Chimpy Chompy on 5/8/2010 at 09:40
Quote Posted by PeeperStorm
Oh, and the Californians who voted for Prop 8 (the majority of them you'll recall) will now resent homosexuals even more. Huzzah!
Yeah while I think this is good news, hasn't gay marriage basically lost every popular vote in the US? So the fight against the HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA is far from over - they've got the whole "gubmint overturning democracy" angle now.
(I'm not sure what the agenda is mind you but I think it involves John Barrowman turning all straight guys).
Vivian on 5/8/2010 at 09:42
BARROWMAN WIN THREAD
Inline Image:
http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,johnbarrow.jpgSulphur on 5/8/2010 at 10:02
*swoon*
Torchwood Season Four: California Dreamin'
DDL on 5/8/2010 at 10:28
Quote Posted by theBlackman
If, as some say, such behaviour is a fault in the genetic structure. It's funny. If they do marry they are unlikely to produce offspring, which leads one to think that the genetic difference might be deleted from the gene pool.
True some such marry a so-called normal male or female and do reproduce. If they marry each other and hold to the norm they are unlikely to reproduce, thus relieving the future homophobes of having to worry about it. ;)
Yes and no: there is certainly evidence to suggest genetic elements are involved in homosexuality (science speak for 'kinda possibly maybe a little bit sometimes if you disregard the outliers and stuff'), but the current rationale is that, back in our primitive days, gay adults would help their family unit survive, with hunting, gathering, etc, while not adding their own children to the unit: so while they didn't pass on their genes directly, by contributing their efforts to the family, they increased the chances of all the breeding peeps successfully bringing up children, and since these children were related to the gay peeps (same family unit) the genes get passed on that way.
Basically your family did better if it was "a little bit gay".
Course that doesn't exactly hold up in modern conditions, but then genetics isn't the whole story anyway.
CCCToad on 5/8/2010 at 12:38
Quote Posted by DDL
Yes and no: there is certainly evidence to suggest genetic elements are involved in homosexuality (science speak for 'kinda possibly maybe a little bit sometimes if you disregard the outliers and stuff'), but the current rationale is that, back in our primitive days, gay adults would help their family unit survive, with hunting, gathering, etc, while not adding their own children to the unit: so while they didn't pass on their genes directly, by contributing their efforts to the family, they increased the chances of all the breeding peeps successfully bringing up children, and since these children were related to the gay peeps (same family unit) the genes get passed on that way.
Couldn't the same be said about omega males?
DDL on 5/8/2010 at 13:47
Well..the concept of omega male would only really apply if primitive humans had the same social hierarchy as wolfpacks or giant elk, which seems unlikely. Even in primate groupings with a clear "alpha male" type, that simply means they mate more often, not "to the exclusion of all other males".
So...no, not really.
Starrfall on 5/8/2010 at 15:09
Quote Posted by PeeperStorm
Oh, and the Californians who voted for Prop 8 (the majority of them you'll recall) will now resent homosexuals even more. Huzzah!
52% of voters isn't a majority of Californians, just a majority of voters. The difference matters because younger voters tend to be in favor of gay marriage, and in the last two years we've added thousands of young voters to the rolls and watched thousands of old voters die off. And this will only continue to happen.
Add that to that fact that those who voted for prop 8
didn't actually end gay marriage in California, the fact that at least some of them have become annoyed at the fact that prop 8 was heavily bankrolled by douchy out-of-state mormons, and the fact that it's becoming increasingly clear that gay marriage will be recognized in the relatively near future even if it ends up losing now (and so anyone opposed is going to be on the wrong side in the history books), and the resentment factor in California is going to be a lot less than you'd expect.
Rug Burn Junky on 5/8/2010 at 17:34
Quote Posted by Starrfall
prop 8 was heavily bankrolled by douchy out-of-state mormons
That's really my favorite part of the whole thing. Because they really believe in the sanctity of marriage.
Marriage should be between a man and a woman
and another woman
and another woman
and her sister
and a 15 year old girl
all wearing magic underwear.
