What's new

So gay!!!

I'd settle for just seeing the think tank beantown regularly consults with.

laptop_monkeys.jpg
 
Really? Where does invitro fertilization fall in the wide span of biology and evolution? What do your "handfull" of biologists and evolutionists think of that?

Thats a heterosexual process. There is still a man and woman invovled.
 

I bet if you keep making fun of me all homosexuals anatomy will change so they can participate in evolution of our species as well as adding to the genetic diversity of our species. Then their relations will be just as biologically important as heterosexuals.
 
I'm really not sure how else to say this, but I've shown that they do participate in evolution. Again, I ask you to find something scientifically based that supports your position.
 
I'm really not sure how else to say this, but I've shown that they do participate in evolution. Again, I ask you to find something scientifically based that supports your position.

Answer me this question:

Do homosexuals have to rely on heterosexuals for the continuation of our species and our genetic diversity? Yes or no.
 
How are you people NOT getting this?! Beantown is correct, the right to marry in society should be based on rules of the animal kingdom. Only the strongest should marry. If you can't have kids, get the **** outta here, your love doesn't matter, it's irrelevant to our species.

I'd also suggest to irrelevantly apply this rule to other things, like giving homosexuals schooling. Or health care. Or discounts at Smiths. Can't have kids with your sexual preference? Sorry, no discount.
 
I got this Beantown:

I'm really not sure how else to say this, but I've shown that they do participate in evolution. Again, I ask you to find something scientifically based that supports your position.
While it's true that homosexuals are participating in our species' evolution in the form of population control, the are, at the same time, not participating in our species' evolution. This is because their participation is voided out due to the fact that they're gay, something we don't like very much. Does that make sense?
 
Sorry to interject, but he was not using gender as an example. Get it right Mr. Biologist. He used one's "sex." Which means M or F. Gender is one's propensity towards masculinity or feminism. Masculine male, feminine male, masculine female or feminine female. Thats gender.

c'monnnnn
 
I got this Beantown:


While it's true that homosexuals are participating in our species' evolution in the form of population control, the are, at the same time, not participating in our species' evolution. This is because their participation is voided out due to the fact that they're gay, something we don't like very much. Does that make sense?

Oooooohhhh gotcha. Yes. Much clearer. If only he'd have worded it so - I dunno - omnipotently. :p
 
If homosexuals can produce offspring and participate in evolution and genetic diversity I will happily change my opinion.

They can.

Only if they participate in heterosexual relations.

Really? Where does invitro fertilization fall in the wide span of biology and evolution? What do your "handfull" of biologists and evolutionists think of that?

Thats a heterosexual process. There is still a man and woman invovled.

No, you will just change the statement you use to exclude them, as you have done in the past.

One Brow for the win.
 
Back
Top