Friday, November 25, 2005

Without Gays, Humans would be Extinct

I am not gay, nor am I scientist or credentialed philosopher. I am just an average woman who claims the right to think her own thoughts, and develop her own ideas. I don’t presume to ask that you agree with me, but I do hope that if you venture to read this, it will lead you to create some new thoughts of your own.

My hobbies involve animal rehab and mythology. A weird mix to be sure, but a mix that has led me to an interesting theory: The survival of the species is dependant on the Gay and Lesbian population!

The seed of this strange little thought came when I was blogging with a wonderful musician and poet, who happens to be gay, and I posed the following question:

I’m curious…
I have done a bit of study into what we call The Prime Biological Imperative: Which basically means that males are instinctively driven to spread their seed, and females are driven to find a long term mate, and that both of these contradictory strategies are used to ensure survival of the species.
When one is Gay, there must be question, deep in the mind, about giving up the ability to pass on DNA. In addition, I wonder which forces are stronger…the male drive to spread seed, or the female drive to pair?
One might assume that each individual hashes this out, but when I look at all the things we do, as an unconscious part of this imperative, I suspect that being gay does not free one from those instinctual bonds.
For example: I always tell women that the reason they wear make up, is not to look pretty, but because when a woman is sexually receptive, her lips and cheeks swell and redden. It’s a signal to men. Make up is just a tool to get seed spreading fella’s to pair up and hang around!
When a husband or wife separate for a day or two, for out of town trips or whatever, the male will always instigate sex on return. Why? Not because he missed her, but because he knows that, other males had potential access to her, and if he makes love to her, his sperm will kill off the other sperm.
There are many examples of this in scientific literature, but I have never read anything about how it effects the gay/lesbian population.
Any clues?

The response from my insightful friend was, “I can say from experience, the male gay culture is built around sex, and judgment of physical appearance is harsh. It’s a superficial culture.”

So I started thinking about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and what role this plays in the survival and propagation of various species, and why it might be a “superficial culture.” If homosexuality exists in animals and humans, and has existed for all of history, then it must serve a purpose as a function of the Prime Biological Imperative (PBI).

There have been many studies, which show how we are sexually attracted to people with beautiful features. This type of visual selection ensures that only the best DNA is passed forward. The stereotypical male often puts little if any focus on “beauty”. So, since we know that a certain percentage of gay people do pass on their DNA, maybe we can surmise that this harsh “judgment of physical appearance” by the bachelor bonding groups, serves an important function in the overall survival of the species.

After all : “In animals in which “bachelor groups” form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds.” So maybe, that small percentage of the gay population that breaks off and breeds, is the key group that stimulates the striking beauty of the male physique.

You know what the girls always say: “All the good looking guys are either married or gay!” So basically, Gay men are the influence responsible for keeping all men attractive enough for women to be willing to mate with.

As for lesbians, I think there is a different PBI. I think that this goes WAAAAY back to our ancient ancestors. Very early societies were much like deer herds, where women and children formed the core group, while the males stayed off to the side in bachelor hunting groups, thus females would pair up as partners and parents. Women learned to rely on each other, trust each other and nurture each other, as only women can. Some found that they had little need for men.

In the book Who Cooked the Last Supper, Rosalind Miles states: “At no point in prehistory did women, with or without children, rely on their hunting males for food…Meat from the kill comes in irregularly and infrequently…women regularly produce as much as 80 percent of the tribe’s total food intake, on a daily basis…In the myth of Man the Hunter, he invents the family by impregnating his mate and stashing her away in the cave…But in contradiction to this Big Daddy scenario, a mass of evidence shows that the earliest families consisted of females and their children, since all tribal and hunting societies were centered on and organized through the mother. The young males either left or were driven out.”

So it makes sense that women would form same sex pair bonds to ensure the survival of each other and their offspring, and that men would create same sex pair bonds, focused on physical attraction, to ensure that they could get some access to that magical link to eternity called DNA.

What really amuses me about this little, amateur theory of mine, is that the social persecution of the religious homophobics to “convert” Gays, is also just a function of the PBI. Their misguided and judgmental efforts for conformity actually serve to keep the Gay DNA in the gene pool!

Now, I don’t know if my idea has any real merit, or if someone smarter has already thought of it, but I do know that we are all who we are for a reason, and that there is a divine purpose for everything.

What do you think?


ME Strauss said...

I think it's an interesting theory, but I'd be the last one to have the right information to prove it untrue. The logic seems to follow and make sense to me.

But then I've got this theory that the reason the dinosaurs died out is because their egg were like alligator eggs and only boys were born.

dog1net said...

Homosexuality, because it is feared, has never been easily understood or argued, and I have heard and read plenty. But I have never heard it argued as a "superficial culture," but in thinking about it, it does seem to make sense. The early Greek myths, for example, in regard to homosexuality, in light of your argument, almost demonstrates what the consequences of of a "superficial culture" can lead to. Consider the island of Lesbos, for example. Enjoyed reading a fresh perspective on this. . .

firedawg said...

I am sitting here looking at this realllly small comment box trying to organise my thoughts to fit it and I know there is just no way.
My thoughts are that homosexuals are the result of stress on the mother during pregnancy (at least the majority). This appears to be natures way of limiting population. This preserves food for the group as there is a slowdown in the rise of population. It also thins out the population so that they are less prone to epidemics, parasites etc. It explains the high incidence of homosexuality in rats and mice which traditionally are raised in overcrowded conditions. Berlin had a very high incidence of homosexuality during 1945 & 46 when the population was very stressed. There is also a genetic disposition to a condition which causes males to lack external genetalia until puberty. The interesting part is that these individuals feel naturally to be girls until they develop as males at 16 or so and then they seem very at home beings males after the transition. Part of this can be attributed to their society which is very accepting of them and sees no problem. Homosexuality is very important in preserving the species.

Abby said...

What an amazing and insightful theory!

And as it is written makes very wonderful sense. At least for a large percentage of the population. I would think that even in the PBI there are always exceptions, but as a whole population it makes sense. I'm a big believer in the natural creation of homosexuality.

Same-sex pairings are very common in many animals. One book said that 20% of documented animal species showed same-sex pairings. Among some primates homosexual sex accounts for 50% of the sexual activity of all sexual activity. In bonobos (primates) when a female mates with a male it takes 12-15 seconds, but females will tenderly mate with other females for extended periods. In many of the species with documented same-sex unions the pair often co-parent. In a lesbian pair, one or both will mate with a male and the lesbians will raise the young together as a family. In a gay pair, one or both will mate with a female and then the males raise the young together. In Black Swans gale males chase the female away after she's laid the eggs.

I have a new childrens book called "And Tango Makes Three" by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. It's about a pair of male penguins in the Central Park Zoo. They mate and nest and behave as the other pairs, even going so far as to roost on a pebble trying to create a baby. One of the zookeepers noticed that a female had more eggs than she would care for so he replace the pebble with the egg. The male pair hatched the egg and raised the baby (Tango) and they behave as any other penguin family.

Some other animals that create long-term or life-time same-sex pairings (and some form bisexual trios) are: Full, Terns, Geese, Harbor Seals, Squirrel Monkeys, Northern Elephant Seals, Jackdaws, Emus, Greater Rheas, Greylag Geese, Common Gulls, Oystercatchers, Black
Swans, Grizzly Bears, Red Foxes, Warthogs, Dwarf Cavies, Lesser Scaup Ducks, Giraffes, goats, bonobos, macaques, penguins, wolves, ravens. And many many more.

We're the only species who harrasses the homosexual pairs in our societies though.

Kelley Bell said...

Great comment Abby.

An animal rehab expert I know LOVES the Bonobos. She says that every member of the community mates with every other member of the community so that all members will have equal reason to care for the babies.

She also says that humans would likely operate very much like bonobos in many ways...if we had not seperated ourselves from nature way back when.

As for the harrasment...we might want to explore that next. I think there IS a great deal of harrasment among many species. But I agree that we are the only ones who try to put a moral message into the growl! (well, at least as far as we know anyway. LOL I cant speak too many animal languages, so I have no idea what they might be saying.)

Heck, maybe all the other animals are so far beyond us when it comes to religion, that we are the only ones who cant experience it directly or communicate about it telepathically, and thus are the only ones who have to debate it and fight over it and write it all down. (Giggle)

O.K. Im bein goofy.

Night all

Abby said...

Hi Kel,
From your comment on my blog:

That's why I was so surprised. I'd found you because you had left a question on a friend's website that I designed. She's based out of Illinois and I thought it great that someone so close to me had found her site. So I started reading your blog from there.

I know where Highbanks is, but had not heard of the Ohio Wildlife Center. I also don't know what or where Harmony House is. Although I like the name. *grin*

I'm a Reiki Master, so your blog entry about the Reiki Master who painted Reiki, laughter, and love into her house really grabbed my attention.

And it's good to see like-minded people near home. I'm off of Home Rd in the new Scioto Reserve development.


(I posted this same reply on my blog, I didn't know which you'd see.)

About this thread:
I don't think you're being silly. The only reason we search for God, Goddess, Divinity, Universal Love, etc is because we are not feeling it within ourselves. That's my belief anyway. Religion is the system we create to confirm to us that we have a relationship with the Divine. I think spirituality is a recognition of that Divinity within ourselves. I don't find it silly at all to think that animals have that connection innately. Juts my 2 cents.

Have a great day.

Priestitute said...

I'm a 22-year-old gay guy...I think your theory is pretty interesting.

Sometimes I think about 'breeding.' I don't know. It's like, the urge is there but it's diluted by something.

Our larger brains make everything more complicated. On a base primal level though, I'd say my gayness (and everyone else's) is a mixture of envrionment/biology. Biology speaking, the gayness is innate and passive and only comes out when it's triggered by certain envrionmental factors. (like how a guy smells... mmm I LOVE that) The triggers can be more complicated in humans simply because our lives are more complicated.

It's also probably not a coincindence that a lot of gay men can be found in large cities where there's more straights than you can shake a stick at. I think gays and straights and bis and whatever else work best when they co-exist together...too much of one kinda sets off some type of imbalance I think. (in my head anyway...) Life is about diversity and's the natural order of things. You can't have gay without straight, think about it. Without gays, would life even go on since they effect so many mammals? Would animals still breed? Would the sun still rise? Sounds silly maybe...but remember, everything's connected.

And the sun and the planets and the stars...everything rotates and changes. You see so many sides of all matter in the universe. What if we're all gay AND straight and we just choose one because of psychological trauma/"moral" values that don't make any sense. That's a possibility too, I think.