Cool theory: is homosexuality nature's response to overpopulation?

[Illegally EATEN]

I had an epiphany recently.

Researchers and scientists generally agree that homosexuality is likely caused by a combination of a number of factors, perhaps a number of genes. There is no one "gay gene" that can be isolated.

Since homosexuality seems to be such an anomoly that contradicts the tenets of evolution (how are there so many gays if living things are programmed to reproduce and create offspring), I wondered what possibly could explain why homosexuality is such a widespread phenomenon.

And then I got the idea- maybe homosexual offspring are nature's response to overpopulation?

Perhaps a pregnant woman's body sometimes recieves some sort of signals from nature (similar to pheromones or something else undetectable) that are passed on to her baby, as a result of overpopulation?

Maybe nature decides every now and then that to keep the population in check, some offspring must be prevented from reproducing [naturally]? 

Its an interesting theory and Ive never seen it before 🤷‍♂️

Thoughts?

 

[UncannyX-Man2099]

I think it is a great thought but homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and way before overpopulation was a thing.

It was quite common to be homosexual back in the day, including Roman and ancient greek times for example, and it came without judgement. It was only in relatively recent times that it became such a "sin"/taboo. No doubt due to the church as is the case with most hate/ignorances.

Cool thought though!

[Illegally EATEN]

1 minute ago, UncannyX-Man2099 said:

I think it is a great thought but homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and way before overpopulation was a thing.

It was quite common to be homosexual back in the day, including Roman and ancient greek times for example, and it came without judgement. It was only in relatively recent times that it became such a "sin"/taboo. No doubt due to the church as is the case with most hate/ignorances.

Cool thought though!

Thank you:)

But its been pretty taboo for thousands of years in most of the world.

And theres definitely an argument to be made that there are more gays now than in the past (not having to do with society being more accepting of it).

Parts of Ancient Greece and Rome were also quite densely populated.

[MX3]

Wasn't there some sci-fi novel where homosexuals, or childless couples, got a bonus for not having children due to overpopulation???

I think in the future I could see something like this happening. 

[Illegally EATEN]

9 hours ago, MX3 said:

Wasn't there some sci-fi novel where homosexuals, or childless couples, got a bonus for not having children due to overpopulation???

I think in the future I could see something like this happening. 

Idk, I hope not.

I dont believe theres a problem of overpopulation on planet earth; the majority of land is uninhabited or sparsely inhabited.

But for those living in urban and crowded areas, perhaps it has tricked mother nature into believing that the entire earth is overcrowded. Idk 🤷‍♂️ just an idea.

[ICouldntThinkOfOne]

13 hours ago, DonoDotto said:

I had an epiphany recently.

Researchers and scientists generally agree that homosexuality is likely caused by a combination of a number of factors, perhaps a number of genes. There is no one "gay gene" that can be isolated.

Since homosexuality seems to be such an anomoly that contradicts the tenets of evolution (how are there so many gays if living things are programmed to reproduce and create offspring), I wondered what possibly could explain why homosexuality is such a widespread phenomenon.

And then I got the idea- maybe homosexual offspring are nature's response to overpopulation?

Perhaps a pregnant woman's body sometimes recieves some sort of signals from nature (similar to pheromones or something else undetectable) that are passed on to her baby, as a result of overpopulation?

Maybe nature decides every now and then that to keep the population in check, some offspring must be prevented from reproducing [naturally]? 

Its an interesting theory and Ive never seen it before 🤷‍♂️

Thoughts?

 

For this to happen, one would have to assume that Nature is a sentient being aware of overpopulation which it isn't.

Overpopulation is only an issue because the systems we have in place aren't sustainable and create inherent inequalities globally.

[Illegally EATEN]

1 hour ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

For this to happen, one would have to assume that Nature is a sentient being aware of overpopulation which it isn't.

Overpopulation is only an issue because the systems we have in place aren't sustainable and create inherent inequalities globally.

Not necessarily. There are many aspects of science we know little to nothing about.

Black matter, human pheromones, qi, corona (😬), those are just some examples.

Who is to say there isnt something in place that relays to a womb/fetus that a child should be gay?

[ColdAsFire88]

This is such a fun topic. I came out at 14 (18 yrs ago) and homosexuality was still a taboo. X-Tinas gay kiss scene in her MV sparked controversy and the VMA Kiss created backlash but t.A.T.u was allowed to act gay to sell records  

Anyway, I recall reading an article similar to this topic but it touched more on how other species have same *** partners i.e. Penguins which eluded to maybe these species couldn’t find mates so they jumped onto the same *** wagon. In my 18 yrs of being out I have discovered that labels are dissolving and its all about boundaries. I find less exclusivity and more open relationships and more open people. I have had “str8” men give it a spin with me after we have formed friendships or they’ve opened up to the idea. 

That said, I feel like everyone is kind of bi and the labels of straight or gay are simply around so a person can form an identity. There are so many stereotypes pushed onto us in society such as straight men are supposed to be masculine and not in touch with their feelings, but gay men are flamboyant and emotional. Straight men love cars, ********* and drinking beer. Gay men love dancing, clothes and pop music. 

I think the lines are starting to overlap and people are saying the heck with labels and lets be in tune with our true selves but also society is starting to accept individuality. Thats my thought 

[Illegally EATEN]

2 hours ago, ColdAsFire88 said:

This is such a fun topic. I came out at 14 (18 yrs ago) and homosexuality was still a taboo. X-Tinas gay kiss scene in her MV sparked controversy and the VMA Kiss created backlash but t.A.T.u was allowed to act gay to sell records  

Anyway, I recall reading an article similar to this topic but it touched more on how other species have same *** partners i.e. Penguins which eluded to maybe these species couldn’t find mates so they jumped onto the same *** wagon. In my 18 yrs of being out I have discovered that labels are dissolving and its all about boundaries. I find less exclusivity and more open relationships and more open people. I have had “str8” men give it a spin with me after we have formed friendships or they’ve opened up to the idea. 

That said, I feel like everyone is kind of bi and the labels of straight or gay are simply around so a person can form an identity. There are so many stereotypes pushed onto us in society such as straight men are supposed to be masculine and not in touch with their feelings, but gay men are flamboyant and emotional. Straight men love cars, ********* and drinking beer. Gay men love dancing, clothes and pop music. 

I think the lines are starting to overlap and people are saying the heck with labels and lets be in tune with our true selves but also society is starting to accept individuality. Thats my thought 

I agree with some of that.

But at the same time, I personally find that lots of the labels and stereotypes of gays just happen to be very very very true and accurate lol 🤷‍♂️

And so long as its not a negative stereotype I dont think theres a problem with that.

In terms of bi guys. Ive found that "bi tops" may actually be bi, but "bi bottoms" are literally *always* just closeted gays in denial nnnn 🤷‍♂️

In general it seems that most "bi" guys are just gays trying to preserve their outward masculinity.

[johnnysvanda]

Homosexual people CAN reproduce!

Lesbian can get pregnant and (healthy) gay man can make a woman pregnant. Naturally. In it´s purest form. 

Being gay or lesbian means that you are s3xually attracted to same s3x and you fall in love with same ***. It doesn´t mean that your organs doesn´t work properly.

So my answer is NO. It is not nature´s way to prevent overpopulation. 

And as someone before me mentioned, homosexuality has been around since FOREVER. Which makes me even more mad at certain religions! It was everywhere, asia, egypt,...you can see ancient drawings on walls, where people of same s3x were pleasing each other. So it really and in fact is a matter of ´´recent´´ times since church etc... 

But nice thought though and cannot deny that it didnt cross my mind too before! glad you brought that up, would like to see more serious and open minded topics like that in here..in our community..it is important to discuss things that concern US. 

 

[Korb]

9 hours ago, DonoDotto said:

Not necessarily. There are many aspects of science we know little to nothing about.

Black matter, human pheromones, qi, corona (😬), those are just some examples.

Who is to say there isnt something in place that relays to a womb/fetus that a child should be gay?

We actually have a very good understanding of evolutionary biology. Bringing up gaps or shortcomings in science with respect to completely different matters is actually irrelevant...

The person you replied to is mostly correct.
"Mother nature" is not an entity ,a person,a guiding force which preemptively controls or balances factors in nature to help out a species.
Actually,a species' ability to propagate and spread their genes is favored and desired by any species as it ensures their survival. Population control is not of interest because it's counterintuitive to any species' who survives by reproducing with one another.

Edit:
Here's Richard Dawkins,an evolutionary biologist,answering your question

 

[Illegally EATEN]

49 minutes ago, johnnyswanda said:

Homosexual people CAN reproduce!

Lesbian can get pregnant and (healthy) gay man can make a woman pregnant. Naturally. In it´s purest form. 

Being gay or lesbian means that you are s3xually attracted to same s3x and you fall in love with same ***. It doesn´t mean that your organs doesn´t work properly.

So my answer is NO. It is not nature´s way to prevent overpopulation. 

And as someone before me mentioned, homosexuality has been around since FOREVER. Which makes me even more mad at certain religions! It was everywhere, asia, egypt,...you can see ancient drawings on walls, where people of same s3x were pleasing each other. So it really and in fact is a matter of ´´recent´´ times since church etc... 

But nice thought though and cannot deny that it didnt cross my mind too before! glad you brought that up, would like to see more serious and open minded topics like that in here..in our community..it is important to discuss things that concern US. 

 

Homosexuals CAN reproduce, but factually, many of them dont.

We actually dont know the extent of homosexuality throughout history. We could very well be living through a period with far more homosexuals than at any other point in history but we wouldnt know bc its never been measured before.

Even throughout history... almost everyone knows stories about a "single" family member who grows old alone and takes care of the parents.

Its been going on since forever.

Either way, its just an idea. Not saying its true but its interesting, especially considering we have no hard facts regarding the origins and reasons for homosexuality 🤷‍♂️

 

[Illegally EATEN]

9 minutes ago, Korb said:

We actually have a very good understanding of evolutionary biology. Bringing up gaps or shortcomings in science with respect to completely different matters is actually irrelevant...

The person you replied to is mostly correct.
"Mother nature" is not an entity ,a person,a guiding force which preemptively controls or balances factors in nature to help out a species.
Actually,a species' ability to propagate and spread their genes is favored and desired by any species as it ensures their survival. Population control is not of interest because it's counterintuitive to any species' who survives by reproducing with one another.

Edit:
Here's Richard Dawkins,an evolutionary biologist,answering your question

 

With all due respect, its not irrelevant. Im simply pointing out that there are many aspects of science and nature that are still entirely unknown/sparsely researched by modern scientists.

Considering homosexuality is a somewhat of a mystery still not unanimously explained by science, the answer might be in what we dont know about nature and science.

"Mother nature" may not be, but who is to say "qi" isnt? Call it whatever you want, but every living thing is connected by invisible energies that intertwine and combine. Science has no understanding of the effects of this force, which many in modern science still regard as "pseudo science". Its very real, its just very difficult to study.

[Korb]

5 minutes ago, DonoDotto said:

With all due respect, its not irrelevant. Im simply pointing out that there are many aspects of science and nature that are still entirely unknown/sparsely researched by modern scientists.

Considering homosexuality is a somewhat of a mystery still not unanimously explained by science, the answer might be in what we dont know about nature and science.

"Mother nature" may not be, but who is to say "qi" isnt? Call it whatever you want, but every living thing is connected by invisible energies that intertwine and combine. Science has no understanding of the effects of this force, which many in modern science still regard as "pseudo science". Its very real, its just very difficult to study.

You pointed out that there are things about science that are not yet understood but the person you replied to simply said mother nature is not a guiding,self aware,intelligent force that makes "decisions" ,so what's the point of pointing out gaps in science if not to discredit what the person replied with? Gaps in scientific knowledge doesn't justify pseudoscience.

I'm sorry but I literally have no idea what you're going on about.


"every living thing is connected by invisible energies that intertwine and combine."- This is literally mumbo jumbo and is not a fact,just a belief you have. 
I thought you wanted a scientific understanding because you're asking a question about biology. You wanted to know if gay people are a response to population control and I already answered that and so did a very accomplished and renowned biologist. 

[Illegally EATEN]

1 minute ago, Korb said:

You pointed out that there are things about science that are not yet understood but the person you replied to simply said mother nature is not a guiding,self aware,intelligent force that makes "decisions" ,so what's the point of pointing out gaps in science if not to discredit what the person replied with? Gaps in scientific knowledge doesn't justify pseudoscience.

I'm sorry but I literally have no idea what you're going on about.


"every living thing is connected by invisible energies that intertwine and combine."- This is literally mumbo jumbo and is not a fact,just a belief you have. 
I thought you wanted a scientific understanding because you're asking a question about biology. You wanted to know if gay people are a response to population control and I already answered that and so did a very accomplished and renowned biologist. 

I really dont get what youre going for and why youre trying to take the convo in that direction...

The person I replied to suggested that I was referring to nature as a conscious being. Im saying thats not necessariky the extent of my theory.

I didnt ask anything. I suggested an idea.

Its naive to think that the only things that exist in the world are already known to us, which is your premise. We have no idea what more is waiting to be discovered.

My theory relies on the idea that homosexuality may be the result of a factor completely unknown to science atm. That is all.

[Korb]

1 hour ago, DonoDotto said:

I really dont get what youre going for and why youre trying to take the convo in that direction...

The person I replied to suggested that I was referring to nature as a conscious being. Im saying thats not necessariky the extent of my theory.

I didnt ask anything. I suggested an idea.

Its naive to think that the only things that exist in the world are already known to us, which is your premise. We have no idea what more is waiting to be discovered.

My theory relies on the idea that homosexuality may be the result of a factor completely unknown to science atm. That is all.

"My theory relies on the idea that homosexuality may be the result of a factor completely unknown to science atm. That is all." - Wait what?
The causal factors that make someone gay is definitely not known but that's not what this thread is about. You wanted to know if the existence of gay people is a response (from nature) to overpopulation. I already answered that. No,i't's VERY unlikely that that's the case,for many reasons. 

"Its naive to think that the only things that exist in the world are already known to us, which is your premise. "- Not my premise at all.... I don't think we know everything,and science definitely does not know everything.

You said science doesn't know about dark matter,for example. Well,okay? Science doesn't know too much about dark matter but what is the relevance of that to the question of whether gay people are population control? You were implying that science doesn't know everything and so therefore we should be skeptical about the things we think we know because there's always the possibility that we might be wrong. Well that's sort of right ,but misguided.
Look at scientific theories, like the theory of gravity. A theory so well supported by evidence that we accept it as fact,same with evolution,but science is open to being wrong as long as evidence on the contrary is presented. That's the scientific process.
 

Now you wouldn't dare say the theory of gravitation is false because there are things that are mysterious to us or at least I hope not. Not without any evidence,anyway.
Anyway,I already answered your question and you didn't seem to care so ...take care.
 

[Cedar Lane]

On 9/7/2020 at 4:48 PM, UncannyX-Man2099 said:

I think it is a great thought but homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and way before overpopulation was a thing.

It was quite common to be homosexual back in the day, including Roman and ancient greek times for example, and it came without judgement. It was only in relatively recent times that it became such a "sin"/taboo. No doubt due to the church as is the case with most hate/ignorances.

Cool thought though!

This. Accurate and polite. Besides, stupidity is the answer to overpopulation lol, survival of the fittest of both the physical and mental

[Illegally EATEN]

5 hours ago, Korb said:

"My theory relies on the idea that homosexuality may be the result of a factor completely unknown to science atm. That is all." - Wait what?
The causal factors that make someone gay is definitely not known but that's not what this thread is about. You wanted to know if the existence of gay people is a response (from nature) to overpopulation. I already answered that. No,i't's VERY unlikely that that's the case,for many reasons. 

"Its naive to think that the only things that exist in the world are already known to us, which is your premise. "- Not my premise at all.... I don't think we know everything,and science definitely does not know everything.

You said science doesn't know about dark matter,for example. Well,okay? Science doesn't know too much about dark matter but what is the relevance of that to the question of whether gay people are population control? You were implying that science doesn't know everything and so therefore we should be skeptical about the things we think we know because there's always the possibility that we might be wrong. Well that's sort of right ,but misguided.
Look at scientific theories, like the theory of gravity. A theory so well supported by evidence that we accept it as fact,same with evolution,but science is open to being wrong as long as evidence on the contrary is presented. That's the scientific process.
 

Now you wouldn't dare say the theory of gravitation is false because there are things that are mysterious to us or at least I hope not. Not without any evidence,anyway.
Anyway,I already answered your question and you didn't seem to care so ...take care.
 

Sweetie Ill say this one more time... I didnt ask a question, I suggested a theory as a discussion starter. This is a discussion, its unclear why youre going all militant. Take care.

[ralphcornio]

It's an interesting point of view. If you only consider *** though, by looking at other species you'll find that 'gay' or 'bisexual'  behavior can be found easily. A vulgar, but precise comparison, is when dogs are willing to mate, and since there are no females around, they'll rely on their male companions (just like 'straight' men in real life)
However it's different with humans, as there seems to be some social construction around being gay in every culture, specially in gay man. In that aspect, and thinking in division of labor terms (in an opinion I'll most likely be criticized for), gays (gay men in particular) seems to come to do tasks straight men and women are not so good at. You can say it's prejudicial and all, but gay men tend to have a much better understanding of graphic design, architecture and fashion than straight people in general. When I think about what you said, that gay seem to have a 'natural purpose', I think that it could have much more to do with things like that, than overpopulation control, but we do come from the same place.

 

Quote

A much better discussion than body x face OP, well done

 

[helloitsme]

Homosexuality is as original and natural as heterosexuality lol. Get outta here w this