patrick.net

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

If men were not needed, we'd disappear in the evolution. The only thing that was disappearing were homosexuals and other deviants... and those only survived because of bleeding heart liberals who want to socialize misery and deviancy to entire society. Fools I tell you!

Yeah, because out of the 200,000 years of human evolution, bleeding heart liberalism was the norm.

As gays produce less children, the gay gene would not have survived over time. Why it is still existent all across the globe in every society is baffling.

Over 7 billion fucking idiots,we need more men & women.

Strategist says

As gays produce less children, the gay gene would not have survived over time. Why it is still existent all across the globe in every society is baffling.

Cause there is no gay gene.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

As gays produce less children, the gay gene would not have survived over time. Why it is still existent all across the globe in every society is baffling.

Cause there is no gay gene.

There is a gay gene. If you are born gay, there must be a gay gene.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm

Strategist says

There is a gay gene.

That article lacks substance and a conclusion. Try this article--it's much more thoughtful and suggests "epigenetics", a case of *variation* in DNA. This suggests one is born gay, but from genetic variance, not from genetic inheritance:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Strategist says

If you are born gay, there must be a gay gene.

Clearly, you don't know how biology works. There is no "belly button" gene that controls whether you have an outie or an innie. There is no "fingerprint" gene, which is why identical twins have different fingerprints.

Why do the people least knowledgeable in a subject matter insist that they are the experts?

Men exist only to generate genetic diversity. Giving birth to men is women's way of fertilizing each other with more diverse genes. If diversity were not advantageous, men would, in fact, become obsolete.

Men can't reproduce, so they have to be "value added" if they want to compete to get their genes back into the chain of reproduction.

Which means that men, whether they like or not, are always going to pay for it one way or another.

Ceffer says

Men exist only to generate genetic diversity. Giving birth to men is women's way of fertilizing each other with more diverse genes. If diversity were not advantageous, men would, in fact, become obsolete.

This is actually true. Men act as a sieve on genes as any woman who wants to reproduce, baring a medical condition, can reproduce at will. Hence pretty much all women reproduce and therefore contribute little to differentiating genes in their own reproduction, but strongly affect evolution in terms of their mating choices.

CIC demonstrates once more that he's a not-so-latent homosexual obsessed with the sexuality of men he's never met.

Women could evolve into anything they wanted. They would still be women i.e. uterus that makes babies, oviducts that lay eggs, parthenogenesis, whatever.

Men are the definition of genetic dead end without women.

Did you consider that humans also take a tremendous amount of time to mature? It's a fantastically large investment of time and food and energy to raise a child to an adult, especially now. Women must get help or it just doesn't work. Whether that help comes from a man or an EBT card depends on the success of the woman to attract and retain the services of the right sort of man.
Men are MUCH more highly valued in societies without a social safety net.

Yes this is true I think. Our minister was telling us how we are all special, and I think he's on to something.

Ceffer says

Women could evolve into anything they wanted.

That's not how evolution works. It's not a conscious process.

Liberal misguided (feminist) mentality at it's funniest.

If women and men were separated, and the women were not allowed to benefit in any way from value added male input, but were artificially inseminated to reproduce on their own with their male children segregated out, they would eventually evolve into something quite different, more multi-functional and independent than what they are now. They would probably do just fine that way.

Value added males are just part of the female genetic environment that the female genes take for granted in fashioning female traits. If the value added male resources are there, the female genes will utilize them. If they are not there, the female genes will just selectively evolve a plurality of members to function without them, as they do in many species.

Well with many more women that are Gay which that may very well be.

Hot Lesbians are always just experimenting, they always move on to a another point of view. It's the one's that can't that don't.

Men have always been obsolete. They are nothing more than genetic confetti to generate diversity in the species.

And a way to extremely rapidly spread beneficial mutations. One guy with some special genetic advantage could possibly impregnate thousands of women.

Say, resistance to Black Death. Maybe didn't happen quite like that, but resistance genes spread in Europe pretty quickly. http://www.livescience.com/43063-black-death-roma-evolution.html

rando says

One guy with some special genetic advantage could possibly impregnate thousands of women.

When you are immune to the plague, women let you do anything. You can grab them by the pussy.

Free speech forum or not, I don't like my name being drug through the mud like this....

rando says

One guy with some special genetic advantage could possibly impregnate thousands of women.