For the last 10 years the gay community has been adamant that being gay is not a choice and they were made that way. The problem with this of course that being gay is a genetic or developmental defect. It could be both. Like Down’s syndrome, retardation, or fetal alcohol poisoning being gay (if it is truly not a choice) is likely a defect. It is obvious that from an evolutionary perspective being gay is a dead end as it does not produce offspring therefore it is not natural or normal biologically. Should gayness be cured? I don’t see why not if it can.

Saying that homosexual tendencies are an evolutionary dead-end is not necessarily true. An adult jumping into a river to save a drowning child not his or her own would appear on first blush to be a dead-end type behavior as well, and yet people around the world do it. There could be any number of reasons why homosexuality is a benign, or even useful, expression of human diversity. We already suspect that the benefits of the "grandmother effect" can be profound w/r/t successful reproduction. There's no telling what benefits gay brothers and uncles and sons (early lesbians might not have had too much choice of sex partner) might have had on the reproductive success of their clans-mates.

I live in a community that is heavily populated by both gays and lesbians.

Everybody has children. All of them.

Not sure I understand why you would think that being gay is dead end. Have you met any gay or lesbian people?

Oh, and this cure thing. How about your next child - want them to be exposed to the unknown side effects of a prenatal hormone treatment?

If you said yes, I feel sorry for your children.

Arashi:

Saying that homosexual tendencies are an evolutionary dead-end is not necessarily true. An adult jumping into a river to save a drowning child not his or her own would appear on first blush to be a dead-end type behavior as well, and yet people around the world do it. There could be any number of reasons why homosexuality is a benign, or even useful, expression of human diversity. We already suspect that the benefits of the "grandmother effect" can be profound w/r/t successful reproduction. There's no telling what benefits gay brothers and uncles and sons (early lesbians might not have had too much choice of sex partner) might have had on the reproductive success of their clans-mates.

Thats true! The gay uncles might have given fabulous make-overs to all the young singles in the clan. This would have made them more attractive to the opposite sex and thus led to higher-reproductive rates.

It's silly to try and defend the position that being gay is "normal" because as the first post stated it's an evolutionary dead end.It probably is a genetic defect of some sort.Since being born gay is not something a person can help there also is no use in trying to change a persons sexual orientation. If you're gay or straight you didn't have a choice in the matter in your mothers womb.People need to get over the fact that at times natural selection produces mistakes in biology.

Just a damned minute. "Being gay is a genetic or developmental defect," is not a true statement! Being gay is NOT a defect, developmentally or genetically, any more than, say, let-handedness is a defect. It is NOT comparable, furthermore, to Down's syndrome or retardation, or even to color-blindness, which ARE defects. To help you to wrap your mind around it, think of what left-handedness meant to a (normally homosexual) ancient Greek: A curse, a sign of twisted moral inferiority, something hopefully that could be bred or beaten out of children--and an affront to the community as well: stepping over somone's doorstep with the left foot first, was a deadly insult comparable to calling his mother a whore. Silly Greeks. Silly you.

Likewise, what you find "obvious from an evolutionary perspective," is actually not obvious. In the first place, whether it should or it shouldn't be, very little human sex is about reproduction. Straight or gay, we all do it because it's fun and it feels good. Even you, I imagine, do not approach your sexual partners with the statement that, "Well, now it's time to get you pregnant!" Even animals seldom behave as practically as that. Consider how very many non-reproductive behaviors, sexual and non-sexual, there are in all known species above the earthworm; and conversely, how many homosexual behaviors are in fact beneficial, aids to the reproduction of the species as a whole. Lesbian pair-bonding among bears and sea-gulls, for example, and male homosexual pairing among dolphins, cheetahs, geese, and black swans, are significantly more advantageous for the care and protection of their respective species' offspring than "normally" heterosexual family units. And where would bees (and ants, and mole-rats) be without non-reproducing, "developmentally retarded" females?

Is this going to change your mind, Gunsmoke? Are you going, now that you think about it, to go gay? Probably not. But you might have gay sex--with another straight man, of course. According to the latest research, ten to forty per cent of self-identified straight men do have sex with other men. The Kinsey estimate of 37% is probably pretty close. If you do, I hope you practise safer sex. The sad truth is, there's still no cure for AIDS.

Bonobo monkeys are extremely bisexual. Their nearly constant sexual behavior seems to help them bond as a group. What if bisexuality is the most adaptive behavior in terms of survival of the fittest?

Ultimately, we should remember that evolution just means whatever survives in a particular environment survives. It's not a moral thing. We are humans, however, and we can make moral choices. I don't want a society without gay and lesbian people in it and I really don't want a society where we experiment on our babies for an unimportant reason.

My god, that's it! We shouldn't be making straight babies, we should be making our babies bisexual! The best of both worlds!

On the one hand, conservatives espouse (ad nauseum) the inherent worth and sanctity of every baby in it's mother's womb, which was consecrated by God - by whom they were given worth, meaning, and validity.

Yet, on the other hand, conservatives are more than willing to correct His mistakes.

I find that hypocritical, don't you?

Circumcision, prenatal hormone treatments. . . the Right Wing in this country doesn't actually care about maintaining the absurd and arbitrary rules laid down in their 'holy' book. . . they just want to play god. Neo-Con fascists don't care so much about human worth or dignity or right and wrong. . . they're just catering to their subconscious need to feel in control, to feel in charge.

Begrudgedly, they'll admit it themselves: homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetic, prenatal, and environmental circumstances which we can not control. Now, they're playing god again - this time, by chemically carving up children to fit their own warped moral standards.

Face facts, people: homosexuality shouldn't be the thing medical science fixes - conservatism is.

First, I am not a religious conservative and I do believe in evolution, science, math, etc. Second, I wish to take the emotional elements out of the discussion and instead rely on the Socratic Method to be as objective as possible. Third, I don’t claim to know everything or anything about why homosexuality happens or exists, I just wish to explore the possibilities of why some people are gay and the possible repercussions.
I am looking at homosexuality from a purely biological evolutionary perspective. Producing offspring is the sole purpose of evolution. All the genetic variations that evolve are there to adapt to a changing environment so that a species can produce offspring that can survive a changing environment. People are subject to the same rules of evolution, good and bad, as other animals. Homosexuality can be seen similarly to people who are born sterile, yes they can function in society and lead fulfilling lives and adopt and raise children, but at the end of the day they cannot produce children and thus are evolutionarily defective.
Bisexuality and other sexual identity issues can still lead to successful reproduction. Organisms with negative traits, like albinism, can reproduce but the rate is much lower thus they will be genetically eliminated over time as they will be out produced by their more normal peers. I am not saying that homosexuals are not physically capable of reproducing or that they make bad parents, but that they cannot mate with themselves.
I wish to address some of the responses as well. The Greek example didn’t make sense to me as it seems to be a social issue for only ancient Greeks. Left-handedness could be a defect, I don’t think it is, but there are lots of defects and not all of them inhibit reproduction. Homosexuality inhibits reproduction. In addition the “sex feels good” comment makes perfect evolutionary sense as human females do not go into heat each fall or spring. It feels good so you have more sex all the time 365 days a year thus the reproductive calendar is gone. Are there sexual anomalies in nature, of course there are? Such as gender reversal in fish and same sex pair bonding. I would argue that many of these instances are for defense, raising young, or survival, but they eventually mate in binary pairs (even worms). It would be interesting to know if homosexual or lesbian biological clocks tick? Will that urge be met by mating with the same or opposite gender? Do gays and lesbians even have biological clocks?
What of sexual experimentation and the 37% of straight men that perform homosexual acts? This thought experiment is more focused on homosexuality not being a choice. Social pressures, curiosity, and such can lead people experiment with homosexual acts but are they homosexual? Are the girls making out in front of the boys at the frat party really lesbians? Is a onetime sexual encounter the same as gay marriage? Could someone have a homosexual encounter and then decide they are not gay? I would argue that the teen and early adult years have lots of doubt about lots of things which leads to experimentation in many areas including sexuality. How much homosexuality makes a homosexual? I don’t know, but this line of reasoning leads to homosexuality as a choice, thus subject to the mores and values of society.
Social pressure may have force evolution’s hand and many gays or lesbians have reproduced in the past, the question is once the social pressure is off will homosexuality die out? It depends on what causes homosexuality (if it is not a choice). If it is purely genetic and homosexuals are not forced to reproduce then I think it will be left out of the gene pool eventually. If homosexuality is a developmental problem then it may or may not be evolutionarily sorted out as it could be an environmental or hormonal problem. Either way it begs the question, if a cure for homosexuality is found will it be used? The greater issue at hand is if it is genetic and society no longer forces homosexuals to reproduce will they remove themselves from the gene pool if they don’t have children of their own?

After reading some of the replys, I think the main concern should be to gain an understanding of Homosexuality. Living in the south, those who choose to embrace their homosexuality face many hardships due to discrimination by others who disapprove of the life choices. Perhaps homosexuality is due to our genetic makeup, perhaps it is due to our childhood development or society's influence; whatever the cause, a better understanding of homosexuality (I hope) will one day lead to less discrimination against those who participate in that lifestyle.