> Yes, there is a chicken-egg issue. However, if one takes an evolutionary
> perspective, for trait to be that persistant (2-8% of the population,
> depending on who's opinion you ask) and that consistant (throughout
> human history)... there must be an evolutionary advantage.
Imagine a gay praying mantis. It would probably live longer than hetero mantises
that lose their heads while copulating. Naturally long life does not equate to
the ability to contribute to mantis society, but it does in human society. So,
human gays have more life to contribute culturally. That could explain the
success of gays in human culture.
Or, consider the possibility of a gay male black widow spider. Again, since
insects don't rely on cultural contributions from individuals, a gay male black
widow would not impact the spider world. But a gay male human *can* contribute,
and that makes all the difference. Men who manage to escape the straight world
have more time and energy to devote to the promulgation of their life style and
culture. This explains why gays succeed in primate societies. They have more
resources to devote to defining and creating a segment of their species that
often benefits the species at large.
I've heard that ancient Roman legions relied upon gay warriors who bonded in
fighting units. Two gay Roman centurions would fight back-to-back, defending
each other against attack. Straight armies could not effectively compete against
such cohesively unified tactics.
In today's world, a gay couple can outwit, out-fight, and out-maneuver any
straight male. Consequently, gay culture continues to thrive.
"An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT