Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
And on the gay marriage thing: ran across this and it should make most good people out there sad. Half of it is purely not surprising. 14 is the only one who doesn't come across as completely stupid.
I don't get the "nature" argument for not supporting gay marriage. If you look at it from a strictly biological perspective, marriage, in general, is a terrible idea because it limits genetic diversity.
So the unexpected car repair came in under budget but still $1,300 dollars. The hubby and I sat down with the summer "camp" plans for the kids this weekend and I nearly cried. There are times that I wonder why I work. Summer is going to average $300 dollars a week for the two of them. There are times I think about getting a job in the school cafeteria or something so I could be on their schedule.
i actually had tears in my eyes the other day looking into this. it is soooo out of control.
It's actually such a double edged sword because I'm seriously a better Mom when I work and I know there is lower staff turnover for the younger kids when they make a decent living. The camps this summer are the killers. Day camp with anything other than video games all day runs 300-400 dollars a week.
And on the gay marriage thing: ran across this and it should make most good people out there sad. Half of it is purely not surprising. 14 is the only one who doesn't come across as completely stupid.
I don't get the "nature" argument for not supporting gay marriage. If you look at it from a strictly biological perspective, marriage, in general, is a terrible idea because it limits genetic diversity.
The anthropologist in me has to speak up here, sorry, but I do believe that most around here will find this rather interesting:
Marriage in our societies actually serves as a an evolutionary advantage for our species. We are K selective reproductive species, as opposed to r selective, meaning that we reproduce slowly- one offspring at a time as opposed to litters- and it takes our young a very long time to mature, opposed to rapid development as seen in r selective species (fish, cats, yada yada). It takes so much time and energy for a female to carry the offspring and also for the offspring to mature, that it is absolutely necessary for the female to have assistance while pregnant and also in rearing/caring for the baby (sometimes of course babies). Early in our evolutionary history, thousands of years ago, of course much of our offspring did not survive- for various reasons of course- but one predominate reason was a lack of agreed commitment between males/females in bringing up offspring together. Biological anthropologists found that a shift in cultural constructs occurred, a shift toward longer, more stable, somewhat more sedentary relationships between reproducing partners (and also congruently smaller bands of "people" as well, as this is thought to be the beginning of a more modern homo sapien) and a population boom resulted in something akin to marriage, or at least an understanding that men had to help with the child-rearing responsibilities if he wanted to see his offspring survive. Biological diversity only occurs if there are healthy, plentiful babies being cared for and marriage, or at least a commitment to this goal, are the only way K selective species survive. Most K selective species are endangered now- elephants for example- but that is more so the result of human expansion into their habitats and of course, poaching. At one time though in this planet's past, K species far outnumbered r species (except for bacteria of course) and scientists from all schools attribute this to a willingness of the herd, of the reproductive partners, to help protect the offspring.
If anything, allowing gays the right to marriage, would benefit our society a great deal, in that any commitment to raising children together helps our species thrive. Really, at this point in our evolution, the only thing that would allow more genetic diversity, would be more interracial reproduction. That is a whole 'nother discussion and I have bored everyone enough now.
I don't get the "nature" argument for not supporting gay marriage. If you look at it from a strictly biological perspective, marriage, in general, is a terrible idea because it limits genetic diversity.
The anthropologist in me has to speak up here, sorry, but I do believe that most around here will find this rather interesting:
Marriage in our societies actually serves as a an evolutionary advantage for our species. We are K selective reproductive species, as opposed to r selective, meaning that we reproduce slowly- one offspring at a time as opposed to litters- and it takes our young a very long time to mature, opposed to rapid development as seen in r selective species (fish, cats, yada yada). It takes so much time and energy for a female to carry the offspring and also for the offspring to mature, that it is absolutely necessary for the female to have assistance while pregnant and also in rearing/caring for the baby (sometimes of course babies). Early in our evolutionary history, thousands of years ago, of course much of our offspring did not survive- for various reasons of course- but one predominate reason was a lack of agreed commitment between males/females in bringing up offspring together. Biological anthropologists found that a shift in cultural constructs occurred, a shift toward longer, more stable, somewhat more sedentary relationships between reproducing partners (and also congruently smaller bands of "people" as well, as this is thought to be the beginning of a more modern homo sapien) and a population boom resulted in something akin to marriage, or at least an understanding that men had to help with the child-rearing responsibilities if he wanted to see his offspring survive. Biological diversity only occurs if there are healthy, plentiful babies being cared for and marriage, or at least a commitment to this goal, are the only way K selective species survive. Most K selective species are endangered now- elephants for example- but that is more so the result of human expansion into their habitats and of course, poaching. At one time though in this planet's past, K species far outnumbered r species (except for bacteria of course) and scientists from all schools attribute this to a willingness of the herd, of the reproductive partners, to help protect the offspring.
If anything, allowing gays the right to marriage, would benefit our society a great deal, in that any commitment to raising children together helps our species thrive. Really, at this point in our evolution, the only thing that would allow more genetic diversity, would be more interracial reproduction. That is a whole 'nother discussion and I have bored everyone enough now.
I don't get the "nature" argument for not supporting gay marriage. If you look at it from a strictly biological perspective, marriage, in general, is a terrible idea because it limits genetic diversity.
The anthropologist in me has to speak up here, sorry, but I do believe that most around here will find this rather interesting:
Marriage in our societies actually serves as a an evolutionary advantage for our species. We are K selective reproductive species, as opposed to r selective, meaning that we reproduce slowly- one offspring at a time as opposed to litters- and it takes our young a very long time to mature, opposed to rapid development as seen in r selective species (fish, cats, yada yada). It takes so much time and energy for a female to carry the offspring and also for the offspring to mature, that it is absolutely necessary for the female to have assistance while pregnant and also in rearing/caring for the baby (sometimes of course babies). Early in our evolutionary history, thousands of years ago, of course much of our offspring did not survive- for various reasons of course- but one predominate reason was a lack of agreed commitment between males/females in bringing up offspring together. Biological anthropologists found that a shift in cultural constructs occurred, a shift toward longer, more stable, somewhat more sedentary relationships between reproducing partners (and also congruently smaller bands of "people" as well, as this is thought to be the beginning of a more modern homo sapien) and a population boom resulted in something akin to marriage, or at least an understanding that men had to help with the child-rearing responsibilities if he wanted to see his offspring survive. Biological diversity only occurs if there are healthy, plentiful babies being cared for and marriage, or at least a commitment to this goal, are the only way K selective species survive. Most K selective species are endangered now- elephants for example- but that is more so the result of human expansion into their habitats and of course, poaching. At one time though in this planet's past, K species far outnumbered r species (except for bacteria of course) and scientists from all schools attribute this to a willingness of the herd, of the reproductive partners, to help protect the offspring.
If anything, allowing gays the right to marriage, would benefit our society a great deal, in that any commitment to raising children together helps our species thrive. Really, at this point in our evolution, the only thing that would allow more genetic diversity, would be more interracial reproduction. That is a whole 'nother discussion and I have bored everyone enough now.
Welcome back Bonz, but I do not find it strange that your presence being requested in the Orgy thread and then you showing up, like it was the quacking Bonzai Bat Signal.
I've known the feeling. Lucky now I have a steady farmer.
You lucky dog you! Everything around here is either nonexistant or bunk smh But I'll be in Nashville tomorrow so hopefully I stumble across somethin good lol