Lady Savage's Grumpy Chronicles

[bluebottle]

uh, i met a boy what tyurned out to be a girl. plus homos like me in general. but i met jon, er, julie, and when i met him she had whiskers and all, and a fat round ass. i heard tell of an enlarged clit, or a tiny penis. she was my bfff. ain't no thang. i got suspicious when she waddled up the stairs to my apt. pretending to be a man. ah well.

[Chimneyfish]

It is in our DNA, from the time we slither out of our mom.

I'm no scientist but I don't think that could be right. If it was a part of somebody's DNA then it wouldn't have been able to continue to reproduce itself in new generations so well. Evolution has pretty much just been a process of weeding out the genes that prevent us from staying alive and reproducing, so any maladaptive mutation that makes people much less likely to have children and reproduce their genes would never have been able to survive natural selection.

[peetie44]

It is in our DNA, from the time we slither out of our mom.

I'm no scientist but I don't think that could be right. If it was a part of somebody's DNA then it wouldn't have been able to continue to reproduce itself in new generations so well. Evolution has pretty much just been a process of weeding out the genes that prevent us from staying alive and reproducing, so any maladaptive mutation that makes people much less likely to have children and reproduce their genes would never have been able to survive natural selection.

Hell..."maladaptive mutation"...??!? That covers half the swingin' dicks on this board -- me included -- and the rest of 'em just pretend they somewhat normal.

[Chimneyfish]

I meant it in the biological sense. Every trait originated as a mutation.

[peetie44]

I meant it in the biological sense. Every trait originated as a mutation.

Maybe you could somehow(?) use this on your sociology forum to defend your "all women are just 6 Zimas (or whatever it was) away from being bi-sexual" theorem; which I think can and will be eventually proven.

[Heid]

...Rub up against some girl's soft breasts...

Talk more about this...

[Wingman]

i didn't choose to be hetero. and that would be the easy choice. so yeah, i'm of the opinion it's not a choice.

clearly homosexuality isn't maladaptive, or we'd no longer have it. lots of queers have kids. there may be an evolutionary element, though. there is some evidence that women who are stressed during childbirth are more likely to have homosexual male children. so if resources are scarce, fewer grandkids to feed. you have to remember we don't evolve as individuals, but as a group, us humans.

[Chimneyfish]

i didn't choose to be hetero. and that would be the easy choice. so yeah, i'm of the opinion it's not a choice.

I don't think that becoming a homosexual is always a choice. I just think it's biologically impossible for a gay gene to exist. Using an example of one trait that you didn't choose doesn't prove that a certain separate gene must therefore exist.

clearly homosexuality isn't maladaptive, or we'd no longer have it.

That's kind of my point just expressed in different terms. Here's another way to put it: Clearly homosexuality isn't genetic or it would necessarily be maladaptive. Having the gay gene would undoubtedly lower the chances of reproducing your DNA by having children. If it were a maladaptive gene then we'd no longer have it- especially not such a high frequency.

I agree that being gay isn't a maladaptive gene because being gay isn't genetic.

lots of queers have kids.

Do you really mean "lots" as in lots? Or do you just mean "lots" as in "not none"? If it's the former then I disagree that a lot of gay people are having children. In fact, I think it'd be safe to say that the majority of them never reproduce. But regardless, I don't think there's any denying that the existence of a gay gene would mean that having this gene lowers the likelihood of the person reproducing to at least some degree. This would mean that a gene is somehow thriving despite the fact that, which each generation, it gradually reduces the chance that it will be reproduced. I don't see how that is possible.

there is some evidence that women who are stressed during childbirth are more likely to have homosexual male children. so if resources are scarce, fewer grandkids to feed. you have to remember we don't evolve as individuals, but as a group, us humans.

Wouldn't the conditions of childbirth be evidence of homosexuality being based on environmental factors instead of genetic factors? A mother becoming stressed doesn't change the DNA code that she passes on to her child.

And if you acknowledge that a gay gene would result in fewer grandkids then I'm not clear on how you can also believe that a gay gene could sustainably reproduce itself.

[Resident Asshole]

It's of interest to note that the vast majority of homos were sexually abused when young. The ones that REALLY piss me off though are the guys who say they are gay and then have sex with hot chicks who hang out with them because they "feel safe". Fucking homos getting my action, I'll have none of that!

[Mayhems]

The Jews.

[Screwball]

9/11

[BeerMakesMeSmart]

Fucking homos getting my action, I'll have none of that!

Yeah, those homos are taking all of our womens! The fags, too! amiright!

[ThirstyDrunk]

Yer all gay

[DeeboCools]

So, what wingman said. Also,

There's one theory called "the gay uncle theory" that theorizes why homosexuality didn't "die out" seeing as how homo's need to have hetero sex to produce children. The theory is that having more adults around a child increases it's survival rate. So homosexual aunts/uncles who don't have to take care of their own children take care of their brothers and sisters children, increasing the survival rates of their family, who can possibly pass on "gay genes" to the next generation.

I have no problem with homosexuality, but I think it's important to note that the gay lisping voice that we stereotype homo men having, is an entirely American phenomenon. So is "girlie handwriting", but that's another discussion.

[The Limey]

increasing the survival rates of their family, who can possibly pass on "gay genes" to the next generation.

Don't make sense. They'd die out eventually, like the "Shakers". I don't think it's nature or nurture but a complex combination of both. Early experiences will be a big factor, children that are adopted by gays are 12 times more likely to be gay apparently, they see a lifestyle as they grow up and are conditioned to replicate. I know a guy who swears he was born gay, but he's just a natural attention seeking drama queen, he'd have his dick chopped off just to make a point (that no one else actually gives a shit about) and then change his mind (when he realises this).

Truth is we all have a brew of male and female hormones so there are bound to be imbalances, there i said it, gays are hormonally imbalanced (half-joke). This and our ability to use our sexuality for non-procreative 'entertainment' (good and bad) makes for a varied sexual animal.

I think that the vagina or yoni represents spiritual infinity, and many men fear this so seek the finite materialistic limitations of the phallus. A good friend of mine who freely admits to experimenting (he often says "don't knock it until you have at least tried it") tells me he was petrified of the energy of the female, and mistakenly thought this meant he might be gay, it turns out that he wasn't.