Is homosexuality the only hope for the survival of mankind?

Question

I'll preface this by saying, I am regretably not gay. I find the thought of sex with another male to be really objectionable.

However, humans have a problem.

Population explosion.

It ain't my problem to deal with, because I'll be dead before you folk are living elbow to elbow, back to back and belly to belly.

But I think homosexuality, if it can be practiced exclusively and pervasively by mankind for a few generations, might just be the way out.

Imagine it. 100 years of heterosexuality being an aberrant behavior would solve almost every problem mankind faces.

Something to aspire to, ain't it?

thumbs-up to all of you. good replies, all, thus far.

Running about as I'd expect. I hope each of you will remain consistent. I love consistency and predictability.

Alex: yep. Reminds me of a scene in the movie Patton 40 years ago. He's standing on the aftermath of a battlefield surrounded by human and machine wreckage.

"God, how I love it!", he says through the smoke.

Might just turn out someone yet reads this question and pauses for a moment to think. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Thanks for all the great answers thus far. All great replies. I'm going to digest this a while before I pick a best answer, because I love them all.

Thanks thus far.
J

Answer 1

I don’t think there is any hope at all for the survival of mankind any more because mankind is no longer following the path of evolution where only the strong one lives and the weak gets eaten by some other animals and that’s natures way of population control and if were following the path of evolution me and friends would all be dead by now because we all got bad eyes from our parents genetics where we are pretty much blind without our glasses and we would had been hunted down by now and that piece of bad genetics would not have made to today

and your sick

Answer 2

There are some who theorize that the purpose of heterosexual intercourse is to PRODUCE homosexual individuals!

In nature (and our society is no exception), there are many, many animals who spend the bulk of their time trying to reproduce. They develop the characteristics necessary to attract mates. They build nests. They rear young. These activities are not without cost. Often they are lethal. In some species they are invariably so.

But what about individuals who do not rear young? They have a lot of extra energy and time on their hands. In some species, they assist others with their tasks (benefitting society). In some they serve as guards (benefitting society). And this is just a sampling of many other tasks accomplished largely only by homosexuals in the animal kingdom. Most of which are beneficial.

It's not hard to draw a parallel to our society. How many artists are homosexual? How many scientists? Free thinkers? Is it not possible that homosexual people actually produce a disproportionate amount of our cultural content? I'll leave that for others to think about for a while.

I will take issue with your suggestion that the biggest problem is population explosion, however. There are many countries in the world facing the OPPOSITE problem. Japan runs ads encouraging women to have families. Several European countries actually PAY mothers who produce children. Most of the first- and second-world countries are in a state of population decline instead of growth, especially once immigration is discounted.

This suggests at least to me that population growth is a self-correcting problem. When the situation for which many children is a good defense is removed, so too seems to be (most) people's desire to have many children. It would seem that if you want to control population everywhere in a similar manner, all you need do it spread the culture and benefits of these shrinking countries around as well.

Or you could turn a bunch of people gay. Who knows? Maybe we'd get an overabundance of the above benefits as well. Peace.

Answer 3

With all due respect, the question itself is a non sequitur. Reproduction and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive, nor are parenting and heterosexuality synonymous.

Any visit in this day and age to a grade school will quickly establish that plenty of children have gay parents. A walk through your neighborhood will find many a straight couple with no children and no intention of having any.

Answer 4

I don't buy your argument, Jack. Population explosion was a situation that preyed on my mind back in the days of my youth. But I don't think you'll be able to sell the adoption of homosexuality as a solution, primarily because I don't think people can decide to be what they are not. Perhaps there does exist a spectrum of sexuality, but in the vast number of cases, straight people are straight and gay people are gay, and never the twain shall meet.

Your aspirations leave me uninspired. Sounds too much like a totalitarian dream (nightmare?) of structuring society.

Answer 5

No. Homosexuals represent only a small percentage of the population. And most of them are capable of bisexual activity, especially if the continuation of our species was at risk. As for the dinosaurs, they went extinct because of an asteroid that struck the Earth 65 million years ago.

Answer 6

Thats a good theory on paper, but then again, so was communism. The real issue with overpopulation are the familys in third-world-countries. They often give birth to 5-10 kids, and although some of them die due to disease and difficulty of survival, they still raise the crude birth rate by a lot. The reason they give birth to so many kids are:
-They need security in old age, and if they have lots of children they will support them as they grow old.
-More children = more helping hands for their work
-Lack of education they dont have to pay for their kids education, instead their kids just help the parents with work.

All in all, we need to focus on improved living conditions and contraceptives for all third-world areas. Your thought was very good though, however homosexuality is a choice rather than a free option, one cant become homosexual or bisexual.

Answer 7

i don't see why we need to resort to some deviant sexual stance, we can easily solve the problem of over population by letting the weak live unassisted. by weak i mean the invalids, the elderly, the malformed and countless other types that can't be productive because of defects. add to this the disposal of that part of the population that has an IQ lower than 96 . . . better make that 90 (im 90). there will have to be an almost infallible committee to determine which category a person falls under because we do not want a wrongfully classified person.

Answer 8

Homosexuality is not the answer. Birth control is. This has been clearly exemplified by the American Caucasian whose numbers have dropped in the past twenty years and are still dropping because they are the only responsible people on the planet. It is strange when an ethical act can bring about probable demise of your own race while the unethical flourish.

Answer 9

I don't enjoy your way of looking at things and have to wonder if you are even serious.

If your sexual orientation is straight, how can you regret it? It is who you are!

Your outlook seems very shallow to me...I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to humans, that they would rather use their intelligence to be in control of their destiny rather than their urge for sexual gratification.

Abstinence is the most wholistic choice. Second might be sterilization along with safe sex procedures. Following that are the many, many choices for conception prevention and safe sex procedures.

I think your suggestion of resorting to homosexuality for the way out is mindless and disrespectul to all intelligent people whether straight, gay, or bi.

Answer 10

The only hope....that would be pretty bad!0!

The wise man does not expose himself needlessly to danger, since there are few things for which he cares sufficiently; but he is willing, in great crises, to give even his life - knowing that under certain conditions it is not worthwhile to live....Aristotle.

Good luck!