You are equating procreation with survival. More is not neccessarily better.
Talk to the animals. Talk to the millions of salmon that never make it back upstream to spawn. Talk to all the tadpoles that never become frogs. Talk to the bunnies in the wild where there are still coyotes. There is a reason that humans have one baby at a time (in almost all cases). Something during our evolution decided that one at a time was enough. That having a baby that needs huge amounts of attention and care in the first few years works for us. These babies need to grow up enough to procreate. That means they need to live 15 years or so, at least, to reproduce. How is a parent at 15 going to care for a young child? An extended family sure makes it easier. Protection. Shared hunting. Passing on of successful behaviors. This family structure is one of the survival traits that helped us. Singles and outcasts don't last long, in a generational sense. And intra-family fights hurt the whole group. If two top males are taken out of commision fighting each other, everyone in the group suffers. So it is more than possible that non-reproductive (and therefore non-threatening and non-fighting) males might be welcome in a group. And that those families that produce some might have a better chance at survival than those who produce all alpha-male types. I'm not stuck on this theory. I'm just making it up. But if it turns out that gay is Nature-based, then I'd love to know why. On 3/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ok, so lets try a big experiment. > > 1. all the straight people in the world become gay, and never have > heterosexual intercourse EVER again. what happens? no more humans. > > 2. lets run this back, and have all the gay people in the world ONLY > have hetersexual intercourse EVER again. what happens? humans > forever. > > hmmm... scratches head. > > tw > > On 3/13/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tony, > > > > Think about it, for most of our past, humans have been in family and > > clan groups. Even if you don't directly pass along your genes, they > > get passed along by your sisters, brothers, > > or cousins. Therefore there's little difference as long as those genes > > are passed along. > > > > larry > > > > On 3/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > hmmmm i dont know, jerry :) > > > its got to be an anomaly. how could it not be? > > > based on gear alone. the two just dont fit... hedonistically > > > its GREAT for those people, but WHOLLY worthless > > > for procreation, surviving and passing on genes, etc. > > > > > > tw > > > > > > On 3/13/06, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't know, Tony. Recorded history has evidence that this has been > > > > going on a long time. Wouldn't you think it would die out if it was > > > > such an anomaly? It could be an anomaly, or it could be that this very > > > > trait allowed man to rise up on his hind legs and become the master of > > > > his surroundings. > > > > > > > > On 3/13/06, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > dost thou not agree that they are an anomaly? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199904 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
