posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:23 PM
First a few clarifications:
Homosexuality, as far as can/has been scientifically determined, is a natural, not a "self-determined" (ie.: by personal
Therefore, the scientifically proper term regarding homosexuality is orientation, NOT "preference". To identify a set of behaviors as a
preference is to imply that the the actor has made an active, participatory choice between/amoung several available options. To label a set of
behaviors as an orientation, however, is to merely identify the catagory to which those behaviors are allied: no conscious choice is either to be
implied or infered on the part of the actor.
Some might argue that the distinction is merely on of semantics, but I hasten to point out that many inocent people have been persecuted, and even
killed, as a direct result of sloppy semantics.
Now, as to whether homosexuality is "essential" to the survival of the human race, I would have to say that the jury's still out on that
proposition. I would agree that the existance of homosexuality in many, if not most animal species, is a good indicator that the behavior-set
provides some positve, evolutionary benefit; most likely, obviously even, in regards to population development/control.
However, to claim that homosexuality is "essential" to population control, one would have to determine, first, the scope of homosexuality's impact
on the population in question. How many homosexual individuals exist within a given population? Is that number of assumedly non-breeding individuals
sufficient to have a significant impact on the species as a whole?
These questions would be difficult enough to answer in the (lower) animal kingdom; to determine such an answer when the subject is as psycho-socially
complex as a human population would be daunting in the least!
Possibly why a definative answer to that question, and by extension, your theory, remains elusive.