First off I am not anti-gay. The follow theory is not a slight against gays, but just something interesting to think about. Please look at this with an objective mind. Ok, now onto my theory. . . It all started with the Planet Earth movie. There was this scene about ants and fungi. You see, these ants eat certain mushies the survive but there is actually a certain fungi that is basically only harmful to this one species of ants. But the chances of one of the ants eating one of these deadly fungi by mistake becomes only a real threat when their population gets too large. The larger their population gets, the greater the chances that some ants will accidentally eat one of these fungi – and once they do ingest it their disease becomes contagious, so they must be separated from the herd and left to die somewhere. This is mother natures way of keeping their population in check. And this made me think about our species and how we are over populated – what has mother nature done to try and keep our population in check? Natural death is the first and most obvious one, but with modern science we have been able to out live our stay on this planet by many years. Mother nature also throws diseases, cancers, viruses, and all sorts of nasty shit at us in order to get our population down – but again, we are overcoming those and even extending our life expectancy. Now I started thinking that maybe, if being gay is NOT a choice and is inherent, then perhaps this is one of mother nature's ways of trying to keep our population down? If a good portion of out population can't reproduce any longer, then the next generation of humans will become smaller and smaller in numbers – while the older generations will eventually begin to die off – keeping our population in check. Sure, who doesn't want to live for a really long time? But we have to think about the greater good of our race. If we continue to work against mother nature (or god, if that's you thing), then things will only get worse because in the end we can't beat her. Eventually there will be some major disaster that wipes out a good portion of our race. Be it a giant meteor shower, global warming taken to the next degree, another world war, or whatever – point is we can't win in the long term. I think we should stop working against nature and let the older generations die when their time is supposed to come. The longer we live and the more we reproduce -- the harder mother nature will hit back at us by taking a huge chunk of our population away-- both old and young. What will be the next black plague? Sorry this doesn't really have a conclusion or a point; this is just he ramblings of some high lunatic. Please discuss your theories or what the future holds for our society/race. Note: I use "mother nature" as a entity -- with its own mind, but I don't really see it like that. I believe it's just the natural order of things in the universe. But I chose to use it almost like an entity so religious people can relate to this as well and non-religious people.
Yeah like thousands of years, nothing new. Well actually the life style thingy is kind of new, basically people back then just fucked other guys and didn't marry them or live with them or anything like that. Not a lot of them actually lived by it. Now it's a lifestyle.
It's definatley an interesting theory. But unlikely in my eyes. There would have to be a larger ration of gay to straight for me to believe something like this.. but definatley interesting. Perhaps a new scientfic study ..
i can say with certainty..."no!" i am a bulldagger..by nature...but i also love kids my girlfriend and I, once we're both older and financially stable, plan on having kids...i'll have one...she'll have 2 maybe 3 your theory is shot bro...most down-2-earth lezlis like myself swoon all over babies and really want normal boring families
"your theory is shot bro...most down-2-earth lezlis like myself swoon all over babies and really want normal boring families" Evanjelos420, the fact that you are calling families where the children are the biological children of the man and woman "normal families", shows that you are biased against the homosexual population. and also homosexual men and women can have "normal" or in other words, biological children, by having the homosexual man's sister or another able woman in the family to have his husband's child. and in response to the original post, why would anyone choose a life where they are scapegoated and insulted every moment simply for being who they are. i have many gay friends who have homophobic relatives..why would anyone want to live a life where they are the target of social slurs and constant mockery for no reason?
If that were the case then you would expect to see higher rates of homosexuality in grossly-overpopulated areas, right? But we don't. The most overpopulated places on Earth are in the developing world. That's just demographics. Developed countries have fewer kids; developing countries have lots. But now consider the kinds of challenges a gay person faces in, say, a traditional (Read: conservative) community in rural India compared to, say, Fabulous San Francisco. A gay person in the rural Indian community would be more likely to hide their same-sex preference and would probably just marry someone of the opposite sex and have children as per normal out of fear of social repercussions or worse. And as far as we know, homosexuality doesn't have a heritable basis: you can't inherit homosexuality from a parent. And in terms of evolution it's not simply enough to have people who prefer the same sex but never act on that preference, they'd need to be free to be openly homosexual. So for that to evolutionarily work there would need to be cultural acceptance for homosexuals. That actually does exist in some cultures, but they're pretty much the minority. And wouldn't the rates of homosexuality have to be a lot higher for it to make a difference? The rates of people who are openly homosexual tends to hover at around 1-4% in most countries that have been polled. They're a very small minority.
Im blazed and that shit was deep and I think that we just avoid the things mother nature throws at us naturally but we might be smart enough to keep our own population in check by making laws and whatnot and that is the "grand plan" to keep our pop in check,
Legislated population control is fucked up in more ways than one. China does it, the one child per family rule. I'm all for population control, but government legislation will do little more than cause more trouble, especially in the US, where even the idea of such a thing would be shot down and raped to death. It's a) not a popular idea in the US to begin with, and b) it's an infringement on our rights. Plus, how do you go about enforcing that kind of rule? You could threaten jailtime and/or a fine, but even then, if people REALLY wanted to have their own kids (rather than adopt, which I think is the best choice for any person), they would pay the fine and/or serve the time. Enforcing it would likely require intimidation tactics and/or violence, both of which are in the same vein as how China goes about their Population Control rules, and something that America would never approve of (at least until someone in the government figures out a way to spin it to fool enough of the nation to get something like that to pass through the House and Congress). Anyway...on topic, as has been said, homosexuality is a long-running thing. It's not it just appeared in nature and within genetics out of nowhere within the past x number of years. It's a genetic mutation. I suppose if you wanted to think about it that way, it's a form of population control, but really, it's such a small percentage of any type of population (human, other animals) in comparison with the percentage of heterosexuals that more often than not the number of people/animals reproducing is going to outweigh the number of people/animals who aren't reproducing (be it because of personal ideals, homosexuality, infertility, or something else) that it minimizes the potential impact that homosexuality would/could have as a population control feature. Although I would have no problems if the government or the public decided to try promoting homosexuality as a means to go about popularizing the idea of population control. Mostly because I just want to see what the billboards would look like. Maybe like a picture of a gay couple, with the slogan "CONTROLLING THE POPULATION, TWO MEN AT A TIME" and an 800 number/website for more information. Something like that.
yeah your probably right. The reality is a tad more harsh than population laws in that we will not be able to suck enough food off of this planet for everybody and the lower rings of wealth will be wiped off the map.
Not just food. Food is already a problem, long has been. So has water. But just wait until 2050, when water stands to become dangerously scarce. THEN we'll see who goes down.
I think one of the key problems to push our population out of control (other then sex feeling GREAT), is how, mainly America, used to promote that every American should get married, buy a house in suburbia, and have kids. And now everyone has this mind set that this is what life is about. We should stop putting that idea into everyone's head and start promoting and popularizing adoption or the single life instead, or simply marriage without children. oh and btw, I see the point and agree with how the % of homosexuals is just too small to make any real impact on our population -- and thus probably not evolution's intended purpose.
For this theory to have any merit, you must show that the numbers of homosexuals has increased over the last number of years. Is this the case? Who really knows. We live in a time when society is much more tolerant to others then ever before. Not just with acceptance of homosexuals, but other races, cultures, religions, and so forth. Sure if you look back to the 40s-60s there were less openly gay people, but does that mean there weren't guys that kept it secret? Or others that just forced themselves to be straight for career reasons and such? Were there as many gays 2000 years ago? Again who knows.
First of all what you just said is highly offensive to gay folk, Homo's. Homosexuals is the correct term to use and that word itself is wrong . Gay.... xD what a mad world we live in
SHALLOW BASTARD LIKE YOU NEED TO BE PUT ASLEEP. Small minded and idiotic.. Where the fuck do you get off saying that homosexuality is not natural. There are gay dogs, cats, elephants etc. Every animal species has a homosexual balance to prevent over-population... ARE YOU SIMPLE OR JUST DUMB.. YOU MAKE ME SICK WITH YOUR STUPIDITY AND OUTRAGEOUS BULLSHIT PRIMITIVE GOBSHITE, YOU SHOULD MOVE TO IRAN