Thursday, July 2, 2009

A Word on Democrats, Homosexuality, and Evolution

Recently there has been much ado about nothing regarding the affairs of two republican politicians. Liberal weenies have been squealing in delight and muttering under their breath "so much for being the family values party." In fact, recently at the bakery I was accosted (by association) as a patron went on and on about the two-faced shenanigans of the G.O.P.
First of all, the fact that we have a credo like "the family values party" to break should be enough to make the Dems shut up. The best they can hope for is that some Democrat Politician will vote to ban abortions and we'll have to mutter under our breath "ooh, so much for being the baby-killer party."
Second, the Democrats should know a thing or two about casting the proverbial first stone at marital infidelity. They still hold the trophy for all-time womanizer MVP.
Regardless of how individual members of the Republican party choose to conduct themselves does not change the fact that the G.O.P stands on the side of traditional families, marriage, abstinence-based sexual education (whether it's a good idea or not), religion (speaking generally), NOT killing babies, and heterosexuality.
Of course, that last one makes us prejudiced and intolerant...or so I hear. After all, it's not their fault their homosexual, they were born that way.
Obviously I am not a scientist, but lets analyze that for a second.
Let's say, just for kicks, that there is a recessive homosexual gene in our genetic makeup that makes a person attracted to his own gender (and immoral, but we'll save that for another day)

Example 1. (Hetero- and homosexual genes will hereby be referred to as H an h respectively)
Two HH (fully heterosexual) people marry and have 4 children

HH-----HH

HH...HH...HH...HH

all four children are HH

Example 2
Two Hh (heterosexuals with dormant homosexual gene) people mary and have 4 children

Hh-------Hh

HH....Hh.....Hh.....hh

1 child is HH, 2 are Hh, and 1 child is a flamboyant queen.

Carrying example 2 further, the gay child "marries" another homosexual person

hh-------hh

they then reproduce and.......wait a minute, THEY CAN'T REPRODUCE. The gay gene is obliterated by no more than three generations.

Again, I'm no scientist, but based on my limited knowledge of the principle of survival of the fittest if homosexuality was a genetic condition than the entire species would be teetering on the brink of extinction; unlike what we see in life were being gay is the cool thing to do and you're actually a rebel if you kiss someone who has different parts then you.
I find it humorous, actually, that the same people who believe whole-heartedly in evolution (the Democrats) also believe in...what's the best word...normalization of homosexual behavior. Darwin himself teaches that the weak or unreproductive of the species will slowly die out as animals evolve.
If the Democrats have their way (which they almost undoubtedly will now that Al Franken has secured the philibuster-proof number 60 seat in the senate) same-sex marriages and abortions will run rampant until the human race ceases to exist. On one hand we'll have families who can't have children and on the other we'll have children who never make it out of the womb.
In my head it plays out like a science fiction move. Centuries from now aliens will find a desolate planet, with nothing but the bones of gay-pride-parade patrons and unborn fetuses. They'll wonder amongst themselves
"What kind of planet was this, what kind of people?"
And as the credits begin to roll the camera will pan to show the statue of liberty half-buried in sand with a red and blue donkey painted on her chest.
Now that's some change I can believe in.

3 comments:

  1. Oh Ben, I'm so glad you started a blog. I love reading your stuff. Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh Ben, I’m also glad you started a blog. It helps reexamine and reassert my views.
    I realize (or at least hope) that you aren’t as crazy as you sound and some things are said only for hyperbolic effect. (I don’t think I can change the end of that word without giving it a mathematical meaning, but go off of context) I don’t have the time (or mostly the energy) to comment on all of it, but here are a few of my thoughts…
    I got the impression early on that this may be a blog heavy on the republican side- partially because I know you, and partially because it started off with the phrase “liberal weenies”.
    “All-time womanizer MVP”? I’ll let you clarify who you think that is before I argue with that.
    I agree that the acts of a few Republicans don’t change the views of the Republican Party. Also you imply that the Democrats want to kill babies. This is nonsense. They kill fetuses. If somebody has already gone through the pain of childbirth, they might as well keep the baby.
    Obviously, as you stated, you are not a scientist, so I’ll add some scientific credibility since I am a scientist (kind of). The two gene dominant and recessive model is useful for explaining biology to junior high students, but it’s not quite the way things really work (kind of like how atoms aren’t really a nucleus with little bb electrons orbiting it, and e isn’t exactly equal to mc^2 either).
    Even if the model holds, in example 2 you say “the gay gene is obliterated by no more than three generations.” This isn’t true though. Now 2/3 of the reproducing children are carriers of the gay gene.
    Also, although some people believe homosexuality is genetic, saying, “I was born that way” doesn’t mean it’s an inherited trait. Being gay could be due to the mother drinking too many appletinis while pregnant.
    And don’t worry about extinction the way you described it. Utah is doing its part to save us. As long as everybody gets married and has 2 kids we’ll be ok (assuming equal birth and death rates). Utah is actually helping to support gays. For every pair of children after 2, a family earns a “gay credit” which can be used to sponsor one civil union. (i.e. my friend has 12 kids in their family, so now 5 more gay couples can get married)
    If there’s anything we have to worry about it’s overpopulation and running out of resources. We’ve got too many people and not enough jobs, there are plenty of kids who need to be adopted, and the arts are declining in America. Gay people can help stabilize our population and ultimately save America. That’s right Ben, gay people are saving America.

    p.s. I think we should start a blog called “Wood Vs. Willis”. I’ve already got a cool “WvW” logo idea.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David, you raise some very good points.
    First of, to clarify your question I was, in fact, referring to William Clinton. Now I realize the case could be made of other men who have had a greater number of sexual partners, but they didn't hold such a high-visibility position as Billy boy. AS such I award our former president the MVP.
    To your comments about baby-killing vs. fetus-killing I suggest you google Partial Birth Abortions, although I recomend that you don't do immediately after or before eating.
    And, lastly, I am sad to admit that my genetic model has its flaws but I still feel that it carries the point that I was trying to get across. A genetic defect in a sterile branch of the species hardly holds for multi-generational growth i.e. no one worries about a red headed mule.

    ReplyDelete