As we all know two people of the same sex cannot have children naturally, but either have to adopt or get a surrogate parent. And there are too many people in the world anyway!!!
2006-06-14 10:50:26 · 27 answers · asked by THE ONE 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
Nature didn't attend for two men to get a woman preganant
2006-06-15 09:03:47 · update #1
I think, that if you are a person who believes that nature does everything for a reason. And that honosexuals were created naturally (non-christian type point of view) and that the world needs to control the population, this solution may work for you.
I find it simpler to just say it is what it is. But plenty of homosexuals do want to have children.
2006-06-14 10:54:41 · answer #1 · answered by scorp 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I believe you're 100% correct. Homosexuality is probably Natures way of controlling the population. It's the most logical explanation ever offered. (I'm talking about people who were born that way. Not some slimy pervert or some kid just experimenting.) But, for that reason, I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.
2006-06-14 11:12:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there's probably easier methods that mother nature could have deployed to control the population without all the air kisses, sequins and feather boas that a gay community requires.
Some social biologist believe that homosexuality is designed to ensue that a sector of societyfocus on something other than traditional family unit ... namely development of the society itself. They evidence historically and culturally the disproportionate numbers of gay people in the arts, law, organised religion and ( believe it or not ) armed forces.
In early human society there is evidence that the shamen, teachers, warriors, holy men, medicine men ( sorry girls ) etc had shades of Oscar about them. Living in closed, single sex environments, often not marrying or having children. This being the excepted exceptions to the tribal norm.
To this day gay people are drawn to professions of public service where a high degree of family sacrifice is needed.
Like hairdressing.
2006-06-16 02:24:59 · answer #3 · answered by dws2711 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think homosexuality is natures way of controlling the population. There are a load of other things such as couples who can't conceive, and the demographic trends of an advanced society - e.g. falling population.
Homosexuality is merely the opposite end of the spectrum to heterosexuality, and bisexuality falls in the middle. These aren't three distinct categories, but more of a blend.
2006-06-14 18:51:05 · answer #4 · answered by nemesis 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we all should do our part to control the population. Look at Japan and China. If you have more than 1 kid you are taxed by the government, not like over here where you are rewarded by the government for being a breeder! I choose not to have kids and I still have to pay for them through my taxes! Maybe if these people that keep popping out babies got taxed PER CHILD instead of TAX BREAKS, they'd find a hobby that didn't result in BABIES!
2006-06-14 10:53:21 · answer #5 · answered by hswatsonaz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've wondered this to. if there really is a gay gene, then it would seem that there is a function for gay people in society. I'm not sure if it is population control, but it could be something else. perhaps they provide some sort of balance that we need, or they help maintain a certain dynamic in a community? i don't know. interesting though.
2006-06-14 12:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by Ganesa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it were then, as populations grew rapidly, so would the proportion of homosexuals. I understood that the proportion of homosexuals in the general populace pretty much remains constant.
But it's a nice attempt to rationalise the whys and wherefores of gaydom!
2006-06-15 01:30:18 · answer #7 · answered by unclefrunk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they were 100% gay they would cease to exist in 1 or 2 generations.
But as a population control method it has merits?? Makes you wonder if the government is putting something in our water supply.Now there's a conspiracy theory to run with!
2006-06-17 09:52:21 · answer #8 · answered by LordLogic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't need a surrogate parent if you're a woman. All you need is a male friend and a syringe. It's actually quite simple to do.
2006-06-14 19:23:09 · answer #9 · answered by Trish D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. I think that homosexuality is societies and natures combined way of addressing several things, population control being one of them...
Overall, sex has morphed away from being for the sole purpose of "making babies" and will continue to do so.
2006-06-14 11:14:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋