Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us...Bond?

Scientists have long been puzzled by homosexuality, as it seems to be at odds with the basic human drive to reproduce.
Various theories have been offered--from the notion that homosexual men make more diligent uncles than their heterosexual counterparts (and thus are better at ensuring the survival of their relatives) to the notion that the same gene that codes for homosexuality in men makes women more fertile.
Now researchers from the University of Portsmouth in England have put forth a controversial new theory. They say homosexuality evolved in humans and other primates because it helps us form bonds with one another.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/homosexuality-evolution-social-bonding_n_6218406.html?cps=gravity

WTF? I have heard many theory's but this one has to be the most ridiculous and laughable one yet. Mod edit,,flounder 2

 

Yes, how dare they.

 

And I understand why do they do this: no matter for how they try to defend or to justify or legitimize themselves, for normal people they still remain something like waste, something disgusting and unacceptable...sick of them

 

The bigotry of the OP is a classic example of how it clouds reality and makes bigots appear stupid.

 

Is behavior hereditary?

 

I don`t quite understand why did you ask this question. But I can write what I think: I think yes, the behavior can be hereditary, but not innate. You know, parents play an important role in determining the line of behavior and attitudes towards those or other matters. Especially at a young age

 

We hired this gay guy once. Women would openly flirt with him at work because he didn't show any stereotypical gay mannerisms. When we found out he was gay, I felt there was no way he would "choose" to be gay given the hot women who would approach him.

Why would a good looking straight guy choose to be gay if it wasn't natural ?

 

I'm not sure why it matters if it's "natural" or not.

I mean why would a person choose to be attracted to children if it wasn't natural?

Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it's acceptable behavior.

 

Hereditary means directly linked to genetics what you described is nurture and isn't hereditary. Hair color is hereditary, eye color is hereditary, so is skin color, no one has yet shown that behavior of any sort is hereditary all though such claims have been made for homosexuality and some behaviors, no one has shown conclusively that it is.

 

Yeah, but homosexuality between two of age men isn't the same as the sexual assault of a pre pubescent child. Do you believe even if homosexuality is natural, it's wrong ?

 

Whereas unlike scientists you seem intent on perpetuating stupidity...

 

Absolutely it's wrong.

 

Behaviour does run in families, but its also modified by lifes experience......

 

True. But being attracted to and having consensual sex with an adult of,he same gender harms no one. Doing the same with a child does. So the two aren't compatable.

 

Even if it's natural ?

 

If you stripped away all the political implications like same sex marriage, lawsuits against people who won't serve gays and all that which I know you oppose, why would it still bother you enough to say it's wrong?

No baiting attempt here, I'm just curious

 

Why?
.....l

 

That's your opinion and is no more valid than anybody else's opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

Again... something being "natural" doesn't mean it's acceptable behavior to engage in.

 

Yes that would an accurate assessment. ..

 

Behavior runs in families because what children see modeled they will tend to copy. This is largely because what is modeled within the family however abhorrent it is to society at large will seem as normal to the child because it is what he sees every day.

 

What's bizarre is many guys who hate the thought of gay sex will engage in anal sex with a woman. Isn't sodomy, sodomy ? It's not like anal sex with a woman can lead to reproduction.

 

I believe homosexuality is a symptom of a larger mental disorder. And until the homosexual activists got ahold of the APA, they argued the same.

 

But saying "behavior" can imply a choice to engage in it. But if being gay is as much a choice as eye color, how can we blame the gay person ?

 

The same way that we can blame a person who wants to have sex with a dog or a child even though their choice to be attracted to animals or children is as much a choice as eye color.

 

Again, a child or goat can't give legal consent. Isn't that a false analogy ?