Ryan-Aiken social conservatism and anti-science

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just do not understand how individuals can rise to levels of success and power through spouting complete nonsense and completely rejecting basic science. I don't understand how someone can graduate from college and believe that a woman can't get pregnant if she is raped. Perhaps they don't believe this and are just saying it in the hopes that there are people out there without a high school education who will believe it, however, they should be absolutely shamed into resigning not given a vice presidential nomination.

I don't object to individuals being pro-life. While I do not agree with this position, the general position itself has legitimacy as a position. However, there should be no place for making up science, lying, or trying to harness stupidity.

Ryan never said this.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nutty eastern intellectuals don't even realize that the existence of homosexuals disproves evolution and natural selection as homosexuality would be the first trait eliminated from the gene-pool.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

lack of sex frequency.

I admit that biology is not my strongest subject, so can you explain what you mean by this? I know gay people whose frequency of sex would put most hetros to shame.

sodomy isn't sex scientifically. lol.. you fell into that one

So, you agree with President Clinton that he didn't have sex with that woman?

I don't recognize that name...if you are referring to the Predator in Chief. Technically, yes. the sperm ended up on the dress missing the target for procreation just as sure as if it was a reservior of reproductive mateial lying dormant in the bowels of an adult male homosapian.

I will bet our mutual annual salaries that the target was not procreation.

But, if I understand you correctly, "sex" refers only to acts aimed at reproduction. Without sex, a gene will be eliminated from the gene pool? Is this correct? It's interesting that you are onboard the "homosexuality is genetic" bandwagon rather than being in the "it's a lifestyle choice" camp. Very progressive of you.

exactly...it is a lifestyle choice. thats why they can change if they want to and thats why they shouldnt be given marriage rights. either that or evolution is a hoax...tk take your pick it's one or the other.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nutty eastern intellectuals don't even realize that the existence of homosexuals disproves evolution and natural selection as homosexuality would be the first trait eliminated from the gene-pool.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

lack of sex frequency.

I admit that biology is not my strongest subject, so can you explain what you mean by this? I know gay people whose frequency of sex would put most hetros to shame.

sodomy isn't sex scientifically. lol.. you fell into that one

So, you agree with President Clinton that he didn't have sex with that woman?

I don't recognize that name...if you are referring to the Predator in Chief. Technically, yes. the sperm ended up on the dress missing the target for procreation just as sure as if it was a reservior of reproductive mateial lying dormant in the bowels of an adult male homosapian.

I will bet our mutual annual salaries that the target was not procreation.

But, if I understand you correctly, "sex" refers only to acts aimed at reproduction. Without sex, a gene will be eliminated from the gene pool? Is this correct? It's interesting that you are onboard the "homosexuality is genetic" bandwagon rather than being in the "it's a lifestyle choice" camp. Very progressive of you.

exactly...it is a lifestyle choice. thats why they can change if they want to and thats why they shouldnt be given marriage rights. either that or evolution is a hoax...tk take your pick it's one or the other.

The problem with your argument is that gay people can and do reproduce.

But, even if gay people couldn't reproduce, why should they be denied marriage rights? Would you deny marriage rights to infertile heterosexual couples?

[Anonymous]

They can but they don't. And they would disappear from the gene pool as fast as a group of men with one testicle.

[Anonymous]

If people want to limit abortion, all they need to do is locate the gay gene, test for it invetro and allow people to abort hay fetuses. That would blow up the whole liberal dreamscape!

[Anonymous]

My husband has one testicle. We have 3 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:East coasters and other sophisticated urban areas need to wake up: there are legions and legions of nutty evangelicals out there. They hate the "so-called elites." We're not talking thousands of loonies...there are millions of them and they vote!

They are bible-thumping neanderthals and won't let science incovenience them in their strongly held beliefs. I wish I could just laugh Akin off, but he still might win Missouri!

Apparently the bible thumping Neanderthals are the majority in Missouri. Who knew the Evangelical hoards ruled in the state?
Flash pollling has Aiken still leading the senate race.

Congratulations Missouri, even Mississippi that bastion of liberal thinking had the brains to reject the Ryan/Aiken Personhood Amendment.
Separation of church and state no longer functions with Evangellical dominated Missouri.
If Akiken gets elected can you boycott stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nutty eastern intellectuals don't even realize that the existence of homosexuals disproves evolution and natural selection as homosexuality would be the first trait eliminated from the gene-pool.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

lack of sex frequency.

I admit that biology is not my strongest subject, so can you explain what you mean by this? I know gay people whose frequency of sex would put most hetros to shame.

sodomy isn't sex scientifically. lol.. you fell into that one

Then God has no worries with it. Lol you fell into that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nutty eastern intellectuals don't even realize that the existence of homosexuals disproves evolution and natural selection as homosexuality would be the first trait eliminated from the gene-pool.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

lack of sex frequency.

I admit that biology is not my strongest subject, so can you explain what you mean by this? I know gay people whose frequency of sex would put most hetros to shame.

sodomy isn't sex scientifically. lol.. you fell into that one

So, you agree with President Clinton that he didn't have sex with that woman?

I don't recognize that name...if you are referring to the Predator in Chief. Technically, yes. the sperm ended up on the dress missing the target for procreation just as sure as if it was a reservior of reproductive mateial lying dormant in the bowels of an adult male homosapian.

A person should not pontificate about science if he cannot correctly spell the name of his own species.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:They can but they don't. And they would disappear from the gene pool as fast as a group of men with one testicle.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are a number of gay parents right here on DCUM. Not only can they reproduce, but they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They can but they don't. And they would disappear from the gene pool as fast as a group of men with one testicle.

And yet male babies are still born with one testicle. They have not disappeared either. So how do you explain that?

[Anonymous]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pro-life-doctor-john-willke-linked-akin-forcible-rape-claims-endorsed-romney-2007-article-1.1141021

Returning to the original topic:
Aiken & Romney have been endorsed by the whacko MD who said women can turn off their reproductive system in the event of rspe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can but they don't. And they would disappear from the gene pool as fast as a group of men with one testicle.

And yet male babies are still born with one testicle. They have not disappeared either. So how do you explain that?

It's called a birth defect

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They can but they don't. And they would disappear from the gene pool as fast as a group of men with one testicle.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are a number of gay parents right here on DCUM. Not only can they reproduce, but they do.

At a infinitely lower frequency than heterosexual which scientifically leads to extinction over a few generations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:nutty eastern intellectuals don't even realize that the existence of homosexuals disproves evolution and natural selection as homosexuality would be the first trait eliminated from the gene-pool.

Why do you believe this to be the case?

lack of sex frequency.

I admit that biology is not my strongest subject, so can you explain what you mean by this? I know gay people whose frequency of sex would put most hetros to shame.

sodomy isn't sex scientifically. lol.. you fell into that one

Then God has no worries with it. Lol you fell into that one.

Why not, it's still a sin just like lying stealing passing by a poor person etc..