Religion is the only argument FOR faggot marriages...
Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
The facts of biology trump religion
47 comments
Try again Frank.
*source*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Lizards
Whip-tailed lizard females have the ability to reproduce through parthenogenesis and as such males are rare and sexual breeding non-standard. Females engage in sexual behaviour to stimulate ovulation, with their behaviour following their hormonal cycles; during low levels of estrogen, these (female) lizards engage in "masculine" sexual roles. Those animals with currently high estrogen levels assume "feminine" sexual roles.
Lizards that perform the courtship ritual have greater fecundity than those kept in isolation due to an increase in hormones triggered by the sexual behaviours. So, even though asexual whiptail lizards populations lack males, sexual stimuli still increase reproductive success.
From an evolutionary standpoint these females are passing their full genetic code to all of their offspring rather than the 50% of genes that would be passed in sexual reproduction. Certain species of gecko also reproduce by parthenogenesis
WTF has evolution got to do with marriage??
Ohhhh, you're one of those fucktards who thinks marriage is just about producing offspring and nothing more. Cunt.
Evolution also says we're closely related to apes like chimpanzees or gorillas who live in small family groups where only the highest-ranking members reproduce.
For those groups, it is good[/] to have family members who are attracted to the same sex because it helps to reduce stress caused by sexual tension.
> Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships.
Evolution is not inherently possible in relationships of any kind.
Evolution is possible due to procreation .
There's a very subtle difference between the two. See if you can catch it.
Spoiler: Marriage falls under sociology. Sex falls under biology. Guess which branch of science studies evolution.
Evolution deals with populations, not individuals. Here is one possible example where homosexual behaviour used to alleviate sexual stresses would benefit a population.
Um... This is strange. Is this fundie actually admitting that the only reason gay marriage is being opposed is because of religion, and is he actually admitting that evolution exists?
Or have I not had enough caffeine this morning and need to read it again later?
Since when do we only procreate to see how nature will toss around our genes? Besides, clever humans that we are, we have figured out ways to have children without having a relationship between donors.
EVOLUTION IS NOT AN ETHICAL GUIDELINE.
For fucks sake. Just because the fundies can't figure out morality for themselves and have to follow the edicts of the creator-god of an ancient, primitive society, doesn't mean the rest of us have to take our best scientific understanding of the development of life on our planet as the ultimate moral guideline!
Oh, Francis! I love your gay, gay, gayyyyy name.
Anyway: what? I think you might've had those two parts reversed.
Except biology doesn't have anything to do with moral imperatives. So no, the facts of biology don't trump religion.
In fact, natural selection essentially accounts for homosexuality being non-beneficial to an organism's reproductive success. If it's genetic, the homosexual still won't be reproducing, so the gene won't be passed on. If you FORCE them to have children, though, by forcing them into a heterosexual relationship, suddenly you're keeping the gene going.
In other words, if you actually understood evolution and still didn't like gays, you'd be FOR them marrying, because it means they aren't going to pass the gene on.
#1095321 wrote:
"And this guy actually claims to be an atheist..." Woot! Our first atheist homophobe!
Well, our first in a while, at least.
The gay gene for males actually propagates through the female parent, since the gene results in higher fertility in females. Because of this, the gay gene is actually a large boon for the survival of the species as a whole.
Reference: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article493668.ece
As a religious person, I am happily prepared to argue for hours for the need for gay marriages.
As a science dabbler, I have read that genes inclining their bearers to be gay may have become entrenched in human populations because having a nonbreeding adult aunt or uncle upped a child's chances of survival through more food, adult attention, etc.
Something to think about, Freeper.
I usually do a bit for pushing homosexual marriage into legality. I NEVER use religion. Who the fuck would? Religion is completely irrelevant to legality?
Is evolution only possible with heterosexual relationships? On a micro scale, yes. On a macro level, no. The fact of the matter is, homosexuality has benefits. There are 10% of the world who are not contributing to overpopulation.
Evolution is possible regardless of marital status, stupid. You do not get a key after you say "I do" that unlocks procreation.
Ask the whiptail lizards how HETEROSEXUAL their relationships are.
That username reminded me firsthand of Mike Oldfield and Vivian Stanshall performing the Sailor's Hornpipe.
Evolution, unlike religion, is no moral code. Also, higher population = more homosexuals by numbers alone, and to prevent overpopulation.
Seahorses. The male gives birth.
Certain frogs are known to spontaneously change their gender , so...! [/'Nature Finds A Way']
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
