Gay Animals - Part Of Natural Selection?

International News, By Joal, 17th June, 2009

Is gay the way of the future? According to Charles Darwin it’s the survival of the fittest, and according to a recent study, some gay animals are flourishing.

A recent study into Trends in Ecology and Evolution released by the University of California yesterday says that homosexuality isn’t an evolutionary set-back, but could be part of the natural selection process. Instances of same-sex attraction in a number of animal species are well documented, but the recent study suggests gay sex is far more widespread amongst species than previously thought and in some cases furthers the survival of species.

“Same-sex sexual behaviour has long been viewed as a fascinating puzzle from the evolutionary perspective. The most obvious mystery is why animals would engage in sexual behaviours that do not directly result in reproduction,” says co-author of the recent study, Dr Nathan Bailey from the Department of Biology at the University of California.

Bailey and co-author Dr. Marlene Zuk wanted to broaden the scientific approach to the study same-sex attracted animals, looking not at why it occurred, but what effect the ‘sexual interactions’ would have on evolution and the population of species.

An example used by the scientists in their study is the formation of female couples amongst Laysan albatross. Due to a lack of males, ‘lesbian’ couples are nursing young and helping populations to increase where unpaired females are less successful in rearing young.

Bailey indicated that the reasons behind same-sex attraction in non-human species varied. “Male fruit flies may court other males because they are lacking a gene that enables them to discriminate between the sexes. But that is different from male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding, or female Laysan albatrosses that can remain pair-bonded for life and co-operatively rear young,” says Bailey.

While Bailey says that the research could open up dialogue about how people think about homosexuality, other scientists have said that same-sex attraction isn’t always an evolutionary advantage. Paul Vasey, who studies Japanese macaque monkeys as at the University of Lethbridge in Canada, told Scientific America that same-sex attraction didn’t appear to have an adaptational advantage amongst macaques.

It “doesn’t jibe with how people want to think about it. You can’t impose your perspective on the species you’re studying. Attempt to understand the world on its own terms,” says Vasey.

Your Thoughts

Marcus Bourget

said ages ago

Just clarifying that........... Nature is telling us that being gay is natural. Not incest, just trying to make a point. Why the clarification? If we're following the train of thought being suggested by part of the article and some of the posters, incest / inbreeding is just as 'natural' as homosexuality. Likewise cannibalism. And coprophilia. And any other weird and wonderful activity you can find in nature. Or does incest and eating poo not quite gel with how you'd like to think about homosexuality? And I know we're straying off the topic of natural selection, but it's seems to me that there's a fair amount of misty-eyed anthropomorphism going on here. clucky lesbian albotrosses, loving star crossed homo penguins... It's an interesting article but as Vasey says at the end "You can’t impose your perspective on the species you’re studying. Attempt to understand the world on its own terms”.

jimjazz

said ages ago

mother nature is trying to tell us that its been about sequins alllll along! DER!

Hels85

said ages ago

..... the sequins gotta love those sequins xx I was clarifying that the point of being gay is natural. I do agree that I was suggesting that other natural occuring behaviors weren't. I am aware of what others do, like eating poo for instance. I just wouldn't do it myself. Human beings themselves have created the mentality over the years to try and structure society the way they thought it should be. I mean they tried to stop science because they thought it was too forward thinking but beleived in witchcraft instead. Okay way off topic now.

Christian Taylor

said ages ago

i think the message is clear - it's not all about having kids.

Zakalwe

said ages ago

...there's a fair amount of misty-eyed anthropomorphism going on here. clucky lesbian albotrosses, loving star crossed homo penguins... It's an interesting article but as Vasey says at the end "You can�t impose your perspective on the species you�re studying. Attempt to understand the world on its own terms�. Even anthropomorphising to the extent of "Nature". "Nature does this..." or "Nature has a plan..." There is nothing guiding Evolution.

paxie

said ages ago

Funny ...a couple of weeks ago i had lunch with 4 gay guys and for some reason we ended up watching a documentary about homosexuality in animal kingdom. I still laughed about it..how I got sucked into it but it was very educational. I think this article points out some very valid points : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/ My thoughts are : 1. People who claims that homosexuality is unnatural can be challenged because this very act happens in animal kingdom..naturally. 2.However, just because it happens in nature, it doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do ie : eating poo or incest. 3. Survival of the fittest theory is not all about being able to procreate. This is given the fact that copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. (I think this is where the society is misguided, just like those Scientist perception of homosexuality (see article above)- "The idea, however, is rarely discussed in the scientific community and is often dismissed as unnatural because it doesn't appear to benefit the larger cause of species continuation" ) But, I have to agree with Vasey,"You can�t impose your perspective on the species you�re studying. Attempt to understand the world on its own terms." Until, I can speak like monkey or think like animals. I have no base to explain how animal behaviour somehow reflects to human behaviour.

Brightside05

said ages ago

I know there is a small chance of there being defects in children being born due to incest, but why is incest wrong. I know society deems it wrong but they deemed/deem homosexuality wrong as well.

blueterrace

said ages ago

Wow, if I am reading this article right we can hit on Macaques with a fair chance of sucess then.

Jody Ekert

said ages ago

My fave theory on homosexuality is that it that it was selected for as a trait because it incresed the chances of survivial of certain kids. Like if you have a Mum and a Dad and they are looking out for one kid, it's only 2 people guarding against lions or whatever. But throw in a gay uncle or aunt, who did not have kids, and then you had an extra adult to protect the kid and ensure survival of that DNA..three adults looking out for child. Throw in any surviving gradparents then and you could have up to five adults with a reason to protect the offspring. Of course, that doesn't work now that gay folk have kids like anyone else. And it's one of those unproven scientific theories anyhow, but I think it's kinda cute. Alternatively it could all just be random. Evolution's not likely to cut out a trait as long as it's not damaging anything in the continual procreation of the species. And having a small percent of same-sex loving animals or folk around equals a big SO WHAT. As long as a certain threshold wasn't crossed and it didn't become a huge percentage so that procreation stopped it's harmless. Third theory- some traits have evolved for entirely cross purposes. I think there is something about people being prone to sickle cell anemia (a bad thing) are actually more malaria resistent ( a good thing) - which is why sickle cell anemia is high in populations that come from areas with tonnes of malaria. The dodgy genes were worth the payoff. That gets me thinking...what great traits does being gay give us in return if being gay was seen as a "bad" evolutionary turn?

JustDax

said ages ago

I remember reading some years ago the results of a study of sexual behaviour in animal groupings. It found (unexpectedly - this was not the main study topic) that the incidence of homosexual activity increased markedly in groups in proportion to the amount of overcrowding. This would indicate some natural population control device at work... seems a reasonable assumption to me.

There are 5 more comments

View them all

To post a comment, you need to be a SameSame Member

Log-in now or signup for a new account