Lesbian Parents
Tags: lesbianparents f
| |
Click to expand
Links are not allowed.
You are allowed to post every 14 seconds on the same page.
You are allowed to post every 14 seconds on the same page.
Remaining character count: 4000
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#44 to #5
-
mostlyshits (11/19/2012) [-] 
so are you saying she has a girlfriend now and that guys dont do more for her?
in b4 no one gets it
in b4 no one gets it
#16
-
shunyata (11/19/2012) [+] (15 replies)
I wish I was adopted by two hot lesbians. Later on they would join the porn industry and I would join them later in the "family business".
Would be like...Like best family evar.
Would be like...Like best family evar.
#161
-
Keep (11/20/2012) [+] (5 replies)
A thought occurs.
Assuming the lesbian parents are both roughly the same age, imagine how much it would suck to be their child when they both reach menopause
Assuming the lesbian parents are both roughly the same age, imagine how much it would suck to be their child when they both reach menopause
#106
-
anonexplains (11/20/2012) [+] (62 replies)
F'aggots should be thrown in a gas chamber and the world would be a better place.
#162 to #157
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] Nice, greentexting outside of 4chan like a faggot.
Hey, the world is overpopulated anyways, and based on Darwin's work, nobody is truly equal, not by biology and nature.
Hey, the world is overpopulated anyways, and based on Darwin's work, nobody is truly equal, not by biology and nature.
#192 to #190
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] I didn't say the origins of homosexuality centers around genes. It could be a number of reasons. But the science behind it is obscure and much is unknown. For all we know, it could just be an error in the development process in the womb. We do know there are factors which contribute, such as the size of glands which secret an array of hormones, brain development, psychological conditioning, etc.
#167 to #165
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] You must be twelve. Survival of the fittest implies it. If an organism is born with a defect or doesn't do what the rest of the species is biologically programmed to do, it dies without passing their genes to the next generation. The reason there is a division of gender within out species is to ensure family units are more likely to survive. The male goes out, earns reward to care for family. Female manages things at home. There is a reason different genitalia evolved as well.
#177 to #173
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] Well, well well. Look who it is. An old rival. So, how's it been?
#205 to #204
-
totallynotafurry (11/20/2012) [-] Yeah, I'm sure you still could today if you paid a visit to the furry board.
I'm probably one of the only people who actually remembers you and doesn't bother arguing with you anymore.
You've become my prime example of "A person who will think what he thinks no matter what anyone says."
I'm probably one of the only people who actually remembers you and doesn't bother arguing with you anymore.
You've become my prime example of "A person who will think what he thinks no matter what anyone says."
#208 to #205
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] I probably could. I've been told even by some furries that I'm probably one of the most intelligent beings on this horrid site.
I prefer to think of myself as someone who will always stand by the side of science, and will do my best to deal with this modern world full of imbeciles.
I prefer to think of myself as someone who will always stand by the side of science, and will do my best to deal with this modern world full of imbeciles.
#211 to #208
-
totallynotafurry (11/20/2012) [-] While I would agree with standing by science normally, you don't really seem to be standing by everything science says.
Sexuality is becoming something that is seen as genetic. And it doesn't necessarily interfere with the breeding process either in this day and age of surrogates and sperm donations to be homosexual. In this day and age, the human race would not go extinct if everyone were homosexual, because we have the technology to prevent it.
Science is, for the most part, siding WITH homosexuality, while you do not. So your statement is somewhat contradictory.
Sexuality is becoming something that is seen as genetic. And it doesn't necessarily interfere with the breeding process either in this day and age of surrogates and sperm donations to be homosexual. In this day and age, the human race would not go extinct if everyone were homosexual, because we have the technology to prevent it.
Science is, for the most part, siding WITH homosexuality, while you do not. So your statement is somewhat contradictory.
#213 to #173
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] Haha, no, science has been dumbed down and censored to appeal to modern moralistic values. I always prefer what's natural rather than artificial. We've been brainwashed from an early age to believe equality is everything. Honestly, I would go insane if I were born to lesbian/gay parents. Being rejected by your own biological tissue. Being biologically related to your parents gives an advantage. Even with surrogates and donations, the homosexual will be passing defunct genes to their offspring. You may say "homosexuality is not hereditary" but homosexuality is not a choice. Your DNA is a blueprint for everything that makes up how you were conceived. From the structure of your brain and body, to the illnesses which could possibly happen.
#217 to #213
-
totallynotafurry (11/20/2012) [-] You can't exactly dumb something down to be moralistic in a field where you must have evidence to back up your claims. Even if they were backed by moral notions, the evidence that has been found supports those moral notions, and the evidence would still exist with or without that morality.
You can't simply dismiss an entire field of research simply because it does not agree with what you think. You also can't infer how you would react to being born to lesbian/gay parents, as you wouldn't know how you would react because your genetics would not be the same. You would think differently, so differently that you would probably be the exact opposite of who you are now.
As for the passing of "defunct" genes. There is nothing genetically wrong with being homosexual. It hasn't been shown to put you or your children at a higher risk for any other genetic mutations (at least nothing I've read has shown that). It has only been shown to affect who you are sexually attracted to.
The fact that something is a mutation does not always mean it is a bad thing. Most humans cannot use a large portion of their brains, and it is technically a mutation when someone is born who is capable of accessing the full functioning power of their brain whenever they need to.
Homosexuality is natural, and has been documented in numerous species of animals, who can't be influenced in a way that would make them "choose" to be homosexual. Humans can choose, I won't deny the fact that there are SOME homosexuals who chose to be the way they are. But they are certainly not the majority.
You can't simply dismiss an entire field of research simply because it does not agree with what you think. You also can't infer how you would react to being born to lesbian/gay parents, as you wouldn't know how you would react because your genetics would not be the same. You would think differently, so differently that you would probably be the exact opposite of who you are now.
As for the passing of "defunct" genes. There is nothing genetically wrong with being homosexual. It hasn't been shown to put you or your children at a higher risk for any other genetic mutations (at least nothing I've read has shown that). It has only been shown to affect who you are sexually attracted to.
The fact that something is a mutation does not always mean it is a bad thing. Most humans cannot use a large portion of their brains, and it is technically a mutation when someone is born who is capable of accessing the full functioning power of their brain whenever they need to.
Homosexuality is natural, and has been documented in numerous species of animals, who can't be influenced in a way that would make them "choose" to be homosexual. Humans can choose, I won't deny the fact that there are SOME homosexuals who chose to be the way they are. But they are certainly not the majority.
#222 to #217
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] Hahahaha, I'm all about the truth and proof. Most evidence points to the fact that homosexuality is a mishap, and is abnormal.
I don't dismiss anything. Certain studies come up in science when they didn't come up in the natural world. At least not completely. Such as creating bio weaponry. Some studies don't need to be in existence. I also meant being born that way in an exaggerated sense. If I were born with the same personality and all.
In the natural world, there is. In nature, there was no artificial insemination. "It has only been shown to affect who you are sexually attracted to". Exactly. I just go by what evolution designed it to be. There is a reason a split in genders was created. As I've said in another debate, it would have created an advantage in the normal world. And yes, there can be mishaps and errors in nature. Such as when a factory is mass producing a product, sometimes a product ends up with a defect and in return, inferior to other products of the same sort. Same as a human. In reality, most people don't deserve to reproduce.
Lol, I already know about mutation. I've dedicated my life to biology. A mutation can go wrong, but most mutations are for the best. It's all about adaptation. I don't see how being gay is a positive adaptation. We exist to pass genes to the next generation. Successful genes. But when a bad gene is allowed to pass to the next gen, it can affect the overall gene pool.
Homosexuality occurs in nature, yes, but defects come in nature as well. Which is most organisms duty to eradicate those failures. When a species is highly complex, there is a higher risk of errors. It seems less advanced organisms don't suffer from that many faults. Most people that choose to be homosexual to be cool or fit in are obviously retarded.
I don't dismiss anything. Certain studies come up in science when they didn't come up in the natural world. At least not completely. Such as creating bio weaponry. Some studies don't need to be in existence. I also meant being born that way in an exaggerated sense. If I were born with the same personality and all.
In the natural world, there is. In nature, there was no artificial insemination. "It has only been shown to affect who you are sexually attracted to". Exactly. I just go by what evolution designed it to be. There is a reason a split in genders was created. As I've said in another debate, it would have created an advantage in the normal world. And yes, there can be mishaps and errors in nature. Such as when a factory is mass producing a product, sometimes a product ends up with a defect and in return, inferior to other products of the same sort. Same as a human. In reality, most people don't deserve to reproduce.
Lol, I already know about mutation. I've dedicated my life to biology. A mutation can go wrong, but most mutations are for the best. It's all about adaptation. I don't see how being gay is a positive adaptation. We exist to pass genes to the next generation. Successful genes. But when a bad gene is allowed to pass to the next gen, it can affect the overall gene pool.
Homosexuality occurs in nature, yes, but defects come in nature as well. Which is most organisms duty to eradicate those failures. When a species is highly complex, there is a higher risk of errors. It seems less advanced organisms don't suffer from that many faults. Most people that choose to be homosexual to be cool or fit in are obviously retarded.
#230 to #222
-
totallynotafurry (11/20/2012) [-] I'll agree with you that the ones that choose are retarded. Nobody with any brain cells would choose to be homosexual with all the hate they get.
And I never said being gay was a positive adaptation, I only stated that it was not a negative adaptation. Being gay has no lifelong negative effects in and of itself, other than making it more difficult to reproduce, which I've stated before isn't a problem with the technology we have today.
The reason there is no artificial insemination in nature is because we are more advanced. We are more intelligent and we have the tools necessary to research and perform feats that no animal can.
There is nothing in the gay gene that would kill or harm the gene pool as a whole in the long run if it were passed on. It will not stop reproduction, because most couples want kids, especially homosexual couples, and will either do what is necessary for one (have sex), or find another way to accomplish the same goal (artificial insemination).
One of your points that I read earlier was that the world is overpopulated anyways. If you're so concerned about overpopulation, why would you worry about homosexuals? Genetics haven't modified the "survival of the fittest" instinct to fit our culture as it is today. Survival of the fittest fits in a world where we have no technology and the only choice is to hunt or die. Survival of the fittest in this day and age would (and does) prolong and expand the gene pool of those you say "don't deserve to reproduce". The people who do stupid **** like choosing to be gay, or driving while drunk, or just doing stupid **** in general, are typically the ones favored by "survival of the fittest".
It doesn't benefit the ones who have the intelligence to prolong the life of our species as a whole. It benefits the ones who are only slightly more developed than monkeys.
And I never said being gay was a positive adaptation, I only stated that it was not a negative adaptation. Being gay has no lifelong negative effects in and of itself, other than making it more difficult to reproduce, which I've stated before isn't a problem with the technology we have today.
The reason there is no artificial insemination in nature is because we are more advanced. We are more intelligent and we have the tools necessary to research and perform feats that no animal can.
There is nothing in the gay gene that would kill or harm the gene pool as a whole in the long run if it were passed on. It will not stop reproduction, because most couples want kids, especially homosexual couples, and will either do what is necessary for one (have sex), or find another way to accomplish the same goal (artificial insemination).
One of your points that I read earlier was that the world is overpopulated anyways. If you're so concerned about overpopulation, why would you worry about homosexuals? Genetics haven't modified the "survival of the fittest" instinct to fit our culture as it is today. Survival of the fittest fits in a world where we have no technology and the only choice is to hunt or die. Survival of the fittest in this day and age would (and does) prolong and expand the gene pool of those you say "don't deserve to reproduce". The people who do stupid **** like choosing to be gay, or driving while drunk, or just doing stupid **** in general, are typically the ones favored by "survival of the fittest".
It doesn't benefit the ones who have the intelligence to prolong the life of our species as a whole. It benefits the ones who are only slightly more developed than monkeys.
#235 to #230
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] I prefer to live in a world where reproduction is real and natural. And that we don't need "tools" to have a baby. And what happens when we no longer have the resources or technology to back us up? If the majority of the world was gay, then gays would have a prejudice regarding natural reproduction.
I worry about all forms of scum. You don't need to try to survive in this modern world. Nobody's in real physical danger, and everyone lives in the comfort behind walls and technology. And thanks to morals and brainwashing, no one is allowed to die, therefore the unfit and unintelligent are allowed to reproduce and spread. If REAL science wasn't held back, we could eliminate these people, and perhaps breed a more intelligent superior human race.
I worry about all forms of scum. You don't need to try to survive in this modern world. Nobody's in real physical danger, and everyone lives in the comfort behind walls and technology. And thanks to morals and brainwashing, no one is allowed to die, therefore the unfit and unintelligent are allowed to reproduce and spread. If REAL science wasn't held back, we could eliminate these people, and perhaps breed a more intelligent superior human race.
#241 to #235
-
totallynotafurry (11/20/2012) [-] I'm not saying that the majority will ever be gay, but if it was, we would be fine. Whether they would have a prejudice or not, I can't say, and neither can you.
I can understand eliminating those who bring down the species in terms of brain power. Lord knows we have too damn many of them. But what of those who are simply of an average intelligence? Would your "superior intellects" tell you that because we are not as smart as you, that we should be eliminated as well, even though we are simply average and in the long run cause no harm?
Believe me, my friend has dreams of one day starting the zombie apocalypse himself, just so he can eliminate the people on Earth that are ******* the planet over. I support him in that.
Off of that, if everything we produced were real and natural, we would still be farmers and hunters. We wouldn't be factory workers or electricians.
I can understand eliminating those who bring down the species in terms of brain power. Lord knows we have too damn many of them. But what of those who are simply of an average intelligence? Would your "superior intellects" tell you that because we are not as smart as you, that we should be eliminated as well, even though we are simply average and in the long run cause no harm?
Believe me, my friend has dreams of one day starting the zombie apocalypse himself, just so he can eliminate the people on Earth that are ******* the planet over. I support him in that.
Off of that, if everything we produced were real and natural, we would still be farmers and hunters. We wouldn't be factory workers or electricians.
#242 to #241
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] If a huge time period were to pass by and the people refer to our time as ancient, and if they started using artificial insemination now while everyone was gay, then perhaps they will think of it as taboo or "primitive". Similar to the novel "Brave New World".
I prefer using science to work with nature, not completely turn it around and modify it. I prefer to use organs and genes for their designed purpose. I don't want to be old and see every kid is a fag. I like the thought of having intimacy with the opposite gender. As was designed by evolution. And resources aren't infinite. So it's best to keep things at a minimum. We already have the "technology" to reproduce, and it's been present for millions of years. I think there should be an observation and limit at how a human should function. If someone is an idiot that goes around acting like a brain dead ****** or whore saying "yolo" everywhere they go, then they don't deserve existence. If someone is normal, but can function and not act like a retard, fine by me.
Odd enough, was playing RE earlier.
I still think technology and science is good, but I don't think it should completely change the very fabric of life and existence as we know it.
I prefer using science to work with nature, not completely turn it around and modify it. I prefer to use organs and genes for their designed purpose. I don't want to be old and see every kid is a fag. I like the thought of having intimacy with the opposite gender. As was designed by evolution. And resources aren't infinite. So it's best to keep things at a minimum. We already have the "technology" to reproduce, and it's been present for millions of years. I think there should be an observation and limit at how a human should function. If someone is an idiot that goes around acting like a brain dead ****** or whore saying "yolo" everywhere they go, then they don't deserve existence. If someone is normal, but can function and not act like a retard, fine by me.
Odd enough, was playing RE earlier.
I still think technology and science is good, but I don't think it should completely change the very fabric of life and existence as we know it.
#198 to #193
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] Mendel worked with plants. And most of his data involves inheritance withing a short amount of time, such as within a few generations. Mendel may have just enhanced or further proved Darwin's ideology. He didn't work with a long complex time span such as evolution. Darwin is known as one of the major figures of biology. If you think I'm the dumb one, you're sadly mistaken. I suggest you kill yourself.
#218 to #216
-
Conquistador (11/20/2012) [-] How can I possibly make up facts? Especially if it involves common sense. And to start with, genes are a part of the big picture, which is called evolution, which most of the modern concept of beings with Darwin's theory. And you still didn't get the main point. Science doesn't support equality in the natural world.
#133
-
puccypirateisback **User deleted account** (11/20/2012) [+] (2 replies)
what if they're adopted?
#155
-
rainbowshurrburt (11/20/2012) [-] It must be awesome to have 2 dads though, 13 yr old's face on Call of Duty when they find out.
#84 to #83
-
undeadwill ONLINE (11/19/2012) [-] **undeadwill rolled a random image posted in comment #325798 at Anime & Manga **
#49
-
sidathon (11/19/2012) [+] (1 reply)
**sidathon rolled a random image posted in comment #232 at Ash Ketchum ** mfw I see two lesbian parents
#22
-
anonexplains (11/19/2012) [+] (8 replies)
I have lesbian parents
I'm the only guy in the house
They've synced up
Period on the same day
Worst ******* five days of my absolute LIFE
I'm the only guy in the house
They've synced up
Period on the same day
Worst ******* five days of my absolute LIFE
#30 to #23
-
gabrielnigro (11/19/2012) [-]
well maybe they've just started to live together and it hasn't happened yet. turns out there is actual research on this and yes women who live in close proximity, usually sisters, are more likely to sync their cycles. it has something to do with it being picked up by smell and slowly approximating the cycle to match the others. pretty cool stuff
#206
-
jokeface ONLINE (11/20/2012) [+] (1 reply)
Never happened to me. It was just "Mom" and "Donna".
#42
-
apocryphos (11/19/2012) [+] (6 replies)
I hate it when it's 'Your mom' jokes because I can't reply with 'which one!?"
