slimreaper
Active member
Do some research. We had no interest in a space program until Ussr started.
Factually competition is a trait of the masculine
For the homophobes
- Thread starter Nix Nyquist
- Start date
Factually competition is a trait of the masculine
Ripple Hole
Banned
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
Which explains why USSR made it to the moon through sheer testosterone fueling their aircrafts right? I'm sure you can just plug a cord into your balls and that'll get your ship to the moon, aside from those irrelevant codes.
slimreaper
Active member
Explain why there has never been a ship of all women to go off and explore uncharted lands. Don't worry ill wait
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
We also have masculinity to thank for genocide, murder, slavery, tyranny, school shootings, and wars by your logic.
slimreaper
Active member
No, they really don't. *** and the behaviors surrounding it are lands where dragons still exist.
The fact that people change their sexual preferences later in life brings into question the idea that anyone is "a" homosexual - or that homosexuals represent a static demographic of individuals.
For example - all of those studies that suggest different neurological function of homosexuals... what if they change their sexuality later on? Does their neurology go back to the way it was? Or were the studies wrong in their findings?
It's still an area with a lot of massive question marks in simply identifying who is and who is not a homosexual, especially given that there are people who claim to 'always feel wrong' in heterosexual relationships before going into homosexual relationships.
Pics or it didn't happen.
The other problem is that I specifically cited a set of studies that do not ask about abuse. They ask about the age where they had their first sexual encounter. Homosexual populations in these types of studies have a median age of their first sexual encounter between the years of ten and twelve, while heterosexuals between the years of fourteen and sixteen.
This age is critical, as sexual encounters before the age of fourteen tend to indicate abuse.
From where do you get your information?
The fact of the matter is that women are more likely to consent to *** during periods of ovulation. They are more likely to commit to extra-marital affairs during ovulation, and are more likely to omit protection during ovulation (as well as to crave internal ejaculation). This is the natural course of things. The fact that today's generations have been raised feral does not change why we do the things we do, it simply changes our standards.
For all your rambling about science and studies, you're quite ignorant of the subject.
The Red Queen. Look it up.
See, you and I are not so much individuals as we are vehicles for a greedy algorithm that produced the DNA we carry. Our purpose is, first and foremost, to ensure that strand of DNA survives into another generation. At least, within the context of the laws of physics.
Adoption is something that evolved out of politics - tribalism. By adopting individuals into your tribe, you reinforce the political standing of your succeeding DNA. Just because the algorithm is greedy does not mean it only produces maliciousness. When you take other individuals under your care, place them under your tribal name, and place your biological children at the head of that family, you still serve to strengthen your DNA. Having successful adopted children is as beneficial as having successful biological children.
The thing is, however, that adoption does not, in and of itself, satisfy the purpose of our physical existence.
A surrogate mother does theoretically resolve the problem, but this is an exceptionally rare number of cases.
This is, also, not true.
Homosexuals are far more likely to experience and to commit domestic violence against their partners. Male homosexuals, especially, are very likely to be involved in *** with multiple partners and to have sexual encounters outside the relationship. They are far more likely to suffer from various psychological disorders.
As far as "successful as parents" - that is such a vague term that it has no quantifiable metric by which to assess parents. Do the children of homosexuals score higher on some kind of test? Is there a happy-o-meter they plug themselves into at McDonalds'? What is "successful as parent?"
What is even more curious about that claim is, based upon the small percentage of homosexuals... and the much larger percentage of heterosexuals with children... this implies a very high rate of parental failures and children who are failed.
Who are they and what information exists about their demographic?
Incorrect.
You must be registered for see images
If your hypothesis has merit, we would expect to see a correlation between the attitudes toward homosexuality and the suicide rate of homosexuals.
We do not see this. Nor do we see any change in the trend from country to country regardless of how homosexuality is perceived.
While it may be a contributing factor - there is far more to the picture than: "*****, I'm fabulous - it's you all who have the problem."
There is a reason why girls begin seeking sexual activity around the age of 14. That used to be around the age of adulthood within society.
What we regard as "high school" in today's society is closer to the position of a college back in the 1800s, except you actually learned stuff back then. When the government took it over, the point was to try and give everyone 'free' access to college education.... and the attempt failed miserably. So we send kids to school for four extra years (or keep them busy coloring with crayons for four extra years in grade school, depending upon how you want to look at it) and then send them off to 'real school' (that has, now, also been taken over by the government and reduced to an abysmal waste of time and money) where they can 'really' learn something.
Fact of the matter is that 14 year olds built their own damned house back in the 1800s. Nothing has changed since then other than our perception of what a 14 year old is supposed to do in life. Today's 14 year olds would be just as capable of handling themselves if that is how they were raised.
Now, I agree - most women are not of a mindset for being a mother at 17 years old. Most women these days are not in the mindset of being a mother, at all. Hence why we have so many feral children who are little more than barbarians. That said - it's not any great mystery of the cosmos as to what happened, why it happened, and that it was possible for it to happen.
This is what I meant by your divisive nature.
The homosexual is the only one who you believe to be inclusive. The homosexual is more human than the girl who got pregnant.
You said it, yourself: "Would you rather raise a pregnant girl or a son?" The pregnant girl is this thing. The homosexual boy is your son.
To prefer the daughter to the son in your mind is to prefer a thing to a human, because you have endowed homosexuals with more virtue than pregnant teenagers.
Let's re-word the question.
You have a pregnant daughter and a homosexual son. Both are in a situation where only one will survive. Which one would you prefer survive?
Now, since I've already discussed the divisive nature of your mind - I've tampered with how you are likely to answer (and to even perceive the way in which you would answer). But the fact of the matter is that when your ilk has been put into the test of office, you have always killed millions for the sake of advancing the virtues of some victim class or another over the average person.
No matter how ridiculous you may state me to be...
The fact of the matter is that you reveal your own audacity.
You want a homosexual son to advance your own agenda. You want to raise a homosexual free from everything you blame for your own shortcomings to prove that anyone who dare criticized you is wrong. Your soul is filled with contempt and vitriol for the life around you.
Which is exactly why you will be a curse upon any life you attempt to raise. You, and your vicarious nature, are completely unconstrained and liberated from the bounds of historical ethics. You are something new and know better than thousands of years of humans who came before you.
On the other hand, I see both individuals within the proper context of their human development. Both are equally human. Both are equally valid as human entities. True - the homosexual may void his/her legacy by not procreating, but that is not absolute within my context, and it is also constrained to the concept of inheritance and evolution. It doesn't mean the individual is less of an existence in the here and now.
I said unborn baby not grown baby. But either way, the fact that people would take a soon to be life over having a gay son JUST because he's gay is horrendous. I mean, what's the problem with even having a gay son? There's 0 things wrong. The argument I always see is that he won't have a baby, but gay people either adopt or use a surrogate mother. This as opposed to killing an unborn baby that could've been the one to find a cure for certain cancers or something else. And I never stated that killing a conscious animal was okay, so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with that.
Last edited:
It's a simple preference. Abortions exist. Homosexuals are an end of the family line. One is a temporary adjustment in the grand scheme, one is seen as a permanent sentence.
Aside from the nullification of his biological existence, nothing.
Generally speaking, they do not. Homosexual men are usually multi-partner and few have any interest in adopting a child. Some may use a surrogate mother - but this is also a very rare decision, and one that is not inherent to the sexual preference of the individual. When a male is attracted to females, and marries one, the implication is that children will be the result of that. In most cases, as evidenced by the existence of humans, this is what happens.
This is not the pattern of behavior to be expected of people identifying as homosexual, much less homosexual men.
Or could have been the next Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.
Abortions may kill far more future criminals than they do harm to future intellectuals. That isn't to say I agree with the degree to which it is used in today's society - but that the argument against abortion from a "it's a life yet to be" is relatively weak.
I am not for them by default, and do not believe the thought should be: "well, we can always just abort it" - but, at the same time, that is not my decision to make - nor is it yours, unless you happen to be pregnant or involved with someone who is pregnant.
But you're willing to let it go on.
You may not personally hunt down an animal and kill it - or farm it and kill it - but you'll quite probably still eat one that was killed to supply the demand for meat.
Of course - good luck getting other people to decide not to eat meat and to therefor not have any demand for meat products.... or trying to destroy suppliers of that demand. I may not personally like what has to be done to living things in order for us to survive and thrive - but you and I don't get to dictate our ideals to the universe.
Likewise, people are free to choose what they wish to prefer. In some cases, they have no choice over the outcome. We are not gifted with the power to decree whether our child is homosexual or pregnant at the age of 17, so the preference is something that is very difficult to act upon. The fact is that this just happens to people, and most people would prefer neither of these happen, but most people will also deal with them.
This whole question was loaded.
Within the liberal mindset, being gay is something to be celebrated - there is not only "nothing wrong" with it, but there is also something wrong with not preferring this outcome. For example: "Would you rather your 17 year old son tell you he is in love with a man, or that he is in love with a woman?" Within the liberal mindset, to choose for your son to prefer women is an attack upon your son if he should instead claim to love men. The 'worse' the other choice is, the more vicious and hateful you must be toward homosexuals.
"I would prefer my cat get run over by a truck to my son telling me he is gay" is taken as a preference to have the gay son hit by a truck.
Reword the question to: "would you rather your gay son be bullied in school or your cat run over by a truck" - and the same groups would answer that they would rather lose their cat than have one of their kids, who happened to be gay, bullied.
See, the thing is that even if we are accepting of homosexuals - the hard reality is that people do not want their child to be homosexual in many cases, just as it is implied that we don't want our daughter to be pregnant at 17. Trying to translate the answer into: "I would have my daughter's child aborted if it would keep my son from being homosexual" is just a sign that you're detached from reality and looking for a reason to call homosexuals victims of society.
What the heck is with people blaming young pregnancy on bad upbringing? No matter what kind of upbringing you had, you still go through teenage rebellious stages. Especially when we are talking about over-protective parents, who are providing fine upbringing, who could undoubtedly increase the animosity between parent and child.
Again, how the heck can you generalize all young pregnancy to be related to lack of education or bad upbringing? A well educated, well taken care of teenage girl is just as likely to get drunk and have unprotected *** as any other high schooler. What the heck is wrong with people if they can't understand this?
I do have to disagree with your final assertion, to some degree:
You must be registered for see links
" At the family level, adolescents with mothers who gave birth as teens and/or whose mothers have only a high school degree are more likely to have a baby before age 20 than are teens whose mothers were older at their birth or who attended at least some college. In addition, having lived with both biological parents at age 14 is associated with a lower risk of a teen birth.[8] At the community level, adolescents who live in wealthier neighborhoods with strong levels of employment are less likely to have or to father a baby than are adolescents in neighborhoods in which income and employment opportunities are more limited.[7] "
Again, statistically less likely. That doesn't mean that kids who come from a good home don't exercise free will and do something ill-advised.
I knew of plenty of exceptions to the statistical trend - poor girls from broken families who abstained; wealthy girls who threw parties and had under the counter abortions to hide it from their parents.... as well as people who fell within the statistical trend.
The number one cause, in my own witness to these things, is abuse and/or neglect (both of which constitute a form of abuse in my opinion). Neglecting proper discipline of your child means a child is raised feral. In some circumstances, the children even become abusive to the parent and exploit the parent as a source (I know one case of this very well). The parent is unwilling to assert authority and dominance, and so the kids direct everything about the parent's life and do whatever the hell they want to do - to include disappearing from the house at one in the morning to go lord only knows where until six in the morning ... then try to come up with excuses as to why they need to stay home from school.
In other cases - abuse, both physical and psychological, can trigger this type of behavior. Children who believe they are 'soiled' or 'worthless' can often times seek the temporary value provided by gratifying another through ***, while also taking the depravity of the act as being validation of the idea that he/she is soiled. Generally speaking, the more a person seems to enjoy degrading themselves - the more likely it is that some form of abuse or trauma has given him/her the idea that he/she is worthless, or otherwise undesirable. Worse is when others attempt to get close to these types of individuals, who then are hurt when he/she suddenly distances him/herself. This, again, serves as validation that he/she is deserving of a penalty or punishment for existing.
They cycle generally repeats and begins to induct other things - drug abuse, increasingly degrading sexual acts, etc. The fact that these acts will often bring a sense of physical pleasure/stimulation serves as yet another point of validation that this is something 'deserved.' If you do something you know to be horrible, and it feels good - then you just must be a horrible person even if it wasn't something you really feel like you should be doing. Some people find a 'level' point, it really kind of depends. Some people capitalize on this process and deliberately try to place people into this cycle, or use it to control them for some purpose or another.
Statistically speaking, perhaps you can generalize that less educated girls or girls who had poor upbringings are more likely to get abortions. The point I was making is that not all girls who get abortions fall into this category. By all means its not even a majority, the numbers are likely quite close. I just find it downright maddening that someone would assume all young pregnancies could be categorized as such.
Many heterosexuals do not have kids - so the same thing can be said for them. And where exactly is the defining proof for gay people generally not having kids? I get that it's only an opinion; people can have any type they want. My opinion was simply implying that people would disregard the possible outcome of the baby being some sort of help to the world, or to some person - and therefore would rather kill it off rather than have a gay son, where he is still able to have a baby, just not by "natural" means. But, again, there's too many things to take into account to even want to debate this. I was simply stating a preference.
Last edited:
It's not exactly "close" in terms of statistics.
You must be registered for see images
For example, foster daughters are more than twice as likely to become pregnant as a teenager by comparison to the overall data set.
This isn't to say that all pregnancies are the result of poor parenting - but, statistically, it is likely that the child stems from adverse upbringing conditions.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
By the late 30s, roughly 85% of heterosexual marriages have produced at least one child, and about 65% have produced two.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
There's this thing called "data."
It comes from these things known as "studies," "experiments" and "polls."
You should try it out, some time. You know - use a search engine, or something. Kind of like that one used to find naked pictures, except you type in stuff other than "boobs" or "penis."
No, you didn't comprehend my statement in the slightest. Try again.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
If you can read graphs, there are plenty of reasons to not want your child to be homosexual. Granted, teenagers who end up getting pregnant at such an age tend to be in a similar risk category for those things, though finding any kind of direct comparison chart is going to be difficult, and I have other things to do than dig through study publications and charts.
No, let's be honest about what you were doing.
Yes, you were stating a preference. However, you were also letting it be known what you felt about people who had a specific preference while drawing misleading inferences from the stated opinions of others.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with doing that - but don't try to act like anyone who disagrees with your assertions is making an unprovoked action against you.
slimreaper
Active member
So now you're a **** if you have a child at 17? Even if that girl marries her baby's father and stays with him her entire life?
What a judgemental prick
The Ocean was considered female back in those times along with the great denizens of the deep, and to bring aboard a woman would cause an offense to the powers that be, and a curse would follow the ship. Along with that women were supposed to have the magic power to be able to whistle and call up a storm. You can see why that would be considered a bad thing on a tiny boat in the middle of the ocean. Hence the term 'whistling up the wind'. So to answer your question. Men were terrified of a Woman's wrath..
Books are your friend!
OT: I wouldn't care either way. My kids can be free to be who they are, I would educate my daughter enough and make sure she was on birth control as soon as she was old enough. As for the Gay son we would clearly be best friends...
Last edited:
slimreaper
Active member
Women didn't explore because of two reasons
1. It's in their dna to seek stability. That isn't suited for exploration
2. There are more men than women, so scientists have deduced that men explore because they are more likely to end up alone and have no family to stay for. And it also helped in the search for *****.
You are like a poster boy who screams Vote for Donald Trump....Must be in a mans DNA to destroy and wreck every country he happens upon then eh? Since ya know us as Woman couldn't explore because we must seek stability... since we didn't explore the way these countries are destroying each other IT can be blamed on the men.
I'm okay with this. Thanks for taking it for the team. I won't fault you for it though after all it's in your DNA.
Last edited:
I would rather my daughter be pregnant because then she is going to give birth to something beautiful that would be a joy to me for the rest of my life (If the child out lives me).
But if my son is gay then that is only going to give birth to disgusting immorality that will disgust me and break my heart continually for the rest of my life or until he dies from aids.
But if my son is gay then that is only going to give birth to disgusting immorality that will disgust me and break my heart continually for the rest of my life or until he dies from aids.