Never mind, Asherlee, Strop explained it to me (thanks Strop). Now that I think about it, you made perfect sense, so I don't know what I was thinking before haha.
Anyways, I still find it strange. You said they practiced homosexuality, but they still had to mate with the opposite sex to produce offspring. I think this would be even more strange if you believed evolution, because well, I do not see how homosexuality would help such animals survive.
Sting, you do realize that g@y and lesbian couples can adopt and even have children of their own. Being homosexual isn't slowing us down, even though we need it. The world is steadily becoming over populated with humans. Hell, in China there is a limit on the children you can have, so I suppose being g@y there would be a benefit to the government.... (going too far? maybe haha)
Well up-till-now g@y (why does it block that word out?) and lesbian couples could not bring new life into this world, not until that new bone marrow into sperm cell idea came into play (which was not around ten years ago). Not saying they couldn't adopt a child, but that is not bringing an new life onto earth. And again, if you believe in evolution, how could being a homosexual 'benefit' survival of the fittest?
I am not being a g@y-basher here, it is just a question I find intriguing.
You are forgetting something. Let me break it down by using myself. I am a lesbian, and if I wanted to have a child, but not go through that new science of extracting bone marrow then all I would do is get a sperm donor. Or, which is what my partner and I have discussed is her receiving my brother's sperm.
Because I'm not talking about moral arguments, I can use the behaviors of other species as examples
Sting, believe it or not, homosexual behaviors actually make perfect sense in an evolutionary context. To understand this, you have to appreciate a number of things:
* As Asherlee jokingly suggested, a population is only as strong as it is supported, not necessarily by how large it is. * Those who adopt "homosexual" (this has a broader scope) behaviors can and often play other major supporting roles which increase the survivability of offspring. * Let's remember that there's always been such a hullabaloo about sex that we rarely appreciate sex for what it is.
All three of these points have been demonstrated in observing the homosexual behaviors of several other species, ranging from giraffes to walruses, to several species of apes, even in birds. Each of these species has a different social structure, and a different way of interaction, so sexuality plays a different role and thus relates to their functioning differently- but whatever it is, those species that survive that we observe today must have had some success with their behaviors. Thus the claim that homosexual behaviors can indeed be an evolutionarily stable strategy.
This only relates to the question of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. How this relates to humans of course is still a separate topic, but the post demonstrates that you can't blanket-dismiss homosexuality in this manner.
Personally Strop, those three points do not make any sense as to supporting evolution, except maybe to control population, which animals would have no sense of. Besides, most animals, although they probably enjoy it, do not make a 'hullabaloo' about sex, since animals primarily use instincts, and one instinct is to reproduce to keep the species going. I mean, salmon literally die to make their offsprings.
As for getting a sperm donor, I suppose that would work, yes. Not sure what g@y males would do though haha.
For males: Adopt. Or surrogate mother. Orrrrr...if you're a semi-postop FTM transsexual who kept his female reproductive organs because his partner was sterile...
And as for you not understanding...I guess you need more education
Seriously. Study animal behavior for real. You'd be surprised. You might even become aware of how little control you have over your own self.
I would explain in more detail but I have to go to bed: early start tomorrow.
Actually Asherlee, I would find that a little strange that you would be using your brother's sperm. Yes, it would be legally your child, but genetically it would be your brother's child... I don't know, just a thought.
As for Strop saying I am uneducated in that area, I have to disagree. Seriously. I could argue over this, but chances are I would get pissed; besides, this is a homosexual thread, not an animal behavior thread.
Sting, that would be an alternative to adoption. Instead the child would be somewhat closely related to me. Women who cannot have children do sometimes choose to have a sergeant mother for their child. So, I don't see how this is strange.
No Strop, I will decline from 'taking your word for it', sorry to say. Normally, I find you a very intelligent person (I have seen your posts in many topics and they are quite good), but this is just one area we disagree in. And didn't you say you were going to bed?
To Asherlee: I just thought it would be a little weird that your own brother would be the father (even though it would make you very closely related, genetically wise), but I am sure that is just me.
Sting, also, I don't think Strop is getting at this is a matter to be disagreed on or not. He is saying that he's done a pretty decent amount of research on this area that he's discussing. I would probably agree, because I believe he is in med school or grad school. Not sure which.
