"What Loren said and I don't see a place to add videos on your page like before.
I will keep looking around the site and see if I think of anything else."
 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Mischief Anyone?
I'm not sure where to file this, so I'll put in under Sacred Texts, but it's very tongue in cheek - so much so that your cheek might explode and it's not intended to cause offence (to gay people anyway).
So here we go: "And Dogma Created Gays"
It's well known that evolution favours mutations that survive and to survive we have to replicate those mutations multiple times.
Gay people, by definition do not have sex with members of the opposite sex and therefore cannot pass the "gay" gene on so homosexuality should have died out millennia ago: yet it's still with us.
There can only be one explanation for this.
Gay folk are breeding!
And the only way they can be breeding is that, through the strict interpretation of biblical texts, gay folk forced to marry and have children against their very nature. If we were more tolerant, and let them be "gay" the gene would, in time, be expelled from the gene pool and we'd all live happily ever after.
There are even courses, run by Evangelicals, who claim to be able to cure people of their homosexuality!
Therefore, it was religion's dumb interfering that gave us gay folk!
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to take this knowledge; improve it and sew the seeds of angsts among the religious having a great time doing so.
So here we go: "And Dogma Created Gays"
It's well known that evolution favours mutations that survive and to survive we have to replicate those mutations multiple times.
Gay people, by definition do not have sex with members of the opposite sex and therefore cannot pass the "gay" gene on so homosexuality should have died out millennia ago: yet it's still with us.
There can only be one explanation for this.
Gay folk are breeding!
And the only way they can be breeding is that, through the strict interpretation of biblical texts, gay folk forced to marry and have children against their very nature. If we were more tolerant, and let them be "gay" the gene would, in time, be expelled from the gene pool and we'd all live happily ever after.
There are even courses, run by Evangelicals, who claim to be able to cure people of their homosexuality!
Therefore, it was religion's dumb interfering that gave us gay folk!
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to take this knowledge; improve it and sew the seeds of angsts among the religious having a great time doing so.
Tags: creationists, dogma, evolution, humor, rumors
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tedster on -
Hey you got something there. It also explains why I have meet so many Gay ex-Mormons.
-
Permalink Reply by Goz on -
Ok you gay guys,head for the sperm banks...And don't dally!!!!
Actually,I have met some older gay men and women who did get married and had children, as as they got older,decided to divorce and come out.
-
Permalink Reply by Jezzy on -
I wrote about Gay Rights for a research paper. Since I'm in 11th grade English, I didn't have enough time, and it was only supposed to be like 5 pages and I managed to cut mine down to 11. Needless to say I didn't read as much as I wanted to, but one of the books I was reading was talking about this very thing.
He started with the exact same thesis, only, he used it to prove that if homosexuality could possibly be a gene, it could not work that way. After all, that would be admitting that gay boys have gay papas.
A lot of research of "gay genes" involves hormones of the mother. And that may not fly so well because people are extra politically correct as far as women are concerned.
Still, if anyone brings it up, its a really fun way to fight back. And as Christians continually have to backtrack their theories on homosexuality as a "sin" a "deviation" a "choice"... they may soon actually have to admit it's natural!
-
Permalink Reply by Karl on -
A serious point here, can anyone point me to passages in religious texts which are specific in saying that homosexuality is a sin ?
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on -
In the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 is translated: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
-
Permalink Reply by Janet Holmes on -
It's interesting to note that the bible doesn't bother to forbid women from having sex with each other. They were so powerless that they had to get married and have children whoever they fancied, so it didn't matter!
-
Permalink Reply by Karl on
-
Cheers,
I dunno why people, including people who wrote the bible get their knickers in such a twist over what people do in bed.
-
Permalink Reply by Goz on
-
Yup...And they have to have a scape goat to use ti get their flock all riled up and gays are perfect in that role.
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on
-
People didn't do that in beds - as we know them - in those days; and I rather suspect that it grossed *some* folk out then like it does now. That's where these ideas come from. Live and let live is a relatively new concept.
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on
-
Same with paedos, apparently. The most vocal anti-paedophiles are often paedophiles trying to divert attention from themselves. We have to be careful though as this doesn't necessarily apply.
On the other hand, when it came to the Romans, I've heard it said that they had sex with people of all sexes and ages: the sort of things polite society would wince at (or has long established laws for) these days were completely normal to them.
-
Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on -
When considering the evolution of a behavior, the biological and social context needs to be taken into consideration. After all, religion is a behavior, and the majority of the world's people are religious. How did it come to be that a behavior that promotes a falsehood dominates the planet? Is there a genetic, selective advantage for religion? Probably, including aspects that include tribalism, killing off people who don't beleive or practice the dominant religion, hypersexualism in the church (ask anyone who has been to a revival), and other aspects. Separate topic, but the evolution of memes comes into play here as well.
As for homosexuality and reproduction, the "one man + one woman" marriage is not the sole pattern in all of history, despite what homophobes in American politics want you to pelieve. Just look at their own bible, and at multiple nonWestern societies, or the 'serial monogamy' common in the US today. Face it, that leads to the definition "one-man-one-woman-at-a-time"). Attraction to the same sex is not and has never been an all or nothing phenomenon. The attraction of men to men, and bonding with men, has historical precedent in the battlefield (think the example of the Spartans), and probably in the hunt, and probably in other settings. Fighting to save your lover may well give an advantage when confronted with that mastedon. Women, bonding with women, may also have had evolutionary advantages, especially if men were off hunting and fighting and 'male bonding' (wink wink). Sexual bonding could build community, help with child rearing, and again lead to social stability.
True, there are some people who are attracted solely to their own sex, or solely to the opposite sex, but even they may have had marriages and children, especially before the modern era.
Even in the modern era, when fewer same-sex couples have children compared to opposite sex couples, having gays in the family and workplace can help with finances, and covering for the people who are off work to do family activities and care for sick kids.
As with religion, sexuality is too complex to attribute to a single gene or set of genes, and varies in the social context.
As to whether homophobic religions have a role in development of modern homosexuality, thre is probably a point there. Forcing society to fit into either "one man + one woman" mold, vs. "everyone else is marginalized", probably does lead to ghettoization of gays and secret sexual exploits by the many married men who have strong same sex attraction.
Sorry to overintellectualize a humorous posting. I understand that the intent is supportive.
-
Permalink Reply by Marc Draco on
-
No problem here, Daniel.
Yes, it was a rather "tongue in cheek to hard that it bursts" but the intellectual side of this argument is equally interesting and I'm glad someone has had the time to explore it.
If we make fun of a serious point by understanding the true ramifications of it, I expect we will always win the argument and that weakens the position of the people we oppose.
Strewth, I hope that was coherent... long day today.
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
booklover commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"You always have a great perspective Joan!
Thanks Steph, my daughter started her hardest class, math, yesterday. The other 2 have different start-dates."
Loren Miller replied to Loren Miller's discussion Latest Activity?"About the only thing I don't see on my home page that was there originally is the MP3 player and playlist. Not cosmic, by any stretch, but I thought I'd mention it."
Two Cult Survivor commented on Wyatt's blog post Theists, Cargo Cults, and Logic"They mistake logic with internal consistency.
If you show a theist that his views are internally inconsistent, you will have some measure of success. He will make a good faith (ha!) effort at modifying his views to make them more internally…"
Richard Haynes replied to Loren Miller's discussion Latest Activity?"I believe we have almost everything complete. Does anyone notice any other problems?"
blue pashmina commented on Randall Smith's blog post The Rednecks are coming, the Rednecks are coming"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LP3Zs_V_BQ
I'm sure you have seen this already because everyone is talking about it, but this lady made my day. I think she was really classy! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LP3Zs_V_BQ
"
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
