…..probably important also to note (just in case it may have appeared that I was singiing you out Sandy) that my previous post was not directed at you Sandy but a general comment that is applicable to all of us. 🙂

Some thoughts I’ve had over the years:

It’s occurred to me that (at least in the few mammal species I’ve paid attention to), when populations go too high up, homosexuality appears to go up, as well. I’ve noted this in rats — stick too many in a cage, and many “go gay”. A fact that my previously homophobic aunt used to use as “proof” that homosexuality was bad (rather than sticking too many rats in a cage is bad)..

But what if (in the case of rats and..?) God has designed in homosexuality as a natural form of population control? It’s certainly a whole lot more humane than starvation and disease to reduce a population that’s exceeded it’s current environment.

Now, for people homosexuality tends to be more “set” — though a good number of straight men and women in prisons also “go gay”, just like the rats, only to revert to their usuals after they get out.

But we also know that individuals within other animal populations (reptiles I’m thinking of now, though I can’t remember the species off hand) can alter their own sex, and even reproduce more males or more females depending on how many are already out there in the current environment. Since reptiles have yet to develop the technology to consciously choose the sex of their unborn, or to even do a census before giving birth, I’m persuaded that God has designed their physical bodies to sense what’s already out there, and what’s probably going to be needed, in the near future.

So if a lowly lizard body can manage to produce what will work best for the genetic population in the near future, why should we assume human bodies cannot do something similar in choosing to produce homosexuals when we are needed?

The assumption of science, of course, is that homosexuality doesn’t promote genetic survival. That kind of logic only flies when one is stuck in severe individualism and assuming that in God’s world we only need to exist for ourselves and our own direct benefit.

But in most human cultures, where an entire tribe or people’s genetics continued only to the extent that they worked together as a group (Western Philosophy: “EEK! HORRORS!”), what might the benefits be of having a small percentage of your tribe/group be NONreproducing, so that they were able to do a larger part of the tribe/group’s work (not having to take care of the huge task of bearing and raising children, in other words)?

Sort of like having a built-in babysitter/food-gatherer/etc, and not having to pay them at the end of their shift..

I myself love science, but I’ve learned not to trust it in these kinds of matters because it really doesn’t start with Science 101: What’s already functioning quite well out there? In this, science has been just as bad as bad religion in defining what’s “normal” (only heterosexuality), and then spending incredible amounts of time and energy (and today, money) to wonder why God’s world isn’t matching their definition (and trying to devise ways to “correct” those “abnormal” things).

They’ve made me into a “scientific creationist”, I suppose…

Well thank goodness someone came along who knows more than me about science, I was hoping someone would, its always a sad day when I am the ‘scientific authority’ 😆 So I guess my little joke about homosexuality evolving because the baby boomers went balistic with reproduction holds a little bit of merit, but of course homosexuality ‘evolved’ way before then.

But what if (in the case of rats and..?) God has designed in homosexuality as a natural form of population control? It’s certainly a whole lot more humane than starvation and disease to reduce a population that’s exceeded it’s current environment.

You make a good point, even if it is laregly theoretical. I guess God is shaking his head at all the IVF that is going on amoung homosexuals these days. My question rests with one of your far more basic premisis’, are we actually exceeding our environment? In Australia for instance procreation is so low that we havn’t be reproducing ourselves for a good ten years, a.k.a the ageing population. If what you are saying is actually true then it would stand to reason that homosexuality would be less prevelant in Australia than other countries such as China where they are all jamed in like a pack of sardines. And what about China? They have a one child policy because the situation got so bad. If your theory was true wouldn’t the problem be fixed not through restricting procreation to an x number but through producing more homosexuals?

If the occurance of homosexuality was to stem the flow of procreation wouldn’t more women be gay insted of more men since a non-reporductive female packs more of a punch than an non-reproductive males? The role men play in reproduction is small in comparison to women, and can be preformed by almost any man, on a more regular basis, with the same results… i.e. babies. But women who choose not, or can not reproduce… well there is one more baby incubator lost, a whole nine months of proroductive possibility lost times the avrage number of babies per woman. Women are biologically more valuable than men in terms of procreation so to stop population growth would be most effectivly done through stopping women. However, male homosexuality is (give or take) about three times more prevalant than lesbianism…

I’m not trying to stomp on your parade, you make some exelent points and bringing God into the equation is always a big step in the right dirrection. Its such a tough question that any theorising is good theorising. I guess I am looking at it from a sociological point of view insted of a scientific one. What God has done always needs to make sense and be consistant because He is God, and he doesn’t loose control. I guess I am just seeing if your theory is consistant from a number of dirrections. But thankyou for posting!!

Welcome to F2b by the way! Keep posting its great to hear from you.

There have been instances when I couldve popped in about some scientific knowledge but its complicated and about certain chomosonal receptors etc… and more for a science versus creation forum…trust me 😆 but touching on the subject in discussion is always fun and informative. 😉

Orfeo, I have read that article before and I think its the combination of science and math that does me in but I have never fully been able to understand it. If you could shed some light I’d be grateful.

Which bits of maths in particular? There aren’t any actual numbers in there so it’s mostly a question of logic as to what happens. I’d be happy to have a go at expanding any particular ideas.

I think I’m just chuffed that it mentions sickle-cell anemia, lol.