Do you also think Homosexuality is natures way of weeding out the weak DNA in humans?

Question

I mean to not have a desire to procreate can only lead to the destruction of man.

Answer 1

Go to any trailer park and you will get the answer to your question, they are full of hetero couples that should not be allowed to bear offspring.

Answer 2

False.

#1 It is perfectly possible for gays and lesbians to have kids. Pleasure in the procreative act is not required, or even the act, what do you think a turkey baster pregnancy is? So, yes, the children would truly be planned if we were all gay or lesbian -- but the human race would not be destroyed, and unloved "accidental" children would stop being born, without fetuses being aborted.

#2 Studies now clearly indicate that the female relatives of gay men are significantly more fertile and more interested in sex than the female relatives of straight men. This indicates that when homosexuality evolved, not only in humanity but in thousands of other species (see Dr. Bruce Bagemihl; Biological Exuberance; St. Martin's Press), the benefits of homosexuality (certainly in tribal or clan based species, the having of additional males without their own children to guard, protect and provide for their sisters, mothers, and cousins children) outweighed the disadvantage, and a way evolved to guarantee the continued existence of homosexuals, in roughly equivalent percentages of the population. (the methods of favoring homosexuality that have been found so far account for about 20% of gays -- but once some methods started being found, the path is ready, the other methods will be uncovered scientifically). (articles are linked below -- the first one is on a 2004 survey study, the second is on the recent Italian study, which was clearer, I think.

So is it natural? Yes. Is it destructive of mankind? No. Is it constant rather than a dead end? Research leads us to think so.

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
[e-mail]

Welcome back, its been a while since I've seen your questions, if this is an example of the new you -- they have become more thoughtful, congratulations.

Answer 3

Nope. But then again, I don't believe homosexuality is a genetic, innate trait (but not a conscious choice, either). Or if it is genetic (as much scientific evidence seems to lean towards), it's not solely genes, but a complex interaction between genes, environment, pyschology, society, etc..

Plus, your concept seems to say that homosexuals somehow have DNA for other traits that are weak. If that's true, there is no reason to create a new gene to stop procreation- evolution and survival of the fittest would ensure that this weakness would be the downfall of said people (like a caveman who can't run fast is going to get eaten by the saber tooth tiger; there's no need to 'make him gay' in order to get rid of that genetic line). From what I've seen, like with straight people, there are both 'weak' gay people, and spectacular specimens of humanity who happen to be gay. So I'm just not seeing it.

And living in the amazing time that we do now, the ability to procreate doesn't have anything to do with sexuality- we have sperm donation, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood- wonderful technological tools to allow gay men and lesbian women to have children. (And remember, there's a difference between having the desire to procreate and the desire for heterosexual sex- many, many gays and lesbians fiercely want to have children and create a family).

Hope that makes sense!

Answer 4

Actually homosexuality ensures survival of a species by giving an extra set of adult hands to raise the youth in a world where not all parents can raise their own. The weak DNA would be on the part of all those parents of the 150,000+ children who are awaiting adoption today.

Answer 5

Well personally I believe nature is merely correcting nature in so much as the population of the planet is not sustainable. Nature is just doing what needs to be done, remove the inbred and flawed DNA (like yourself for instance) and replace it with more compatible DNA (like gays and lesbians).

Don't ya just love the way nature works.

Answer 6

Nope. I think it's probably more a combination of nature trying to control our population, along with all the chemical and xeno-hormonal crap we've pumped into our environment which is responsible for the seeming increase in homosexuality, transsexuality, intersexuality... etc. etc.

Answer 7

The problem is that some of the greatest of people in all professions have been gay. Michelanglo, possibly da Vinci, scientists, writers, actors by the thousands, doctors. It does not sound like weak DNA. And they have been around since the beginning of the animal species so if it has lasted this long - me thinks it is going to continue.

Answer 8

You mean, like the "weak DNA" evidenced in this question?

LGBT people have been some of the most creative and productive scientists, leaders, artists and writers on the planet. How dare anyone suggest that this is a result of "weak DNA!"

Answer 9

In a sense absolutely. Natural selection is doing something at all times. And nature chooses who is gay right? So then natural selection is choosing who passes on and doesn't pass their genes(which tend to be strongest). And not many gay people are passing on theirs. However I wish it wasn't choosing to fill up trailer parks and ghettos. Leaving you guys to raise all these little miracles.

Answer 10

to not have a desire? They would LOVE to have kids, asswhipe. They just can't. No, I think it was the gods way of dealing with overpopulation friggin prick. Because our orphanges aren't already full, yeah they need more children in there. Gah...will ya think before postin?

Answer 11

You're not really this ignorant, are you? Sexuality has nothing to do with a desire to procreate.

I'm a good little hetero, and there ain't no way I'm birthin' no babies. Uck, Ick, Yuck.