“...but on an evolutionary scale, it doesn’t make sense.”
But homosexuallity does? This writer is EASILY refuted.
Posted on 10/01/2012 10:02:00 AM PDT by MNDude
For starters incest is, by most civilized people, considered a vile union between two relatives. It’s not only frowned upon, but is illegal in most places. (I could totally make an Appalachia joke here, but I won’t.)
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is far from vile. It’s not even in the same category of incest no matter how hard you try to put it there. (This is where the far right jumps in to object.) Yes, it may be illegal in some places at the moment, but not for long. The likelihood of incest ever becoming legal or accepted by society is pretty low — not just because it’s been ingrained in our heads that it’s wrong, but on an evolutionary scale, it doesn’t make sense.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegloss.com ...
Far from vile?
Yeah - It's far from vile alright. But on the other side.
Homosexualism and Homo "Marriage" are way, way over the line and well into the utterly putrefying, disgusting, mentally diseased side of vile.
Incest by definition is incest between close relatives of a family. Inbreeding is between father daughter, son mother . Line breeding is Aunt nephew, Uncle niece, cousins. This can cause a lot of problems.
Heck, 55% of married British Pakistanis are married to their first cousins - and their children experience genetic disorders at a rate 13x the British norm.
The moral compass has one true north. Homosexuality might be the southern direction, while incest is another direction other than true. Both homosexuality and incest are premised upon lust, but not upon love.
“(I could totally make an Appalachia joke here, but I won’t.)”
How about a black joke?
Excellent point, as the argument against incest if the offspring. Can’t happen in that situation.
No doubt, but she exuses the other type with her stupid rhetoric.
Lesbians who engage in sex with other women are simply engaging in Mutual masturbation. They can do the same thing alone.
“...but on an evolutionary scale, it doesn’t make sense.”
But homosexuallity does? This writer is EASILY refuted.
That is because their parents were married to their first cousins and their parents and their parents and their parents back to when the Muslims conquered them.
Charles Darwin (who is no longer cited for obvious reasons) would say that homosexuality does not propagate the species and therefore does not contribute to its survival.
Vile is defined, described and exemplified by homosexuality.
How they are going to do that is easy, they gain control of the schools and media promote homosexuality as natural and cool.
Yup. Homos suck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
