Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
Which hypotheses?
|
Well, I don't think these follow, although its possible its only sarcasm:
Penis Face says "They are mother natures method of population control, since they wont have kids. Mother nature is crafty like that, you see."
And Warchild said: "I think people being sexually attracted to only the same sex is simply nature's way of ending a bloodline. Let's face it, evolution is a constant process and clearly not variants of the genepool produce positive results. What better way to weed out unwanted traits than to eliminate the ability to reproduce?"
In the first case, the amount of gays in a population has a negligible affect on population growth. Many gays also have kids because society has been slow to accept this orientation, so many have kids anyway, even if they later come out of the closet. It is not Mother Nature's method of population control. Mother Nature has better methods.
In the latter case, eliminating the unwanted trait (gayness) by eliminating the ability to reproduce would only follow if only gays were having gays. That's clearly not the case.
And when gay people have kids, the ratio of heterosexuality to homosexuality is roughly in the same proportion as conventional families. And, the siblings of gay people are just as likely to pass the bloodline (gene). I believe it reaches a point of equilibrium. I don't think it weeds out the trait.