Could homosexuality be a form of natually occuring population control?

I believe that homosexuality is inborn. I have believed for years that it was simply a naturally occuring chemical embalance, or mutation, but I was thinking......

What if homosexuality is a naturally occuring answer to overpopulation?

It is known that certain species have inborn mental traits that are passed on through the species. This is where migration instinct and other such things come from.

What if nature could also make changes to sexuality based on the needs of the species as a whole? What if nature creates homosexuals because it needs to lower the number of people who are procreating in order to try and stop overpopulation?

Has any scientist ever thought of this? Have they ever studies a group of deer or other animals who have overbreeded, and seen whether or not the number of same sex relationships in those groups rises with the population?

 

Yes; same-sex behavior has been observed in rats, seemingly in response to overcrowding.

It's a big leap though to conclude from such a study that homosexuality in humans is a means of population control.

 

I doubt it. The world population is spiraling regardless of the presence of homosexuals.

To me it seems to be just one of those harmless anomalies like red hair or left-handedness that just happens.

I don't think everything needs to have a driver or reason, sometimes things just are what they are.

Far more reliable indicators of population control can be found in the overall economic status of a country, the longevity of its populace and access to reliable and cheap birth control.

It's often the wealthiest countries that have negative or shelving birth replacement rates where people have less or even no kids quite simply because they can.

 

I don't know if you can consider ancient cultures as homosexual but homosexual relationships were okay in 1.5m ancient Egypt , 25m Roman empire , 500k dark ages England and 5m ancient Greece where overpopulation was not a case.

 

Well humans procreate much faster than other animals. Perhaps nature simply can not wpork fast enough.

 

Well if it's a natural answer to population control it's not working because gays and lesbians have kids all the time! lol

 

I've always thought it was a means of population control. As an "anomoly" or mutation it's not equivalent IMO to having red hair or being left handed since neither inhibit a species ability to multiply. I heard in a recent study that male homosexuality originates from the mother, and female homosexuality from the father... And that the more children a woman bears the more likely their child is to be gay. Since overpopulation can dwindle food supplies to the point a near-extinction of the species can occur, a natural evolutionary means for controlling population may be precisely what homosexuality is. But I don't think it will EVER be known for sure why it exists.

 

Lol, true. But evolution hasn't "learned" that one yet

Assuming homosexuality has genetic factors, I wonder what effect if any gay people reproducing will have on their offspring's sexual orientation? Given that it would seem to be unlikely that a single gene causes one to have homosexual attraction, and that such a gene would almost certainly have been bred out by now, I suspect it be a more complex biological mix that dictates susceptibility rather than certainty - evidenced by the identical twin studies that show while these types of siblings have a far greater (+50%) chance of sharing the same sexual orientation, it's by no means an identical pattern. This points to mutations rather than genetic code.

No studies have to date been done on the sexual orientation of LGB offspring, however I doubt it would be more likely to produce more gay people...

 

I don't think so. There has been some research that homosexuals cared for abandoned children/acted as caregivers to children in their own family without raising their own, meaning more adults per children. This meant more people to gather food for the children, defend the children, relative to families without homosexuals. Researchers of this theory argue the adaptation was advantageous because of this, which is why the trait did not die out (the heterosexual family members would pass on the trait, but it would not be dominant in themselves).

I think that theory makes more sense, but I don't completely support it.

 

And of course in prisons this so called inborn trait, hidden for decades, suddenly arises

 

Prison rape/sex is largely exaggerated, it's not as though the whole prison population is at it - you're talking about perhaps one in ten, or less. Which is still more homosexuality than the general population, but bisexual and bicurious tendencies are largely unreported in surveys.

Male-rape also often occurs from reasons other than sexual gratification - dominance and ridicule factor in many cases.

 

Rapes occur but I was referring to consentual sex between men.

 

Yep; consensual sex definitely happens.

 

So was I - I said "male rape/sex". It's still a minority of the prison population.

 

I made no assertions as to its prevalence.

 

Of course you did - You're implying that in prison homosexuality is more prevailent than in the general population. That's the only logical way one could think the idea that homosexuality is in born is questionable.

 

Homosexuality is always found in oppressive situations. It is also found in situations where females are given power over males. Yes, you read both statements correctly.

Whenever you have males in a situation where they cannot express their desires to rule, homosexuality exists which shows that it is not natural only a reaction to a situation. Of course, the best thing is t not become incarcerated but because of the lack of men as role models, some are more prone than others to acquiesce to their lower animal instincts. As for the others out in the general society; neither has the desire to fight to be a man so they play out the situation through sodomy or one male dominating the other and in some cases they dominate each other. Simple fix to this problem is for fathers to show our sons what it means to be a man in providing, defending and survival techniques. Not teaching our sons will only lead to disaster and Johnny will become someone's Johanna.

 

It's simply not accurate to state that homosexuality is simply a desire to dominate or be dominated. Granted it has been known to have been embraced as a "development tool" in Ancient Greece and a few other cultures - but only a few of the men involved were truly homosexual and embraced relationships with adult men throughout their entire adult lives. The vast majority eventually go on to marry women once their role of er, "coaching" the youths was complete.

Homosexuality as an action can mean a multitude of things and doesn't always mean the individual is in fact sexually and romantically attracted to members of the same sex. Yes it can mean dominance - in the case of some "gay" animals and prison rape - but when someone is intrinsically homosexual, the feelings don't come from the mere desire to dominate or be dominated.

And for that reason and the many known and suspected biological aspects to homosexuality, I doubt "doing more manly stuff" has the power to influence homosexuality. If anything, if I was sent to a gay cure camp being around all those men doing hot sweaty physical activities and camping out would just make me horny, not want to bang a chick... >_>

 

I also heavily dispute the charge that homosexuality can be caused by unattentive fathers. As far as personal experience goes my own dad left when I was young but the void was immediately filled with an attentive, caring and highly "manly" (as well as formally homophobic) step father. I never had any issues with having a distant or absent male role model though, and still knew I was gay from as far back as I can remember. Same with the claim that mothers can "turn" boys gay by being over-bearing... my mum was slightly withdrawn when I was younger (she suffered with depression), so I actually spent little time with her. Masculine figures have always been more apparent in my life.

I have friends who come from homes where their birth parents are still together, have had no issues with having distant or "weak" fathers, and still "turned out" gay... so in my own experience this claim makes no sense. I have never seen any statistics to back it up.

 

DevilMay,
It has to do with how a person is introduced to sexuality. This is why you Progressives and Liberals refer to sexual interest as sexual orientation.

and

Just because something is true about an ancient culture does not mean that it is not relevant today. The same psychological dynamics that helped older societies operate are also used today. The same dynamics that produced homosexuals back them are the same dynamics that produce them today. As I stated, whenever there is an oppressive/aggressive society, homosexuality is bound to become a part of the societal dynamic, whether the people want it or not, especially in the "modern" context of society where morality, life and decency are downplayed and the practice of licentiousness has become commonplace.

 

How one is introduced to sexuality? Er, well I "introduced" myself after years of knowing I was sexually attracted to males and never being interested in girls or the female form. No one else introduced me to homosexuality - the feelings were there for as long as I can remember, even before I knew what "gay" was. The process was as natural to me as I suspect it was for any heterosexual growing up.

You can't say that the dynamics of this are the same as what occurred in ancient Greece! Homosexual pedestry was a social phenomenon that existed in order to form bonds between youngers and elders so that the younger ones may develop into what they regarded as healthy adults as per some kind of "coming of age" life-coaching. But it's unlikely that they were actually intrinsically homosexual, otherwise adult same-sex relationships would have been prevalent due to the constant reinforcement of the homosexual activity they were engaged in throughout their youths... but instead adult same-sex relationships were rare and somewhat ridiculed. These men would go on to marry women.

The kind of socially-instituted process practised in ancient Greece had nothing to do with "real" biological same-sex attraction, as it cannot be said that all these boys grew up as I did with pre-existing attractions to men. The vast majority desired women and did marry, even though they could have chosen adult same-sex relationships (it wasn't prohibited). Actions are performed for various reasons as I said. Theirs was cultural, mine is biological.

 

Your previous post you were arguing that it's not the majority of the prison population. Now you want to argue it's not any higher prevalence in the prison poPulation than it is in the general population. You just dance all over the place. And it's been reported that 22% of male prisoners in us jails have been raped, and it's generally not the same 22% that is doing the raping.

 

Your lack of reading comprehension isn't indicative of me "dancing all over the place". I didn't say that it's not higher in prison than in the general populace, I was simply clarifying the importance of determining the prevalence of consensual same-sex activity, since rape committed for reasons other than sexual attraction can occur and would skew the results in determining REAL homosexuality vs dominance/inflicting suffering on others.

The point I was originally making is that you offering up prison homosexuality as implied evidence people can suddenly switch their sexual orientation fails to take into account a multitude of factors.

 

How did you constitute that you are sexually attracted to other males? Was it something that you were introduced to in magazines, another person, movies, experience from your youth? Such things orient you towards sexuality and sexual conduct.
As for reinforcement, ancient Greece and modern America, the societal dynamic is still the same: male domination, male subjugation, female subjugation, inundation of loose sexual practices, the non-existence of morality or the elimination all together. These things have not changed so therefore the societal dynamic remains. Eliminate these factors and you eliminate homosexuality. I am in no way stating that men should not rule or should aquiesce to females ruling over us, I am specifically referring to domination which is where homosexuality has its origins. It is in no way normal for a male to be sexually attracted to another male, there is something that was introduced to distort said male(s) psychology. Maybe it was the fact of being not seen as "man" enough or behaving too much like a girl, whatever the reason, something was introduced into your psyche that caused you to either reject female companionship and seek the companionship of another male; it "is safer" for you both.

 

dixon76710,
He is all over the place because he, like all other homosexuals, knows that there is something wrong, unnatural and out of place with the sexual behaviors that he has settled for.
Growing from a male into a man takes strength (psychological), honor (morality), integrity (behavioral) and determination. Being a man is hard work and it is not for the faint of mind. Why is it you think that the effeminate male image is pushed so much? On the other hand, you have idiotic caricatures on television such as the buffoonery and moral less characters of "Three and a Half Men" as well as the other garbage completely downgrading what a man actually is. I surely am grateful that I was given enough sense to know what a man is at an early age but I digress.