Quote Originally Posted by Lampada
Я вообще подозреваю, что гомосексуалисты существуют в природе, чтобы заботиться о сиротах.
Или, может, гомосексуалисты существуют в природе, чтобы помочь своим братьям и сестрам в воспитании своих племянников и племянниц.

Some evolutionary biologists have proposed the so-called Helpful Gay Uncle hypothesis. (Google it!) In a nutshell, this hypothesis argues that if you consider homosexuals in "economic" terms as non-reproducing adults, then the evolutionary principle of "kin selection" predicts that a population in which there are a small percentage of homosexuals might be more successful in the long term than a population that has zero homosexuals. (NB: In this context, "more successful" = "more grandchildren and great-grandchildren") Why? Because homosexuals, as adults without children, can provide surplus labor to provide food and other material resources for their nieces and nephews -- and back in "caveman days," this extra food would have been more important for survival.

Of course, one logical objection to the "Helpful Gay Uncle" hypothesis is that a "Helpful Celibate Uncle" could do the job just as well! In other words, although it perhaps makes evolutionary sense to have a small number of non-reproducing adults in an extended family (clan), is there really any "added value" if these childless adults are homosexual, instead of having a gene that suppresses the libido entirely? And if one looks at social-living mammals such as lions and elephants, one can clearly observe the phenomenon of "celibate aunts" who help their reproducing sisters take care of the babies, but as far as I know, in most cases these childless females do not form "lesbian" pairs with each other.

Other biologists have suggested that homosexuals might have served the useful function of "harem guards" for early humans -- that is, a male homosexual can be left in the company of his brother's wife/girlfriend without any worry that he will try to get her pregnant. Or, in more general terms, homosexuals of either sex do not compete with their heterosexual brothers and sisters in the "mating game." Again, this could be a reason for evolution to tolerate homosexuality, as long as there aren't TOO MANY homosexuals in the population.

And still other scientists have argued that there really is no evolutionary purpose whatsoever for homosexuality, but perhaps there is a very good reason for the existence of bisexuality -- and "pure homosexuality" can be considered simply an extreme expression (or a "side effect") of a hypothetical "bisexuality gene."

In any case, I think it was Buckminster Fuller who observed, "Seeking a cure for homosexuality would be as foolish as opening an expensive Swiss watch and removing one of the smaller gears because it seems to have no useful or important function."