[quote=“djlowballer”][quote=“bababa”]
There are some evolutionary biologists, though, who theorize that homosexuality is advantageous.[/quote]
Cite please. I am interested in how they come to this conclusion.[/quote]
God knows where I read it.
I think the reasoning was that since it exists in all societies to about the same degree, even though it would seem to be a disadvantage and therefore should die out or have died out already, that there must be some advantage to it, not on a personal level, but for a society. A society where 10% of the adults are not producing babies survives better than a society where all adults are producing babies, so the genes of the ‘10% will be gay’ society are more likely to survive.
Sorry, don’t have any citations. I am sure you can imagine that gays are less likely to have children. However, they tend to be likely to have desires to take care of children. Since they are less likely to be a mother/father, they instead become an active uncle/aunt. This results in more people taking care of a child. A child having more people take care of it is more likely to survive/be successful.
Gays are statistically more likely to be involved in childcare professions. This indicates they may have some desire to take care of children that is not satisfied due to them being less likely to have children.
Well, Roughgarden (nice name) seems to have a lot to say about the issue of homosexuality being natural or unnatural. And that wasn’t too hard to find. Consider punching “homosexuality” and “advantageous” into a search engine.
But - for me - this is all besides the point. I’ll read her stuff when I have more time, but I don’t believe something needs to be deemed natural or advantageous before it can be deemed ethical behavior.
Besides this, we were discussing incest and not homosexuality.
I have a crazy suspicion about this family. Maybe granny and grandson AREN’T sleeping together. Maybe the “surrogate mother” is actually the grandson’s girlfriend, who got pregnant the normal way. (Makes a lot more sense than the idea that a 72-year-old woman still produces viable ova.) Maybe the three of them invented this scandal in order to sell the book rights.