Quote# 59511

I was thinking about this the other day; about why Liberals support homosexuality. You see, my reasoning is thus: Liberals, mostly being atheists ,deny the existence of God and seek alternative explanations such as Evolution; in other words, they are Darwinists. However, hand in hand with Darwinism goes the concept of 'survival of the fittest'. And it's here that their hypocrisy comes up. Homosexuality contributes nothing to the human race; it does nothing to produce a new generation. As such, it should have died out, and the liberals should be saying 'rightly so'. However, they support the homosexual agenda, and I came to two absurd conclusions about this (they were the only ones I could think of). Either the liberals support homosexuality to cover up the hole in 'survival of the fittest', or they support it purely to annoy Christian Conservatives (is it possible that they base their policies on sheer obnoxiousness?). Thought I would post this here, to see if I can get any more sensible conclusions. Or have I hit this absurd, twisted nail on the head?

ETrundel, conservapedia 74 Comments [2/23/2009 11:12:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 | bottom

Bass X

How about believing in equality for all consenting adults?

2/23/2009 11:15:47 PM


Seriously, did all of the fundies get the "evolution can't explain homosexuality" memo at the exact same time? There's gotta be a reason that at least 4 quotes on the main page have this same line of reasoning.

2/23/2009 11:17:11 PM


You are posting on Conservapedia to get sensible conclusions? That's like going to a KKK meeting to get race relation expertise.

2/23/2009 11:21:48 PM


"However, they support the homosexual agenda, and I came to two absurd conclusions about this (they were the only ones I could think of)."

You are correct. They are both completely absurd.

Unsurprisingly, though, you missed the obvious (and most-likely correct) conclusion: they believe that allowing all humans live their lives as they see fit is the right thing to do.

Kinda like that "Jesus" guy, but what did he know, right?

2/23/2009 11:25:44 PM


Berny said it better than I could.

2/23/2009 11:28:58 PM

Old Yeller

How fucking wrong can one post be.

Is this a combination of a hundred wrong posts or is it a new standard for wrong?

2/23/2009 11:31:06 PM


Homosexuality contributes nothing to the human race; it does nothing to produce a new generation. As such, it should have died out
All this means is that it is not likely to be primarily a trait that is passed on like dominant / recessive genes. Learn a bit about science and you'll be astounded at how complex things are.

2/23/2009 11:32:57 PM


Epic fail on so many levels.

2/23/2009 11:33:10 PM


How would evolutionary processes cause the extinction of humanity? If anything, the ToE is proved. Diversity and all that. People who are born homosexual, are born through the normal birth process, ie, male impregnating female. A small percentage of humans are born homosexual, but that does nothing to cause the extinction of homosexuals, since others are born, all the time, worldwide. It is just one element of the diversity of humanity.

The only absurd, twisted head here is your own little pin-head.

2/23/2009 11:38:35 PM


That's funny, I could have sworn it was because I believe that consenting adults should have the right to live their lives the way they see fit.

2/23/2009 11:41:18 PM

Mrs. Antichrist

You're right, those are absurd conclusions.

2/23/2009 11:44:01 PM


Actually it's because I don't think I have the right to oppose it politically.

I mean, the idea of gay sex is disgusting to me personally, but that doesn't mean I want to magically make it illegal.

And it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with marriage rights.

Or evolution.

Annoying Christian fundies is definitely also part of it.

2/23/2009 11:45:29 PM


@ Reckoner

It must be the subject of the week on 700 club or something. The topics do run in waves from somewhere. I want to find the root to kill it. Maybe if they had to think for themselves, a braincell or two would engage.

2/23/2009 11:47:07 PM


The fact that evolution is true doesnt have any bearing one whether it's moral or not. Are supernovas and gamma ray bursts moral when they annihilate all life on a planet?

2/23/2009 11:49:57 PM

Giant clusterfuck of fail.

2/23/2009 11:52:40 PM


Or, you're an idiot and the raison d'etre of people who disagree with you isn't to annoy you.

2/23/2009 11:58:36 PM

When anybody at Conservapedia begins a post with, "I was thinking", you know they haven't been thinking and are probably incapable of thinking. The rest of the post becomes irrelevant.

2/24/2009 12:01:25 AM

Old Viking

Hasn't got a clue.

2/24/2009 12:04:57 AM

Reverend Jeremiah

umm, evolution is NOT an alternative explanation. It is THE explanation.

2/24/2009 12:11:51 AM


Both conclusions are absurd. If every single human born were homosexual, there might be some dying off taking place. The fact that just a small portion or percentage of the human species is homosexual means the rest must be heterosexual. Meaning, procreation takes place naturally. Natural selection has nothing to do with this. The sheer number of hetero's born ensures that the human race is not threatened by natural selection at all, and since people are BORN homosexual, they will just keep getting born. It just helps with OVERpopulation if a small percentage is homosexual.

2/24/2009 12:12:56 AM


You haven't hit the nail on the head, but I sure hope someone hits you on the head. Dolt.

2/24/2009 12:18:01 AM


With a glass hammer. Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that populations evolve?

2/24/2009 12:20:26 AM

Thinking Allowed

Conservapedia...nuff said.

2/24/2009 12:21:57 AM


Homosexuality adds more contributors society and is less likely to result in excess population, possibly even caring for the ignored population.

2/24/2009 12:22:14 AM

"I came to two absurd conclusions"

You sure did.

2/24/2009 12:34:52 AM

1 2 3 | top: comments page