Gaydar

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Click to expand...

Shucks, I'll bet you say that to all the boys.

There's a red line on my ruler that determines that.

Originally Posted by tiecollector

Click to expand...

So does cancer.....


I have nothing against queers but it certainly shouldn't be presented as something that is normal. There is no way in hell it is normal, though it may occur in nature. I haven't done much research, mainly because I don't care, but it seems to me that true gayness is the result of some sort of hormonal imbalance in the womb. I think a lot of chicks, in particular, pretend to be gay due to some sort of trauma.

As far as gaydar, it is hard to tell sometimes. Lots of tough guys like it in the pooper and aren't all flamers. Flamers are the ones that irk me, they are so annoying to be around more than 5 minutes.

Just the opinion of an arrogant breeder.

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by GoSurface

Click to expand...

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.

Then it is as I feared. The NSA is already after you.

Tiecollector, what do you think of gay, fat Mexican women who make clothes out of old bras?

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

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.

I read about this idea in an article that discussed reasons why some family unit in the animal world seem to be set up like this.

I am well aware that among certain species of animals that live in family groups, only the alpha pair is allowed to breed and that aunts and uncles and siblings may protect the young, thereby ensuring their own genetic continuity in an indirect manner. For instance, year ago I read an interesting book by a German woman about African Dwarf Mongooses that had that kind of family arrangement. I don't know if this is the case among any primate species. 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.

Although I know that contemporary doctrine holds that homosexuality is strictly genetically predetermined, I remain skeptical.

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.

Before the notion that homosexuality was strictly a genetic-biological matter became the established dogma, it was generally believed that it was the result of complex psychological factors. I still think there may be something to this (as does my wife, who has a couple of advanced degrees in the behavioral sciences). Admittedly, some of the older theories were pretty crackpot: For example, a popular book of the 1950s "The Homosexual Matrix" argued that the scenario most likely to turn a boy gay were the combination of a weak or absent father and a domineering, strong-willed mother. Since I never had a father courtesy of WWII and my mother had a will of iron, if that theory had any validity, I should be so gay I'd make Carson Kressly look like a two-fisted, John Wayne-type he-man by comparison!

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

Tiecollector, what do you think of gay, fat Mexican women who make clothes out of old bras?

I would think they make better tacos than burritos.

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

Click to expand...

Then it is as I feared. The NSA is already after you.

I'll just pretend I'm one of my sisters. They'll never know, girlfriend.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Click to expand...

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.



again, I am not a genetisist, but my understanding is that the time frame represented by modern human society is not enough to have really effected any traits developed by evolution - we are genetically identical to our ansestors who lived in small clans and struggled to make fire.

Although I know that contemporary doctrine holds that homosexuality is strictly genetically predetermined, I remain skeptical.

Click to expand...

- 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

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.

Wouldn't it just be easier to produce a sterile male, instead of a "gay" one. XX is female, XY is male, XXY is male, but often sterile, or so I seem to remember reading.

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.

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that a man wakes up one day and wants to suck cock.

Unfortunately, rumor has it there are women who also don't wake up every morning wanting to do this. Clearly evolution screwed up there, no?

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

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.

What I had thought, many gays don't actually engage in crazy ritualistic poop chute escapades and the like.

I would assume most the guys who just come out one day out of the blue have some sort of psychological issue.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

you gays are given way too many perks by society as it is

You mean like dick? Ed, tell the truth, this is your chance to finally stop living a lie.

Originally Posted by Saucemaster

Click to expand...

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.

If there's going to be an expose´ it needs to be on Jenny Jones. I wanna see burly black drill Sgts send Pentagon officials to bootcamp.