[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Hmmm that would make it "both", though. Essentially what you're saying is that we have an innate instinct to identify high population levels and adjust accordingly to keep the population level down. However, the actual genetic material itself has no way of identifying population levels until AFTER being born and achieving social understading... therefore, each baby would be born neutral, before having that instinct "activated" by circumstance. You would also expect to see higher ratios of homosexuality for those raised in urban areas as opposed to rural areas (though tbf, I don't know the actual stats on this).

Finally, thinking about the suggestion logically, there would be no biological reason at all for male homosexuality, only female homosexuality, if the reason was population control. One single straight male can theoretically father thousands of children if there are enough females available to carry them. One female can only naturally (at a push) birth & nurture five to ten children in her lifespan. So while female homosexuality would reduce population levels... male homosexuality would hypothetically make very little difference. To humans in their "natural state", anyway.

But if there was just lesbians and no gays that would lead to a massive imbalance.Loads of horny blokes and not enough child bearing women.
I see nature on earth as like one massive system trying to survive.Only humans have got way too clever and started destroying it.I think homosexuality is just nature trying its best to fight back and even things out.