Queer As Folk

[oberon]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (canoestripper @ Aug. 21 2005,20:47)]Not that this has anything to do with the sexual orientation issue...

Quote (canoestripper @ Aug. 20 2005,19:25)
"...nature would like 100% to be born staight."

"Really? *How do you come to this conclusion? *You, of course, realize that in many species some animals never get the chance to mate?"
I do realise this, which is what I meant by saying (in most cases). Of course there are exceptions.

Actually, there are more exceptions than the rule.

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]"I think nature, of course, wants to reproduce."
One of my main points exactly.

But, it's not exactly picky about "how". *There is more to reproduction than just mating. *It's equally as important how the offspring are taken care of.

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]"But it actually take a comparitively small number of individuals to do that. *So, how do you keep the rest of the members of the species happy? *You create members whose sexuality doesn't allow them to reproduce. *You also create members who can reproduce, but can also be content not to (this would be the largest group since it would be a "fallback" if anything took out the breeders {and I don't use that term as a slur...lol})."
What you are referring to here is the result of millions of years of natural selection. From Wikipedia: Natural selection is a process by which biological populations are altered over time, as a result of the propagation of heritable traits that affect the capacity of individual organisms to survive and reproduce. It is one of several mechanisms that give rise to the evolution of biological species (other mechanisms include genetic drift and gene flow.) However, natural selection has a special significance because it is believed to be the one responsible for organisms being adapted to their environment. Natural selection can be subdivided into two types: (i) ecological selection, which arises from the portion of an organism's environment not related to direct sexual competition (such as the availability of food, the presence of predators, and so forth); and (ii) sexual selection, which arises from the competition for mates between individuals of the same sex. The reason for this division is that the effects of sexual selection can produce results that seem counterintuitive from the point of view of ecological selection alone (a famous example being the tails of peacocks, which, though cumbersome, serve an important purpose in courtship displays.)

Most of the animals you mention are also more intelligent and high on the food chain. This makes a difference. Compare wolves with mice. Mice breed like crazy. Why? Because they have a biological need to, in order to feed other species (snakes, raptors, etc.) What keeps them from overpopulating? The balance of being preyed upon and lack of food for them to eat. In fact, starvation accounts for population control in most natural environments. A lot of food results in large populations, less food results in starvation and deceased populations.

On the contrary... as I pointed out, this occurs in many different species in a wide variety of circumstances. *To take your example of mice... there ARE instances of "gay" mice. *There has been a lot of discussion lately, as well, about "gay" sheep and horses. *Both of which are "prey" animals. *

Population control is only one function of diverse sexuality. *It also provides members of a species that- having no offspring of their own- are free to help with those that do. * They can provide "daycare service", take on orphaned young, and help acquire extra food. *I would think it also cuts down on inter-species friction since some members aren't interested in mating to reproduce.

Originally Posted by [b

Quote

Originally Posted by [b

]Of course not much of this applies to humans anymore because we change our surroundings instead of adapting to them.[/b] *

Unfortunately, we often change it for the worse. *We come up with arbitrary ideas that can be detrimental to the species as a whole. *By ostracizing gay people, family units lose a whole support structure that could greatly enhance society. *Who better to help with family units than those that don't have one of their own? *Who better to take unwanted children? *Gay people would be the first option in taking care of elderly or disabled parents. * Too bad society has "cut off its nose", so to speak.

(I hope you know that I'm just discussing here... NOT fighting. )