homosexuality essential for species survival

heres the arguement:
homosexuality is essential for homosapiens surval because it eases competition for partners of the opposite sex, releaving conflict that occurs when partners are scarse, and still allowing reproduction when essential, as homosexuals can engage in heterosexual sex when essential for survival..
so homosexuality is essential because it has allowed small societies to survive when competition for mates would have otherwise destroyed them.

And please tell us who came up with this utter and total nonesense?

Science has already explained homosexuality as a chemical imbalance and one that if need be can be corrected - Their research was howled down by the liberal stasi at the time, because it didn't fit their homosexuality is normal world view.... and now this ??!!???

Oh deary me, more gay propoganda.....

ah for a start im not gay, so have little need to promote homosexuality, i come from a completely science based point of view..
as yet science does not know why some of us are born gay..that is a fact,, there are theories, but as far as i know, none of them propose a "chemical imbalance" if u have links to any such papers, id be grateful

anyhow, im not arguing what makes people gay, but that it is essential for our survival, saying that its a chemical imbalance that causes it, does not effect my arguement either way

[edit on 29-7-2006 by moranity1]

Originally posted by moranity1
ah for a start im not gay, so have little need to promote homosexuality,

Neither do gay people. That's just more anti-gay rhetoric. That they 'promote' homosexuality'.

Now, on the the question of the thread. Interesting. I have often thought a similar theory and that is that homosexuality is one means of population control. It's a lot harder for gay people to reproduce. They have to go outside their couple and do something distasteful (to them) or else get the medical field involved.

AND, they have to really want a child to get one. There's no accidental reproduction, which I think is a good thing.

And ultimately, that, too, could be essential for survival of the species.

Originally posted by GSA
And please tell us who came up with this utter and total nonesense?

Science has already explained homosexuality as a chemical imbalance and one that if need be can be corrected - Their research was howled down by the liberal stasi at the time, because it didn't fit their homosexuality is normal world view.... and now this ??!!???

Oh deary me, more gay propoganda.....

Where did science explain that exactly, or did you mean it's one of many competing theories butting heads and being adopted by whoever has their pro or anti agenda.

You should be bloody grateful that people like me have kept the species safe.

There are plenty of threads that discuss the science of homosexuality. Or whether it's natural or not. That's not what this thread is about.

Could we stick to the topic, please? Thanks.

So if it is NATURAL in homosapians then it is in the natural world, right?

So this would pertain to ALL species, right?

When was the last time a male homosexual lion got his thang on with another homosexual male lion to protect the species and save all the fine lookin' lady lions for the big stud from the otherpart of the jungle?



Case study now complete, nothing to read here folks -

a recent study showed that the level of homosexuality in male sheep was around 10%

www.newscientist.com...




[edit on 29-7-2006 by moranity1]

Originally posted by Mr Beezer
So if it is NATURAL in homosapians then it is in the natural world, right?

So this would pertain to ALL species, right?

Not necessarily. ALL species do not have to do something to make it natural. Not all species nurse from their mother, but it's pretty natural. The male seahorse gives birth to the the young and that's quite natural...

When was the last time a male homosexual lion got his thang on with another homosexual male lion ...

You probably should have looked that up before using it as your case study.

After reading this comprehensive bestiary one could easily imagine that animals really can be gay. Male/male and female/female interactions of every conceivable kind are meticulously documented. Mutual masturbation, body rubbing, mounting from behind or front to front, anal sex, oral sex – you name it and if animals are physically capable of it, the chances are there’s a species somewhere that does it. The photo of two young male bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) happily engaged in fellatio is particularly endearing.

It is not just rampant, casual sex that is documented (although there’s plenty of it). Many birds and mammals bond for life, forming stable, caring homosexual relationships. In some cases (e.g. lions, elephants and greylag geese) these pairings actually last longer than heterosexual ones!

Source

Yep, lions do it, too.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

I stand VERY corrected.

The king of the jungle is actually a closet QUEEN...

OH MY

Can we ever stop the madness ...haha

Mr. Beezer

.....Well I dont think this is a good excuse for being gay. but why do you need an excuse? its a preference right? this is what you would desire or have desired. They shouldnt have to supress it or come up with half cocked wild eye excuses for it lol.

My views on homosexuality have changed somewhat, I am usually pretty right winged but I believe that if this is truly the way you are to supress it is determental to your mental health and happiness.

It is a sexual preference no different than things like.....I like blondes over brunettes or something like that. Or how people are into the BDSM community. It is something you desire. To supress it to appease the world is the worse thing you can do.

My advice to gays..... STOP the propaganda and go be happy.

My feeling is that whether or not homosexuality is a choice, a preference, hardwired or 'natural', it exists and I don't really care why. It's there. Plenty of people are homosexual.

But until they have equal rights and privileges under the law, people will continue to try and 'figure it out'. And the propaganda will continue. If you want the propaganda to stop, then treat them (legally) like everyone else.

X - I'm glad to hear your views on this subject.

Competition for mates is actually essential for the survival of a species. So this arguement is flawed. it is competition for mates that ensures the fittest breed more and produce stronger offspring. So one couls say on that aspect, homosexuality actually is detrimental to improvement of the species, since homosexuals who are strong and fit do not donate their genes to the next generation, and thus, remove their genes from the line and deny them growth.

True homosexuals do NOT mate with members of the opposite sex by choice. If they do, its almost always due to cultural issues, and will marry a person of the opposite sex to mask their preferences. They are strictly attracted to their own sex. What you are refering to are bisexuals.

Of course, one could use the same arguement if you believe homosexuals to be an unatural abomination. By not breeding, the remove their defective genes from the genepool.

One could say homosexuals are natures way of trying to control the population. By creating homosexuals in certain numbers, it reduces the number of breeding individuals.

Thus, science can be used for and against homosexuality. Thats why when discussing homosexual issues, science is a weak spot.

I prefer to determine homosexual issues by more social and human standards. Since most homosexuals are pretty normal, productive people who contribute to society, Id say that homosexuality ahs little to do with nature, as far as its impact on the species goes, and more to do with society.

First a few clarifications:

Homosexuality, as far as can/has been scientifically determined, is a natural, not a "self-determined" (ie.: by personal choice) occurance.

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.

This is generally speaking not a subject I care enough about to enter into. But I ran across the "study" of the two male lions getting their thang on, the imagery that brought to mind was, well let's just say it was striking and leave it at that .

Homosexuality is present in nature...seems to indicate that if nature doesn't care, why should we. To each their own...

Originally posted by seagull
Homosexuality is present in nature...seems to indicate that if nature doesn't care, why should we. To each their own...

To this I would say that almost everything that makes civilization possible is either against nature or disiplines nature.

I can't recall and quote the specifics of the article I read, but read it here in Seed Magazine about some 450 species of animals who have documented homosexual relations. Its really quite an eye opener to point out how many animals engage in such acts to reinforce their social structure and generally improve it.

So much of what we call civilization occurs in nature as well, just refined, or corrupted, if one prefers. It just seems to me that a homosexual lion is no more against nature, than a heterosexual lion. God, will that imagery never leave me?

But doesn't the sheer growth rate of societies in which homosexuality is severely punished (in some cases by death) as opposed to the growth rate of societies which permit it directly contradict this notion?

releaving conflict that occurs when partners are scarse

what about my right hand? he is more attractive than any man i have seen. and he releases more pressure than a blow off valve on a turboed 20B rotary.
Homosexuality comes around when one is too afraid to approach the opposite sex in a sexual manner. They find it less stressful to try and jump the bones of their unsuspecting best friend.