Can natural selection select for genes based on their utility at a group level?

[garbon]

So your point is that being gay is a choice, and that we can treat it like we treat other disorders?

I suppose I could choose to have sex with women, but it probably wouldn't be much fun for any involved, what with me not being attracted to them and all.

[swallow]

It seems like it would make more sense for a gene to exist to make sure some individuals are sterile.  As after all, homosexuals aren't incapable of creating offspring, their just not inclined towards it.*

Well, I may be grasping for straws here, but if someone was looking for a more "intelligent design" as it were, making them disintrested (but ultimately capable of) creating offspring would work better in a situation when suddenly, due to a demographic upheaval, you don't have enough children and fecund men to keep the population going.

Something like President Roslin declaring a moratorium on abortions, and whatnot.

Essentially, in prosperous, populous societies with high access to resources and low child mortality rate you could "let them be" disinterested thus controlling the population and providing for additional work force that is more "selfless".

In struggling, undeveloped, high child mortality societies you could apply various pressures to make them reproduce.

Which has actually historically happened.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1243581.stm
It would be interesting if there was anything equivalent to the serotonin trigger for swarming Locusts, which would alter behaviour under specific social or physical conditions. conditions

[alfred russel]

Blah blah blah.  They have not changed that much.  Greek statues seem pretty sexy to me.  Likewise if I was in a society where pederasty was something you did I would do it, though it would probably not be my first choice of a sexual partner.  Anyway Greek society usually kinda had you go that way because the genders were so rigidly segregated by culture and custom.  Gay men also used to take wives and make babies, it was not what they really wanted to do but they did it anyway, it does not mean they suddenly became heteros.

I still do not really see that what society expects you to do is necessarily what you prefer.

??? So older married greek men took male lovers because women were not available, and you would take part if you were transported to that society? I wouldn't take part--and I doubt most modern men would either. I'd rather find a wife. I certainly was never tempted to indulge in adolescents during any drought I had in my single days.

If this is a case of genetics, then why don't identical twins always share the same sexual orientation?

[Valmy]

??? So older married greek men took male lovers because women were not available, and you would take part if you were transported to that society?

Um...I suppose I would if that was the expectation.  That is a social thing and I presume there were social rewards and warm fuzzies (helping out a young kid and enjoying the mentoring relationship and so forth) that would make up for the fact it was not something I would want to engage in if left to my own devices.

If this is a case of genetics, then why don't identical twins always share the same sexual orientation?

If this is a case for society molding people then why don't children raised in the same societies not always share the exact same sexual tastes?  Why do children in the same household develop different sexual orientations?

[Neil]

So your point is that being gay is a choice, and that we can treat it like we treat other disorders?

I suppose I could choose to have sex with women, but it probably wouldn't be much fun for any involved, what with me not being attracted to them and all.

I'm sure that you can be cured of your sexual dysfunction.

[garbon]

I'm sure that you can be cured of your sexual dysfunction.

Nah, it isn't causing any hindrance to having a happy, fulfilled life, so I doubt psychiatrists would make much of it.

[alfred russel]

If this is a case for society molding people then why don't children raised in the same societies not always share the exact same sexual tastes?  Why do children in the same household develop different sexual orientations?

People are exposed to an almost infinite number of factors during their lives, and considering how complex sexual regulation is in human development, why the surprise we can't identify one or two factors as a smoking gun? I think it is clear there is a genetic influence, but equally clear that isn't the whole story.

[garbon]

OMG, is it both nature and nurture not nature vs. nurture?!

[Viking]

I would imagine that reverse would be true if what you were saying is possible.

It is only recently in human history that over-population has become an issue. So, if what you are saying is true than it would be more likely that the "homosexual" gene would be turned-off so that off-spring would multiple better to insure survival of the species.

I am not saying it is there to deal with overpopulation but to provide a different hands-to-work-to-mouths-to-feed ration than in a group where everybody has several offspring. There is a reason why many societies had a celibate caste of priests that goes beyond simple overpopulation concerns, for example.

Through most of human history there have been no celibate priestly casts. Shamans fucked around and still fuck around.

[Valmy]

why the surprise we can't identify one or two factors as a smoking gun? I think it is clear there is a genetic influence, but equally clear that isn't the whole story.

I think something being part of your nature does not equal it is 100% genetic.  All sorts of things can change your nature, that are not social at all, that are not genetic such as what happens to you in utero or drugs that change brain chemistry.  Nothing is quite so dramatic than an elderly person whose brain chemistry is stopping to function, it fundamentally changes who they are.

Now there may is socialization and so forth but I just happen to think who you are is mostly determined by your nature.

[Valmy]

Through most of human history there have been no celibate priestly casts. Shamans fucked around and still fuck around.

Priestly castes have usually had bizarre and nonsensical restrictions on them, sometimes they were sexual but not always.  I think there was always a principal that to be a priest you had to show you were somehow set apart from ordinary people.

[Viking]

there any similar tradition for childless men helping their nieces and nephews? Not that I know of.

Viking, meet CdM, CdM, Viking.

One of my ambitions in life is to avoid that specific occurrence.

[Viking]

Most definitely. It has even been observed in many primitive societies that still exist. And remember - this does not have to be something prevalent today, since we have moved beyond the environment for which our genes evolved.

Any documentation?

[Valmy]

OMG, is it both nature and nurture not nature vs. nurture?!

I think most people generally agree that both have an impact.  The arguement is only based on what has the bigger impact.

[Neil]

I'm sure that you can be cured of your sexual dysfunction.

Nah, it isn't causing any hindrance to having a happy, fulfilled life, so I doubt psychiatrists would make much of it.

It is damaging to society at large.  Like a cancer.