I agree wholeheartedly. In an accepting family, the t-shirt would have been considered funny, not rude or embarrassing. I think it's really sad that this mom is so blind as to who her son is...and that he never felt he could let her in on this part of himself.

Being surprised doesn't make you a homophobe. Being disappointed does. And, if his parents were going to make a big scene, that's not an expression of "a little" disappointment.

I would like my first born to be gay/bisexual/lesbian. It means that he or she would have once less thing to be close minded to. I would have absolutely NO problem if all the kids I ever have are all gay. What's the big deal? They'll have boyfriends or girlfriends. Why should a parent care which?

Actually you'd have much better luck with a 3rd or 4th born son being gay (or at least bisexual). There's a scientific reason for this. A woman's antibodies try to attack a male fetus, seeing it as a foreign object, during pregnancy. Each male after that has more feminine characteristics, as it has become better adapting. So, the percentage of chance that the son will be gay increases with each son you have.

A woman's antibodies do not attack a FETUS. That's stupid and impossible - everything in the woman's body goes toward nurturing and PROTECTING the fetus. Second, I doubt a woman possesses antibodies against male SPERM (as you were trying to say I suspect), because an antibody is specific to one molecule and one substance and one substance only. The problem is that the ****** is highly acidic, and there are general macrophages which attack the sperm as foreign substances. A fetus is not a foreign object, it's half of the maternal DNA packaged in protective cells that is implanted in the uterine lining. Second, there is no way, that is true, because the DNA inside a sperm cell are well-protected inside a protein capsid - if not, the cell would be lysed and the DNA would leak out into the extracellular fluid and the sperm would never fertilize the egg. The only adaptive mechanisms a sperm can have is a stronger flagellum (the tail that propels it), and better metabolism of sugar for energy. Feminine DNA has no impact. Third, what's to say that, if what you said was actually true, that feminine characteristics as an adaptive mechanism equate to homosexuality?

#60 I was totally with you until that last sentence.. smh

I read in a scientific medical journal that the reason for the higher percent chance of the male being homosexual is somewhere along those lines. As for the female characteristics I meant chiefly the brain, as most females are attracted to males so a male with more female characteristics would most likely be attracted to his own sex.

Also, what do you mean that the fetuses (feti?) would be adapting???? they are DIFFERENT beings that aren't direct descendants. they can't evolve...that's not the way it works...

I would like to add a little clarification here. The woman's body WILL reject the fetus if it weren't for the placenta and the mother's blood never entering the fetus. The fetus is a parasite. Y'all just sound like a bunch of ******* idiots who tried to look shit up on the internet and failed. STFU and go learn something.

SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL. OP'S SON PWN3D YOU ALL HARD!! SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL. OP'S SON PWN3D YOU ALL HARD!! SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL. OP'S SON PWN3D YOU ALL HARD!! SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL. OP'S SON PWN3D YOU ALL HARD!! SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL. OP'S SON PWN3D YOU ALL HARD!! SUCCESSFUL TROLL IS SUCCESSFUL. OP'S SON PWN3D YOU ALL HARD!!

@108: Yes, a female's body does attack a fetus. Not only that, but the ****** is acidic and is responsible for killing most of the sperm. Thanks to proving to everyone you never took 10th grade science.