[joaorj]

> Why do we say homosexuality is primarily genetic if evolution is true?

In my opinion it must be to help the fitness of the community they live in. The communities with low likelihood to spawn a gay person are (were?) much more likely to go extinct. It can also be a basic property (side effect?) of the sexual appeal arms race.

There is also the case of suicides, when they happen to young people that hasn't reproduced yet. It can also be argued its for the benefit of the community.

So the thesis is that the primary force in evolution is not individual's fitness but it is the community's fitness.

[saalweachter]

Meh, it is not necessary to postulate that every part of behavior to which genetics contributes is a thing which has been selected for.

If a particular gene causes good things 95% of the time (based on other interactions or developmental factors or whatever) and catastrophic failures like heart disease or cancer or crippling depression 5% of the time (and it represents a local maxima, with no simple improvements possible), then it can easily come to dominate a gene-pool, so long as the 95%-benefit outweighs the 5%-failure. It doesn't mean the 5% failure has been "selected for", it just means that it wasn't worth weeding out.

Moths circle lights because of genetic factors which influence their tiny moth brain's development. It doesn't mean that circling-lights was a selected feature.

[joaorj]

Yeah, that's definitely a possibility. What you describe is more or less the basic property/side effect I was talking about, but much better explained.

You're betting evolution is not that good. One can also bet it better than you can possibly imagine. I don't think you can be sure either way at this point, but your argument seems to be the most compelling at this point!

[zkhalique]

So what are the genetic advantages of being gay? And how come nature hasn't figured out a way to make these advantages without also producing gay siblings, which would seem to bring down the overall fitness of the genes?

[zkhalique]

See that just further goes to show my point. Where is the evidence of these assertions? Mainstream evolutionists have said that "group selection has been disproven" except possibly kin selection. So your example clashes with what they've said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#Good_of_the_sp...

I personally think the benefit of the community is definitely one of the factors. And I think the evolutionists have it wrong. But why does the public just accept whatever they say? It hardly sounds like a settled theory.

[lawpoop]

What you linked says "On the other hand, kin selection is accepted as an explanation of altruistic behavior.[11]"

So, an extended family with a few homosexual kin might have greater reproductive success with their offspring having more caretakers.