human societies that it's frowned on, (not that you're saying that you frown on it). Both Dawkins and Nye gave good answers to that question, but they inadvertently exposed the fact that the questioners didn't really know what they were asking. (BTW, I am thinking of making a secondary video involving that question, but it will take a lot more time.)
As long as most of the human race is attracted to the opposite sex, there is no problem with gay people. And there are way to many humans on this planet anyway, so we should stop having so many kids anyway....
I got click bated so hard, I stared at the picture for ~10s. Now excuse me, I gotta go do some, uh, research ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). Oh, and thanks for the video/explanation. I remember being puzzled by Dawkins' answer too.
There was also this study of twins with different sexualities (one being gay and one being straight), where it was noted that the straight twin is more promiscuous, which is kind of an insult nowadays, but is actually a pretty dang useful trait for spreading your genes around. So it seems that at least some part of the genes that can make a person or an animal gay can also be beneficial to spreading genes, not disadvantageous.
I like a woman's naughty bits, I have seen some ones that I did run from. However, I've never wanted a kid to come crawling out of one. Only once did I think that might happen. Later my partner said the greatest words ever spoken were "ive had a miscarriage". Best day of my young life.
He may not b a scientist but he is very science Savvy. He knows a lot about science probably a lot more then many of the people watching this vid will. U don't have to have the title to have the knowledge not does his reputation confirm that he has all that knowledge.
+HConstantine I didn't say he was anything other than an engineer, I said he is an engineer who has assisted with scientific research. Since when do you need a degree to be a scientist? Plenty of Scientists over the years who advanced the scientific field did not have degrees. Do you need a piece of paper to be a scientist? I thought a persons contribution to a field meant more then a sheet of paper.
I can't speak for gay _men,_ but this particular lesbian _is_ a little grossed out by penises.
It's like there'z this _tentacle_ (and two testicles) stickin' out of a guy's groin, like some creepy Cthulhu-esque space alien thing. Nasty!
...so, you know...I prefer women romantically, but it really helps that I like 'em physically too. ;)
I have a dick but I am not disgusted by dicks, I just don't find them sexually attractive. Does the fact that I am not disgusted mean I am gay? Otherwise all straight people should be self-hating their own genitals. Fucking penis! Why do you mock me?!
Another interesting point to make about homosexuality within social species is that it can be, in various ways, a benefit to a population. To use tribal hominids as an example, if you have a homosexual male, he is less likely to reproduce, but has the same capacity to hunt, fish, gather, build, without a family to support. It means there is more food to go around for everyone else, homosexuality is confined to a very small portion of a population, so it will only have a negligible effect on the tribes ability to reproduce but in times of famine the extra food could be vital. The tribe with the fewer children that can't hunt but need feeding is more likely to survive in times of shortage.