Interesting theory about homosexuality

[TheEarl]

I'm quoting this directly from another messageboard which I frequent, because I think it's interesting.

A gay friend of mine has an interesting theory. He believes that a population needs only so many heterosexual males. After a while, gays start being born to help with the nurturing of the next generation without fighting over females. Someone is as closely related to their niece or nephew as they are to their own grandkids. According to his theory, gay males very often have older brothers, as has he.

Discuss.

The Earl

 

[minsue]

Isn't that just like a man....women need not apply to his theory

 

[carsonshepherd]

What about the gay guys whose families won't let them around the kids for fear the gayness will rub off?

Yes I have an older brother, and yes he has kids, and yes he lets me (makes me ) take them places and so on - but I think that's pretty silly. Sounds like one of those half-ass theories people make up to suit their own situations without any kind of data to back it up.

Thanks for sharing, though, Earl....

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I would call that a lot more of a rationalization than a theory.

 

[carsonshepherd]

I would call that a lot more of a rationalization than a theory.

Yup. to Colly

 

[Guest]

I would call that a lot more of a rationalization than a theory.

Exactly what I thought.

I think it's a shame that some people feel the need to rationalise and find reasons for why they are who and what they are.

Does it matter? Is it necessary to have reasons? Why can't it just be accepted that we are what we are and that we are all different?

Heck, if I tried to rationalise and analyze why I am like I am, I'd drive myself literally insane.

With regard to our sexuality, we all have different things which drive us. Different kinks, perversions, levels of libido, longings for certain things, aversions to others. Gay, straight, bi, prudish, slutty, Dominant, submissive, sadistic, masochistic, it doesn't matter. We enjoy what we enjoy, and hopefully we find someone (or more than one) who is a good match for us.

Thank fuck there is such diversity!

Earl, sorry, I went off on one a bit there, I guess this just opened a bit of a dam for me.

Lou

 

[TheEarl]

Not at all. Not my theory - was just curious to see what people made of it.

The Earl

 

[carsonshepherd]

Not at all. Not my theory - was just curious to see what people made of it.

The Earl

I think we make that it's pretty... uh... ridiculous.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Actually, I can see some pretty logical reasoning there.

Yes, there are all types, and we are what we are, and we are all different, yabbedy yabbedy yah!

BUT, nature is a powerful and wonderous thing. There are species of being on this planet, (I can't remember what right now) that when faced with extinction due to their only being one gender left, can reproduce on their own.

In nature, things don't often become extinct on their own. Dinosaurs for example, it's now widely believed, were wiped out by a huge global sized event caused by collision, not nature.

BUT, not all life was extinguished, nature found a way.

When the Rabbit population in Europe was becoming too big for the local environment, POW, along came Mixametosis (I KNOW that's not the right spelling, but I can't recall the correct one, and frankly, I don't care, you know what I'm on about) and the problem was mainly solved.

BUT, not all rabbit-kind were extinguished, nature found a way.

How about us, Humans. Here we are now, infesting our planet, destroying it and polluting it with all sorts of shit, including ourselves, and what do we have?? What are we practically programmed with?? That's right, an insane desire to cull ourselves every fifty years or so.

And when it appears that's not enough?? Disease and tragedy is set upon us.

Cancer is a big killer among us. Perhaps that's one of natures ways of culling the crop. BUT, when our brainy bigwigs begin to find ways to reduce it's effects, POW, AIDS!

What exactly is AIDS??

Would it be so wild to describe it as natures way of culling us. Of course we have those same brilliant minds at work, trying to lessen it's effects on our race, but how well are they succeeding??

And what else?? I'm sure we could all, with time to think, come up with a myriad of ways that nature has culled in history.

For all we know, as insane as it may seem to some, Earl's finding on the other message board may not be so far from the truth.

Let's face it, less testosterone, less population.

Could it be nature, finding another way???

 

[Guest]

Actually, I can see some pretty logical reasoning there.

Yes, there are all types, and we are what we are, and we are all different, yabbedy yabbedy yah!

BUT, nature is a powerful and wonderous thing. There are species of being on this planet, (I can't remember what right now) that when faced with extinction due to their only being one gender left, can reproduce on their own.

In nature, things don't often become extinct on their own. Dinosaurs for example, it's now widely believed, were wiped out by a huge global sized event caused by collision, not nature.

BUT, not all life was extinguished, nature found a way.

When the Rabbit population in Europe was becoming too big for the local environment, POW, along came Mixametosis (I KNOW that's not the right spelling, but I can't recall the correct one, and frankly, I don't care, you know what I'm on about) and the problem was mainly solved.

BUT, not all rabbit-kind were extinguished, nature found a way.

How about us, Humans. Here we are now, infesting our planet, destroying it and polluting it with all sorts of shit, including ourselves, and what do we have?? What are we practically programmed with?? That's right, an insane desire to cull ourselves every fifty years or so.

And when it appears that's not enough?? Disease and tragedy is set upon us.

Cancer is a big killer among us. Perhaps that's one of natures ways of culling the crop. BUT, when our brainy bigwigs begin to find ways to reduce it's effects, POW, AIDS!

What exactly is AIDS??

Would it be so wild to describe it as natures way of culling us. Of course we have those same brilliant minds at work, trying to lessen it's effects on our race, but how well are they succeeding??

And what else?? I'm sure we could all, with time to think, come up with a myriad of ways that nature has culled in history.

For all we know, as insane as it may seem to some, Earl's finding on the other message board may not be so far from the truth.

Let's face it, less testosterone, less population.

Could it be nature, finding another way???

Well, that's all certainly food for thought.

Seriously, thanks for making me think about it.

Now my head hurts.

Lou

 

[tolyk]

BUT, nature is a powerful and wonderous thing. There are species of being on this planet, (I can't remember what right now) that when faced with extinction due to their only being one gender left, can reproduce on their own.

Frogs, but they change gender, not reproduce on their own. Interesting species, the frogs.

 

[Guest]

I was just thinking some more about what Lew said, and while I do stand by what I originally said (and I was speaking merely from the standpoint of sexuality), I really do think Lew made some very good points.

Evolution in action. And not necessarily even evolution, just the maintaining of the status quo of our species.

I think most of us who initially responded to the thread had a somewhat knee-jerk reaction, myself included, and didn't stop to really think about it.

Plus the fact that, in my eyes, Lew is always right.

You really are a very smart guy, but I knew that already.

Lou

 

[minsue]

I was just thinking some more about what Lew said, and while I do stand by what I originally said (and I was speaking merely from the standpoint of sexuality), I really do think Lew made some very good points.

Evolution in action. And not necessarily even evolution, just the maintaining of the status quo of our species.

I think most of us who initially responded to the thread had a somewhat knee-jerk reaction, myself included, and didn't stop to really think about it.

Plus the fact that, in my eyes, Lew is always right.

You really are a very smart guy, but I knew that already.

Lou

And, again, just like a man. Women need not apply to his theory, either.

(is there an emote torn between eye-rolling and winking? Yes, it's as painful as it sounds....)

 

[tolyk]

I originally thought that it was an interesting thought, but it left out a lot. For example: It doesn't explain homosexual females all that well.

What kind of ratio do we have right now for men to women on the planet? Anyone know? I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but if the male population is higher than the female, it makes sense for men, but why would there be lesbians? Due to not being enough gay guys to compensate perhaps..

As I said, interesting thought, but not enough time put into clarifying it, and as someone else said, not enough data.

 

[Guest]

And, again, just like a man. Women need not apply to his theory, either.

(is there an emote torn between eye-rolling and winking? Yes, it's as painful as it sounds....)

No, I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, women are central to this theory.

I know what you are saying: lesbian women. But how many of them still have the urge to be a Mum? Quite a lot, I think. That sperm still needs to come from somewhere: a man willing to donate it, or whatever.

Hmmm, some more deep thought required, I think!

 

[Guest]

I originally thought that it was an interesting thought, but it left out a lot. For example: It doesn't explain homosexual females all that well.

What kind of ratio do we have right now for men to women on the planet? Anyone know? I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but if the male population is higher than the female, it makes sense for men, but why would there be lesbians? Due to not being enough gay guys to compensate perhaps..

As I said, interesting thought, but not enough time put into clarifying it, and as someone else said, not enough data.

I think the female population is slightly higher than the male.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So, in some respect, homosexuality is a natural disease culling huamnity?

 

[minsue]

No, I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, women are central to this theory.

I know what you are saying: lesbian women. But how many of them still have the urge to be a Mum? Quite a lot, I think. That sperm still needs to come from somewhere: a man willing to donate it, or whatever.

Hmmm, some more deep thought required, I think!

Last I knew, there were more women in the world than men. I could certainly be wrong, though.

You may have a point, Loulou, though wanting to be a parent isn't the same as wanting to give birth. You are right about the fact that neither have anything to do with a person's sexual orientation, though. But if neither have anything to do with sexual orientation, then how does that relate to gay men?



It's nap time for me, I think.....

 

[minsue]

So, in some respect, homosexuality is a natural disease culling huamnity?

Throwing the match, eh Joe? Plan to watch the aftermath from afar or will you wade right in?

 

[tolyk]

Lou is right about people wanting to be parents, but that doesn't relate only to homosexual females, a lot of gay men also have parental instincts/want children.

Now, it would be interesting to find some real statistics about the ratio of gay guys to lesbian women. Since there are more women then men, you should expect there to be more lesbians than gays. Though, most likely the percentages would be close (percentage of how many women and men are gay out of the total population.. not that they have those statistics, just samples)

 

[English Lady]

I think Joe is paraphrasing what has been said. The guy's theory is saying just about What Joe implies but in less combative language.

You know everyone wants everythingto be explainable. Certain people more than others I guess. But everything ISNT explainable. The theories are often fascinating though

 

[lewdandlicentious]

A number of good points made, and a couple of argumentative ones.


Firstly, No, I did not say or mean, that homosexuality is some sort of disease. It's obvously a natural thing, in that it's happened to people in a natural way and not been forced upon them.

As for the part lesbians play, well, other than what Lou said about them still wanting to be mums, I don't know. That fact alone, is certainly natural for most women. As I often say, there are exceptions to every rule.

perhaps, in reality, homosexuality is an aberration on nature's part. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be so, but it is, so there.

But why can't it be some part of the great scheme of things? And why do we have to understand it??

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I don't think there's any "reason" why there is homosexuality. It just is. Like moss and rainbows.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by lewdandlicentious
Firstly, No, I did not say or mean, that homosexuality is some sort of disease. It's obvously a natural thing, in that it's happened to people in a natural way and not been forced upon them.

As for the part lesbians play, well, other than what Lou said about them still wanting to be mums, I don't know. That fact alone, is certainly natural for most women. As I often say, there are exceptions to every rule.

perhaps, in reality, homosexuality is an aberration on nature's part. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be so, but it is, so there.

But why can't it be some part of the great scheme of things? And why do we have to understand it??

(not making any moral judgements here)

Well, diseases aren't necessarily forced upon people, they can certainly happen in a natural way. I think most would agree they're a natural condition of the planet.

 

[Guest]

I don't think there's any "reason" why there is homosexuality. It just is. Like moss and rainbows.

Ah, but there are very reasonable and scientific explanation for moss and rainbows.



Now, this might be inviting a flaming, but going back to lesbians and their drive to be parents, compared with that of gay men. I do believe that the urge to reproduce is far stronger in women. Men do feel a nurting and caring drive towards offspring, off course they do, but they don't have the same drive as women to actually reproduce.

That backs up the theories put forth above.

Lou