Could homosexuality be our Earth's defense mechanism?

Hi Dasher:

I didn't mean to imply categorically that "just because the planet Earth is currently grossly overpopulated by Homo Sapiens Sapiens (i.e. modern terran humans) at the present time (6.5 Billion terran humans seem to be living on "earth" and steadilly multiplying at a geometric rate) that "male homosexuality" is necessarily the "Earth fighting back against all the reckless "breeders" (i.e. people who heterosexually overpopulate the planet to the point of the starvation of the planet etc.)" by producing more homosexual men --- I didn't mean to imply that:

I merely meant to point out that there is a "conspiracy" of silence (and gross ignorance ! ) among most Americans, for example, especially among the so-called bible-believing "Christians" (whatever that means) NOT to point out all the various types of flagrant "homosexual behaviour in Nature..." ---an I mention "Nature" simply because "Christians and Jews" and others of the Creationist ideologies, especially in the ("stupid") US tend to believe that Nature was created by a god--i.e. that their very own (adopted) desert clan-god (in their case, Yahweh the clan god of Israel) "created Nature" as part of his Work Plan (but see the two "contradictory" Hebrew Myths of Creation in the Bible, e.g. Gen chapter 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to the end of chapter 4).

In other words, nobody apparently in the socalled "mainstream" wants their children to know in school for example that Nature (forget Yahweh for a minute !) apparently thinks nothing is especially "wrong" with "male homosexual behaviour" and routinely accepts it along with heterosexuality

(i.e. there are no ritual "taboos" against homosexual anal intercourse among say male Gorillas or Rams), and that it is only society, i.e. certain groups of humans that perceive ritual taboo against it (especially the more primitive minded groups that are more male-warrior based and need to keep the population of warrior males up for the survival of the group, see 1 Sam 20:30-32 with the rant of King Saul against Jonathan for sleeping with David and not making more sons for his Dynasty).

So if Nature accepts male homosexuality without comment, it is not suprising that people (especially in the US) who believe that their "God" created Nature, would want to keep this fact a secret from their darlings (especially at school where heterosexuality-only is taught as "normal and acceptable" terran human sexual expression and response).

Makes people like Leonardo and Michelangelo shall we say, highly inconvenient, since it does not fit into their nice neat little world where everything is tied up in nice tiny ribbons.

But Nature "aint so neat" when you take a good hard unbiassed look at it in the wild.

Clear as mud?

Hi Absolute Creation:

Are you implying that Rams and Gorillas that routiney practice territorial male homosexual dominant-behaviour and all those Male Doves (that mate for life) to say nothing of all those female doves that mate for life with each other are NOT part of Nature?

Are you saying that, shock and awe !, that "God" didn't make Rams and Gorillas and Doves etc. because he doesn't like male to male homosexuality (along with really hating cotton and linen in the same garment, that really seems to piss him off if you read the god of the Bible !)

Or are you saying that perhaps Nature was created by some kind of lesser evil God like the gnostics and their Demi Urge?

Just what are you implying by your own Creationist ideology, exactly? That all these video cameras out there in the wild taking material evidence from Nature's animals are photographing mirages or faking their pictures?

Just curious as to what kind of a world you actually think we are living in...!

Neomadous,

I am not saying any of those and I'm sorry if my words represented those ideas in your head. I think I posted the last reply pretty late.

What I am saying is that I ackkowldge homosexuality in nature, that is fundamentally impossible to deny. What my thread is suggesting is that homosexuality is a hybrid defense mechanism, created by the earth, which means, created by the creator, which means, all part of the cycle of life. I am saying , as you mentioned in your reply, that gross overpopulation, if it is not going to be cured by the masses, the earth has its own way of slowing the problem down.

Kind of like a flood gate on the hoover damn. All is cool if the water doesn't get too crazy, but if it does, we have the overflows to keep everything working cool.

NEOAMADEUS -
please reread my post. even conceding your point, there is NO LOGIC in using it to justify any action. read what i said carefully and also pay attention to whom i said it to. i never stated anything that you needed to clarify about your position except what the point of it is.
daved

I think the earths defense mechanism for population control is fast food. It's truning all the men and women into fatties so that masturbation is becoming the new trend. As long as our fat bellies keep the log out of the fire population should top out here in the next year or two

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Xander,

I'm sorry, but from a litigation point of view, your arguement is reaching to say the least. Slow down for a second, Penis + Vagina + Baby = Purpose, Penis + butt + homosexuality = General uncertainty

heterosexuals have anal sex as well. i know a lot of women that enjoy it quite a bit. sexual stimulation in both men and women have a lot of other chemical purposes in the human body other than just reproduction. there are plenty of studies on the human orgasm that show that it is more than just a byproduct of the reproductive process, and can be achieved without stimulation of the main sexual organs. but that is sort of off topic.

i don't believe that homosexuality is mother earth sending us a signal. i think that the diversification of modern society is what has brought out more openly gay individuals. and i don't think that its done anything as far as population control. i helped a lesbian couple deliver both of their children, both from literal sperm donor fathers.



[edit on 27-9-2005 by angrypsycho]

angrypshyco,

I know a lot of people that enjoy coc aine, that doesn't mean coc aine should be accepted as normal (as to our immediate understanding of naturel). Just because women enjoy anal doesn't mean it's right. I am a man and I must say that if any of you men out there have try to get back there on your girl, it takes a lot of convincing. My point is, I think it was a man that said, hey, let me get back there for a second. Matbe it was a bi-sexual man that wanted something a little more firm than his wife, (like the greek pool boy perhaps?) the wife then liked it enough to continue, ala 2000 years later, evolution is a powerful thing.

If a quarter is pushed slightly of track on its way to 100,000 miles. How lost do you think it will be when it gets there?

coc aine... anal sex... the next logical step is crack!

i do marginally agree with you. but as shown by other posters there are examples in nature of homosexual acts, so they can't be that pointless. they just functuion differently in human society.

i think that really this thread has evolved into a 'are homosexuality or the acts implied therein, the downfall of civilization as we know it or is this just the natural progression of things'.

its just people in love. you don't have to ever have sex to be in love. thats what makes us human. our relationships are based on more than survival or reproduction and that is what separates us, or at least me, from the animal kingdom...

although i think that it might be fun to be a whacky monkey for a day.

angrypshyco,

I agree with the thread course change. I also agree about love has no eyes. I guess my point is that, how could we accept that we were being altered on a infinite level, the very idea without full comprehension could seem mundane. I just think if we could see the whole picture, the topic of this thread wouldn't seem so crazy.

once again trying to convince us the rise of osexaulity or other is ok and its will just be ok.its been tired before in history and has been banned in those countries.you dont have to look to far back in history and the problems its caused.history and time would of shown us that it would of been ok but it has not.no proof of this find.t.v fashion and the female mind and now include children in the whole great white wash of b.s.this issue people are being to soft on and must have more of an voice.these questions are loaded to make us feel guilty.

I don't think the Earth is getting rid of us via homosexuality. I think the Earth is getting rid of us, and cleansing itself, with ever-increasing natural disasters. I think the recent hurricanes, tsunami, wildfires, etc. are just the beginning. The Earth is naturally getting rid of its pollutants (us)!!

please allow me to introduce some sense of the scope of the earths human population.

population control comes up often on these boards, as if 10,000 people dying is even a blip on the radar. (9/11, tsumani. katrina) you'd have to acheive a negative population growth the reduce the population right ?

www.census.gov...
Population Growth

From the dawn of mankind to the turn of the nineteenth century world population grew to a total of one billion people. During the 1800s, human numbers increased at increasingly higher rates, reaching a total of about 1.7 billion people by 1900. World population has grown even more rapidly during the present century, with the greatest gains occurring in the post-World War II period, and stands at over three times its size in 1900 -- some 5.9 billion people -- today.

Population growth has continued throughout the past three decades in spite of the decline in fertility rates that began in many developing countries in the late 1970s and, in some countries, in spite of the toll taken by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. While the rate of increase is slowing, in absolute terms world population growth continues to be substantial. Global population increase is currently equivalent to adding a new Israel, Egypt, Jordan, West Bank, and Gaza to the existing world total each year.

According to Census Bureau projections, world population will increase to a level of nearly 8 billion persons by the end of the next quarter century, and will reach 9.3 billion persons -- a number more than half again as large as today's total -- by 2050.


is homosexuality going to kill billions of people ?

no

Syrinx high priest,

I really don't understand how your input pertains to this thread. Population of our planet is one thing, what the people of the planet are doing to it is another. It doesn't take bee stings all over your body to kill you, if its the right kind of bee.

Peace,

it's an attempt by the darkside to cause chaos .

it [ the darkside ] lives off of peoples fears created from the chaos [ homosex being one of many fears ]

starve the darkside , don't feed your fears.

in your own words

"Now our planet is finding a way to get rid of us"


my point is simple. homosexuality is going to have to kill billions of people for your idea to have merit

High Priest,

How is homosexuality going to kill people? I'm confused...

how is homosexuality a defense mechanism ?

Sure maybe so... VERY INTERESTING thought to!

Maybe the living planet DOES have a mind that so far we can not even begin to fathom?

Maybe being born gay is just a little population control addition to humanity?

I have always been of the mind that its natural, and also in the camp of the 'pursuit of happiness' area. Hey whatever floats your boat as long as your not pushing it on me or causing me harm.....have at it!

I never thought of it as something the PLANET was doing however, and its a very interesting thought indeed!

[edit on 28-9-2005 by theRiverGoddess]

Priest,

I never said it was, I said could it be, that's what this discussion was started over. Now how could homosexuality be the Earth's defense mechanism? Well, in theory, if the race of the world were over-populating at certain unknown (the reason I say unknown is because we don't yet know if it is true) rate, then more homosexual can't have kids. Therefore they adopt from kids that are already there, therefore a decrease in earth populatation at whatever rate. Again, the beginning of this thread was a thought that I had and wanted some feedback, you now have me defending a point I never intended to be taken literally.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
Well, in theory, if the race of the world were over-populating at certain unknown (the reason I say unknown is because we don't yet know if it is true) rate, then more homosexual can't have kids. Therefore they adopt from kids that are already there, therefore a decrease in earth populatation at whatever rate.

Except the real world doesn't work like this. Not even close. Although world population is rising overall, it is actually falling in much of the wealthy world, such as Japan and Western Europe. This has nothing to do with homosexuality in men or women (homosexual women seem to have been forgoten by this thread). But because straight couples are having less, or even no children, for all sorts of complex demographic reasons.

You should also remember that one of the biggest affects on world population has been the Chinese "1 child" policy, which has estimated to have prevented 300 million births. Source: content.nejm.org...

The idea that homosexuality is earths defense mechanism is silly for these reasons:

1 The earth is not a single living organism with "defense mechanisms". It is a spinning ball of rock covered in life and is totally indifferent to our existance.

2 It has no mechanism for "creating" more homosexual behaviour

3 There is no evidence that there are more homosexuals than there has ever been at any other time. It is just in some countries people have more freedom to express themselves than they have in past times. Though this isn't the case in a lot of places.

4 The number of people on the planet isn't the real problem in terms of pollution, damage to the environment etc. It is how much of the world resources they consume and the manner in which they do that. The US throws away more food than Africa eats.

5 It's just silly.

you now have me defending a point I never intended to be taken literally.

Well if you didn't want us to take it literally how did you want us to take it? Is it a metaphor? You shouldn't post a controversial hypothesis and then not want anyone to argue with it. And if you don't want it to be taken literally why are you defending it?