I think its important to always keep in mind a few things here. 1. Homosexuals in the past had varying fitness levels. This is because often, as was stated earlier, homosexuals were forced to partake in heterosexual couplings to maintain status within society. This is evidenced in the number of elderly gay people who have children with a member of the opposite sex through earlier arrangements. Similarly in cultures other than Western European, homosexual members were often coupled with an opposite sex member for procreation purposes and their chosen lover for emotional purposes.
2. Homosexuals currently can have a "choice" of fitness levels, through artificial insemination, surrogate parents, and other reproductive technologies. Granted this is approaching a gray territory of fitness. (ie when does fitness take into account artificial reproduction) 3. Homosexuality still has extremely controversial origins. Unless science can pinpoint a genetic or epigenetic condition which "creates" homosexuals arguments of fitness in regards to genetics are relatively moot. As a homosexual I find it hard to imagine that it is not in some way, shape or form genetic or epigenetic, since it was certainly no choice of mine, but as of yet, there is no proof. 4. Scientific or not, it is often important to consider feelings in this conversation. Especially since the conversation is beginning to lurch into controversial territory regarding certain people, indeed members like myself. While I'm all for scientific discussion, and attempting to boil things down to the simplest form possible, sometimes the human spirit, being the fragile entity that it is, can be hurt by attempts to make it an object. As scientists we must seek a level of detachment from our subjects as is only proper to begin approaching objectivity, but there are areas which must be approached with a slight amount of deference. As a case in point, I'll reference the conversation about women in science which led to flat out arguing and ad-hominem attacks. I think that sometimes we can get a little preoccupied in the subject of study and forget about the "person" being studied or discussed. On Friday, March 29, 2013, David L. McNeely wrote: > ---- "Culliney wrote: > > The statement that "homosexuals have a fitness of zero," which is a true > statement, implies nothing about desires, which cannot be known. It implies > everything about reproductive rate, which, in a homosexual, is zero. > Nothing about this topic, which is >scientific in nature, should give > offense, borderline or otherwise. > > Where do you get the idea that 'homosexuals have a fitness of zero'? Many > homosexuals are parents. Others have close relatives to whose children > they contribute care, so kin selection may be involved. Another poster has > already pointed out that sisters of homosexuals have more children than do > sisters of heterosexuals. > > David McNeely > > > > > Tom Culliney > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Schuler > > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 7:58 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Exclusive homosexuality > > > > Many of you seem to be implying that a "high" frequency of homosexuals > in human populations must imply that there is an "inclusive fitness benefit" > > for heterosexual individuals, and therefore you are implying that there > is an adaptive explanation to homosexuality. This simply isn't true. > Sexuality is complex, and we know that multiple genes interact to affect > sexual preferences, sexuality, and sexual traits. Epistasis with linkage to > a desirable trait can lead to the increased and maintained frequency of any > trait that lowers the fitness of a population (whether it is ~3% or 10% > doesn't matter). Any population genetics textbooks will have great examples > of this. We know that there is individual variation in sexual preferences, > even if we only divide it into 3 categories (straight, bisexual and > homosexual); that is enough to maintain a frequency of individuals that are > 100% homosexual. The 100% homosexual group can have a fitness of zero (non > > reproductive) and never offer any fitness benefits to other individuals > in the population. See the sickle cell anemia example and malaria. > > > > The fact that there is variation in genes of sexual preference leads us > to the conclusion that there can easily be variation in the phenotype. > Social scientists have known this for a long time, it is called the Kinsey > Scale (see more here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale>). Now > that we have confirmed variation in sexual behavior, please stop assuming > that all individuals who associate with "homosexual" behavior do not want > to have children, and that all those who associate with heterosexual > behavior have never acted on an alternative desire. The statement that > "homosexuals have a fitness of zero" implies that you know that all > homosexuals have no desire to have children, which simply is not true, and > is borderline offensive. > > > > I believe Wayne's original question has been answered, homosexual > behaviors exist in other animals. > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA > solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this > message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate > the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you > believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender > and delete the email immediately. > > -- > David McNeely > -- Taylor Spaulding Fisheries Technician (Coho Salmon) Yakama Nation Fisheries Management Program www.spauldingphoto.com www.flickr.com/photos/spudjnr123/
