homosexuality essential for species survival

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.

Well I assume you are kidding, because I don't think many people would type such an idiotic thing and mean it.


Anyway, to the original question...I definitely think there are reasons for homosexuality. Most homosexuals that I have spoken to and seen being interviewed are attracted to boys at a very young age [like 4].

I feel that if all the gay people in the world, were not influenced and pressured so much by society to not be gay, then there would be substantially less people. But nowadays you see gay men and women have like 2-3 kids or more and then say they have always been gay when they get enough guts.

One day when humans aren't so close minded and primitive I am sure we will find out things that make gay people different from straight people like we found things that made black people different from white people. And it will be okay. It will be normal.

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.....

science is still split 50/50 between nature and nurture.

and homosexual men dont have sex with women ever, so there is no chance of them procreating. if you have sex with men and women, you are bi-sexual. funny how you call it propaganda but don't cite a source on your 'information".

allpsych.com...

www.google.com...

There are a number of documented studies of gay animals. A few years back, a gay penguin couple in a a zoo tried to hatch a rock, thinking it was an egg. So the zoo put an actual egg in their nest to hatch. The penguins made good parents.

Here are 2 articles, one from Columbia University. Apparently alot of studies have been conducted on this. It seems that this is a quite normal behavior/phenomenon amongst all creatures, it's just in the minority, like redheads and geniuses are. Nor does it seem to be a survival tactic, since penguin numbers are rapidly declining.

www.jrn.columbia.edu...
www.tierramerica.net...

Gay Sheep Study:
"In the study published in 2004, physiologist Charles Roselli and his team said they discovered groups of brain cells that were different amongst the sheep and that showed a strong correlation with their sexual preference. Roselli dubbed this knot of nerve cells ''ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus, oSDN.
The team examined 27 adult sheep, four years old and of different breeds, raised on an agricultural research station in the northwestern state of Idaho. The sample included eight males who manifested heterosexual behavior, nine with homosexual behavior and 10 females....''Ours and other similar studies strongly suggest that the sexual preference among animals is biologically determined,'' Roselli told a press conference. When he presented the report the physiology and pharmacology professor added, ''This possibility is also valid for humans.''

It would also seem that sexuality is determined by the brain, they're just not entirely sure how it works.

that is the case for nature. the case for nurture is that something happened in the development of the brain relative to environment/upbringing that made the brain develop that way.

Originally posted by moranity1
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.

I haven't read all the posts, because I started to and the topic began to change to a different matter that I really didn't want to get involved in, so i'm gonna stick to ths OP's comment instead.

Let me first start by saying, for the record, I am a Heterosexual man. I have Homosexual friends and have no issue with what they do. My comments are not born from a dislike or even like, its indifference.
Indifference in the way that if two people love and care for each other, then personally I care not what genetalia each has, (nor should anyone else for that matter) that doesn't define the person. Honestly(i know this is a little of topic, but its clarifying where my opinion is coming from) though, i hate when a homosexual says 'This is what I am' because it isn't. If sexual preference is your only defining characteristic, thus the 'This is what I am' statement rings true, you truly need to re-evaluate your life.


Anyway, the Topic at hand.
Firstly, Homosexual behaviour is not essential to the survival of the Homosapiens, the only essential combination is man/woman for procreation.
That is not me saying one is better than the other, just that one is essential, the other, i truly believe, is a natural course for any large grouping.
Every Animal has the instinct to search out what they are best suited for in a 'mate'. This does, in my opinion, ring true for Homosexuals as well.
Another reason your argument is flawed, is 'relieving conflict' comment.
This is not so. Animals need that conflict, its part of the dance of procreation. As a species we should be looking for the best, strongest most fit to parent our children, there is no set rules on what makes the best parents, thus everyone looks for something different in the mate, but the conflict is needed.
Also the notion that Homosexuality emerges in societies where there is a lacking in one of the sexes is completely wrong too. Now if you can show me some authentic verifiable data that in Homosapien societies, when one sex largely out numbers another, then Homosexuality becomes rife in that situation, I will gladly read it, but I really don't think you will find it.
However, if we takes some statistics that we know for the glocal record, maybe that will show where your argument falls.

If we estimate the ballpark figure of 7,000,000,000,000 people live on this planet and we divide that by the % of men and women we get
Men - 3486000000000
Women - 3514000000000
In the 48/52% split of the gen pop in favour of women.

Next we take the Gay Statistics(Taken from West Yorkshire Mesmac Group for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Transvestite) whic show that the current standard for Gay People is 10% of the population....thats one in ten people are gay.

So, if we take the understanding that Homosexuals are born in a societal need to 'cover' more of one sex, its safe to assume in general there are more Lesbians than Gay Men, because there are more women in general.

However, another Statistic from WY Mesmac Group for G/L/Bi/TG and TV, shows that averagely speaking 63% of all Homosexuals are infact Gay Men.
This does not tally with your implication as there are more women in total, but % wise, there arefewer Lesbians.


Any, this is off topic, but writing this made me think of a classic 'Friends' Line.

Joey: Hey Ross. If Homosapiens, were infact Homosapiens, is that why they died out?
Ross: Joe, Homosapiens are people.
Joey: Hey, i'm not judging.

Goodnight people.

Love one another for who they are, not what they prefer between the sheets

Originally posted by jprophet420
that is the case for nature. the case for nurture is that something happened in the development of the brain relative to environment/upbringing that made the brain develop that way.

That homosexuality comes from the way a person is brought up has pretty well been disproven. Several years ago, scientists determined that it happens in the brain before one is born.

Throughout my life I have had many, many gay and lesbian friends. From my own observations, this is something that is hard-wired in the brain from before birth. The vast majority knew when they were small children that they were attracted to the same sex, but they never admitted it even to themselves sometimes, because there was so much social pressure to conform to heterosexuality.

I do think that most of the people that think it is a "choice" are looking for a way to judge homosexuals and blame them for the way they are.

I ask you, how can genuine love between 2 beings ever be wrong?

Originally posted by GSA
Science has already explained homosexuality as a chemical imbalance and one that if need be can be corrected.

That's like saying black people are black because of a chemical imbalance. It's not an imbalance but a difference. I think this theory is very interesting as there must be some sort of reason for homosexuality. Did you know most animal species have been observed to have homosexual/gay behavior and 93% of giraffes 'practice' gayness lol. There sure are alot of "imbalanced" animals out there, and no I'm not gay, but I'm sure that's hard for you to comprehend. Maybe I have a chemical imbalance

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Xeros]

I have often thought about the survival of the species idea, concerning homosexuality. It is indeed an interesting idea! Ten percent of the population (more or less, depending on your source) is a pretty good amount to enable population control. It could be an age old way to do it, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Now as for this "chemical imbalance"?

The only chemical imbalance that I am aware of in my body is that I have hypoglycemia. Sure as heck beats the time I was told that I was gay because of my dietary consumption! That had me rolling for quite a while!

As long as I can remember, and I don't recall any experiences of being "made gay"! I do recall the experiences of being made "ungay", or at least they tried. Whoops!

just to straighten a few things up, my theory is not about population control...and yes competition is essential for natural selection...the survival benefit of homosexuality/bisexuality comes when humans are in isolated small groups, as has happened a few times during history(according to genetic research), where extreme competition would result in the proberble destruction of the small group, humans being social animals need to live in groups of atleast sixty, to stop detrimental inbreeding, collect resources etc, having the option to have same sex partners would ease conflict in such situations, thats as well as i can be bothered to explain it at the moment.

homosexuals are quite capable of breeding when neccessary(sounds so clinical :-D), the idea is that the fact that they dont have to, to be happy, eases competition for partners when they become scarse, as has happened a few times in history of homosapiens, according to recent genetic research

and variety is the spice of life

also i am not sayinghomosexuality emerges in societies where there is increased competion for mates, but that it always being there acts as a safety valve when competition is intense

[edit on 31-7-2006 by moranity1]

[edit on 31-7-2006 by moranity1]

Originally posted by forestlady

Originally posted by jprophet420
that is the case for nature. the case for nurture is that something happened in the development of the brain relative to environment/upbringing that made the brain develop that way.

That homosexuality comes from the way a person is brought up has pretty well been disproven. Several years ago, scientists determined that it happens in the brain before one is born.

Throughout my life I have had many, many gay and lesbian friends. From my own observations, this is something that is hard-wired in the brain from before birth. The vast majority knew when they were small children that they were attracted to the same sex, but they never admitted it even to themselves sometimes, because there was so much social pressure to conform to heterosexuality.

I do think that most of the people that think it is a "choice" are looking for a way to judge homosexuals and blame them for the way they are.

I ask you, how can genuine love between 2 beings ever be wrong?

how did they determine this? the gay gene has been disproven so how is it predetermined? the only way something can be "hard wired from birth" is if your dna says so.

Jprophet420: Not true. I'm not talking about a "gay gene". I'm talking about brain chemistry, which can be influenced by a number of things other than DNA. For example: many scientists believe that if a pregnant woman experiences stress during her pregnancy, her hormones are affected it can throw the fetus's sexual orientation/characteristics off. Sometimes, it's indeterminate when the child is born. The general thinking among scientists today is that the brain is hard-wired differently for gays, lesbians and anyone in between. A few years ago, the scientific world published several papers, all saying that the general consensus is that sexual orientation is determined by the brain, not DNA. So I agree with you there, it's not genetic. But to say that everything we are is detrmined solely by DNA is just plain incorrect. It's far more complex and complicated than that.

Having said that, I will not comment any more on why or how people are gay or lesbian, since it's off topic.

I really don't know why there are gays and lesbians, also transgendered people, etc. I just don't think that it's about population control, since our planet at present is way overpopulated. If it is related, then it's not doing a very good job of population control! But I don't have any research to back that up, it's just my observation/opinion. Good question and thread, though!

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?

1. No, obviously the acquired behaviors of a given species will not be found in all species. For instance, we know that it's normal for chimpanzees to throw poop. It's not the result of a chemical imbalance, it's just what chimps do when you lock them in a cage and make fun of them all day long. Humans do this to (in prison). Other animals? Not so much.

2. You've clearly never owned 2 male dogs.


The argument that it exists for the preservation of the species however seems unlikely to me.
1. Competition for mates is good for the species: it encourages the selection of the fittest mates.
2. Homosexuality will either increase or not affect competition. If one gender is disproportionately homosexual the opposite gender must compete for the straight ones. If the genders are equally homosexual the breeding population is reduced but proportions remain equal.


The more likely cause of homosexuality in my opinion has little to do with biological "disorders" and more to do with psychology, though I do not deny the interaction of the two or claim to know for sure.

1. The heirarchy of needs. The relative comfort and security of modern human living could serve to reduce the compulsion for survival related activities, including procreation. This leaves one more free to seek intimacy with those who emotionally/socially satisfy them the most, regardless of gender.

2. Archetyping. We have cultural concepts of masculine and feminine which are sometimes dubious at best. The Governator is masculine, Gray Davis is feminine (supposedly). Gray Davis types are therefore much more likely to be exposed to the suggestion that they shouldn't even bother trying to get women, and some of them will accept that and feel more comfortable pursuing men. (incidentally I find this pretty ironic. Gray Davis isn't the one with a cigar obsession that even Freud couldn't excuse.)

Originally posted by moranity1
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.

If this is mankinds way of ensuring reproduction and the survival of the fitest humans... explain to me why when ever I go to the mall I see fat nasty white trash women with 10 kids.. I dont want to sound to mean, but wouldn't you all say that ugly people are reproducing much faster then the more "fit" ones? middle class families average 2 kids, rich average 1-2 and the dirt poor can have 6+ .. how does that make since? I have seen some absolutly ugly women and actually stop and wonder "who in world would actually mate with that beast???"

P.S. Sorry to any fat nasty women on here with many kids I did not mean to single you out... to much..



[edit on 8/6/2006 by Rockpuck]