First off, GNR, congrats on not demonizing anyone to the point of thinking they will never say anything intelligent, even a man so hatable as Phelps. (I myself agree with some of Osama bin Laden's opinions...but, of course, not his methods.)

As for the idea: it is folly to say that any evolutionary change is for this reason or that reason. Reason is born of a change, not the other way around. Good changes survive. (So to say, Catherine, that this would have occured in Asia, is not valid. It would be benificial if it did, but that fact doesn't make it happen.) So gays didn't happen into existance to cut the population back, but finding a purpose like this for our condition is, in my opinion, a good thing. Some, like myself, see gays as social functionaries (an idea borrowed from Sister Unity...look him up on YouTube, especially "Berdache&quot.

Human evolution is different than animal evolution. Because of civilization, we need worry not about predators, and in most places in the world, food aquisition is not something we need specialized bodies for. So the evolutionarily inferior won't die out unless they are unsexable. Attractiveness is basically the only noticable form of natural selection left to humans.

As for what BravoLima said, I sincerely believe there is a lot more to this condition than sexual attraction. Otherwise why would SO many gays act feminine? This goes along a bit with what chemical_flare said about the sisters of gays. It is possible the same gene that causes homophilia (or makes one prone to be homophilic) in males causes females to be more fertile. It may also come with a larger set of traits, just the most obvious being primary same-sex attraction. However, the potential to be gay may be in some brain-structure gene common to all humans, and it may be a biological condition (womb chemistry) or one acquired by non-biological psychological influences. Or it may be genetic. No matter what you think, the jury is still out as relatively few studies have been done on the issue due to controversy.


So we can sit and ponder just why we are the way we are, or we can make purpose of it. I believe the most expedient way to be accepted is to prove that we can be something very positive on the world. Waiting for proof of the only thing we know, that it isn't a choice, is going to be a long wait. Let them accept us for who we are by liking who we are, not feeling bad for the fact that we can't change it.<br /><br />Post edited by: Edengoth, at: 2008/02/24 21:36

Edengoth wrote:

QUOTE:
As for what BravoLima said, I sincerely believe there is a lot more to this condition than sexual attraction. Otherwise why would SO many gays act feminine?

Stereotype. The identification to a unifying and archetypal behaviour. Did homosexuals in Ancient Greece act feminine? Who knows, but before the stereotype was born, I just wonder how many people put on the camp voices and began to consider if the colour of their robes really matched their eyes.

I am not in the least feminine. Now whilst I agree that everyone's different, the single unifying thing about 'homosexuals' is that they are all, by definition, attracted to the same gender. Nothing about behaviour, or other less definite preferences like shopping and fashion etc. So I concentrate on this, and ignore the little inconsistencies, that were most likely largely born of society itself anyway.

Some types of frog can change gender if the population gets low.

Why can't humans become gay if they start to overcrowd. There were more males than females in my primary school classes. Perhaps this can have an effect on the mind or something. Which could of course leads to a cure for over population...

BravoLima wrote:

QUOTE:
Edengoth wrote:

QUOTE:
As for what BravoLima said, I sincerely believe there is a lot more to this condition than sexual attraction. Otherwise why would SO many gays act feminine?

Stereotype. The identification to a unifying and archetypal behaviour. Did homosexuals in Ancient Greece act feminine? Who knows, but before the stereotype was born, I just wonder how many people put on the camp voices and began to consider if the colour of their robes really matched their eyes.

I am not in the least feminine. Now whilst I agree that everyone's different, the single unifying thing about 'homosexuals' is that they are all, by definition, attracted to the same gender. Nothing about behaviour, or other less definite preferences like shopping and fashion etc. So I concentrate on this, and ignore the little inconsistencies, that were most likely largely born of society itself anyway.

In ancient greece, and in most tribal cultures, there were feminized men acting as spiritual funcitonaries (&quot;priests&quot;, if you will), that dressed as women. A root desire to feel more feminine. I understand how it could be percieved as a stereotype that all gays are femmy, and while it is perhaps environmental, it is hard to find a cause of this common occurance as it would be to find causes of other common occurances that are stereotypes.
So while I respect this arguement, the answer is yes, Ancient Greek gays were feminized. Also, Ancient Greece didn't just let gays be gays and soforth. Often, homosexual actions were depicted on art by beings such as satyrs, who were immoral by nature, a glimpse of how gay sex was looked at in real Ancient Greece (only a small percent of ancient greek art normalizes or glorifies gay sex). But the spiritual functionaries wore feminized robes on the high holidays, and this is the basis for the current Catholic clerical garb.
There are, as you probably know, scores of latent genes that either we do not understand, or do something useless (appendix, tonsils, just to name some useless physiological features. So if genetics is responsible for gayness, the genes causing it may be responsible for other psychological or physiological traits (such as chemmy's fertility).
I personally do not strongly believe in the purely or even mostly genetic origin of romantic orientation, but if it is purely or mostly genetic, I believe strongly that it comes with or influences at least a handful of other traits.

By the way, I appreciate your devil's advacocy, BravoLima! It's pointless to discuss the unknown if everyone suspects the same thing.

Poison_Mushroom wrote:
[quote]Some types of frog can change gender if the population gets low.

Why can't humans become gay if they start to overcrowd./quote]

Because we're not frogs.

Homosexuality has been documented before overcrowding would have ever been a problem. There's no proven link between rates of overcrowding and rates of homosexuality.

This has been said before :dry:

GNR7600 wrote:

QUOTE:
It has recently been crossing my mind that homosexuality is a key part of evolution. Fred Phelps, an anti-gay activist proposed the idea the homosexuality is a cure for over-population. I certaintly don't support the anti-gay activist, however to any logical person it can make sense.

I know there were homosexuals throughout history. I also know that its easier to be homosexual in modern day society, thus, it seems there are more homosexuals now than ever. So I was wondering what peoples views were on the idea that Homosexuality could be some type of genetic code that attributes to preventing over-population.

Could it be that a unbalanced ratio or male and females. Possibly in societies that practiced polygamy; gays existed to lessen competion; saying that, an example would be the two spirits in the America, who raised orphaned children, fought in wars aswell as gathered food, did house chores and even married men in monogamous and polygamous realtionships (Which would result in no kids lessening competion for resources, since pregnate women eat more and children are more mouths to feed).

You have to understand, all evolution is, is adaptation. I'm Bisexual myself, not to get anybody wrong with the next sentence. How could homosexuality fit into being an adaptation? Maybe it is a growing concern in people about overpopulation, then the DNA changes itself to solve it. Who knows, it could be right.

BravoLima wrote:
[quote]. For homosexuality to be 'directly' genetic, it would have to be a benefit for the individual, not for others. If so, the 'others' would live, and the homosexuals would die, killing of the 'homo-gene'.

For this and other reasons, I believe it's not just genetic, though I think that has something to do with it.
quote]
Axizol wrote:

QUOTE:
Maybe it is a growing concern in people about overpopulation, then the DNA changes itself to solve it. Who knows, it could be right.

You see, I believe that homosexuality is genetic, infact there is evidence that the answer lies directly in the 23rd chromosome of every homosexual. The reason being for homosexuality however is still unclear.

Bravolima, would you agree with me that if a group of white beetles had a brown beetle because the white beetles were too easily eaten because of their white shell that the evolution of the brown beetle was not one of a positive evolutionary trait? I also im not trying to exhibit that homosexuality is a positive human evolutionary trait, if one at all.

But I know of course that we are not beetles :P

That's bollocks! I(!) invented evolution! Charles Darwin is the DEVIL!

GNR7600:
'Bravolima, would you agree with me that if a group of white beetles had a brown beetle because the white beetles were too easily eaten because of their white shell that the evolution of the brown beetle was not one of a positive evolutionary trait? I also im not trying to exhibit that homosexuality is a positive human evolutionary trait, if one at all.

But I know of course that we are not beetles '

Then what are you on about? If the brown beetle gets eaten less times, then of course that's a good change for the brown beetle. Sorry, can you explain what the hell this has to do with anything that I said? Also, you quoted Axizol and myself at the same time, so it's kind of confusing as to what you're replying to.