haha transphobia so funny 🙄

haha heterophobia even funnier

heterophobia is not a real thing, nobody hates the straights

Homophobia isn't a real thing either.

Actually, While named "heterophobia" and "homophobia," research suggests they're not a "phobia" in the clinical sense, but rather a prejudice-driven behavior based on social, cultural, or religious attitudes.

nobody hates the straights but gays are hated and sometimes oppressed

Most Feminists hate heterosexuals

heterophobia is not real

sonadow w

L.O.L.!! #owning them LIBTARDS amirite🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Looking in a mirror?

Eventually, your mirror will shatter

Repeating the same weak comment three times in a row is the epitome of being a cornball.

Someone who repeats their own words or phrases endlessly is usually described as having palilalia. This condition, often associated with neurological or psychiatric disorders.

Thanks, that should qualify as spam.

Let me guess, you're 11 years of age.

also the species homo sapiens has been around for only 200 000 years, not millions. if you are gonna cornypost, at least get your numbers right.

Sounds like an insult to me. Are your upset or still seething?

neither of the above. and yes, it was a jab at you, because i dont like you. its not about the image. its about you. and if you flag my comments again, that proves you are a snowflake that cant take insults.

If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.

What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.

you realise that the amount of lgbtq people inst really increasing, right? its just that people feel more comofortable sharing that fact. either way, there's nothing you can ddo about it. same sex couples will keep raising kids, and taking that away is literally restricting freedoms. so while you may not like it, you cant really do anything to change it.

maybe insults are the only way to get a message through to you,because reasoning doesnt work on you.

yeah okay buddy. give me your best point then, if you are so good at debating. give me a point that doesnt use religion, as religion is a bad excuse for bigotry.

Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy, it does suggest that children raised by lesbians or homosexual men are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey-- a sociologist and an advocate for same-sex civil marriage--reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine.

She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions.

Her review must be viewed judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, theses studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of homosexual parenting.

perhaps they do. but cmon. masculinity and femininity are not essential to humanity. having more gay people also isnt bad. its not like we're gonna go extinct over it.

Long before the founding of our republic, civilizations recognized the critical importance of raising each next generation to carry on and improve the society they were born into. It became clear that the balance of skills learned from a father and a mother were important to the upbringing of children. Studies of successful raising of children in our society confirm this ancient understanding.

None of this means that orphans or children raised by a single parent, or even by a group of all males or all females cannot make it into adulthood. (Indeed, legend has it that Rome was founded by brothers raised by a wolf.) It does mean that the child has a better chance if raised by a man and a woman in a stable, loving relationship than in other, nontraditional relationships. And society as a whole benefits from having such children.

It very much continues to be in society's interest to define marriage as to be between a man and woman, and do as much as possible to encourage these to be stable, loving relationships.

thank you for actually providing a good point. howvever, gay people have always been around. while it may not have done much for society in the past, that doesnt change the fact the the world we live in today is vastly different than that of even 100 years ago. in a time where more kids are put up for adoption,especilly kids who were forcefully born due to inaccess to an abortion, gay relationships help pick up the slack. it may not be perfect if what you say about one male and one female is true, but it beats living in an impovershed family where your mother never wanted you. plus, its not like gay people can just "turn off" their gayness. its not a choice, but in a world where people can date who they wish, gay people can finally be happy. your message also implies gay relationships are instable or unloving, which is just simply not the case. but just because a couple is gay doesnt inherintly mean they are bad parents.

i love how you people say stuff like this as if it doesnt occur in the wild
because homosexuality, transgenderism and a plethora of other things all occur in the wild

nah
we get one month (lgbtq that is)
they get the other 11
and did you know
non straight people can still create children

Not without surrogacy, egg/sperm donation).

nope. you forgot about bisexuals and pansexuals. not straight, but sometimes still partake in straight relationships.

"straight relationship" are the key words in that statement.

yes- but your image said straight PERSON, not relationship.

semantics

yup
but i do have an actual point
if a gay guy and a trans guy (FtM) or a lesbian girl and a trans girl (MtF) procreate then a gay couple can get pregnant

Although homosexual men are less likely to have children than lesbians, homosexual men are and will be raising children. There will be even more if homosexual civil marriage is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence.

that doesnt matter. if you ban homosexual marriage, that is limiting freedoms. plus, isnt ypur country meant to be the land of the "free"?

Not without surrogacy, egg/sperm donation or by partaking in a straight relationship. Your to make believe point is invalid.

did you not read what i said? if one member of a gay relationship is trans, both reproductive organs can be present in a relationship, meaning pregnancy is still possible.

heyyyy I'm pan. I've been summoned.

Pan as in Peter?
You should have stayed in the magical island of Neverland to avoid growing up.

your birth certificate is an apology from durex

Your birth certificate lists the Dallas Cowboys as your father

do you support trump

Do you support testicles with your chin

THIS MF SUPPORTS PEDOPHILES

Boo hoo

yo w

Ikr

oh my f**king god shut the f**k up

Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms.

Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. Same-sex marriage would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage.

This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing same-sex marriage have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman--well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1

you notice hw many people the earth has? 8 billion. scientists predict our resources can sustain 10 billion. so is population decline really a bad thing? yeah, it probably is. but still. same sex couples are a minority. plus, marriage is emotional. not just for procreation. not everyone wants to procreate, and that's their freedom. you also realise that practically all western countries have a below replacement rate birth rate? but our populations keep rising. how? immigration. immigration is an amazing thing. did you know almost half the people in my nation have a parent born overseas? outlawing same sex marriage wont cause more hetero relationships. it will just lessen the overall amount of people who get married. plus, same sex marriage is already legal in many of your states, and you dont see doom there, do you? marriage is simply to exemplify how much two people love each other. nothing else.

If same-sex civil marriage is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would be more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and--more importantly--more social and cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage.

But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits.

oh my god. do you actually think degendering is a bad thing? anyway, do you know how ignorant you sound saying "women are happier this way"? are you a woman? how would you know? just because a person with a degree says something doesnt mean its true, especially without evidence. has this phsycologist performed a study from women all over the sexuality spectrum all over the world? before you make an opinion, you need to look at both sides of the equation. youve looked at the conservative studies. what do the progressive ones say? then you can make an opinion for something in the middle.