Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do gays exist?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Population control.
I think that homosexuality has been built into life as a form of population control. At any given point in time we have to have a balance between supply and demand. Back in the day when we were hunter gatherers we could only support so many people and having a kid was not always a good thing, because that would mean yet an other mouth to feed.
With hetero sex there is a chance of procreation, with homo sex there is no chance of having a baby, so nature builds in an automatic defense against over population by making the chance that some members of a group gay so there will only be so many people.
That’s just my 0.02


From what I have studied, you are absolutely correct. The first known observed instances of homosexuality in animals was in seagulls and other large colony animals. It seems (at least in birds) if a colnoies population density reaches a specific point X number of females mate together, going so far as to produce sterile eggs and the number of mating pairs of females remains high until the population density begins to drop and then the mating female pairs begin to drop in proportation. Also it appears in colony animals such as seals where alpha males dominate all the females.

I see know reason to doubt homosexuality in humans does not have the same biological triggers.

That being said bisexuality has something to do with the nature of higher order brains... humans, the Bonobo (our closest living relative) and Dolphins all have sex outside of heat and all practice bisexuality.




posted on Apr, 20 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
When we were hunter gatherers (and this probably still applies to nomadic tribes) we mated seasonally as most animals do. To ensure survival you need to give birth in the spring, when food and resources are plentiful and it is warmer. Tribes who developed birth control practices, like the (australian aboringines) may have had intercourse out of season but otherwise it would have led to high infant mortality to do otherwise. Also a woman needs to recover after birth and is largely immobile in the final stages of pregnancy.

When humans became farmers we started mating out of season as food was around us at all times. We didn't go anywhere anymore. Life was slightly easier so we had less to do - and so and so forth.

It is the most natural thing in the world for men and men and women and women etc to get on, to love each other.

We are only a very short step away in terms of evolution from hunter gatherers. While our brains have excelled they have not necessarily been paced by our bodies and there is an inner conflict (psychologically speaking). Humans were not sexual animals when we were hunter gatherers. We are sexual animals now.

It is here, in my opinion, that the difficulty arises when comparing humans to animals in the wild - humans do not live in their natural habitat. To compare us to animals who in their natural environment behave 'homosexually' is misleading, though it could be what we should aspire to. Dolphins and whales are bonding through sensual stimulation. We see it as sexual, they don't. They don't have sexual intercourse for pleasure they have it to re-produce. Everything else is because it feels nice and they 'love' each other. This is what intimacy means.

To say homosexuality is abnormal is to say that we all are. Perhaps we are still adapting, perhaps dolphins are the evolved people of Atlantis


Alfred Kinsey is responsible for the myth that humans are sexual from birth. Countless studies have debunked this theory, not to mention his research methods and yet I see his work quoted all the time as though it is fact. By implying that sexual experimentation was the norm people thought they weren't normal if they weren't doing such and such. Things have got twisted.

There is an excellent study by john B Calhoun which studied the effects of overcrowding in rats which offers some insight, but that only tells us about rats. Human society is far more complicated.

I think homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. The group dynamics of our ancestors would determine what is normal sexual behaviour, but I certainly think it was more sensual than sexual - unless once a year around July was all the physical contact they ever had.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I have thought that population density might have something to do with it if one could choose one's orientation and choose to have sex w the same gender when one is too crowded. However, I have rarely met humans as responsible as that. Look at the very over crowded places like Haiti, India, etc where it (homosexuality)is actually persecuted. Heck, look at the overcrowding in our own societies where we would all be better off if more people "chose" to be gay and have fewer kids.
The jail analogy is one where presumably straight men are seeking sexual release or to dominate other men and is a poor analogy. Every gay man I know was aware of his sexuality as soon as or even before puberty started, regardless of how crowded his living conditions. i am going to have to say that I don't think it has anything to do with crowding, at least in humans. Someone asked why I even asked this question...Because I find it an interesting topic and would like to expand my knowledge. As I said in my first post in this thread, I am not biased and I keep religion out of it; as a physician, I have an interest in all aspects of human biology, disease, and behavior. As a gay man, I know what my experiences have been and am curious about how they relate to others theories on the subject. Thanks for all the input!



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by j_kalin
I have thought that population density might have something to do with it if one could choose one's orientation and choose to have sex w the same gender when one is too crowded. However, I have rarely met humans as responsible as that

Nobody chooses to be strait or gay, through out humanity the gay population is roughly 15% I’ll try to find actual statistics on that.


The jail analogy is one where presumably straight men are seeking sexual release or to dominate other men and is a poor analogy.

Yeah that doesn’t belong in a true discourse on the subject. Jail rape is just that, rape. It’s far more about dominating and subjugating someone as apposed to gay sex.


Every gay man I know was aware of his sexuality as soon as or even before puberty started, regardless of how crowded his living conditions. i am going to have to say that I don't think it has anything to do with crowding, at least in humans

Sorry I’d have to say that it has every thing to do with crowded living conditions, and people are no different then every other life form on the planet in this respect.
All life is born with its sexuality, there is no choice. Except maybe with bisexual people whom choose to get married be it strait or gay, that would be a choice.
But in the context of my theory nature has programmed that a certain amount of people are born homosexual so that over population can be controlled, if 15% of a population will be born homosexual that would reduce the amount of off spring that can be produced per generation.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   
OK myx,
I see your point. If evolution determines that a certain percentage of males being born gay helps the survival of the group, then that fits. I am not certain if overcrowding per se is the selecting variable. I suspect it is starvation; if there are too many mouths to feed and not enough hunters/gatherers to get food, the tribe will be weak and the whole tribe's breeding success will be less. However, if some men are born gay, do not have kids, but do help with obtaining food then the tribe as a whole benefits and the trait is selected for via propagation by siblings. Obviously this would be advantageous in crowded conditions where the crowding led to food scarcity. How does this fit modern society?



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Dear sky,

thanks for your comments, my true christian friend...lets see what they were...
1. (I am)perverted
2. (I am)perverse
3. (I am a)lunatic
4. (I am) insane

Please note that no medical society or psychiatric or psychological society agrees with you that homosexuals are "insane." Only so-called "ex gay" promoters claim to be able to modify behavior; now even they admit that orientation cannot be changed. No difference in the incidence of any psychopatholgy has been shown when comparing gay men to heterosexual men. So, your comment that gay men are insane is without evidence that I am aware of.

could you please site some sources other than the hebrew bible for your illuminating insights?

PS, Many scholars have commented that the unusually close relationship between Jesus and John, the apostle he "loved the most" was homosexual in nature if not in deed. I have no problem with Jesus and consider myself a REAL Christian in that I follow the philosophy of what Jesus preached, summarized as "Do unto others, etc...". There is a difference from doing that and attempting to justify one's prejudices by selectively choosing passages from the old-testament and then using them as weapons against other people. Everything other than the specific things that Jesus states is just the word of stone-age sheep herders and nomadic, violent men, not god. There is historical proof that all the books of the old testament derive from the oral traditions of the semites and babylonians who kept them as slaves. Basing one's life on the edicts found in the old testament is not suitable for life in a civilized world as we can see in the middle east where just such narrowmindedness (on our president's part and on the islamic fundamentalists) is causing needless bloodshed and slaughter. Try to fight your intolerance of others.

thanks for your contributions




[edit on 21-4-2007 by j_kalin]

[edit on 21-4-2007 by j_kalin]



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by j_kalin
How does this fit modern society?

Well right now there is no inherent value to humanity to being gay, when the world’s population reaches the point that the Earth can’t handle anymore people the story will change.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Originally posted by j_kalin
How does this fit modern society?

Well right now there is no inherent value to humanity to being gay, when the world’s population reaches the point that the Earth can’t handle anymore people the story will change.


There isn't? Really? The same could be said about being straight, bisexual, republican, democrat, male, female, black or white.... who are you to say that anyone has no inherant value to humanity? Who gave you that authority?



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Exist?

We might not like "Certain Things" but we are people.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk

Originally posted by j_kalin
How does this fit modern society?

Well right now there is no inherent value to humanity to being gay, when the world’s population reaches the point that the Earth can’t handle anymore people the story will change.


Expect the end soon.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Tom,
Thanks for your posts, but I don't understand what you are getting at?


Also, for anyone who has not read the whole thread, I am trying to get input on why in an evolutionary and cultural sense gays exist, not in a moral sense. Obviously we exist, therefore there is a reason. Nothing exists without a cause and, hopefully, a purpose. Arguing from a point of religion or morality is going to get us nowhere since there can be no "absolute proof" even on a theoretical level of one's position.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
You know, I've been thinking, there does'nt have to be a reason that
homosexuality exists, it could just be one of those things that has
developed that is not bad for the species, so has never really become a
trait to be gotten rid of evolution wise.



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
who are you to say that anyone has no inherant value to humanity? Who gave you that authority?

Grover, you have misconstrued my argument. My argument is that right now being gay has no advantage for humanity, that means that at this minuet the fact that right now the Earth can handle more people, hence the advantage that being gay offered by not procreating has for the moment disappeared. I’m not saying that being gay is bad.
Too fully understand my point of view read my previous posts in this thread. And in future do not take a comment out of context and attack someone for it.


Originally posted by tomquinn
Expect the end soon.

Vary soon We are nearing the threshold of what the Earth can support.


[edit on 21-4-2007 by Mr Mxyztplk]



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Well its always been my opinion that homesexuality is one of the more important evolutionary traits, though with human society it would easily get misunderstood and almost, but not entirely become pointless. I believe that homosexuality is simply for population control, it seems to be one of the more logical explenations, but what I have trouble understanding is how it works, because with the world we live in, we kill eachother, we have disease, we have starving people dieing, we have accidents happening daily, you would think that would cut down the population a bit, so how does the homosexual gene come into play, is it dorment or is it always around? many people say the only reason anyone has seen a rise in homesexuality is because of either- the rise of the population, which could have a rise in homosexuality if it is just a normal constant gene- or we could be seeing a rise because the population is going up, so it is appearing more to help fix the rise. I dont know much about genes and how it all works, but this is something I have thought about for a long time, same with bi-sexuality, which I am still unsure if it exists as an actual gene or how that all works.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshkwamy
many people say the only reason anyone has seen a rise in homesexuality is because of either- the rise of the population, which could have a rise in homosexuality if it is just a normal constant gene- or we could be seeing a rise because the population is going up, so it is appearing more to help fix the rise.


It's more likely that homosexuality has been at a constant background rate and current social mores allow it to be more openly expressed. Off to bed, great input guys/ladies.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pshkwamy
but not entirely become pointless.

it has but only for the moment. Consider the fact that we have only been able to support large population to any extent for the last 5,000 years, before that all of humanity was hunter gatherers, where we had to constantly find a balance between population and resources. But then we developed agriculture, and were able to support a larger population and homosexuality temporarily lost it’s importance. Soon we will reach that balance yet again and homosexuality will be important yet again.


I believe that homosexuality is simply for population control,

I totally agree. But remember we have yet to reach our balance between what the Earth can sustain and our numbers.


but what I have trouble understanding is how it works

In my understanding from my conversations with people, most people are bisexual to one degree or an other. Some are pure strait and other are pure gay, most fall somewhere in-between. Be it strait and sometimes having a gay fantasy or gay and sometimes having a strait, or most having acted on it at some point.


so how does the homosexual gene come into play, is it dorment or is it always around?

Good question. As I said most people are bi to some extent. And even if two totally strait people have a kid that is gay, there are recessive genes that parents can carry can pass the “gay gene” along to their children. I’m bi with two strait parents so that must have been inherited as a recessive gene. I’m only going to marry a women because I fell in love with a women, had I fell in love with a man it would have been a man.


many people say the only reason anyone has seen a rise in homesexuality is because of either- the rise of the population,

This is the reason. More people equals more gay people.


same with bi-sexuality, which I am still unsure if it exists as an actual gene or how that all works.

My guess is that it has to be a gene. Genes determine our nature despite our nurture. Gay people will be gay no matter how our parents teach us how to feel, bi people will be bi no matter how people tell them how to feel or to “pick a team” people feel how they feel.


[edit on 22-4-2007 by Mr Mxyztplk]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   
it is not a question of the overall earth though...we tend to cluster in great colonies called cities where the population can rise to many thousands per square mile...New York...Tokyo...San Francisco for example.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Grover, you have misconstrued my argument. My argument is that right now being gay has no advantage for humanity, that means that at this minuet the fact that right now the Earth can handle more people, hence the advantage that being gay offered by not procreating has for the moment disappeared. I’m not saying that being gay is bad.



IMO, gayness does benefit the siblings, parents, nephews/nieces of a family even today and thereby enhances that family's reproductive success. Imagine you are a straight couple who has to care for an elderly parent. You would probably be so stressed out and busy (and poor) that you wouldn't have much time or interest in producing a big batch of kids. Now imagine that you have a gay brother who takes care of that parent leaving you free to make lots of babies, thus reproducing the gay genes in at least 50% of the kids...evolution in action.

Imagine that you are a busy straight couple who has a bunch of kids. Those kids experiment with drugs, get into trouble and end up in jail or OD'd (yes, a drastic example) and thus their reproductive prospects drop drastically. Now, imagine your gay brother takes an interest in teaching your son to play ball, coaches the little league team, tutors him, spends quality time with him and he then becomes a success, goes to Harvard, gets the smart girl with good genes and has a bunch of smart kids...again, evolution in action.

No, it's not just about population control. I do appreciate the points about bisexuality. I agree from my own and other's experiences that most people have a fluid sexuality that depends greatly on the social context. A guy might fool around with his teen buds, get married, have a wife & kids, screw around with men on the side, etc...It's pretty common. These guys are a more direct way the gay genes are propagated.

also, can someone explain how to do quotes on this site?

[edit on 22-4-2007 by j_kalin]

[edit on 22-4-2007 by j_kalin]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Much of the problem lies in the manner in which people view themselves as spiritual Beings. Can a person who eats carrots, be defined as a carrot-eater? Can a man with red hair, be summed up as merely a red-head? Can a man who's sexual preference is females be, defined as "a heterosexual"? Can a person who happens to have the tendacy toward homosexual acts, be defined as "BEING A GAY".

Why do people feel the need to define everything based upon "what hole" they might stick their chalice into?

One cannot BE GAY, just as one cannot "BE" a sexual preference. The sexual preference is a part of your experience through BEING, not vice-versa. Calling yourself something based upon your passions, or attractions is an insult.


[edit on 22-4-2007 by sweftl337]



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Homosexuality has been there as long as there is heterosexuality or bisexuality. It's genetically fixed as a diversity of nature. You see this with humans, animals, nature etc etc.

The bible and some other religions teached us that it is only normal to have a straight relationship because you have to reproduce. Without religion we wouldn't have asked ourself why homosexuality is there. It's just there as anything else. Why is it that people that have grown up without any religion and therefore think more free, almost have no problem with homosexuality or any other diversity of nature.

Unfortunately we are going towards a new period of time were you can choose what kind of child you want to give birth to; intelligent, good looking, normal (not gay, to complicated life), name it. So therefore I hope they will NEVER find this particular gen, as it than will be over with homosexuality and the diversity of nature and a lot of other things from mother nature. We live in a world were everything needs to be perfect and soon we are able to create it ourself.


[edit on 22/4/2007 by rai76]






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join