Home | News | Forums | Turf Map | Screenshots | Play Turf Wars Now!

🔥Mouse with 2 moms debate.🔥

• ᎠR☠ULZᎽ✯И~山~Я✧ Dec 21, 2012

  If your dad hasnt got a beard, you've got 2 mums.
• Jack Aubrey Dec 21, 2012

  ulyanov wrote:

  If your dad hasnt got a beard, you've got 2 mums.
  

  Even if he does, with this advance, you still could. Now he doesn't have to only worry about whether his kid is really the postman's - now it could be the postwoman's. 😂
• ♠️ADD TURFA♠️ Dec 21, 2012

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  Right or wrong, I do think this is a waste of scientific resources. They should be doing other things like curing diseases. That is more important than making same sex couples have children IMO. There are plenty of orphans out there that deserve homes that could be adopted.
  

  This, IMHO, is the most sensible, useful post so far.

  However, in my next post, I intend to quote the funniest one so far. And to be honest, I like it more. Because it made me laugh.

  Onward to the funnies page! 👉😂👍
• ♠️ADD TURFA♠️ Dec 21, 2012

  Jack Aubrey wrote:

  ulyanov wrote:

  If your dad hasnt got a beard, you've got 2 mums.
  

  Even if he does, with this advance, you still could. Now he doesn't have to only worry about whether his kid is really the postman's - now it could be the postwoman's. 😂

  See? This one here 👆 is the funny one I liked. So yeah ... I'm done here, btw. Lol
• ★Λubergine★ Dec 21, 2012

  ϻ͞ċȵя͟ɗƖҽ wrote:

  GreenPhoeni/x/ wrote: ✂✂✂

  also stop eating GMO foods.
  

  I really don't get what people have against GMO crops. Yes, Monsanto is a bunch of heartless fucking pricks, but without GMO crops, a lot of foods we have today would be extinct, or simply inedible. Part of the reason the Banana is going extinct is because Eco-fags throw a hissy-fit every time someone suggests a genetic solution to a genetic problem. If we went without GMO, our crop yields simply wouldn't be enough. And the guvnamint isn't putting any mind-control hormones in your food, either.

  More food can be produced using only all-natural, genetically unmodified crops. That's right, MORE. Nature does it best. Read Biomimicry.
• swamper Dec 21, 2012

  This means that all female couples will never need to have a threesome to have a kid
• Thumbs Riley Dec 21, 2012

  swamper wrote:

  This means that all female couples will never need to have a threesome to have a kid
  

  You sound sad.
• TheRamb Add: 86 Dec 21, 2012

  certusd wrote:

  We've always manipulated gene pools. Bred strongest or colours etc even in flowers and animals. So why not.
  
• TheRamb Add: 86 Dec 21, 2012

  ♠Ƭϋʀғä♠ wrote:

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  Right or wrong, I do think this is a waste of scientific resources. They should be doing other things like curing diseases. That is more important than making same sex couples have children IMO. There are plenty of orphans out there that deserve homes that could be adopted.
  

  This, IMHO, is the most sensible, useful post so far.

  However, in my next post, I intend to quote the funniest one so far. And to be honest, I like it more. Because it made me laugh.

  Onward to the funnies page! 👉😂👍
  

  You do know they are working on curing different diseases? That in fact there isn't only one scientist choosing what he wants in the world? Silly.
• ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ Dec 21, 2012

  TheRamb Add: 86 wrote:

  ♠Ƭϋʀғä♠ wrote:

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  Right or wrong, I do think this is a waste of scientific resources. They should be doing other things like curing diseases. That is more important than making same sex couples have children IMO. There are plenty of orphans out there that deserve homes that could be adopted.
  

  This, IMHO, is the most sensible, useful post so far.

  However, in my next post, I intend to quote the funniest one so far. And to be honest, I like it more. Because it made me laugh.

  Onward to the funnies page! 👉😂👍
  

  You do know they are working on curing different diseases? That in fact there isn't only one scientist choosing what he wants in the world? Silly.

  What about the funding though? This has to be some expensive research.
• Ꭱ3V Dec 21, 2012

  swamper wrote:

  This means that all female couples will never need to have a threesome to have a kid
  

  Dumbass.
• Ojibwe Dec 21, 2012

  swamper wrote:

  This means that all female couples will never need to have a threesome to have a kid
  

  Onesome 😃
• ༎།SཛཀᎢཇΧ།༎ Dec 21, 2012

  Hahaha, this will never come to fruition...And if any of you want to pull that "it's the future!" reasoning, why don't we all just mate with animals? Hmm? You idiots think humans don't have limits?....Well, we do.
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 21, 2012

  sebastian5367 wrote:

  I think we should stick to what nature says to do. MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX. Don't mess around with people's genes
  

  Nature says to marry opposite sex? Hmm didn't know that. You'd think if that's what nature said then animals would abide the natural laws then right? Yet many species have different sexualities within it.....oh wait....you're a dumb fuck. Ah never mind then. Just giving your opinion eh? Maybe go read a science book. Or in your case...a few 😄
• ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ Dec 21, 2012

  ∞ $ℰℰḲ€ℜ ∞ wrote:

  sebastian5367 wrote:

  I think we should stick to what nature says to do. MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX. Don't mess around with people's genes
  

  Nature says to marry opposite sex? Hmm didn't know that. You'd think if that's what nature said then animals would abide the natural laws then right? Yet many species have different sexualities within it.....oh wait....you're a dumb fuck. Ah never mind then. Just giving your opinion eh? Maybe go read a science book. Or in your case...a few 😄

  I actually looked into the homosexual animal thing and found out that its not about sex at all, it's about dominance.
• Jack Aubrey Dec 21, 2012

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  ∞ $ℰℰḲ€ℜ ∞ wrote:

  sebastian5367 wrote:

  I think we should stick to what nature says to do. MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX. Don't mess around with people's genes
  

  Nature says to marry opposite sex? ✂

  I actually looked into the homosexual animal thing and found out that its not about sex at all, it's about dominance.

  Since the animals can't tell us, this is just conjecture. Bonobos, the animal most closely related to humans, appear to engage in homosexual conduct as a form of social bonding and to provide comfort to hurt or distressed group members. Then again, bonobos are horny little bastards that seem willing to fuck for just about any old reason. Kind of like humans.
• Jack Aubrey Dec 21, 2012

  Ojibwe wrote:

  swamper wrote:

  This means that all female couples will never need to have a threesome to have a kid
  

  Onesome 😃

  I think that's called cloning.
• Jack Aubrey Dec 21, 2012

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  TheRamb Add: 86 wrote:

  ♠Ƭϋʀғä♠ wrote:

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  Right or wrong, I do think this is a waste of scientific resources. They should be doing other things like curing diseases. That is more important than making same sex couples have children IMO. There are plenty of orphans out there that deserve homes that could be adopted.
  

  ✂

  What about the funding though? This has to be some expensive research.

  It is. It's all privately funded, though (at least in the U.S. - not sure about other countries) because it is seen as a huge money maker since infertile couples will pay through the nose for a kid "of their own." And at least it's less trivial than some things people seem willing to throw their money at. Like, say, this game. 😉
• 〓 S E E K E R 〓 Dec 21, 2012

  Jack Aubrey wrote:

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  ∞ $ℰℰḲ€ℜ ∞ wrote:

  sebastian5367 wrote:

  I think we should stick to what nature says to do. MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX. Don't mess around with people's genes
  

  Nature says to marry opposite sex? ✂

  I actually looked into the homosexual animal thing and found out that its not about sex at all, it's about dominance.

  Since the animals can't tell us, this is just conjecture. Bonobos, the animal most closely related to humans, appear to engage in homosexual conduct as a form of social bonding and to provide comfort to hurt or distressed group members.

  Sooo does that mean we should have sex with family members when they are distressed? 😳.....I'll pass 😷
• ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ Dec 21, 2012

  Closer kin deeper in👆😂
• Thumbs Riley Dec 21, 2012

  @Seeker: Only if you normally take your behavioral cues from the animal kingdom.
• Brad Lovegrove Dec 22, 2012

  sebastian5367 wrote:

  I think we should stick to what nature says to do. MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX. Don't mess around with people's genes
  

  Nature says to marry the opposite sex? Holy shit. Dude, if you know where we can see tigers having a wedding reception you've gotta let us know!
• ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ Dec 22, 2012

  Not that same sex couples are wrong, but it does go against the laws of nature to pick the same sex as a mate. Naturally speaking, our only purpose in life is to reproduce. With this new research, same sex couples may not violate the laws of nature because they will be able to produce offspring.
• ♠️ADD TURFA♠️ Dec 22, 2012

  TheRamb Add: 86 wrote:

  ♠Ƭϋʀғä♠ wrote:

  ☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:

  Right or wrong, I do think this is a waste of scientific resources. They should be doing other things like curing diseases. That is more important than making same sex couples have children IMO. There are plenty of orphans out there that deserve homes that could be adopted.
  

  This, IMHO, is the most sensible, useful post so far.

  However, in my next post, I intend to quote the funniest one so far. And to be honest, I like it more. Because it made me laugh.

  Onward to the funnies page! 👉😂👍
  

  You do know they are working on curing different diseases? That in fact there isn't only one scientist choosing what he wants in the world? Silly.

  You do realize that I already knew that, and I still stand by what I said? Silly.

Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC