NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, a thought just struck me!
Consider the following argument:

1. Christian fundamentalists are homophobic;

2. Darwinists consider one of life's most important purposes to be reproducing to maintain the population;

3. Homosexuals cannot reproduce (among themselves).

Therefore, Christian fundamentalists essentially believe in the same thing as Darwinists! :D

Hey, a thought just struck me!
Consider the following argument:

1. Christian fundamentalists are homophobic;

2. Darwinists consider one of life's most important purposes to be reproducing to maintain the population;

3. Homosexuals cannot reproduce (among themselves).

Therefore, Christian fundamentalists essentially believe in the same thing as Darwinists! :D

Nice... except that Dawin didn't measure evolutionary success by 'how many young you have' but by 'how many young you have that survive to breeding age'. Also, it's logical that in social animals, the definition expands to 'how many animals the tribe as a whole can raise to breeding age'.

In nature, homosexual individuals can raise young while not taking up extra resources by having their own young.

I wish I'd saved my R-factor essay so I could just copy and paste it here, but I can give you the gist of it quickly enough.

Mammals' reproductive strategy is high parental care, low number of young. Humans maximize this, which is why almost all of us survive to breeding age. So long as homosexuality remains in the minority, adding one man to all existing marraiges would provide optimal care from a darwinian standpoint (since the gestation period is the primary limiting factor)- more money (care) and no real loss of reproductivity.

Of course, since women outnumber men (but are not fertile for as much of their life as men are), the percentages need to be juggled a bit, but the basic theory has some merit. It's all moot since most people are happy with two or three kids, but it explains a possible darwinian advantage to homosexuality.