View Full Version : A theory about gay people

21st Apr 2002, 01:34

Now don't start ripping into me when I say this. I mean no disrespect to any gay people here or elsewhere, this is simply a hypothesis (read: opinion) based on population expansion etc. Feel free to comment, as I'm sure you will.

The population of the world is fast expanding, faster then we could have ever imagined say, 200 years ago. We assume that your sexuality is chosen before birth and not influenced by the world. We also assume that most people know a few people who are gay. Now, could homosexuality be Nature's pathetic attempt at contraception? Since gay people are not breeding, that would seem as good a guess as any. Consider the animal kingdom; some species killing the male after mating, others hermaphroditic, and others with no natural enemy except themselves and the A300-600. Could this indeed be the reason behind homosexuality? And before you start saying that it hasn't worked... consider how many more people there would be without it, assuming that, say, one in fifteen people are gay. Again that's an approximation. But I'm trying to find a reason, not justify gay people's existence, because they have as much right as the rest of us, but unfortunately in slightly more difficult circumstances.

As Moritz would say, "Discuss."

Islander Jock
21st Apr 2002, 05:14
The sexuality of gays does not appear to diminish their desire for parenthood. There are more and more cases coming before the courts for gays to be able to adopt, use surrogate parents, or have access to IVF programmes.

So no. I do not believe that being gay is nature trying some crude attempt at population control. The explosion in the world population may have only become apparent over the last 200 years but homosexuality has certainly been around a lot longer.

22nd Apr 2002, 16:09
What a fascinating concept! A theory that an apparently random quirk of foetal development could be part of an overall system of planetary population control!

While I suppose there would be no means at our disposal for either proving or disproving the hypothesis, perhaps it could well be true. When you consider the many other "random" happenings that contribute to control of global population, wars, disease epidemics and so forth, then why shouldn't gayness be a contributing factor too?

Stranger things have happened. As an example, we know that in the period following a major war, more male babies are born. I would not think that the parents concerned would have any choice in the sex of their baby therefore it is possible that somehow, human beings have the ability to redress an imbalance in the genders. Therefore, could the reverse be true?? Could it be that we have means at our disposal (at some instinctive level) to control the rate at which population expands?

It might be worth while taking a look at the percentage of gay people in different countries, taking in to account such factors as population levels, economy, health etc. of the country concerned. It would be interesting to see what such a study would show.

22nd Apr 2002, 16:30
Interesting theory.
And, following on from your point, we have AIDS which has its own impact on the population though not usually on population growth for the reasons you've given.

Celtic Emerald
22nd Apr 2002, 18:28
I see there's a programme on tonight exploring whether there are 'gay animals'. Maybe we'll be able to get Slasher a gay puddy cat :)


23rd Apr 2002, 00:02
It's not a new theory Airbus Error, it's been around for a long time, and personally I think homosexuality is no accident but a natural evolutionary process of population control. So yes, I think you are right.

And to answer Islander, homosexuals may want to have children, but that does not disprove the point that they are programmed not to.

23rd Apr 2002, 05:30
CE, Porkey (R.I.P.) wasnt a raving poof but a cat who had no reservations wether it was male or female pigs he bonked. He wasnt too fussey how he got his rocks off in that regard!

Tartan Gannet
23rd Apr 2002, 06:35
As a matter of interest, Slasher, have you got another cat?

23rd Apr 2002, 19:14
TG nope. My house-mates got a pet rat called Jake. He reckons its a civet-cat but Im not sure.

23rd Apr 2002, 21:04
An interesting perception, but slightly off the mark IMO.

AIDS is Natures way of Human population control. for everyone.
Reguardless of it's start.

I could go as far as saying Ebola too, however the issue with Ebola is as powerful as it is, it's short acting and takes out it's victims, thus limiting exposure radius. But the scenarios are fairly accurate in some of the bio-terror movies, with air travel being what it is, someone Ebola infected could reach a population center prior to dying and chock full of the latent virus.

Later on I'm certain we will find new strains of disease resistant to anti-biotics used too widely today, and we will experience types of "plagues down the line.

Now, maybe it won't be experienced much in the industrialized countries, but the third world is already hit hard, and will be further on.

How's that sound?

Moritz Suter
23rd Apr 2002, 21:40
Interesting theory, Mr. RW-1,

Even if the epidemiology of the HI virus tends to disagree with you, but don’t for a moment let science get in the way of your prejudices, now will you.

Tell me, Mr. RW-1, you don’t by any chance vote Republican do you? Or perhaps belong to any revivalist or fundamentalist Christian groups there in Sunrise Florida, now do you?


23rd Apr 2002, 22:09
They're all related to "Kubota"

2 sheds
23rd Apr 2002, 23:36
For population control - and generally reorganising society - I prefer Billy Connelly's cannibal theory.
It starts by proposing that if each of us ate one other person, that would not only save the lives of numerous animals but would halve the population of this overcrowded planet at a stroke ...!

24th Apr 2002, 08:01

Isn't that overstating the case just a tad? Considering that Airbus was talking about maybe 1 in 15 people being gay... but possibly only 1 in 500 have HIV or AIDS in Western society (apologies in advance if that's incorrect, but I suspect it's closer to 1 in 5000). Moritz has hit on a good point.... why would you think this anyway? It's not as if people go around willfully giving people HIV (there have been cases reported but not possibly enough to justify that kind of claim.) And before you start saying that it's the same thing and all gay people have HIV or AIDS, that's simply not true and there's no evidence to support it. Your opinion seems to be a product of your own overwhelming bias.


Hugh Jarse
24th Apr 2002, 11:02
A lot of poofs drive Honda Preludes. :D

24th Apr 2002, 11:20

I suggest you read some basic books about how Darwinian evolution works.

Most importantly…

1) The evolutionary process has no foresight - it cannot anticipate future events and generate adaptations to them.

2) Evolution acts at the level of the individual organism - a male that doesn't reproduce will leave no descendants consequently he will be unable to pass on any of his genes (and the traits they produce) to future generations. Future generations will be descended from those males that chose to reproduce and will inherit their traits.

It is true that exclusive homosexuality is a bit of a puzzle for evolutionary biologists – but you’re theory isn’t the answer – sorry!

Celtic Emerald
26th Apr 2002, 12:42

I am shocked that you of all people owned a puddy cat that was partial to both sexes. Looks like your street cred is has been flushed down the toilet permanently now mate ;)

BTW, did you get a replacement puddy yet to replace your beloved Porky?


beer bong
26th Apr 2002, 12:47
On a positive note! it gives Qantas a good recruiting pool.

26th Apr 2002, 15:57
CE, Porkey mated with pigs of both sexes!

Nope Im not gettin another cat. The Porker was one in a million. He even made Major (Footrot Flats) look candey-assed!