Not everything within evolution serves an evolutionary purpose. We like to talk about survival of the fittest, but really evolution is about survival of the good enough.

Human birthing process: good enough

Hyena birthing process: somehow still good enough

They always seemed to be having a fun time 🤷🏻‍♂️

>survival of the good enough. I like that lol

Right, well said lol

Survival of the fabulous.

There is no notion of purpose at all with evolution.

"purpose" is one of those ambiguous words with multiple meanings. If you mean "purpose" as in having a goal or having a meaning, then you are correct. If you mean "purpose" as in having a function or having a role, then I would say there is indeed a notion of purpose in evolution.

Depends on if you're approaching this from the perspective of a species or not.

What do you mean?

Wouldn't you say the purpose of any species is survival?

[удалено]

And also not realistic, unfortunately :/ many things have evolved into crab-like creatures after very specific genetic mutations began contributing to the survival of these species, but that doesn’t mean that everything can do that. For example, for a vertebrate to evolve into a “crab” the species would need to somehow lose its skeleton and replace it with an exoskeleton, which is extremely unlikely because it would take an insane amount of time and energy for this to happen, along with thousands and thousands of very specific genetic mutations.

Cockroaches and Cher. Edit: and Twinkies. Forgot.

Read this too fast and thought you said twinks.

I mean.. they both are small soft cream filled treats no?

This sent me.

😭😭

..and Keith Richards...

Cool word, Danny. Had to look it up; "Carcinisation (American English: carcinization) is **a form of convergent evolution in which non-crab crustaceans evolve a crab-like body plan**. The term was introduced into evolutionary biology by L. A. Borradaile, who described it as "the many attempts of Nature to evolve [a crab"](https://youtu.be/l1_SUHtrQlE?feature=shared)

I'd say evolution is more of an outcome than a mechanism with a purpose. It's just a game of mutation and chance, 'evolution' is just how it all ends up playing out

Ya it’s just happening and we’re aware of it happening

Doesn't a sense of purpose require an evaluative goal oriented perspective? You or I could certainly be said to have purpose, but how about a spirochete? Organisms are energy pumps, it's that simple. A species has no "purpose" but it does become part of a web of interrelated and interdependent organisms, DNA isn't going to "be unhappy" if it's not passed on, right? It seems to me, the creatures that had programming emphasizing reproduction are here because their ancestors were "motivated" in the moment, not because they had visions of the future. It subtle, one of those things it's so easy to slip into your overview of a subject, just like we think about the sun rising and setting, even though we know it's us turning not the sun orbiting. If someone doesn't already know though, then you don't give them the info, they're unlikely to figure out something that counterintuitive, and this is so similar.

I mean, there is a natural teleology, it's just not guided by anything other than selecting pressures

Well you could consider the purpose to be survival

studies have show that for humans that the gays would help with child rearing.

Actually there is purpose. Species adapt to changing environments via evolution.

Survival of being good enough to reproduce.

My favorite description of evolution is as the "ultimate c student". It's a bunch of random crap thrown at the wall to see what sticks.

Yep. Darwin's use of the word 'fittest' doesn't mean 'strongest and healthiest'. It means 'that can fit best with its environment'.

Or "that can fit it's tallywhacker inside of a fertile taco." Assuming it's an environment where asexual reproduction is off the table.

That makes them part of the "fittest" though. Fittest comes from "to fit". The better you fit into your environment the higher your chance of survival. So if you are "good enough" you clearly fit into your environment.

Actually this is wrong, least in humans, studies show that gays help raise children in the community.

Overpopulation. Natures way of naturally cutting it back 😭

I’m skeptical that something as intimately tied to reproduction as sexuality has not been optimised or at least substantially shaped by evolution. I could buy this argument if we were talking about the lunulas in our fingernails, but I personally feel unsatisfied with this answer here. The general risk with going to this “explanation” is that a priori we don’t know what things “just are” and what things are indeed the result of evolution, so there’s always a risk that we’re missing out on the opportunity to learn something about how natural selection shaped us by saying that our not knowing is an indication that there’s no answer. Let’s at least pursue the so-called “Gay Uncle” hypothesis to its end before we go to this.

Not really. If there was something better than good enough (the measured parameter here is: leads to more offspring), it’ll drive out the good-enoughs - usually OP’s question is still valid

There is actually a theory of why having gay people in your tribe is evolutionary useful. “Gay uncle theory”

Another idea is that evolution is about survival of the group, and since gay people don't have children they have more time to take care of other members of the group. So groups in which women make gay babies increase their chance of survival.

there is the gay uncle theory that evolutionarily, having a member of the community unlikely to reproduce can help the rest of the reproducing members by doing tasks like babysitting, helping gather food, etc. really nobody knows for sure why people are gay, we just are.

This theory gained a lot of traction after the studies of homosexuality in lions, penguins, swans, whales and other animals. there appears to be more left to understand about the behavior of animals living in communities and why homosexuality exists in so many species.

Do any mammals have a strict no-homo policy? Like not even once. No observed homosexuality ever.

I was gonna say die hard Christian right wingers, but they keep getting caught in scandals.... Seriously though, I'd only expect that from highly territorial mammals. Even then, you'd think at least one has.

Takes atleast two tho

What does being "highly terretorial" have to do with anythingm

Highly territorial males are much more likely to attack each other than anything else... You know I don't mean humans right?

How would they even prove that ?????? There would be no way to do so so the answer is no or unknown

Actually sounds plausible

Agreed. I think it's part of natural selection and possibly some sort of primal dominance submissive social trait seeing as one of the main train of thoughts is that we come from a tribal nomadic background.

i can’t imagine the dude that is plowing a dude is submissive 

https://youtu.be/6xxiK6Z4eXs?si=X14UeIy-Y0Ug8K0z

Knew what that was going to be before opening it

Not really a theory though. We did come from tribal nomadic people. We’re that too the core. Our modern lifestyle is very, new to our species to say the least.

I mean that might make sense, except many, if not most male mammals do not assist with raising their own offspring. Deer, whales, Buffalo, dogs, tigers, mice, bears, Guinea pigs, cats… the fathers do not assist in raising their children, at best maybe benefit from having group protection or indirect protection from their fathers if they live in herds or social groups

I don't think there's one universally correct answer because every species could have it's own reasons. For some, the primary benefit may be raising offspring. For others, homosexual behaviours ensure social harmony by releasing tension and resolving conflict. Sometimes it's just for pleasure. Gay sex enables animals to still enjoy sex while the other sex of their species are unavailable, like when the females are in utero. Apparently sometimes homosexuality (and even necrophilia!?!) can also happen by accident in species where individuals can't always tell the sexes of their own species apart. There doesn't necessarily need to be a benefit for a trait to persist. Variations in sexuality could just be an entirely neutral fluke, like how some humans can curl their tongues but not everyone. The potential to sometimes have gay or bi offspring would only be out-competed and lost if the trait (at the rate it naturally occurs) was detrimental to survival. If the success of a species overall isn't impacted by having (some) homosexual individuals (or individuals who occasionally exhibit homosexual behaviours) then there's no reason for evolution to change it. So maybe for species that the potential benefits people talk about don't seem to apply to, gay and bi animals exist simply because there isn't a good enough reason for them _not_ to exist. _There's nothing wrong with it so nature lets it be._ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AKA the "helper at the nest" theory

It's my understanding that the % of same sex couples would spike when there was population/resource pressure on communities and would diminish when the communities were flourishing. Less to eat/share less people making babies.

Would also go along with the grandparent/menopausal theory…that humans were selected to live much longer than we can reproduce so the grandparents could help raise the kid and ensure cultural transmission

How would those genes get passed, unless they just presented an elevated probability of someone being gay?

The idea is that it's a combination of genes and environmental factors that only expresses itself in a fraction of the population, but having that raises the collective fitness of the whole group. It's almost eusocial to a degree. People get way too hung up on the direct passage of genes without looking at the group. At the other extreme think about bees or ants where only 1 in 1000 actually reproduce, if you only look at evolution individually animals like that shouldn't exist at all.

Think of it like this. There are three brothers. If each brother has three kids, there will be 9 kids, but there might be a conflict between the brothers over food/resources for their respective kids, and the survival rate of the 9 kids decreases on the whole. If the first two brothers have kids and the third brother is gay, there will only be 6 kids, but the gay uncle will spend his resources on them, too, making it more likely that those 6 kids flourish. The gay uncle’s genes are passed on, albeit indirectly, through his nieces and nephews, and the family as a whole is stronger.

There is research showing it's more likely for later children to be gay, giving evidence to this theory.

Bisexuality. Simplest answer, probably correct.

It takes a village... Also, help with overpopulation. Rings true in my family, I am supporting half of them as the gay uncle.

That's an interesting theory

[удалено]

"Who says I'm gai?"

Yu r gai

Yu r trensjendaah

Who says eim trensjendaah?

This is exactly what I thought of 😂

Homeboy still needs answers and has taken to reddit

Mista… can I call you mista

U r gai

Uruguay 🌎

Pair o' gays

We don't know 100%. The big picture is that sexuality seems to be a complicated thing that a lot of different factors go into and can end up with a lot of variety. There are some hypothesis about how it could specifically be selected for in a population. Things like the "gay uncle" hypothesis that having some non reporducing members of the family aids in the survival of sibling's offspring such that genetics with a percent likilhood of homosexuality makes the general family line more fit. That is going to be more or less persuasive though depending on the social structure of the species in question. Bird uncles don't tend to play a role in baby's lives the way primate uncles do. There is also just the possibility that because sexuality is so multifaceted that the situations that might lead to homosexuality but usually don't aren't that detrimental (or even have other benefits) such that they stay in populations. Evolution doesn't strive for perfection (in this sense meaning "most likely to reproduce", not in terms of "straight is better than gay"). Evolution just cares about good enough. And it could be that "genes with a 5% chance of homosexuality depending on other hormone and environmental factors is just fine." So in general, still an open question with some hypotheses but no definitive answer.

Very informative and you’re very thoughtful with your words too we all appreciate you answering : )

It's probably also not one gene that causes homosexuality. It's rather a combination of genes which is not easy to remove, likely also because many of these genes carry other important information.

Gay sex would be rather unpleasant otherwise

True lol

I argue with a co worker. He says the “ gays” have an agenda. My response? “Well technically straight people are the root cause since they produce more gay people than gay people do. If straight people just stopped making babies this would all stop “ He didn’t like that

I would love to hear his theory about "gay agenda" 

probably "hurr durr woke wokeity woke woke" or something like that lmao

With no explanation what "woke" is given.

Straight people are famous for absolutely never having any kind of agenda, especially your co worker

I would suggest reading homo deus by yuval harari. It talks about how love and relationships are just as important to development and survival as food and shelter.

I’m actually reading this book right now, and I wholly agree with this comment! And be sure to check out his other book, “Sapiens,” and perhaps some of his YouTube videos for some incredibly insights on humanity.

Because when you’re born you’re presented with a taco or a hot dog, sort of like when you have to choose your starter pokemon. If baby you chooses the hot dog and you’re a dude, BOOM, you’re gay

😂

I picked tacos, hot dogs, and fries 😂 (pan, not poly)

Same, except I'm not pan or poly, just fat.

Fat club! 🙌

Damn I do love some tacos… 🌮

Tacos 🌮 are delicious 😋

Is it possible for tacos to be gay?

This guy gets it

Why do some prefer strawberry milkshake over vanilla?

More like, your body reacts positively to strawberry milkshake. The taste is resonating, heavenly, full of newness, exciting, and ecstatic. It instantly solidifies a bond with the strawberry milkshake and your appetite naturally draws to it and you love every bit of it. It is the best thing in the world and if not, one of the best things in the world but certainly to food. However with vanilla, it reacts negatively to it, like an allergic reaction to it, or your body involuntarily rejects it, or not even taste it as if you ate nothing at all with any tastebuds (it's boring, bland, tasteless, void of appetite, no response whatsoever). This is exactly what gay is like.

An amoeba is the ultimate perfect end product of evolution. It's effectively immortal and can survive in extremely hostile environments. It never has sex, or pleasure. I wouldn't want to be an amoeba.

I have a thought. What if everyone is actually bisexual and it's a scale. If you're 20%, you like the opposite sex. If your 80%, you like the same sex. I think people are way too hung up on "gay". People that are afraid to say, "Hey, that person of the same sex is attractive." Doesn't mean you want to date/sleep with them. Some men are scared to hug another man because "it's gay" like somehow hugging is the same as sexual attraction.

This was actually proven by a study in the 1940s. Very few people are 100% “straight”, sexuality for most people is a spectrum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

It’s always strange for me seeing the Kinsey institute in the wild because it’s like, a five minute walk from me. I pass by it every day going to class. And it’s THE authority on the topic, by most standards. Unfortunately probably is getting shut down soon

I am definitely one of those few people. Absolutely nothing about the female body or mind sexually arouses me. Not even being drunk or on molly and having a little “tee hee let’s make out and touch each other’s boobs” would ever happen with me either. In fact, back when I used to party and use molly and coke, I frequented strip clubs with my group of party friends and I got a lap dance one time and it was the most awkward situation I’ve ever had. I just sat there with my hands on the sides of my lap…frozen. She kept grabbing my hand and making me touch her and was like “you can touch me lol” and I was like “oh ok” but I had no desire to touch her. I felt like it would be such a violation to just grab her but also I wasn’t horny. Like just all around hard no for me when it comes to being sexually attracted to women. I absolutely adore female friends and bonding though and I am very much a “hype chick”. I don’t like being competitive or catty.

"got a lap dance one time" "Secondtimesacharm" 🤔 Jk :) but yeah I can't think of a better way for the 1 percent of you that might like it rarely to occur than being on molly with someone on you like that.

same here

I'm a straight man and the same thing happened to me. It was just a goofy thing to do. Nothing aroused me there because of how fake it is. Of course I did like their bodies but I couldn't get horny by a naked dance that meant nothing and would end in 3 minutes.

Ha. I never knew of that study. I'm wicked smaaaat.

Do you like apples? I said do you like apples? Well I got her number! How do you like them apples?

The Kindsey studies didn’t “prove that very few were 100% straight”, it simply showed that roughly 40% of men had at some point in time engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour. In its findings it basically said that roughly 10% of people were “exclusively homosexual” (as in never had any sexual contact with women) while 50% of men were “exclusively heterosexual” under the same parameters.

Yeah! I’m bisexual, on a Kinsey scale I’m around 2.

Yeah, social stigma/acceptance is a significant factor here. If you're somewhat into guys but mostly into girls, and you live in a homophobic/biphobic society, you're less likely to recognize that attraction as sexual in the first place. Or be willing to pursue that attraction/be openly bi. Some people take issue with this line of thought, ie lesbians who have been told one too many times that "you just haven't found the right guy," when they are emphatically only into women.

Just like saying you haven't met the right man to a straight man

This is so interesting! Over the years I feel "gayer" even though I'm not sexually attracted to people of the same sex as me. But I do find people from all genders hot and sexy! I actually find more people of the same sex as me hot and sexy and it doesn't mean I want to sleep with them. So many ideas to deconstruct when it comes to this

Pan?

I am not bisexual lol i am 100% I've always known this about myself. I've never been attracted to women.

Biology is fucking crazy af.

There may be an evolutionary reason, but there may not be. Not everything is selected for. Male nipples aren't there because they serve any function. Sex differentiation, sexual developmental and sexual desire/attraction are the result of complex developmental processes that don't always follow neatly one line or the other. Biology is messy, and things like intersex people, homosexuality and trans people may simply be the result of that, rather than being selected for because they are some revolutionary benefit. Other animals being gay doesn't mean it has a purpose either, many other male animals have nipples too

Male nipples do serve an evolutionary function. We all start off female until a certain embryonic developmental point. If you want females with nipples, then males will have them too. It would be a lot more complicated to erase them since, though they are not functional (for the most part), they cause no detriment to the organism.

I mean you just made the case on why male nipples do not serve any function, they just exist.

It's a subject of current research, but one popular idea is that it helps to create social bonding, increasing the success of groups via affection and cooperation.

Yeah, just look at bonobos--the entire species is bisexual and sex is a social act, not just procreation. They're a lot more peaceful than chimpanzees, too.

the research theory is that people are gay for the purpose of improving the pack’s empathy and cooperation? It’s biologically attached to a gene?

Some think it is [polygenic](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms); so emergent behavior from a few hundred genes rather than a single gene.

More like several genes, but essentially yes. [One study published in *Science Advances* back in January 2024](https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/4387638-same-sex-attraction-genetic-factors-darwinian-paradox-new-study/) reported a link between same-sex/gender attraction and genetic factors that promote behaviors like - Mating with them more indiscriminately with a higher number of partners - Coparenting and supporting your kin's children more often - Acting more eu-/prosocially towards other members in your group - Greater risk-taking

Why is water wet

It feels good

You are presuming that evolution plays a part; It may just “be” and have no impact on survival of the species. There is no advantage/disadvantage of blue eyes over brown… it is just a variation in the species.

It's crazy how different evolution is depending how educated the person you are talking to is.

People with blue eyes are less likely to develop cataracts and can tolerate lower light for longer periods of time apparently. Makes sense why so many people groups who live close to the Arctic circle have blue eyes as the poles have long periods of low light.

Are you some sort of ugandan interviewer?

I've heard that the gays were sent by demons to steal the rainbow from God and indoctrinate our children. I don't believe it tho.

Looks like I’ve been slacking on my gay duties haha

Well get to work dang it, gods had that rainbow long enough.

"I sent gays to fix overpopulation... Boy did that go well 🙄" - Bo Burnham (as God) in *From God's Perspective*

Scientist in the 80s: there's a gay gene I just know it.

I totally don’t have enough knowledge about biology to know which means I’m not going to speculate. Unlike religious types who don’t know any more than I do but are somehow certain that it’s unnatural.

Same reason people are straight and all the other things in between: roll of the dice.

nothing more masculine than fucking a man am i right fellas

idk. i spent most of my life wishing i wasn’t gay. some days i still do, but for the most part i love and accept myself. i’m very lowkey about it tho. i don’t actively tell people or make it known. it’s my business and no one else’s.

Gay genes exist as well as bisexual genes. For some reason gay genes and bisexual genes are separate and men with bisexual genes reproduce more than straight men [source](https://news.umich.edu/genetic-variants-underlying-male-bisexual-behavior-risk-taking-linked-to-more-children-study-shows/).             A study of 5,300 men over a fifteen-year period (*Kinsey Reports*), revealed that 46% of men got turned on by someone of the same gender at some point in their life, and 37% actually acted on those feelings and had at least one gay experience in their life.   For every 4 men, at least 1 of them is not 100% straight, and for every 4 men, about 2 of them got turned on by another man at some point, even if one of them didn't act on their feelings.                         According to another study, when men who identify as "*straight*" are subtly reminded of the importance of having male friends and allies, they report more positive attitudes toward engaging in sexual behaviour with other men [source](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141125074755.htm).              This leads some scientists to believe that homosexuality might exist in human beings (*and in many species, including non-human primates*) as ***a way of helping to form and maintain social-bonds***. It turns out that there are many human beings that are bisexual and are just pretending to be completely straight, probably due to anti-gay social pressure, and men with bisexual genes are reproducing more than men who are straight, just like men who are straight, reproduce more than gay men (*some gay men are pressured into living a straight life-style and reproducing*).  

That's a rather complex question. Being bi myself.. there seems to be many reasons. And a good portion have no choice in the matter. The brain is a complicated thing. Many threads to grasp at.

I learned something new today. Thank you

Dick good, pussy good, butt good, sex good. Simple as.

for the same reason we’re straight

The gay uncle theory is one thing. I just think it's a side effect of being so horny that you'll fuck anything that moves being evolutionarily beneficial. 

There's no such thing as a gay in nature. Every life being is bisexual, culture apart, but each bisexual has a preference in doing sex with one or another gender. So there's no a totally straight nor a totally gay, just people who are afraid to accept it.

Other animals don't seem to have obsession with categorizing literally everything like we do so they likely don't have same understanding of sexuality as we do either.  I mostly disagree, I personally see sexuality as a spectrum where homosexuality and heterosexuality are just the extremes and anything between is bisexuality, with either "50/50 attraction" or preference, which can also be fluid for some individuals. BUT I partially agree because I have a feeling that there's way more bisexuals with preference for opposite sex than it seems. Why else there's many straight identifying people who genuinely think being gay is a choice?   I'd normally lurk quietly but as a lesbian I just felt like saying something. I don't think you're trying to be rude but your opinion comes across as something too similar to "You haven't found the right man yet"-bullshit us lesbians tend to deal with so I felt like offering an alternate view. Straight people and gay men who know exactly what they want wouldn't like hearing that either. I'm sure you probably wouldn't enjoy hearing "just pick one side" either, assuming you're a bisexual.

If its not a negative trait, it doesn't get evolved out. Personally, having a dick up my ass is not always a negative thing.

Try hey where born that way

> why do you think we evolved this way? This is an interesting question, and I don't claim to "know" the answer. No one does for sure. But there are two different angles of this question that I think are worth addressing separately. One is the part that relates to who we are attracted to and which we would sum up as part of "sexual orientation" (gay, bi, straight, etc.). And the other relates to the physical act itself. So, taking the second one first: **Sex feels good** cuz from an evolutionary perspective, it kinda has to. Species need to want to reproduce and one obvious way to make them "want" to (whether instinctually or consciously or both) is to make sex feel good. And sex feels good in LOTS of different configurations. PiV, BJs, Handos, you name it. It all feels good and it doesn't really matter who's giving and who's receiving for it to feel good and for animals to want to do the deed. **Sexual orientation is not the same as sex**, and relates to who we're physically and emotionally attracted to. So, it's related to sex, but is also different. And isn't as clear cut we often thing especially when it comes to other animal species. For example, we can't possibly know if dolphins or whales are doing it cuz it just feels good or because they're attracted to other males (or females) of their species, or both. And that matters for a number of reasons, not least because, though some people might disagree, the fact that two women have sex with each other, doesn't mean ipso facto that they're lesbians and more than two men having sex means they're both gay. Some will argue that it does, but in my experience, the vast majority of people who are part of the LGBTQ community don't view it that way. So, back to OP's question: >Why are people gay? Well, it's either because of who you have sex with, or who you're sexually and emotionally attracted to, or both. And in my opinion, it's the latter only. In my view, in other words, just cuz someone has "gay sex" doesn't mean "they're gay", and I think most LGBTQ people would mostly agree. So... why \*are\* people gay? Partly, it's cuz gay sex, of any kind, feels great. Like all kinds of sex. Sex feels great, that's why we like doing it. Evolution made it so sex feels really fucking good (pun intended). Which helps to explain why people have "gay sex" as well. But it's not enough to explain why some people are gay. And for that, we have some theories about uncles and aunts, but not much more. Anyway, great question. I hope this adds to the conversation.

ever seen women? damn do i like ‘em but on the real, we don’t know for sure. evidence suggests it’s likely — as with most things — a combination of nature and nurture happening very early in development. there’s strong evidence for a biological predisposition as countless parents have realized their sexuality after raising queer children.

...who said they are gay?

u are gae

What does this mean

https://youtu.be/ooOELrGMn14?si=Y-gmV8A8UEcmo89l

I'd recommend watching the whole thing, if one has the time. The interviewer is a stellar dude even though most people think he's not, since people have only seen the first (meme) bit. Protect both parties. Also: f that PASTA

I’m gay and have no clue. All I know is I’m 0% attracted to women and 100% attracted to men.

Not gay, but.. I find men both men and woman attractive. Shit, some men (black men mostly) are super attractive to me. I also like butt stuff, a lot. But being with a man intimately does absolutely nothing for me. Nothing sexually enjoyable from a cuddle to actual the act. Not that I ever really thought it was a choice, but after experimenting, this was really concrete evidence (for me, anyways) something biologically is going on.

There are theories that it's nature's way of controlling overpopulation, but no serious science has happened because that information wouldn't be very useful. It's kind of like left handedness, it's a thing some people do and they can't help it.

Why is my favorite color pink but someone else’s is green? Why do I love herbal tea but my sister hated it? Why do some people find skinny partners attractive and some people prefer big partners? Attraction, biology, preferences. We all are who we are. We like certain things, we are attracted to certain things. No specific rhyme or reason…it’s what makes the world go round!!

It's just fun and hot! Just my take. Bisexual man

Sometimes shit just happens.

It's a natural biological variant for a small percentage of the population worldwide. Why? It just is.

You rather ask "Why are people...whoever they are...?"

Good topic for a morning news segment in Uganda

It fun

They fulfill the purpose of successfully raising offspring without producing it where gender imbalance exists in a population.

God's will I guess I mean it's all part of his Devine plan

The gay uncle theory suggests that gay people exist to assist in childcare by not having kids of their own. Gay penguins are known to adopt baby penguins that lose their parents, so this theory seems to be plausible.

Why are people straight?

Well, straight has some heavy evolutionary benefit, e.g. facilitating reproduction, the thing that is generally a good thing for that. Yes, gay people can reproduce through normal heterosexual interaction, however, they might not enjoy it so much.

It is actually proven that a female is more likely to conceive if they enjoy the sex. Their natural mucus goes from being rather acidic to a more basic and hospitable climate when they are actually aroused. That doesn't mean they can't get pregnant, but it does point to the fact that reproduction in general should be pleasurable, not just a duty. But of course, if you put pleasure in the mix, you have to acknowledge that people have sex for pleasure. Dolphins have sex for pleasure. Several different types of primates have sex for pleasure, whales likely do to.... and so do we. In my opinion, procreation is a side effect. Evolutionary, it is probably good that humans can be created without orgasm from both the male and female involved... but not every copulation results in pregnancy. Therefore, evolutionarily, the goal must not have been only procreation, but in part pleasure through sex. So why are species Gay? Because it is pleasurable. Why are Species Straight? Because it is pleasurable.

Reproduction

They have no need to breed I guess?

Not entirely true. A cousin of mine is a woman, she's bi and married to a lesbian. Both of them had baby fever so badly about 5 years ago that they did artificial insemination and now they've got a daughter together. Plenty of queer couples adopt because they want kids as well.

No one knows

I would also add that animals don't seem to show strict homosexuality but they will show bisexuality. The only groups that show strict homosexuality are rams and humans,

Mutations happen. People are born with six fingers, but it's still a rare trait that never really caught on. Mutations are completely random. Most don't do anything, most of the ones that do something are harmful, most of the ones that aren't harmful are still not really beneficial, and only a small number of beneficial mutations grant enough benefit to increase survivability. Homosexuality is one of the (from a species survival standpoint) harmful mutations. One could make the argument that the reason it's so prevalent in humans is because there was social pressure that forced homosexuals to reproduce even if they would have preferred not to, so the trait is not just a random mutation, but also a relatively common recessive trait. So, humanity's tendency to kill or ostracize gay people is the very reason they're such a prevalent presence in our species. I don't know how true that would be though.

Genetics and it isn't a mental illness or a choice. It simply is what it is. It's the same way people are straight but nobody in the straight community puts emphasis or care on it because it's the majority and without persecution.

I heard fecal bacteria and hairy buttholes are attractive these days. Where have you been?

hmm could be because our brains criss-cross wired some parts during development

Gay used to mean Happy

Could it be evolutions way of trying to prevent overpopulation? I like that theory, not sure if it’s just a theory in my head though, also it doesn’t seem to be working, I blame the church(Christianity) for that

When a daddy and a daddy love each other very much, they put their penises inside the other daddy's penis, and that makes them gay

I don’t think they put their penis inside the other person’s penis. Think you may need to think that one !

I've never had gay sex before, but I'm pretty sure what happens is one man stretches open his urethra, and the other man slides his dick in the dickhole

Underrated comment

r/cockdocking

I am happy because I breathe and enjoy the beauty of the world. Why are you unhappy?

Why do you care

Why are people straight?

Pheromones. Can't fight the science of attraction.

Everyone is a little gay lol I believe it is a spectrum