putting on evolutionary biology cap In nature the gay monkeyman would probably play the role of helper to the breeders. In wolf packs the non-breeding members help feed and protect the little ones, which has obvious advantages to the group. The stereotypical nurturing nature of gay men would seem to indicate this role.

Sure it does. It's called genetic drift.

OK, but it seems genetic drift would be less likely to explain something that appears to be common through many cultures and through many histories?

I think that's Jung Collective Unconscious at work there ...

Not necessarily. It just depends on whether the natural selection is strong enough to overcome the random genetic drift. There are all kinds of mutations that are common throughout many cultures and histories that arose as a result of genetic drift.

I'm not saying homosexuality <i>isn't</i> a result of natural selection. I don't know. I'm just presenting alternative options.

Here's one idea of how this might coincide. If it seems far-fetched, then hey, it's just an idea. :)

There's some evidence in this this Nature article that suggests that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be homosexual. If this is true, then homosexuality genes, originally created through genetic drift, could still be passed on by heterosexual siblings.

It does sound pretty far-fetched, but is a neat idea!

That same article also says that you can tell whether or not someone is a lesbian by the relative lengths of their index and ring fingers. I know, it sounds like total BS, but apparently there's some evidence for it.

Hmmm, with hands like that you'd also be able to throw a softball pretty well.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So lesbians have a couple of longer fingers than straight women? There's a joke in this somewhere...

Wow. Tough room.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Oh yeah, untill someone can give me a solid reason to say gays shouldn't marry that isn't a religious or emotional thing, I say let 'em marry.

I thought it was funny.

I went to a debate between Ben Stein and Al Franken last night (get it? Franken-Stein! Get it? HAHAHAHAHA!)

Er, anyway, Al Franken was mocking the "Because marriage is between a man and a woman" argument. He said it wasn't a reason at all, just a restatement of what you believe.

Slang assures me that the mega post is on its way... we shall see.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yeah, and as much as I like slang, I think he may have trouble with this. This board is really tough on statistics for example. If they are leaning, it's going to be pointed out. And pretty much all stats are. Same goes for any studies he links. Still, if he's putting this much effort into it, it should be an interesting read. Assuming, of course, it's not all based off stuff Rush said... ;)

Don't think it will be ... I've seen some of the preliminary work.