I remember debating on Reddits ask a conservative that if they created a new definition it would not have received the same vitriol, the person ceded the point and then immediately said isn’t it more important to just let it happen so “society can progress”? My reply was, only if we can redefine cardiac to include the asshole and have diarrhea listed as a heart attack.
There was this gay couple I talked to once and they were angry to the point of unhinged rage when I told them they were biological dead-ends if they continued the gay relationship because they could not have a child without outside interference.
They can never have a child. Even if one does conceive a child it will not have the genetics of both “parents”. That’s why gay couples with money pay for two surrogates one for each, which is even more of a joke because if one is a boy and the other is a girl they could breed with each other without any risk of inbreeding, despite being “siblings”. The bastardization of medical terms for convenience is one of the worst frauds perpetrated on the human populace.
Like do they physically fuck the surrogate, or do they just give over their sperm, and the “scientists” impregnate the woman??
The whole idea of a biologically capable and functional person choosing to have a baby in this way, simply to avoid fucking a member of the opposite sex is so bizarre to me that I just… Can’t even.
Same with lesbians who get a “sperm donor”…
Just suck it up and have sex with the biological father/mother of your child, freakazoids… 🙄
If you want a baby, put aside your goddamn proclivities, at least for the time it takes you to “make babby” and save us all this ridiculous bullshit to convenience you… Sheesh.
But then I suppose, for me… The idea of actively being that opposed to “doing it” with a member of the opposite sex is something that I just… Don’t get.
It’s a hard stretch to think that (most) lesbians, at least, find the idea quite as repulsive as, say, I find the idea of (me) fucking a bloke, but anyway…
There’s a reason homosexuality is a biological dead-end, as you say…
"Gay marriage" is strictly a concession to gay activists which, at best, confers some economic advantages. Homos are already rolling in a ton of social capital, so they don't need it to feel accepted by the wider society.
I HOPE the Catholics and the more conservative Protestant denominations aren't trying to sanctify anything like "gay marriage." I think some of the more heretical sects, like the Unitarians, do.
Most gay men care nothing for marriage, since promiscuity is the way they roll, being men.
Lesbians want children because they can't escape their femaleness, no matter how much some of them may love pegging their partners with plastic penises.
Not so fast. If we CHANGE the definition of words, we can do all sorts of crazy things.
I remember debating on Reddits ask a conservative that if they created a new definition it would not have received the same vitriol, the person ceded the point and then immediately said isn’t it more important to just let it happen so “society can progress”? My reply was, only if we can redefine cardiac to include the asshole and have diarrhea listed as a heart attack.
There was this gay couple I talked to once and they were angry to the point of unhinged rage when I told them they were biological dead-ends if they continued the gay relationship because they could not have a child without outside interference.
They can never have a child. Even if one does conceive a child it will not have the genetics of both “parents”. That’s why gay couples with money pay for two surrogates one for each, which is even more of a joke because if one is a boy and the other is a girl they could breed with each other without any risk of inbreeding, despite being “siblings”. The bastardization of medical terms for convenience is one of the worst frauds perpetrated on the human populace.
Holy shit I had never thought about that fact before. It'd be no different from two random strangers.
I always wondered about the “surrogate” thing…
Like do they physically fuck the surrogate, or do they just give over their sperm, and the “scientists” impregnate the woman??
The whole idea of a biologically capable and functional person choosing to have a baby in this way, simply to avoid fucking a member of the opposite sex is so bizarre to me that I just… Can’t even.
Same with lesbians who get a “sperm donor”…
Just suck it up and have sex with the biological father/mother of your child, freakazoids… 🙄
If you want a baby, put aside your goddamn proclivities, at least for the time it takes you to “make babby” and save us all this ridiculous bullshit to convenience you… Sheesh.
But then I suppose, for me… The idea of actively being that opposed to “doing it” with a member of the opposite sex is something that I just… Don’t get.
It’s a hard stretch to think that (most) lesbians, at least, find the idea quite as repulsive as, say, I find the idea of (me) fucking a bloke, but anyway…
There’s a reason homosexuality is a biological dead-end, as you say…
"Gay marriage" is strictly a concession to gay activists which, at best, confers some economic advantages. Homos are already rolling in a ton of social capital, so they don't need it to feel accepted by the wider society.
I HOPE the Catholics and the more conservative Protestant denominations aren't trying to sanctify anything like "gay marriage." I think some of the more heretical sects, like the Unitarians, do.
Most gay men care nothing for marriage, since promiscuity is the way they roll, being men.
Lesbians want children because they can't escape their femaleness, no matter how much some of them may love pegging their partners with plastic penises.