Homosexuality

[Aester]

Have you asked Why there is homosexuality? It has been in my head for a time and would like to hear what you think. As all know that sex is meant to procreate, and making it pleasurable would convince you into it, but what is mother natures plan about homosexuality, as it always has been and will be? As it rewards nothing except the pleasure of sex without kids but nothing to our survival, yet how has it survived and what is its purpose? :confused:

[OrphanPip]

Nature isn't a perfect system, it doesn't really do anything straight forward or directly, in all likelihood homosexuality is just a product of a ramshackle randomly developed system of psychosexual development. Or it's the result of a competing selective pressure, like female fecundity.

[pellaz]

highly fertile women more likely to have a gay son

[Pix]

I figure that, accidental as it probably is, that it's a safety measure against overpopulation. At this time in our history we could stand a lot more gays!

That said, even I've experienced the temporary insanity of wanting children. I mean like I get real emotional, measuring up guys as to whether they could father a good child (not that I'd want to marry him) and literally desiring to conceive, and interesting enough I have a huge craving for chocolate. I've resisted and that hasn't happened to me in years. I'm warned that as I get older, especially as I approach menopause, that it's gonna hit me a lot stronger, however.

I sometimes dream of a son (though in other dreams the very same boy is instead my little brother--and I'm an only child, btw), and I've had at times an irrational certainty that I'm meant to give birth to him.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

There is an African saying attributed in our modern times to the Nigerian Igbo culture the proverb "Ora na azu nwa" which means "It takes the tribe/village to raise a child."

Non-procreating adults in the tribe who would hunt and gather yet not add to the burden of the population by procreating aids the survival of the tribe and the species.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111843.php sets forth a new theory for male homosexuality, tying it in with higher fertility of mom.

In essence what it is saying that the more fertile a woman is the greater her chances of having homosexual male offspring. There have been several studies on the issue, and they more or less agree.

This suggests that in order to get around high infant mortality rates, women who are able to produce more offspring is an asset to the species.

Considering how many gay males are drawn to child tending professions, teachers, nanny, etc, we have to wonder if there is not a natural instinct in gay males to be tenders of children. It is no big secret that gay males tend to be more sensitive, more in touch with their emotions. This leads to gays being more prone to developing a 'maternal' attachment to the offspring of others.

Straight men are far more competitive when it comes to the offspring of others. Being a 'step father' is more difficult for straight men than for gay men on many emotional levels. This goes back millions of years as males competed with each other to insure that their genetic material survived. Gay males are less competitive in this area are far more willing and emotionally able to become attached to a 'strangers' child and become a foster parent.

Gay males tend to be 'hardwired' toward rearing other people's children. While that serves little purpose in our modern world where we have adopted the nuclear family, way back when we were hunter gather's as part of a tribe, that ability was advantageous to the survival of the tribe, thus survival of our species.

I suspect we will find similar links to the survival of our species when it comes to lesbians. Lesbian women tend to be more daring, more risk taking and quicker to charge forward in defense. In a time when the women folk were left in the camp while the menfolk went off to hunt for days at a time, having stronger, more protective women left behind with the women made perfect sense.

Again we see a strong child rearing 'willingness', lacking the willingness to pair off with the opposite gender in order to create an offspring.

This means that the children in the tribe had more parents, willing and able to defend and provide for those children as if the children were they very own biological copies.

Considering how helpless human children are, unable to get up and walk in the first moments after birth, requiring excessive amounts of protection, care, feeding and tending for years before being able to tend to its own needs, having more adults willing and able to meet its requirements becomes a survival tool not just for the individual but for the whole tribe and the whole species.

[BellyNel]

Great question. I am not religious, so if I say something wrong, then I am sorry.

I guess homosexuality is here because someone way back in the day had sexual feelings for another person of the same sex, had sex with him or her, didn't know what it was called, and did it anyway.

For all those who think God will punish you for doing homoseuxal acts, what makes you think that's what He said in the first place? How do you know exactly what was said? It was passed down from one person to another, and then someone decided to publish that in the Bible. And besides, homosexuality can't be caught like cooties. What makes straight people think gays and lesbians will necessarily hit on straight men or women?

That's my thought though. :confused:

[dfiant]

Have you asked Why there is homosexuality? It has been in my head for a time and would like to hear what you think. As all know that sex is meant to procreate, and making it pleasurable would convince you into it, but what is mother natures plan about homosexuality, as it always has been and will be? As it rewards nothing except the pleasure of sex without kids but nothing to our survival, yet how has it survived and what is its purpose? :confused:

I have read this question 3 times and i can honestly say this thought has never really crossed my mind. Such a deep thought from someone of your youth, and very thought provoking, I commend you for asking the question.


I don't know weather there was an actual plan. I mean you look at fish, the female spews eggs externally, they male spews his sperm and by pot luck the 2 come together in the waters and procreation against the odds occurs.

Fast forward millions of years the being that harbours ovaries developed a recepticle that contains the ovaries and can direct sperm from another being that has developed a protrusion to fit inside the recepticle. Penis's and vagina's just evolved to be suited to each other and increase the chances of fertilization and enhance the chances of procreation (Survival of the fittest).

On top of that to make putting the penis into the vagina for what we now know as copulation and element of pleasure was thrown in to increase the willingness to 'go through the motions' and ensure the survival of a species.

BUT the anus also has devolped to become a source of pleasure as well.

BUT BUT there are creatures that that can assume the roles of both genders.

BUT BUT BUT the human race has deveoped past the point where the survival of the fittest is relevant and in this day and age, sex is considered to be more of an expression of love rather than procreation to ensure the survival of the human race.

OMG there are so many variables when you start thinking about this that there can be no real answer, only theories.

[Genersis]

There is an African saying attributed in our modern times to the Nigerian Igbo culture the proverb "Ora na azu nwa" which means "It takes the tribe/village to raise a child."

Non-procreating adults in the tribe who would hunt and gather yet not add to the burden of the population by procreating aids the survival of the tribe and the species.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111843.php sets forth a new theory for male homosexuality, tying it in with higher fertility of mom.

In essence what it is saying that the more fertile a woman is the greater her chances of having homosexual male offspring. There have been several studies on the issue, and they more or less agree.

This suggests that in order to get around high infant mortality rates, women who are able to produce more offspring is an asset to the species.

Considering how many gay males are drawn to child tending professions, teachers, nanny, etc, we have to wonder if there is not a natural instinct in gay males to be tenders of children. It is no big secret that gay males tend to be more sensitive, more in touch with their emotions. This leads to gays being more prone to developing a 'maternal' attachment to the offspring of others.

Straight men are far more competitive when it comes to the offspring of others. Being a 'step father' is more difficult for straight men than for gay men on many emotional levels. This goes back millions of years as males competed with each other to insure that their genetic material survived. Gay males are less competitive in this area are far more willing and emotionally able to become attached to a 'strangers' child and become a foster parent.

Gay males tend to be 'hardwired' toward rearing other people's children. While that serves little purpose in our modern world where we have adopted the nuclear family, way back when we were hunter gather's as part of a tribe, that ability was advantageous to the survival of the tribe, thus survival of our species.

I suspect we will find similar links to the survival of our species when it comes to lesbians. Lesbian women tend to be more daring, more risk taking and quicker to charge forward in defense. In a time when the women folk were left in the camp while the menfolk went off to hunt for days at a time, having stronger, more protective women left behind with the women made perfect sense.

Again we see a strong child rearing 'willingness', lacking the willingness to pair off with the opposite gender in order to create an offspring.

This means that the children in the tribe had more parents, willing and able to defend and provide for those children as if the children were they very own biological copies.

Considering how helpless human children are, unable to get up and walk in the first moments after birth, requiring excessive amounts of protection, care, feeding and tending for years before being able to tend to its own needs, having more adults willing and able to meet its requirements becomes a survival tool not just for the individual but for the whole tribe and the whole species.

So the gays really do just want to take our children and convert them!:eek:

:tongue:

Yes i always thought it was something along the lines of what you said personally.mile:

[jaxc]

well as a wise man onced said "homosexuality is gods way of ensuring the truly talented are boged down by children":tongue:

[BobInTampa]

For me, i've come to accept the fact that soon after conception, the fetus is asexual - there is no genitalia, but as the development process progresses there is a time when a genetic message is sent to the fetus to start developing male or female genitalia - it's during that microseconds that this chemical message is modified - and that's how it happens. It's not a birth defect, it's similar to people born with 2 different colored eyes - it's just part of natures way of keeping the gene pool dynamic.