I don't think I explained myself very well in my last post, even though it took me like an hour and a half to figure out how I wanted to word everything...
I didn't intend for my theory to sound as a form of birth control. I also didn't mean that there are more homosexuals now than there have been in the past.
I meant we can be far more visible now, because there isn't so much pressure to have a family, whereas when populations were highly volatile being affected by disease and war, the pressure to carry on the family name and have children were much higher. I'm sure that there were loads of gays in all of history, but they probably felt that the need to keep the family business in the family for generations would be more important than acting on their real desires.
@Ryan: I didn't intend to make it seem that gays would stop being gay, I meant that if i had to choose between having sex with men and saying screw the species and having sex with a woman to save our race, I would choose to propagate the species. I wouldn't necessarily enjoy the act, but I would feel that keeping the human race would be more important. Btw, I have a Yahoo Messenger and a Windows Live account (which as far as I can tell is msn) if you want to chat shoot me an email and I'll do my best.
@Naturgesetz: I feel the knowledge that there are nations with an overabundance of people "promotes" more gay relationships in those countries that are better off. I, at least, can not consciously have a woman bear my children when I know that there are children out there living in squalor, sure I would like to have a child that is biologically mine but I feel that if I adopted a child I would love it no less than if it had been created by me.
@Aek, Micky, Mom(Biki): I got nothing for you... as I cleared up the whole visibility thing in the third paragraph. I also can't think of anything to contest/complement your comments.
Hugs,
Drew
Posted by
Drew
2 comments:
Alas I think I miss typed, rather miss represented my argument, in my comment as well. I assumed you meant that gays would just choose to have relations with women, even if they did not want to, to propagate the species as you stated.... i was simply commenting that I thought that most would choose to not. I was playing devil's advocate though, because I would also be with a woman if it meant saving humanity.
I added you on MSN, thanks!
Lots of love,
Ryan
Drew just read your last two posts which I found very interesting and it rekindled a memory of a survey I read many years ago about experiments done with rats and how thier social strucrures changed when put in very crowded situations compared to were they had an adequate amount of space. Now it has been a long time since I have actually seen the results of the survey, but the thoughts that still stayed strongly in my memory was as the population increased to not such tolerable levels the two most prevelant observations that came to light was increased violent behavior and a much more visible homosexual activity. Now regardless wether we think we are far superior to all other creatures, we are still creatures none the less and do possess instincts that can be triggered by our situations - I'm not religious but when observing mother nature I have seen that when the balance is thrown out of whack thier is some sort of adjustment that has to be made to redress that balance - the answer to this is way beyond my understanding. My thought it is all tied with evolution. I do know that those of us that survive our personal situations are ones that learn to addapt. Sorry it all seems to be getting a bit longwinded but hope there might be a couple of snippets of information that might have some value.
Kindest regards Stef.
Post a Comment