Is homosexuality necessary?

[Not_Punny]

This thread was inspired by another thread: (The Causes of Homosexuality)

Anyway, that thread got me thinking:

Almost all "investigations" into the causes of homosexuality are prompted by the unproven supposition that homosexuality is a "mistake", and that homosexuality is superfluous to the survival of the species.

As a result, most people are looking for mutations and flaws instead of pro-survival reasons for having a "third gender" (males and females who are genetically programmed to NOT actively reproduce).

Here is some food for thought:

-- Perhaps not all humans are supposed to be reproductively oriented. Look at bees and ants -- not every creature is involved in reproduction.

-- Perhaps the human form is just too complex to have a third gender (one that assists society, but doesn't necessarily reproduce)

-- And perhaps homosexuality functions as a form of population control


Any thoughts on this?

 

[Axcess]

I dont know the causes of homosexuality but I dont think is unnatural like most people believe. Homosexual behavior is documented in many animal species, so it cant be unnatural.

It can be population control. We need an higher percent of gays!!! The world is so overpopulated.

 

[D_golden parachute]

I like your thinking hotmilf

 

[B_Think_Kink]

It's a good observation. I think that it's logical. Although not all gays don't reproduce, some do, so that works around the flaw. But it's a good thinking. I don't agree that homosexuality is a mistake at all.

 

[Not_Punny]

Thanks for your observations, HungDavid -- and thanks Geordie. :wink:

TK -- true, but in many instances, homosexuals take the progeny of "breeders" to raise as their own. This assists society by giving a home to existing children without creating more children. I don't have statistics to show how many homosexuals create children versus raise children.

 

[Axcess]

This thread was inspired by another thread: (The Causes of Homosexuality)

Anyway, that thread got me thinking:

Almost all "investigations" into the causes of homosexuality are prompted by the unproven supposition that homosexuality is a "mistake", and that homosexuality is superfluous to the survival of the species.

As a result, most people are looking for mutations and flaws instead of pro-survival reasons for having a "third gender" (males and females who are genetically programmed to NOT actively reproduce).

Here is some food for thought:

-- Perhaps not all humans are supposed to be reproductively oriented. Look at bees and ants -- not every creature is involved in reproduction.

-- Perhaps the human form is just too complex to have a third gender (one that assists society, but doesn't necessarily reproduce)

-- And perhaps homosexuality functions as a form of population control


Any thoughts on this?

I also think that the supposition that sex is only for reproduction is false because what about of straight people that never reproduce?
I agree with all your 3 points.

 

[erratic]

Awww. I thought this was going to be total flame bait, but what do I find? People actually having a rational discussion about the human condition.

Jeez.

Well, as a bona-fide gay, I would like to mention a couple of things:

Your ants comparison is a good one. Some evolutionary scientists have suggested that gay people function to protect and preserve their family unit, thereby passing on their genes even though they don't procreate. Their genetic imperative is fulfilled by ensuring the safety and survival of their neices and nephews.

Though a lesbian may not pass on her own genes, she would still be protecting the genes (which are probably many and incredibly complicated) that induce or foster queerness by protecting and providing for her family.

 

[B_blackkid]

Third Gender?

"Gender" is a non-existent social term; it has no bearing on your sexuality.

Thats like saying Nomenclature dictates your Personality.

Regardless your "food for thought" needs a little more spice; beef up your reasons. Personally I don't actually think much on homosexuality; I figure in the great Vendiagram of Life everything has itself, it's opposites, a combination of the two, and neither of the two. There's more to that, but generally that's how it runs down.

 

[D_Geffarde Phartsmeller]

This thread was inspired by another thread: (The Causes of Homosexuality)

Anyway, that thread got me thinking:

Almost all "investigations" into the causes of homosexuality are prompted by the unproven supposition that homosexuality is a "mistake", and that homosexuality is superfluous to the survival of the species.

As a result, most people are looking for mutations and flaws instead of pro-survival reasons for having a "third gender" (males and females who are genetically programmed to NOT actively reproduce).

Here is some food for thought:

-- Perhaps not all humans are supposed to be reproductively oriented. Look at bees and ants -- not every creature is involved in reproduction.

-- Perhaps the human form is just too complex to have a third gender (one that assists society, but doesn't necessarily reproduce)

-- And perhaps homosexuality functions as a form of population control


Any thoughts on this?

I don't know that there has to be a reason for homosexuality. Think about wisdom teeth. Not only are they unnecessary but we have them removed at a certain point. As people continue to evolve, some are actually born without wisdom teeth altogether. I, personally, only had 3 while others have 4. Some only 1 or 2. Anyway my point is that homosexuality may not actually have a survival purpose.

Now before my comparison is misconstrewed as anti-gay, I promise it's not. Wisdom teeth is just the first thing that came to mind. I certainly don't think homosexual individuals should be removed from society like teeth lol. Nor do I necessarily think evolution will phase them out. My point is, there may not be a greater purpose or biological survivability reason for it. Is there a reason for blue eyes instead of brown? Or blonde hair instead of black? I think homosexuality was just an inevitability. All those genes floating around were bound to pair-up and create something new altogether. That's how evolution works!

 

[erratic]

Hmmm...about the population control issue: I don't know if I buy that one. According to (horribly flawed but consistently replicated) statistics there is somewhere between 2-6% of the population that is 100% never-gonna-do-a-straighty homosexual. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that 6% is the number, and all of those six per cent never breed, that doesn't make much of a dent in the population if there are even just 3 children born to every couple.

 

[Drifterwood]

No - but it seems to be a lot of fun.

Do I have to read the thread?

 

[B_blackkid]

Two questions however:

1. Population Control is quite literally a crude term; you're suggesting people are actually BORN DEFECTIVE with the sole purpose of death? Well, considering how homosexuality works and it doesn't A) prevent procreation and B) doesn't mean you cannot sleep with someone outside your sex I definitely find that filled with holes. Explain how it would work please?

2. Ants and Bees are not humans, and matter of factly I've never heard of ants having any particular sexuality to begin with; it's drones that hump the queen and subsequently die I would believe in both cases, and of course the idea of a "Protction Unit" being limited solely to homosexuals also makes no sense. So what are bisexuals and pansexuals?

You can't cookie cut a single groups function without dealing with everyone else; a soldier in an ant colony has one role and that is all. Just as all other parts; one role, no others. No intermingling. Again, explain how it works please?

 

[D_golden parachute]

I think people forget that humans are actually animals and we modified our attitudes and the way we live through educating each other and they way you are brought up by your parents, this is going back to thinking about the days pre-civilisation

 

[B_blackkid]

But still... Population control?

If it were a form of such the number of homosexuals should be staggering damn neared fifty percent, and probably should have increased years ago.

Guardians? Er, men, regardless of their sexuality, did that instinctually for years. Anthropology is a bitch ain't it?

Remind me next time I show up here to look for a gay police man or bodyguard because obviously throwing their lives away for the "Genes" would be sensible, and also remind me to find my gay cousin so that I can knight him with the duty of dying for us should anything occur which would cause as such because it's his biological duty.

Makes total sense.

 

[Not_Punny]

LOL -- no, DW, you don't HAVE to read the thread, but I'll spank you if you don't. :tongue:

- - - - - - - -

Good points, HugoB, but there were/are genetic reasons for wisdom teeth -- back in the old days, humans had bigger jaws; jaws are smaller now, and "teeth" genes are starting to update. Blue eyes let in more sunlight for Vitamin D reproduction. It was once necessary for humans that migrated way north. Ditto for lighter skin colors, and the same factors that influence skin color influence hair color. etc.

There was/is a genetic/survival for almost everything.

In fact the only thing I know of that has absolutely no genetic/ecological value (other than SUVs) is the "Love Bug" -- a dreadful, flying insect found in the Texan Gulf Coast. It emerges once a year and plagues the air for a couple of weeks, then disappears. They constantly mate, mid-air, and have no purpose -- they taste horrible (I swallowed one by mistake) and they are inedible to fish, birds and all other creatures.

 

[erratic]

I think it's important to remember that genes only influence behaviour. Influence. Not dictate.

 

[Not_Punny]

But still... Population control?

If it were a form of such the number of homosexuals should be staggering damn neared fifty percent, and probably should have increased years ago.

Guardians? Er, men, regardless of their sexuality, did that instinctually for years. Anthropology is a bitch ain't it?

Remind me next time I show up here to look for a gay police man or bodyguard because obviously throwing their lives away for the "Genes" would be sensible, and also remind me to find my gay cousin so that I can knight him with the duty of dying for us should anything occur which would cause as such because it's his biological duty.

Makes total sense.

Population control may or may not be a factor. It's only one way of looking at it.

The current estimates is that about 10% of the population is homosexual. (BTW, does that include all the non-gays in the Middle East?)

In the wild, some animal species assist the herd (or trail the herd) without reproducing themselves, such as elephants and wolves.

 

[Not_Punny]

I think it's important to remember that genes only influence behaviour. Influence. Not dictate.

True, but still -- I am reminded by all the studies that have been done on sexuality where they determine that the "female form" is indelibly "stamped" into the male sexual response mechanism.

And every time I read one of those studies, I think to myself: Hmmm, well, if it's so indelible, then how come the female form absolutely fails to "tingle" one out of every ten males.

And if it's genetic, then couldn't it be genetic the other way too?

 

[invisibleman]

"Is homosexuality necessary?"--Hot Milf and Roofies.


I dunno. :smile:

All I know is. I don't want any children. I haven't misled anyone. I am heterosexually challenged. I am happy. I am not hurting anyone.

 

[Axcess]

"Is homosexuality necessary?"--Hot Milf and Roofies.


I dunno. :smile:

All I know is. I don't want any children. I haven't misled anyone. I am heterosexually challenged. I am happy. I am not hurting anyone.

I dont want to have kids ever and I'm straight.