my thoughts are all over the place this morning. Here's a sample:
Maybe a monarchy is better than a democracy. Eight years is not enough to fix what was messed up in a previous eight years. If a monarch is bad, there's a revolution. In a two-party democracy there's complacency, because "party B" will soon be elected to replace "party A", and then "party B" will attempt to undo what "party A" did during their term. Unfortunately, when the two parties become as polarized as the past half century in the US, the entire term is spent un-doing, instead of doing. We're at a standstill.
Here's something I've planned one day to write a term paper on, maybe getting some recognition for, but honestly it's too important to wait for that day when I finally get around to writing it. So here it is, thrown out to the scientific community to study and research: First think of Prodigal Summer, in which Barbara Kingsolver makes an example of coyotes' method of population control: when they're hunted vigorously, they produce large litters. When they are not hunted, they have single births or twins. Just enough to keep the species from becoming too numerous or too few. It's not something the coyotes plan, it just is.
I'm sure if there were research into the subject, natural population control in other species will be discovered.
My point is, homosexuality in humans is also a natural population control. If one were to test siblings, some of which are hetero and some not, I suspect the homosexual sibling would be the more fertile.