patrick.net

JodyChunder says

What I don't get is why so many lesbians want to look like the worst looking dudes?

Thats why the Govt spent $1.5M to find those urgent questions.

FortWayne says

The only thing that was disappearing were homosexuals and other deviants...

They were doing a heckuva job hanging around without the help of filthy liberals for thousands of years.

Strategist says

They will kill each other just to look at you, and you will be repeatedly molested by the sexiest ones. You really want that?

I'm good with it.

FortWayne says

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!

You seem to be bragging about your lack of reasoning skills again.

If anything, homosexuality which has only recently become somewhat culturally acceptable is leading to gays living their gay lifestyle, and usually not having children. This may make for less gays in the future if it is an inheritable trait.

In the sexually repressed past, that you wish we still had, gays would do everything to suppress their homo tendencies, and they would marry and have children, only in some cases occasionally having (what they felt were) their perverted dalliances on the side.

Bottm line: If gay is an inheritable trait, then having gays out in the open and accepted will if anything diminish the amount of gay genes in the gene pool.

I know that you might be one of those closet homos who thinks that if being gay is acceptable then all the people who are like you (except less willing to supress those urges), will become gay.

As a true heterosexual male, I can tell you, that's not how it works. I don't care how many gays are on TV or out and about as normal people or even nice interesting people. I still have no interest in having sex with men.

marcus says

Bottm line: If gay is an inheritable trait, then having gays out in the open and accepted will if anything diminish the amount of gay genes in the gene pool.

Shortsightedness as a personal example, why wouldn't that have been weeded out long ago? Many traits which you might consider killer limitations, are not even a factor worth worrying over in the vastness of time and complexity of reality. Evolution doesn't produce perfection only "good enough".

Vicente says

Many traits which you might consider killer limitations, are not even a factor worth worrying over in the vastness of time and complexity of reality.

Homosexuality is a little different though. A shortsighted guy still wants to find a mate and is driven to reproduce with a woman. OR a shortsighted woman may be very attractive as a mate.

Gay men in many cases have no such drive, but for many millennia have chosen to mate for a variety of reasons, most of which are now gone.

I'm not saying that it will disappear. Only that the genetic factor may actually decrease if anything, compared to having a culture which says that most people should marry and have children in spite of some men having such urges.

marcus says

Only that the genetic factor may actually decrease if anything,

Why? Most people like having "little people" and they can get them. I expect the options for making new humans to only increase going forward. A lesbian triad wants a family? Fine, here we'll mix & match your genes for $999!

Okay but it seems like arguing just for sake of arguing.

I said "less" genes into the gene pool.

I'll tell you what, you let me know what percentage of gay couples don't have children or adopt if they do, and what percentage of gay men have children by using one of their own sperm with a surrogate mother, and then see if it doesn't seem like those numbers aren't significantly lower than the number of potentially gay men who were passing on their genes in conventional heterero coupling back in the days when being gay was not acceptable.

I'm busy so this is about as much research as I'm going to do right now.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/Krivickas-Lofquist%20PAA%202011.pdf

Children in Opposite-Sex and Same-Sex Households
We begin by discussing the past research on children in households. Data from the 2008 American Community Survey show that there are approximately 415,000 reported same-sex unmarried partner households and 150,000 reported same-sex spousal households, representing 27% of all same-sex couple households (O’Connell, Lofquist, Simmons, & Lugaila 2010). A substantial number of these same-sex households contain children. Black and colleagues (2000) used data from the 1990 Census to show that about 22% of partnered lesbians and about 5% of partnered gay men had children in their households. Recent estimates from the 2008 ACS show 13.9 percent of male-male unmarried couple and 26.5 percent of female-female unmarried couple households contain children2. A larger percentage of opposite-sex households contain children, as 43 percent of both married opposite-sex couple and unmarried opposite-sex couple households contain children.
Same-sex couples, both male and female, are also significantly more likely to have children from previous relationships and much less likely to have children from their current relationship compared with opposite-sex couples (Henehan et al. 2007). Specifically, 62 percent of lesbians had children from a previous relationship compared with only 19 percent of heterosexual women, while 78 percent of heterosexual women, while 78 percent of heterosexual women have children from their current relationship compared with only 37 percent of lesbian women (Henehan et al.). Similar results were found for gay men and heterosexual men. These findings suggest that same-sex couple householders may be more likely than opposite-sex couple householders to have a non-related child (most likely being the child of a partner) in their household

These ones are good for chiropractic adjustments...
lostand confused says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

This happens all the time. I walk by a lesbian bar and one of them will notice me casually part my hair with my tongue. Suddenly, the doors burst open and wanton, panting lesbians are howling for my attentions and, the most unnatural of them, are enraged that I've turned their mates heterosexual just by my awesome self.

These are the ones that are howling for your attention??!!

sbh says

If only we could force Fort Wayne to have only gay sex he couldn't pass on his mania about gays.

'you can force gay sex' yes you made his point
about destroying people and societies.

I shoulda gone gay. I just think it would've been a lot cheaper than all the women.

hey maybe you could have found a sugar daddy. Of course marrying rich women is possible too.

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!

Vicente says

I am working on a time machine, not so I can kill Hitler or anything so prosaic, but so I can go forward to the time when I'll be the LAST MAN ON EARTH!

Vicente, please drop me off at the point in human history when the last bigot on earth has died.

elliemae says

This story is a crock of shit.

Typical of such articles, but let's go over the points, however stupid they are.

I. It’s the end of men because men are failing in the workplace.

Everyone is failing in the workplace. It's not gender specific. The rich-poor gap is still increasing and the middle class is shrinking. The number one cause of childhood poverty is single motherhood, and it's on the rise. And we're not talking teen pregnancy; we're talking 30-something women having their first child and doing so without a husband or the father present.

The fact is that it takes two median incomes to raise a family today. Lose either income and your going to be poor.

II. It’s the end of men because the traditional household, propped up by the male breadwinner, is vanishing.

Same as previous point with same response.

III. It’s the end of men because we can see it in the working and middle class.

WTF? I'm not even sure what she's trying to say here, but it doesn't even sound like a cause.

IV. It’s the end of men because men have lost their monopoly on violence and aggression.

Men have never had a monopoly on violence. Women have always used their influence on men to get men to commit acts of violence against other men, women, and children.

Furthermore, violence is no longer tolerated in our society except by the police and the military -- and hopefully, soon that will change. A violent person is most likely to end up either dead or imprisoned in our society and over time evolution is weeding out violence from our species.

If anything, this spells the end for alpha males and the rise of beta males.

V. It’s the end of men because men, too, are now obsessed with their body hair.

If only there were some way to remove body hair.

The puling, whimpering modern male will now have to accept the lash and the strap on if he wishes to survive. The wheel of fortune turns. The masochists have now become the sadists.

Well I guess if you're 26 year old woman and every 26 year old man you know still lives at home also. Then you would think men are obsolete.

On a side note, older ugly men are marrying younger and more attractive women than ever.

CaptainShuddup says

On a side note, older ugly men are marrying younger and more attractive women than ever.

It ain't done with smoke & mirrors!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pngPsrpRfwM

thomaswong.1986 says

HydroCabron is Kochel 271 says

This can't be right: all lesbians look like Victoria's Secret models, and spend all day making love, working out, or rubbing massage oil on one another.

seems 3/4 are not and your tax dollars used to find why not...

Feds Spend $1.5 Million to Study Why Lesbians Are Fat

(CNSNews.com) – The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance."

That IS actually an interesting scientific subject. It seems that Lesbians are substantially more likely to have a hormonal imbalance, much more so than either gay men or straits of either gender.

Figuring the triggers might actually solve some biological mysteries, and lead to cures of conditions and diseases.

I've heard that if you drop your phone in water you should immediatel put it in a bowl of rice!
The rice will attract Asians who will then fix your electronics for you.

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

The only reason women want men is for their throbbing penis.

I feel so used.

I wish that was the only reason...

I also get called to fix the crap she's always breaking or electronics she screws up....

thunderlips11 says

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance."

1. There goes all my lesbian fantasies.

2. My conjecture is that gay men have to be in good shape to attract another man, whereas gay women do not have to be. Mate competition is a strong motivation to hit the gym and eat less.

3. If three quarters of lesbians are obese, then some of those women I asked out in college must have been lying.

Oh?
How long has it been since you got cut??

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $1.5 million to study biological and social factors for why “three-quarters” of lesbians are obese and why gay males are not, calling it an issue of “high public-health significance."

1. There goes all my lesbian fantasies.

Call it Crazy says

lostand confused says

JodyChunder says

I'd like to know. I think there's at least a corollary. But then, I love big women

Well big is relative. This is just right! I don't like the stick thin, one step away from death look on models!!

She also looks like she'll never drown in that water...

If you can hold on to those floaties neither will you.

Well with so many women that are Gay, that really speaks for itself.

They wish.

I make myself valuable by doing all the crap work no one else wants to do. If that means I need to research and put together an analysis of a work function and slap my bosses name on it, I do it. If it means no one wants to do an investigation, I ask the VP when it's due by and get it done. If it means if we get a delivery and it's a bunch of heavy boxes, I volunteer immediately to sort it out. Even though I have a degree, even though I'm approaching middle age, even though I'm no longer in great shape, whatever it is that needs to be done, I do it.

Women need me. My wife and step daughter needs me. My work needs me(badly). I know how to kill stuff, but it's an unreasonable skill to have in a metropolis. Still, I go daily and kill the metaphorical buffalo. I use more brain and less brawn than my prehistoric ancestors, but the role hasn't changed. The women I've dated and the lady I'm married to wouldn't have it any other way.

In the words of Brad Paisley, I'm still a guy(thank God for that).

Well in the picture above those women look Brutal.

Once women started using grease as mascara, it was over:

Time Magazine: Men are Obsolete

Then stop taxing us to pay for your children!

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.

Vicente says

I miss Futurama.

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.