Tuesday, June 28, 2011
My logic has nothing to do with the notion that homosexuality stunts reproduction. Nobody, as in, only a nobody, as in no real legitimate sociologist or scientist has ever taken seriously the possibility that homosexuality is nature's way of population control. 'Nature' does not possess any such conscious impetus to do things like that. In other terms, the fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be a homosexual is due to nothing else aside from an exceptional 'dosing' if you will of a specific hormone that on a statistical average is known to predispose a child towards the tendency of homosexuality. This is a non sequitur to say that this is evolution's natural way to protect against over population. This is apparent in the fact that the mother is only more likely to have a homosexual child if "..." rather than the fact being the mother necessarily will have a homosexual child if "...". It is also apparent that this is untrue when you look at out current situation, we are in a population crisis, and the homosexual portion of our population is not effectively doing anything. Lastly, it does not take the occurrence of homosexuality in order to control population. 2 children means stagnancy, and 1 child means exponential decrease. Case in point.