I had a friend who had for most of his life considered himself bisexual.

He stated he was equally attracted to men and women, and oftened fantasised about men.

He had to that point never activly experimented with homosexuality however as, as he put it, the opportunity never arose. Still he felt certain that if said oppotunity did arise and he was available, that he would have no difficulty taking advantage of it.

That is until actually kissed another man. He said the stuble on his partners face just hit him and he couldn't get into it.

He realized, that although he had fantasized about men, it was always an ideal, a thought that in his imagination he could conceive but that in reality had no attraction for him.

I am sure there are bisexual men, I just think that the scale is less about actual orientation and more about experience.

Bisexual men for whom one opportunity or another makes itself available likely avail themselves of such opportunities and as such fall on the spectrum. For the majority however, they are likely one or the other, and the stuble or the abscence of it is just somethign that takes them out of the moment and ruins the experience.

I'm sure for women who have kissed a girl and didn't like it a similar story likely applies.

If humanity disappeared tomorrow or 75 years from now, the next clever little monkey would rejoice as they filled the dominate niche on the planet.

We are a product of evolution just as every other animal, and it's foolish to think that evolution wouldn't produce the same trick (tool using, communicative social intelegence)again to fill the niche that humans occupied.

The biggest mistake most people make is thinking of things as man vs. nature. We are nature, as much a part of it as any other creature to crawl forth.

Truth be told, if humans weren't gobbeling up the habitat of our primate cousins, I'd dare say we might get a little competition a bit sooner than we'd like.

The contributions of old persons to society are more limited than the young by the nature of their existance.

An established person in society either holds their position preventing another to move into it (and thusly all behind them to move forward) or they are nolonger producing at all for society and merely live off the largess of their past.

This is ofcourse an oversimplification, much like the question do we need more babies.

And likewise overlooks the crux of the problem.

The problem, as Doug the cartoon character tries to point out is not the growth of humanity but it's inefficient use of resources, resulting in wealthy persons (such as yourself) telling those behind you (the poor third worlders who are the ones with actual positive population growths) that they must stop breeding or they'll kill us all.

Americans do not on average have large numebrs of children. Certainly the Colberts did, and a few others, but by and large the native born population of the US as with all industrialized nations is shrinking.

The reason it's shrinking is that Westerners have other systems beyond family to rely on to ensure health and wellbeing.

They have this because they have a hoard of resources that other developing nations do not have access to.

If you wish to alter population growth, simply cut back your consumption, and encourage global trade so that the third world can lift itself from poverty as the west did last century.

Anything else, simply smacks of eugenics, and keeping the other down, so that those on top can stay there.

As a thought experiment related to thsi subject a psychologist put forth the idea that ones faith might be as intrinsic a part of their base personality as their sexual orientation.

Certainly we all assume you choose to be a believer or not, however is that any different than those who assume you choose to be gay or strait?

Those with faith often describe a situation not disimilar to that of gay people, of feeling drawn to something, often times against their will, and a sense of rightness when they finally surrender to the urge.

If faith is as inborn as sexuality, what should a psychological professional do when confronted with a conflict between these two aspects of a persons personality?

You can say religion is a choice becasue people convert or become atheists all the time, but do they or do they simply stop living a lie about themselves?

When ones sexual orientation becomes a disturbance to their happiness because it conflicts with their faith, what is the proper course. Do you try to change their faith or their orientation? Or do you counsel them to find a peace between the two. How that peace is arrived at is going to be as individual as the persons suffering from this conflict, and there likely is no easy answer.