I'm referring to the point he is making not the actual idea of hating gays...
Are gay folks getting too much attention?
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
- Status
The topic is "Are gay folks getting too much attention?". They get attention because so many care about what others are doing. If no one cared they were gay, their wouldn't be so much attention on gay people.
I have no idea if Newton was not preoccupied by sex or a "random gay" or if the history of Greek thinking that came before for the west was or wasn't written by individuals who had no kids, liked samesex sex or had kids (or combinations of those) however I don't believe the gene is an ultimate in propagation of humans, do you?
Obviously no kids is a problem for a species but at 7.5 billion and growing that is probably covered!
No kids = doesn't matter?
Are you serious?
My goodness.
If a lesbian uses a sperm donor the child is the sperm donor's child lmao. The other lesbian has nothing to do with it.
Same with a gay couple, if there's a woman involved then that woman is the mother. You don't magically make a baby by mixing sperm and faeces.
This is basic logistics of the situation.
How does a "female egg" and a "male sperm" equate to DNA of homosex?
Female egg and a male sperm is heterosex for your information.
Really? Can you explain how it's "very easy" for a homosexual couple to reproduce.
Firstly, it can simply never be a couple for starters, it has to be a third party involved because they need an opposite sex host/donor.
But then it cant be a three way because one of the guys will have to accept that he's simply not related to the child. Unless you can somehow magically merge two sperms together and fertilise one egg with it.
If two guys have sex with a woman it doesn't mean both dudes are the father.
There is research going on with regards to producing a child with DNA from only men or only woman. But even if it does ever happen, the offspring will NOT be the result of any sort of "sexuality", the baby will be the result of an artificial medical procedure, it's not "reproduction" and they are two entirely different causes. It's certainly not easy.
"Reproduction" is a very specific process. If you're going through some seriously advanced medical intervention to make an offspring from PURE male/male or female/female dna then it's not reproduction any more.
Heck its difficult for some heterosex couples to concieve! So I clearly and honestly don't understand it the same way as you do.
Last edited:
As a helpful post though.
Asim I have no idea if you're autistic or just spend too much time on the internet.
But reality isn't defined by a set of hilariously arbitrary rules you make up.
Also and sorry to destroy mummy and daddies birds and the bees speech but having a baby doesn't require mummy and daddy to love each other very much.
Asim I have no idea if you're autistic or just spend too much time on the internet.
But reality isn't defined by a set of hilariously arbitrary rules you make up.
Also and sorry to destroy mummy and daddies birds and the bees speech but having a baby doesn't require mummy and daddy to love each other very much.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
U wot m8?How does a "female egg" and a "male sperm" equate to DNA of homosex?
Female egg and a male sperm is heterosex for your information.
Fertilizing an egg with a gay persons sperm doesn't require any kind of intercourse. It is fertilised in a tube then implanted into a surrogate and brought to term.
It is still reproduction just not in the traditional style. Gays can have biological kids so what exactly are you arguing about.
You mean I've been eating these disgusting yoghurts for absolutely no reason?
How does fertilising an EGG with a gay person's SPERM mean it's the product of homosexuality? I'm very sorry but I have never seen any evidence to suggest you can produce offspring homosexually.
As soon as there is an EGG involved, That means it's inherently not a product of a man and a man.
How can two men have a biological child? let alone easily. Just explain the mechanism. The fact is you ALWAYS need two people but one of them has to be a woman.
I'm explaining the mechanics how I understand them. If you have two gays, and a woman willing to be surrogate then it's not two gays havingwith the woman to produce offspring. It's ONE man.
Do you have any evidence or papers to suggest what you're saying is true? Is it possible to merge two sperms together?
The implications of what you're saying are huge. Why don't the sperms in my testes suddenly start fertilising each other?? There are just so many holes with what you're suggesting.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 969
- Location
- scotland
"You don't magically make a baby by mixing sperm and faeces".
I think that's why the God Botherers have a problem with the gays, to quote Mother Teresa:
" for **** sake, good baby making juice
gone to waste up someone's jacksie ? ".
Well, I think that's the gist of what she meant , it might have gone a bit awry in translation.
I think that's why the God Botherers have a problem with the gays, to quote Mother Teresa:
" for **** sake, good baby making juice
gone to waste up someone's jacksie ? ".
Well, I think that's the gist of what she meant , it might have gone a bit awry in translation.
But you're the one making up arbitrary rules. I'm going on ACTUALITY of the situation.
You're saying that two gay guys can reproduce homosexually. There is simply no evidence to suggest this, if there is please provide it.
And then you start saying there's an egg involved but instead of the woman who's egg it is being the mother and the man who's sperm it was being the father, and the mother just magically disappears into the ether, you make up a rule that the other gay guy is magically the father even though he's had absolutely no seminal/chemical/sexual/mechanical/biological connection with the person who produced the egg.
Is it really possible for two men to fertilise the same egg? And do you really think it's the product of homosexuality? and just be ignorant of the fact that there was a woman involved also?
Last edited:
I think the fact that this thread has gone on for 21 pages and provoked various dubious comments and opinions probably illustrates why these 'pride' events are still needed in spite of the progress we've made as a society in support of gay rights, marriage equality etc...
If you take a look at other societies going in the opposite direction it isn't a pretty sight and generally based on ignorance:
If you take a look at other societies going in the opposite direction it isn't a pretty sight and generally based on ignorance:
Jesus wept.
You said homosexuality is bad because it's a relationship that cannot result in children, so bad for humans as a species.
We have all explained that gay people CAN still procreate (regardless of the method), so how is their homosexuality detrimental to what you consider to be the sole purpose of our existence?
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,481
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
Thread becoming drivel
- Status