[Homosexual Behavior in Animals]
My degree is in psychology. At one point I read a study about increasing populations. As I recall, the animal used were mice.
Initially they observed a set population for a specific sized area. They counted the rate of violent and homosexual acts the mice did over time.
They then increased the population and observed again. They continued to increase the population density and observe changes in violence and homosexual behavior.
What the study indicated was that as population increased there was a matching increase in violence and homosexual behavior.
Of course one must be careful when extrapolating animal behavior to humans (although clearly the "scientists" observing in the OP aren't interested in being so careful), but is it any wonder when we observe that when humans live in denser populations there is also an increase in violence and homosexual behavior?
Of course such a study would be rejected by the homosexual community because it puts homosexuality in the light of anti-social behavior. It simply isn't PC to identify the truth.
30 comments
No, it shows homosexuality to be a positive brake on population growth. Homosexuality allows the mice (who, unsuprisingly, have no contraceptives) to excersize their sex drives without increasing the population pressure. Similarly, violence reduces population pressure. As population density increases, homosexuality brcomes a beneficial biological trait, in that it helps ensure that a population does not explode out of control.
You want to go to your teachers with a conclusion like that?
Homosexuals have been estimated to represent about 5% of any given population. If you randomly choose 10 people, chances are none will be gay. If you randomly choose 20people, the chances are 1 will be gay. The greater the group selected, the greater the number of gay people in the group. And I'm sure that in cities, the numbers will be even higher.
My degree is in psychology. (I doubt very much it was from an accredited college/university) At one point I read a study about increasing populations. As I recall, the animal(s) used were mice.[...]
Of course one must be careful when extrapolating animal behavior to humans (that should read: .. careful when extrapolating hypothesis from animal behavior and applying it to humans) (although clearly the "scientists" observing in the OP aren't interested in being so careful) (how so?) , but is it any wonder when we observe that when humans live in denser populations there is also an increase in violence and homosexual behavior? (Actually, no. As populations grow there is increasingly tough and fierce competition for territory and resources such as food and mates. Violence would increase as a result and in animals other than humans, as far as we know today, the homosexual copulation is symbolic, showing submissiveness to the Alpha male. It could perhaps even be an innate response to over-population so as to keep birth numbers down. These reasons could apply to humans but homosexuality has been observed in people where the population is not dense. Also, violence isn't found only among homosexuals. As a degree holder in psychology you would have been exposed to the data on homosexuality being an innate behavior, just as innate as a heterosexual behavior. Homosexuality is not a disease needing a cure.)
Of course such a study would be rejected by the homosexual community because it puts homosexuality in the light of anti-social behavior. It simply isn't PC to identify the truth." (Why would homosexuals be opposed to the conclusions of qualified scientists derived from the behavior of mice? The behavior observed is the truth, the conclusions you've drawn from it, however, are spurious and a poorly veiled attempt to use science as a vehicle to vent your misconceived views.)
Well, so is the solution Family Planning?, that´s my conclusion, NOT THAT IT´S ANTISOCIAL. Besides, there is homosexuality in ALL TYPE OF CIVILIZATIONS, dense populated or not, and the same with animals that behave like humans and organise in a group, what´s your point?
been there before but CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION!!!!!!! The experiment holds no ecological validity! Im also a Psychology student. To be honest, you have been misled. If i wear polka dot shoes and walk through a puddle, its the shoes at fault. 3rd factor??????pillok
Yeah, I read about that study too. IIRC, it was rats, not mice. And the study was to look at the effects of stress caused by overcrowding. The study did not include "counting homosexual acts" or heterosexual sex, either, by the animals. Violence, food intake, etc. yeah. Sex acts, no.
Stress due to overcrowding was observed to increase aggression and violence, hence the effect of the urbanisation of populations. (ie: one of the factors that affect violent crimes in cities)
Unless you were right down there with a magnifying glass, there is no way to tell if the "mice" involved were of the same sex or not, anyways.
Phphphphpbbbbt!
or maybe more animals/people= what hadanelith said.
and if you keep squishing a large number of animals into a small area their going to get pissed and act violently towards the other inhabitants. isnt that just something everyone should already know??? just saying, i think your waaaaaay off. maybe its time to start looking at a different degree? maybe fake psychology.
you seem pretty good at pulling stupid notions out of your ass and i'm sure if you admitted you know nothing about real world psychology people might hate you less. :)
Nope, it just confirms what many of us have said time and time again; homosexuality is a natural safety valve against over-population.
I'd guess that if the rate of homosexual "behavior" had not increased, the rate of violence would have increased tenfold.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
