Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexual Couples Can Have Kids Too!!!

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 4:00:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.popsci.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2011 10:18:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

I predict that kids born through this manner will come recieve no social hardships for the method of birth what-so-ever. Yep, I can't imgaine at all that their fellow peers would treat them any differently.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2011 10:54:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At what point and time does man look at something and say, This is just screwing with the natural order of things and no good will come from it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Leftii
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 5:51:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/29/2011 10:54:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At what point and time does man look at something and say, This is just screwing with the natural order of things and no good will come from it.

*Which
The most incomprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible
lotus_flower
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 8:47:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/28/2011 4:00:24 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
http://www.popsci.com...

I am pretty excited about this, not going to lie. (:
"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
*******************************************************
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:19:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/29/2011 10:54:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At what point and time does man look at something and say, This is just screwing with the natural order of things and no good will come from it.

At the same point he commits the naturalistic fallacy (what is natural is good).

You benefit from so many deviations from "nature" that, to deny the benefit of "screwing with the natural order of things," WHILE ON A COMPUTER, is just absurd.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:21:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

That's not scary. The scary part is when they figure out how to do this with two eggs, thus completely eliminating the need for males altogether.
marcuscato
Posts: 738
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:28:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 9:21:03 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

That's not scary. The scary part is when they figure out how to do this with two eggs, thus completely eliminating the need for males altogether.

Not really, we went from unisexual to bisexual, bisexuality does(did?) have its advantages.
I still think bisexuals have an advantage in the sense that guys divert less energy to reproductive systems.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:33:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 9:28:31 AM, marcuscato wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:21:03 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

That's not scary. The scary part is when they figure out how to do this with two eggs, thus completely eliminating the need for males altogether.

Not really, we went from unisexual to bisexual, bisexuality does(did?) have its advantages.
I still think bisexuals have an advantage in the sense that guys divert less energy to reproductive systems.

Uhm.. in a system where reproduction occurs through the combination of two eggs, males will die out. As a male, I'm not on board with that scenario.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:43:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 9:33:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:28:31 AM, marcuscato wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:21:03 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

That's not scary. The scary part is when they figure out how to do this with two eggs, thus completely eliminating the need for males altogether.

Not really, we went from unisexual to bisexual, bisexuality does(did?) have its advantages.
I still think bisexuals have an advantage in the sense that guys divert less energy to reproductive systems.

Uhm.. in a system where reproduction occurs through the combination of two eggs, males will die out. As a male, I'm not on board with that scenario.

Males will not die out.

1) Just because two eggs could make a baby does not mean that every woman in the world is going to suddenly stop have normal babies.

2) It seems that we are closer to have two sperm babies than two egg babies and so, even if all the woman did go through PMS at the same time and leave every man in the world, we could still have babies on our own... though most would probably choose extinction first.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:47:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 9:43:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:33:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:28:31 AM, marcuscato wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:21:03 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

That's not scary. The scary part is when they figure out how to do this with two eggs, thus completely eliminating the need for males altogether.

Not really, we went from unisexual to bisexual, bisexuality does(did?) have its advantages.
I still think bisexuals have an advantage in the sense that guys divert less energy to reproductive systems.

Uhm.. in a system where reproduction occurs through the combination of two eggs, males will die out. As a male, I'm not on board with that scenario.

Males will not die out.

1) Just because two eggs could make a baby does not mean that every woman in the world is going to suddenly stop have normal babies.

2) It seems that we are closer to have two sperm babies than two egg babies and so, even if all the woman did go through PMS at the same time and leave every man in the world, we could still have babies on our own... though most would probably choose extinction first.

Yes, yes. My initial post was mostly tongue in cheek, playing off an already common sentiment that is sometimes expressed by women: That Men are only good for Sex.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 9:57:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 9:47:58 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:43:32 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:33:50 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:28:31 AM, marcuscato wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:21:03 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

That's not scary. The scary part is when they figure out how to do this with two eggs, thus completely eliminating the need for males altogether.

Not really, we went from unisexual to bisexual, bisexuality does(did?) have its advantages.
I still think bisexuals have an advantage in the sense that guys divert less energy to reproductive systems.

Uhm.. in a system where reproduction occurs through the combination of two eggs, males will die out. As a male, I'm not on board with that scenario.

Males will not die out.

1) Just because two eggs could make a baby does not mean that every woman in the world is going to suddenly stop have normal babies.

2) It seems that we are closer to have two sperm babies than two egg babies and so, even if all the woman did go through PMS at the same time and leave every man in the world, we could still have babies on our own... though most would probably choose extinction first.

Yes, yes. My initial post was mostly tongue in cheek, playing off an already common sentiment that is sometimes expressed by women: That Men are only good for Sex.

Though, if we were going to get technical, GG couples would only produce girls, while BG and BB couples produce both (in roughly equal proportions). This means that each generation would produce proportionately more girls than boys, and, thus, more GG couples and, therefore even more girls for the generation after that, etc.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 4:59:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 9:19:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/29/2011 10:54:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At what point and time does man look at something and say, This is just screwing with the natural order of things and no good will come from it.

At the same point he commits the naturalistic fallacy (what is natural is good).

You benefit from so many deviations from "nature" that, to deny the benefit of "screwing with the natural order of things," WHILE ON A COMPUTER, is just absurd.

The only thing "in my opinion" that will come from this is heinous and horrific birth defects. I guess we will just flush them down the toilet until they get it right. Homosexuals having children is an oxymoron anyway. If you want children there is already a way for that to be done. Creating some Frankenstein method of doing it is devoid of logic.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 5:05:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 4:59:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:19:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/29/2011 10:54:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At what point and time does man look at something and say, This is just screwing with the natural order of things and no good will come from it.

At the same point he commits the naturalistic fallacy (what is natural is good).

You benefit from so many deviations from "nature" that, to deny the benefit of "screwing with the natural order of things," WHILE ON A COMPUTER, is just absurd.

The only thing "in my opinion" that will come from this is heinous and horrific birth defects. I guess we will just flush them down the toilet until they get it right. Homosexuals having children is an oxymoron anyway. If you want children there is already a way for that to be done. Creating some Frankenstein method of doing it is devoid of logic.

You compare a computer to human life LOL
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 10:58:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 9:19:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At the same point he commits the naturalistic fallacy (what is natural is good).

In addition, he ignores that this is a form of evolution (and not a dangerous one, or necessarily even threatening to males as Ore_Ele pointed out). Also, there is the argument that everything we do is natural. It is natural to us, hence we do it. This process is occurring in our nature right now. Technological advancements are examples human responses to surviving and/or thriving in nature (biology). Just as we acknowledge a beaver building a beaver dam is an evolutionary process and something NATURAL it does to adapt to its environment, our technological advances are just complex natural adaptations or adjustments we use to help us. Especially if procreation is the standard for evolution (perpetuating the survival of the species), this certainly helps as it provides an alternative way to conceive children.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2011 11:03:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 4:59:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
The only thing "in my opinion" that will come from this is heinous and horrific birth defects.

Natural conception also results in birth defects. Point negated.

Homosexuals having children is an oxymoron anyway.

No it's not. Look up the definition of oxymoron.

If you want children there is already a way for that to be done.

Heterosexual couples use in vitro fertilization and other methods to increase the chance of pregnancy all the time. Also, the way things are done constantly change and often improve.

Creating some Frankenstein method of doing it is devoid of logic.

Appeal to emotion. You're using the word Frankenstein to make the scientific connotation of this breakthrough seem evil or demented. Do you use the term Frankenstein when you talk about the discovery of penicillin, or when we reach new breakthroughs for surgery, or detecting cancer earlier, or treating other ailments? Probably not.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 7:07:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 11:48:43 PM, jharry wrote:
What is the benefit of homosexuality in terms of evolution?

There have been many proposals (i.e., population control), but not everything in nature has to be beneficial. That doesn't mean it isn't natural or that it cannot be neutral.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 7:10:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, evolution is about the survival of those who adapt best to changes in the environment. Using technology to find ways to procreate despite people being gay (something in our environment) fits that criteria. I think you're under the misapprehension that perpetuating the species is the only and/or #1 goal of evolution, but that is certainly up for debate.
President of DDO
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 7:12:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 4:59:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/30/2011 9:19:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 11/29/2011 10:54:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At what point and time does man look at something and say, This is just screwing with the natural order of things and no good will come from it.

At the same point he commits the naturalistic fallacy (what is natural is good).

You benefit from so many deviations from "nature" that, to deny the benefit of "screwing with the natural order of things," WHILE ON A COMPUTER, is just absurd.

The only thing "in my opinion" that will come from this is heinous and horrific birth defects. I guess we will just flush them down the toilet until they get it right. Homosexuals having children is an oxymoron anyway. If you want children there is already a way for that to be done.

Yeah, it's a shame your God infected people with conditions and diseases that make it hard, if not impossible for even heterosexual couples to have children. What a sadist!

Everything I say is devoid of logic.

Fix'd
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 7:23:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 7:12:39 AM, drafterman wrote:
Yeah, it's a shame your God infected people with conditions and diseases that make it hard, if not impossible for even heterosexual couples to have children. What a sadist!

Nooo if it's something good, God is responsible. If it's something bad, the Devil did it... duh!
President of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2011 9:25:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/29/2011 10:18:31 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:58:42 PM, Ren wrote:
Omfggggg. Interesting how we can't get rid of the womb, though.

This is crazy. I don't know whether I'm down for it -- it just sounds like it's inviting implications.

I predict that kids born through this manner will come recieve no social hardships for the method of birth what-so-ever. Yep, I can't imgaine at all that their fellow peers would treat them any differently.

Ore_Ele, people have a right to have children regardless of whether or not biased fools will attack the children for existing. Your argument is also true for interracial couples-should we just ban interracial marriage as well? In short, nobody cares about the opinions of the homophobic. Eventually, they will die out with their religion.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 11:18:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 12:57:46 AM, Veridas wrote:
Simba was raised by Timon and Pumba, and grew up to be king.

Your move.

I never thought of that. You sir are a fvcking genius.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:59:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/30/2011 8:47:14 AM, lotus_flower wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:00:24 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
http://www.popsci.com...

I am pretty excited about this, not going to lie. (:

IS ANYONE ESLE CREEPED OUT BY THIS STATEMENT??!?!?! O.o
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:03:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:59:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/30/2011 8:47:14 AM, lotus_flower wrote:
At 11/28/2011 4:00:24 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
http://www.popsci.com...

I am pretty excited about this, not going to lie. (:

IS ANYONE ESLE CREEPED OUT BY THIS STATEMENT??!?!?! O.o

me
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:04:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 10:35:45 AM, Danielle wrote:
Aw. If you have a spare 3 minutes...

http://front.moveon.org...

Yeah, I dare you to find me, say three more of these cases, when they guy has no male influence what-so-ever. It is NOT a good thing for a anyone to be raised by two women, nor by two men. Men need a father, to be the man in their life. Women need a mother to be the women in their life. And vice-versa.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-