Quote:
Originally Posted by hoarfrost
I don't really wanna have the whole debate about it (I have it enough in other places) but since it seems semi-relevant to the matter at hand, homosexuality occurs naturally in hundreds of species for survival purposes. Some animals are known to form homosexual couples to adopt abandoned children and some studies show that the more children of the same gender a woman has, the higher the chance of each successive one being homosexual, probably for population control. A species that just grows exponentially won't last long, so in that sense population control would be a "survival strategy".
|
But is it practical? Sure, there will be a couple of homosexuals in every species for possible population control reasons, but too many could lead to the extinction of the species. At least that is how it works for most species. Homosexuals can't reproduce, they can yern for their own children and adopt the children that were procreated by heterosexual interactions, but they cannot reproduce on their own. It's an undeniable fact that if a significant amount of the ecosystem's population suddenly turned homosexual, many species would go extinct within a few hundred years, or sooner. Besides, it's not like the species will grow beyond its resources immediately because they reproduce; nature continues to provide all the nutriment they need as long as they stay within their means and don't try to go search for more than they need.
Any benefits homosexuality offers to survival is minimal and should be contained to small percentages of the population, as too much of it would result in extinction. And none of the possible benefits of having homosexuals in the population change the fact that to be homosexual is to go against nature, or the programmed DNA and instincts that are implanted in us. In other words, it goes against fate. It's the same thing as loving your sister, it's not "natural". Whether that's a bad or good thing here is still unclear though.