15 Dec 06
Originally posted by PIZZA ROLLSThere has been some research that each progressive child in a family is more likely to be gay. For example, the fifth child has a higher likelihood of being gay than the first four.
How does it happen that a big family of say about nine children who each experience the same things in life, yet one of them turns out gay? Does this mean being gay is something you are born with, or is it something that happens during life.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by kirksey957Cool!
There has been some research that each progressive child in a family is more likely to be gay. For example, the fifth child has a higher likelihood of being gay than the first four.
Where have you read that, in "Prejudice Magazine" ?
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by PIZZA ROLLSNo one has all the same experiences. You may have some that are the same as your brothers & sisters, but not all. Beyond that, not everyone reacts to the same event as someone else, even if all subjects are at the same event.
How does it happen that a big family of say about nine children who each experience the same things in life, yet one of them turns out gay? Does this mean being gay is something you are born with, or is it something that happens during life.
Your example neither proves, nor disproves.
15 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957This has been linked to the notion that "being gay" is linked to natural population control. The idea states that somehow, "nature" is able to tell how many kids a mother has had and somehow decides that she is producing too many offspring that can ideally be raised given food/shelter/water suppplies etc.
There has been some research that each progressive child in a family is more likely to be gay. For example, the fifth child has a higher likelihood of being gay than the first four.
In other words, if you're gay, you won't produce any kids and thereby reduce the strain on population growth and hence lower resource consumption.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by uzlessThank you uzless.
This has been linked to the notion that "being gay" is linked to natural population control. The idea states that somehow, "nature" is able to tell how many kids a mother has had and somehow decides that she is producing too many offspring that can ideally be raised given food/shelter/water suppplies etc.
In other words, if you're gay, you won't produce a ...[text shortened]... s and thereby reduce the strain on population growth and hence lower resource consumption.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by uzlessThat's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. Makes some sense too. Doesn't look to have worked in China though. I guess it might be incomplete, but it could be a good starting point.
This has been linked to the notion that "being gay" is linked to natural population control. The idea states that somehow, "nature" is able to tell how many kids a mother has had and somehow decides that she is producing too many offspring that can ideally be raised given food/shelter/water suppplies etc.
In other words, if you're gay, you won't produce a ...[text shortened]... s and thereby reduce the strain on population growth and hence lower resource consumption.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkThere was an interesting experiment done in the 70s on rats called ratopolis. They basically put lots of rats in a small area with unlimited food resources, in an attempt to mimic current human conditions in a big city. Among other things, they noticed an increase in homosexual behaviour in the rats. Whether this applies to humans is hard to say, but homosexuality as a form of population control is an interesting idea.
That's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. Makes some sense too. Doesn't look to have worked in China though. I guess it might be incomplete, but it could be a good starting point.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkDefinitely doesn't explain all cases, but it seems plausable for many. Lends credence to the notion of "nature" causing homosexuality though.
That's an interesting theory. Never heard it before. Makes some sense too. Doesn't look to have worked in China though. I guess it might be incomplete, but it could be a good starting point.
I'm sure the religious folks don't like this theory too much.
15 Dec 06
Originally posted by uzlessAs a devout heterosexual I can honestly say that the ability for a guy to look at another guys ass and be attrated to it, is not something we can learn. No way THAT is an aquired taste!
Definitely doesn't explain all cases, but it seems plausable for many. Lends credence to the notion of "nature" causing homosexuality though.
I'm sure the religious folks don't like this theory too much.