60
Comments (27)
sorted by:
36
Ahaus667 36 points ago +38 / -2

You can’t “marry” someone of the same sex. It completely refutes the entire concept. It’s like saying gay people can have sexual intercourse, it’s biologically infeasible because you need two separate sexual organs joined to have sex. Your mouth and asshole are not sexual organs which is why we have words like sodomy and fellatio. Those words are universal because both men and women have those organs.

37
Assassin47 37 points ago +37 / -0

Not so fast. If we CHANGE the definition of words, we can do all sorts of crazy things.

21
Ahaus667 21 points ago +21 / -0

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.

23
I_Bent_My_Wookiee 23 points ago +23 / -0

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.

21
Ahaus667 21 points ago +21 / -0

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.

15
LauriThorne 15 points ago +15 / -0

Holy shit I had never thought about that fact before. It'd be no different from two random strangers.

13
Ahaus667 13 points ago +13 / -0

Even more funny is if they use the same surrogate and the only biological link is the parent they never meet

6
FuckMcNuggets 6 points ago +6 / -0

And they would gaslight the kids to make them believe there was no mother

3
bamboozler1 3 points ago +3 / -0

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…

1
TheImpossible1 1 point ago +5 / -4

Lesbians hate men. Their whole existence is dedicated to "proving" men are worthless.

3
OldBullLee 3 points ago +3 / -0

"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.

21
FuckGenderPolitics 21 points ago +21 / -0

Biology is homophobic, don't you know?

19
TheImpossible1 19 points ago +23 / -4

Lesbians have a long history of adopting male kids to murder them.

They absolutely should be prohibited from having children to advance their hate fetish.

9
AnotherSchwarzesMark 9 points ago +9 / -0

Or forcefully transition them against their will. They will this has happened as well and if the tranny shit keeps getting pushed more we will hear about a lot more cases like this. You are absolutely right, I can see nothing good of lesbians adopting boys. I used to be a lot more in favor of gays adopting but in recent years having seen tons of cases put a pin in that.

3
sasanian 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yep and faggots adopt male kids to molest them. Doesn't seem like gays adopt girls at all though, and lesbians kind of raise girls normally. Interesting dichotomy between the two.

13
Ricky_CIA 13 points ago +13 / -0

The prevalence of child molestation in the faggot community is pretty fucking staggering.

7
bamboozler1 7 points ago +7 / -0

I hate to connect the dots, but, uhh, given the prevalence of males who were sexually abused as a child who come out as gay (and indeed, the same seems to frequently hold for many lesbians and FTM trannies) - there may be somewhat of an explanation there…

Which is harrowing to think about (after all, cycles of abuse and all that), but maybe… Not that surprising.

12
NonViolenceIsCucked 12 points ago +12 / -0

I'm actually fully in support of declaring ability to have children a legal human right because it ironically turns women into baby making machines. Now women have to have kids to ensure the human rights of gays. I think it's hilarious. Let's do it.

However, I also want to use this opportunity to suggest that sex itself should be a basic human right. I mean, if we're going to say kids are and kids require people to have sex why can't we simply say having sex is a human right as well?

Let's implement a universal basic escort service. All people in society are given 3 passes a week to use to hire an escort for 3 separate 1 hour sex sessions. The escorts then exchange the passes with the government to get paid according to their market value.

Let's have both. Universal basic surrogates and universal basic escorts. No one in society shouldn't be able to have kids or sex if they want to. Sex and kids are guaranteed by society.

5
PooperSnooperPrime 5 points ago +5 / -0

why can't we simply say having sex is a human right as well?

Starship Troopers (the book) has entered the chat.

3
bamboozler1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Actually? Hmm, based! Might have to give it a go, then…

3
PooperSnooperPrime 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, the male and female soldiers were expected to have sex regularly on the long journey to their battle.

3
sasanian 3 points ago +3 / -0

Where was that? I read the book recently and don't remember anything about that. Book is great btw.

3
PooperSnooperPrime 3 points ago +3 / -0

Shit, you're right. I goofed and confused it with The Forever War. Coulda sworn it was Starship Troopers. I looked it up and heres the correct info:

https://www.sffworld.com/forum/threads/the-forever-war.18867/

https://www.supersummary.com/the-forever-war/symbols-and-motifs/

2
bamboozler1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Huh, there you go...

Sounds like Battlestar Galactica, but actually, uhh, "written into the rules", as it were...

But same sort of idea.

4
bamboozler1 4 points ago +4 / -0

B-b-based..?

I unironically support this idea (with caveats, of course). It’s insane, but I like it.

-1
FuckMcNuggets -1 points ago +1 / -2

What the fuck

12
AbleistSL 12 points ago +13 / -1

While I am ok with offloading abandoned kids on fags and the single, I honestly think that we should increase the aggression of CPS on monitoring adopted children because unlike non-adopted kids they are more vulnerable to abuse.