tiecollector
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,790
- Reaction score
- 25
Shucks, I'll bet you say that to all the boys.
There's a red line on my ruler that determines that.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Shucks, I'll bet you say that to all the boys.
So does cancer.....
Use of terms like "inauspicious", with its educated and slyly Shakespearean undertones, clearly mark you for deportation to the defabulation zone. I suggest cultivating alternatives, like "totally not cool", or "lame". Adding "brah" after any of these will also help, as it will convince people that while you may very well be gay, you're probably not okay with it, which, really, is all they ask.
The use of "Totally not cool"and "Lame" are still not going to hide the fact that I have XXX number gigs of man-love movies on my computer, brah.
that is just one argument as to the possible genetic benifits of homosexuality - basically the idea is that if you have 5 siblings, and one of them doesn't breed, you have an additional adult working to help feed and take care of the kids.
Tiecollector, what do you think of gay, fat Mexican women who make clothes out of old bras?
Then it is as I feared. The NSA is already after you.
I certainly don't know of any human society at any stage of development wherein the hypothetical "gay uncle" would have conferred a survival benefit, thus ensuring the transmission of a possibly recessive "gay" gene or genetic complex. In any event, in contemporary human society, any biological advantages of the "gay" gene(s) would have been lost long ago, and one would assume under Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection that it would have been bred out of the gene pool.
- I honestly don't knwo. I think that the studies that link it to womb enviroment are very interesting, but I wouldn't rule out any other possiblity.Although I know that contemporary doctrine holds that homosexuality is strictly genetically predetermined, I remain skeptical.
I find it hard to believe that a man wakes up one day and wants to suck cock. I am convinced that those people who "become" gay were gay to begin with. but that is a personal belief.It is frequently argued that no-one would "choose" to be gay, but in point of fact, it is not uncommon for individuals who have seemingly functioned in the heterosexual world--had long-term marriages, had children, etc.--to suddenly throw it over and "come out" as gays. One could comprehend this in the past when gays had to "closet" themselves to avoid stigma and persecution, but these events are not uncommon in the present era and in liberal jurisdicitions where there would be far fewer deterrents to proclaiming oneself gay. The father of John Walker Lind ("Taliban John") is a good case in point. I have known of a couple of similar cases among men I've known personally.
not at all - evolution deals with genes, not individuals. if an argument can be made than having a gay family member promotes the genes (for instance, having a gay uncle means that every family has an additional adult male giving support) then it in no way contridicts darwinism.
I find it hard to believe that a man wakes up one day and wants to suck cock. I am convinced that those people who "become" gay were gay to begin with. but that is a personal belief.
So, actually, since the military was thinking of building a "gay bomb" for a while, shouldn't they already have this researched? I mean, how else would they know whether the gay bomb worked? I think it's time for the Pentagon to come clean.