Is homosexuality nature's way of reducing our population?

Post Reply New Topic

All the stuff I described happened in middle school. I was just a fairly typical loner in high school.

Was the euphoria just from the risk of getting involved, or from the sense of having some power or control? Or something else?

I think that this is quote common. BTW, I got bullied at school, but not because I was gay, but just because I was different. Like most gay people I know, I don't think you can tell I'm was gay unless I or someone else has told you.



Why? I think you may find that many people reading this will have behaved the same way from time to time, perhaps not realising it. For example, I'm too nervous to physically attack someone. But I think I have done the same kind of thing intellectually, completely dominating and getting some kind of pleasure from knowing I am in someway better (and there aren't many ways that I can get that!).

You'll be pleased to know that my main victims were people with irrational religious views (ie any religious views from my perspective ) and who weren't wise enough to avoid logical debate. And no, I'm not going to engage in that here - I'd rather do the same by playing Civillisation instead!

But of course I hope that you will not get any visceral pleasure from doing this...

From any perspective, I still don't see it as a justification for behaviour like that. I've experienced bullying - and it is not something I take lightly.

personally, i think sean is being very honest about his past actions. you can imagine that the kind of bullying and homophobia sean describes is repugnant to me. but do we condemn people for things they did when they were young? especially as i read sean's posts as being something he isn't boasting about, but rather something which he realises is wrong and would not do today.

we've all made (and continue to make) mistakes.

i am not defending homophobia, obviously, but i do believe everyone has the ability to change their mind and their choices of action.

:: ponders the truth of Sean's posts versus the ruckus they have caused ::

GA

I also think it is important to see the things Sean has relayed in the context of how he was being treated, too. I can hardly endorse bullying, for any reason though I can see that if Sean himself was being accused of being gay (and quite possibly facing problems as a result of the accusations), that he would also be looking to displace attention from himself and onto others. Not a particularly noble thing to do, but when a child is feeling persecuted and victimised, it is not wholly unreasonable that he woudl lash out in the only way he knew how. Also remember, on the basis of what he has said (and I think it takes a certain candour and honesty to admit to having once bullied - especially on a forum in which many posters will have been victims of being bullied), he has clearly progressed from this kind of reaction.

From my own memories, At age 11, I was put in a school a year ahead of time because my Aunt and Uncle thought I was intelligent or 'gifted' enough to make the grade. One year's difference may not seem that much when you're grown up, but from my experience, I was just too 'different' to be accepted and so of course I faced regular bullying, accusations of being 'queer' and various other things. Those accusations stemmed from the words I used, the way I spoke and just generally the way I was. Luckily, that state of affairs only persisted for around 5 months, before I was put into local authority care. That was the last 'mainstream' school I ever went to.

To bring the post back on topic of the thread I would probably suggest that a binary divide between 'bully' and 'victim' is not always easy to decide. This does not make it any easier for children who are being bullied (or even for that matter, adults who are bullied in the workplace and yes I have been on the receiving end of that all too often), but it should at least help those who are responsible (and who are willing to accept their responsibility - eg schools adminsitrators and so on), deal with the issue in a manner that tries to resolve the problems, rather than either scapegoating obvious villains, or even colluding with it.

...

Last edited by acousticvalley on 09 Nov 2005, 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It is possible that some perpetrators of bullying can be victims of varying kinds of abuse themselves. When bullying is investigated in schools sometimes, it is often shown that those doing the bullying are on the receiving end of abuse themselves at home. This can come either from the parents or from older siblings, or even from peers outside of the school setting. This isn't always true of course, but there often seems to be some correlation between being a bully and being on the receiving end of abuse. Having said that, some children can also become bullies with the tacit collusion and encouragement of their parents though perhaps that is a kind of abuse too. I have read of cases in which parents have coached their own children to bully other children on the sports playing field in a subtle manner, to ensure that they or their team wins. To my mind that then becomes a matter of questioning the suitability of such parents to raise children.

Of course this in no way excuses the behaviour but if it helps 'explain' it then measures can be taken to deal with the problem at its source. This means putting and end to the problem as well as tackling the issues that the person committing the aggression is having to deal with.

Yes, I agree with Vivi and Adversarial's thoughts here - a very progressive way of thinking (though I would not expect any different from my Vivi ).

Often the bully does have issues at home, and it is better to assist the bully to deal with these as well. If someone came from a poor or broken home, I can sort of understand the inclination to attack a richer or clever classmate who is less confident.

However, the sods that bullied me came from very rich backgrounds (I went to a UK Public School for 2 years), and they had no excuse whatsoever. The old saying is that bullies are stupid and will probably end up working in McDonnalds. However, these guys were clever and cunning and will probably go on to run places like McDonnalds and make millions. Thats is why I am bitter.

Or be lawyers or politicians.

So, now we all know why RobertN hates rich conservatives so much, and Sean despises gays.

Well back to the subject of the thread.
No, it's not very effective. Better by far to follow the suggested way of life the Right advocates.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange ... 00,00.html

"Is homosexuality nature's way of reducing the population?" If by this you mean "does homosexuality exist for the benefit of human beings as a species to prevent overpopulation?" then I'd say no, because evolution and natural selection don't work like that.

Has anyone read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins? He explains that fundamentally natural selection occurs at the level of the gene rather than the individual or the species. This is because it is the gene that is the fundamental unit of replication. Individuals are not replicated via reproduction (each individual is unique); species are not replicated via reproduction; but genes are replicated by reproduction.

To illustrate by way of an oversimplification: say there is a gene for "childcare". A version of this gene that predisposed an organism that carried it to look after their children would increase in number in the gene pool at the expense of a rival gene ("allele") that predisposed carriers not to look after their children, because organisms carrying the first gene would look after their children, who would most likely inherit the gene, then go on to look after their own children, and so on.

With this explanation, though, it becomes hard to see why homosexuality persists (for want of a better word)! But, as I said, it was an oversimplification. Genes do not absolutely determine attitudes and behaviour, but they influence probabilities. (It is also an oversimplification to talk about "one gene for this, and one gene for that" since genes work together to influence outcomes.)

Given this (orthodox scientific) view, one might also ask about the evolutionary "benefit" of autism, because it also surely adversely affects one's chances of having children (though I guess many aspie parents might beg to differ).
This question seems to crop up on almost every aspie message board I've visited.
One guy I saw said that humans would all be living in mud huts if it were not for aspies.
Not an uncommon view, I'd imagine.

I'm not really sure if "reduce" is the word that you're looking for.

What about asexuality? Does it also exist to reduce the population?