A blogger said:
Read up on a study done a while ago where a bunch of mice was enclosed in a 10sq meter space, with enough food and water regardless of population size. Needless to say, they thrived, bred, multiplied, and in a very short while there was hundreds of them. Then thousands. Keep in mind, food was never a problem. So, overpopulation ensued. Now - the interesting thing is that the heavier the population pressure became, the more males started having sex with other males and ignored the females completely. Females started having sex with other females as well, which could be a dominance thing. They repeated the test with monkeys, with the same result, as well as a spectacular increase in violence. Now - could this be applied to human societies, where homosexuality and violence (think gang-warfare, etc.) occur mostly (not exclusively, though) in large cities? If that's the case, aren't psychologists digging up the wrong tree when they speculate on what happened in childhood that could turn a person gay, or blame it on the individual's genetic makeup, even? Interesting...
This is essentially Calhoun's Experiment reinstated.
Another blogger said:
But I doubt very much if a homosexual gene is beneficial to a given population. If we assume two exclusive states, namely heterosexual (only copulates with the opposite sex), and homosexual (only copulates with the same sex), it should be obvious that any given homosexual individual will not pass his/her genes on. Therefore, if homosexuality is inherited, homosexuals must go back in the closet every now and then, if only for procreation. I think if there is an inherited recessive homosexual gene, it is probably suppressed for a generation or two, before eventually being expressed in one or more of the carrier's offspring. Or, then again, we might be presumptious; there might be a specific gene for straightness!
Another blogger said:
I was reading about a book by Dr. Lee Spetner on the modern evolution theory entitled "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Evolution Theory". Spetner talks of evolution not just happening randomly from generation to generation, but also of it happening non-randomly to fit different situations. He describes our genes as follows: "These genetic rearrangements may be part of a built-in mechanism that permits a line of organisms to adapt to a new environment. Part of the genetic program of the organism seems to be a set of genetic switches that can be triggered by the environment. These enable a heritable switch in the organism to one of a limited set of alternate forms. An interesting feature of this mechanism is that it can cause a population to adapt rapidly to a new environment." I was just thinking that this answers the nature vs. nurture question regarding homosexuality. Consider if a male is in an overpopulated society and can't stand out, or whatever may trigger it, his genes will alternate to halt his procreation.
Another blogger said:
That's not how ALL genes work. Some genes can be affected by "coactivation" (A coactivator is a protein that increases gene expression by binding to an activator) I've read (but now can't find, darn-it-all) that it's the MOTHER that determines the sexuality. That stressors during pregnancy affect levels of a type of testosterone that would then "turn on" the expression of homosexuality. If the mother has the gene for this AND she is under stress during the exact part of her pregnancy for this to have an effect, then the child will be gay. Thus, not ALL children from her will be gay, and even in the case of identical twins, it might not be enough of an effect for both to be affected. Population control is the only logical explanation thus far put forth for the existence of homosexuality. It's obviously a survival trait that Mother Nature has so thoughtfully provided. It's really too sad that we'd rather use superstition and religious delusion to explain the real world than to open our minds (and our hearts) and realize that homosexuality is a NATURAL part of life on Earth. No one chooses to be gay. No one chooses to be straight. It just IS, and for the betterment of all mankind! (especially in this day and age when most of our problems like pollution, wars, famine, global warming, etc are caused by overpopulation).
If any member of your family is gay, it is a natural process as the mother was under stress and seek to limit the procreation of the next generation. That means, you are in a place that is too densely populated and it's therefore time to move on. Do move on quickly too, as some fucken old guy might hold you and your family back. Don't even stay for a second longer. No amount of wealth creation opportunity in that fucken little island can replace the lack of procreation choice of the next generation. It is alright to restart with zero penny in the pocket. As long as you work hard, you will be rewarded in time. You are playing the great generations game. It is never about wealth-creation. Settle your priorities, you will have a great master plan. Do remember they were people with zero education and experience later became the richest guys of the land.
Don't be limited by that ~!@#@%$#%^$^&%*& belief that by having gay off-springs, you are fucked. NO. It just means that he was stressed by his mother during pregnancy. Move him to a new place (if ever possible), he might turn straight. It is nothing wrong for being gay, please love him as much as the rest. Give him space. It will do everyone good. There is no such thing as lesbians. They are just figments of their imagination during secondary school. The gals will turn straight after their games. Just ask any gals, they all confess to some sort of lesbianism. It is a fashionable fad among the gals during those formative years.
Just one last reminder: Please move on if you ever have a gay kiddo, he deserves a chance to choose again. If it works, great, otherwise, just love him as much for the rest of your life.
No comments:
Post a Comment