Personally, I think you're over-thinking it.norwegian-guy said:Before anything I'd like to point out that this is NOT an attack on homosexuality. It's more of a question about nature coliding with nature.
I find the theory about homosexuality being a result of natural reactions during the fetal-stage the most plausible to date. So in that matter I stand that homosexuality is a natural occurance. We even see it in nature, by animals that dosen't have our advance ability of choice.
But then comes the question of evolution, or more precise the question about the natural system of getting you genes to the next generation, thus ensuring the survival of your genes.
... How does this work with homosexuals? It seems likely that they would have the same "natural programing" to have kids, but it dosen't seem that easy...
Maybe I'm overthinking about this but I can't help but wonder: Is this two natural occurances in conflict?
EDIT: This is not a question of "can they?" or "should they?" It's a question about the how sexuality works with evolution.
Well, it may or or may not override sexual orientation... But it's not something that's likely to be tested. Homosexual orientation in humans takes up roughly 10% of the population. if you throw in an extra generous 10-20% on top of that for people who for one reason or another cannot or choose not to reproduce, and assuming that none of the 10% of the homosexual population reproduces (which some do) That still leaves a very generous 70% of the population breeding new generations. Running out of people is not something we need to worry about, honestly. In fact the opposite is true. With all our scientific and medical advances, the human population is quickly starting to overwhelm the planet's ability to support us. it would probably be a good idea if there were even fewer people having children at this point. But that's another subject.Baradiel said:I was dreading reading this thread, thinking "Oh God, what will this be like?" but instead I read an interesting, serious and controversial topic.
I think that the biological (or societal) need to reproduce might override sexual preference.
If all those other options fail, a bit of straight sex is always a last resort. I mean, I know a lesbian couple who have a kid who was conceived through one of them having actual sex with the donor. It might not be ideal, but if you don't have any other options...badgersprite said:Because it's impossible for gay people to have and raise kids now. Oh wait no it isn't. Surrogacy, sperm donation, IVF, adoption and any number of means exist for gay people to raise families and many gay people do.
Sex isn't the only way to produce children anymore.
That rather depends. The best thing you can do, assuming that your sexuality isn't inherently pathological for yourself or anyone else, is just go with nature.AnkaraTheFallen said:Yes admittedly this is true... but we have the ability to make concious decisions from the world around us which overrules our biological programming.CarlMinez said:Isn't it a scientific consensus that sexual orientations is 100 percent biological?AnkaraTheFallen said:I've read your post and this is the same conclusion I thought you were saying... I might not have understood you correctly though.
I'd just like to say that there are a lot of straight people as well who don't want to have children... and also a lot of homosexuals who do... so the part of us that wants to reproduce and carry on the species is affected by a lot of outside things as well