Liberal ignorance of Biology

[martybegan]

Again, not answering the question.

Does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you just answer the question?

Your answer is....Many homosexuals procreate
Many heterosexuals do not

Not answering the question.

It's either yes or no, does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

 

[rightwinger]

Your answer is....Many homosexuals procreate
Many heterosexuals do not

Not answering the question.

It's either yes or no, does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

 

[martybegan]

Not answering the question.

It's either yes or no, does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

No, you are trying to complicate it in order not to answer a question you can't answer truthfully without violating some idiotic progressive "doublethink" requirement.

 

[rightwinger]

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

No, you are trying to complicate it in order not to answer a question you can't answer truthfully without violating some idiotic progressive "doublethink" requirement.

Your question was answered as asked

You just don't like the answer

 

[martybegan]

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

No, you are trying to complicate it in order not to answer a question you can't answer truthfully without violating some idiotic progressive "doublethink" requirement.

Your question was answered as asked

You just don't like the answer

No, it wasn't. you dodged, ducked, dipped, dived and dodge.

Lets go with lemmings. If you have a lemming that wants to have sex with an opposite sex lemming, and one that wants to have sex with a same sex lemming, which lemming has a better chance of passing on it's DNA?

 

[rightwinger]

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

No, you are trying to complicate it in order not to answer a question you can't answer truthfully without violating some idiotic progressive "doublethink" requirement.

Your question was answered as asked

You just don't like the answer

No, it wasn't. you dodged, ducked, dipped, dived and dodge.

Lets go with lemmings. If you have a lemming that wants to have sex with an opposite sex lemming, and one that wants to have sex with a same sex lemming, which lemming has a better chance of passing on it's DNA?

Lesbian Lemmings?

Damn...we are really moving that goalpost now
If we are going to talk lemmings....why not the procreation of amoebas?

 

[mudwhistle]

Not only do these stupid Moon Bats not know anything about Economics, History, Ethics, Climate Science or the Constitution but they are ignorant of basic Biology.. LOL!

Poll: 77% of Democrats with 4-Year Degrees Think Sex Not Determined at Birth

Poll: 77% of Democrats with 4-Year Degrees Think Sex Not Determined at Birth

Three out of four college-educated Democrats seem to believe that a man can be a woman if he just says so, regardless of his biology, genetics, and genitalia, according to a skewed survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

Every swinging dick knows by the time they're 3 that they're gay. That's why the UK let's them wear a Tiara around school.

 

[mudwhistle]

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

No, you are trying to complicate it in order not to answer a question you can't answer truthfully without violating some idiotic progressive "doublethink" requirement.

Your question was answered as asked

You just don't like the answer

No, it wasn't. you dodged, ducked, dipped, dived and dodge.

Lets go with lemmings. If you have a lemming that wants to have sex with an opposite sex lemming, and one that wants to have sex with a same sex lemming, which lemming has a better chance of passing on it's DNA?

The one with the breast implants

 

[flacaltenn]

[

You're pretty free to IDENTIFY as anything you want. Be a tree frog if that's what your biological drive tells you to be. But the problem is --- you CANNOT PASS LAWS and define new protected classes based on how one "feels" that morning when they get up... Can't be enforced. Doesn't make sense.

...

We protect religion. That by definition is how a person feels.

But there are no legal accommodations to religion other than not to tax it or to inhibit it or promote one over the others. It's not a "protected class". CLEARLY you can defame religions to your hearts content. And there are no special benefits accorded them. Apparently, that also extends to sanctioning the meaning of marriage or exercising your conscience in providing public services. Declaring yourself Baptist tomorrow would not get you any legal protections as to your "public accommodations". Can't REQUIRE someone that refer to you by a different pronoun or get different bathroom privileges.

The ONLY exceptions that come to mind are Quaker types who readily got draft deferments during the draft. But -- those were available to most anyone with a great story.

It's complete chaos and anarchy when folks are allowed to gender bend or race bend at their will. They NEED to be CERTIFIED by the Med/Psych community to achieve any resemblance to sanity.. OR -- we truly need to get BEYOND slicing and polarizing the populace by race and sex at all...

 

[flacaltenn]

Again, not answering the question.

Does not being attracted to members of the opposite sex make you less likely to procreate?

Why can't you just answer the question?

Your answer is....Many homosexuals procreate
Many heterosexuals do not

Not answering the question.

It's either yes or no, does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

 

[rightwinger]

Your answer is....Many homosexuals procreate
Many heterosexuals do not

Not answering the question.

It's either yes or no, does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

 

[flacaltenn]

Not answering the question.

It's either yes or no, does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

 

[rightwinger]

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

 

[martybegan]

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

No, you are trying to complicate it in order not to answer a question you can't answer truthfully without violating some idiotic progressive "doublethink" requirement.

Your question was answered as asked

You just don't like the answer

No, it wasn't. you dodged, ducked, dipped, dived and dodge.

Lets go with lemmings. If you have a lemming that wants to have sex with an opposite sex lemming, and one that wants to have sex with a same sex lemming, which lemming has a better chance of passing on it's DNA?

Lesbian Lemmings?

Damn...we are really moving that goalpost now
If we are going to talk lemmings....why not the procreation of amoebas?

Because amoebas are asexual organisms and not relevant to the discussion.

Can you just answer the question?

 

[martybegan]

Actually "they" don't procreate, one of them does.

And because they do does not reduce the chance barring technological improvements.

You asked the question

....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

It refers to an individual, not a couple

Move that Goalpost!

No, you are trying to complicate it in order not to answer a question you can't answer truthfully without violating some idiotic progressive "doublethink" requirement.

Your question was answered as asked

You just don't like the answer

No, it wasn't. you dodged, ducked, dipped, dived and dodge.

Lets go with lemmings. If you have a lemming that wants to have sex with an opposite sex lemming, and one that wants to have sex with a same sex lemming, which lemming has a better chance of passing on it's DNA?

The one with the breast implants

Not applicable to the argument, but mildly funny.

 

[martybegan]

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

 

[rightwinger]

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

 

[martybegan]

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

I didn't go there. I used "convenient" to describe bisexual behavior. Can't be the same bio or mental "wiring" argument -- therefore BI is NOT the same syndrome as being Lesbian or Homo... YET -- most folks look at it all as bio or mental pre-determined "sexual preference".

There's THREE of the LGBTQY community segments representing the VAST majority of member that aren't MOTIVATED in the same way for their behavior. So "attraction" seems more of a convenient CHOICE for the Bisexers then anything pre-wired as biological or mental..

We don't know to what degree it is biological vs mental

What we do know is that it doesn't matter. People should be able to choose the person they love regardless of the contributing factors

And a baker should be able to say "please use someone else" without having to choose between their conscience or financial ruin.

Same thing as "we don't serve n*ggers here"

The merchants felt just as strongly about it

They have said they are not refusing service of point of sale items, just items for the ceremony.

And no, it's not the same because that discrimination was systemic and promoted by the local governments via Jim Crow laws.

Plus, only idiotic interpretations of the bible advocate racial discrimination, as opposed to almost all interpretations that condemn homosexuality.

 

[Redfish]

but they tell the teachers what to teach, mostly BS PC

Oh, come on! Where did you dig up that bullshit?

Teacher's unions have NOTHING to do with the curriculum taught in schools.

You should be so embarrassed by making such an asinine statement.

curriculum is determined for the most part by local school boards, members of the teachers union sit on most local school boards.

the asininity is yours. or is it simple ignorance?

There you go again! I am serious when I say that you are simply making shit up as you go to justify your post.

Teacher's unions members are teachers. They are specifically barred from school boards because it is a conflict of interest.

Do you have any other dumb ass shit to post that I can correct in your mind?

Wrong, but maybe where you live, where is that?

I have a Master's degree in Educational Leadership. We study school systems nationwide. I have also taught in two states and for the federal government, and had children attend schools in three other states. If your school district is dumb enough to have teacher's unions sitting as members of the school board, you are either extremely confused or you have a good court case on your hands.

In every state, the state Board of Education or its equivalent usually sets the curriculum. How do you think we got into all of these discussions about Common Core?

teachers attend school board meetings, teachers are members of the teachers union.

Please think before posting nonsense.

 

[Redfish]

Not answering the question.

It's either yes or no, does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

The answer is....NO

Lesbian couples have very high rates of procreation

And how do they do that?

They "cheat", via technology just like I cheat walking over a cliff with technology with my glasses.

The answer actually is yes, but you can't be truthful without breaking with progressive dogma, it's sad to be so close minded.

Again, this has nothing to do with morality, just honesty.

Your question was not about the physiology of artificial insemination

Your question was....." does not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex reduce your chance of procreating or not?"

Lesbians are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex, yet the vast majority of young lesbian couples procreate

Don't get TOO hung up on the attraction part of these decisions. If it's "biology" or "neurology" -- you'd than have to find an essentially different basis in neuro or bio to explain the MUCH LARGER SEGMENT of the population who are BI-sexual or opportunistically bisexual. This dominant and HUGE sector of the LGBTQY community seems to be totally out of convenience and choice..

You think that our society has made it "convenient" to be lesbian or gay?

We have to fight for a freak'n wedding cake

there are plenty of gay bakers, why cant you use one of them?