Elton John Gives Jay-Z Props For Gay Marriage Stance: "I'm Going To Give Him The Biggest Hug"

whats wrong with supporting gay marriage?

who does it hurt?

thats like saying whites and blacks shouldn't be able to marry.

and if you try and use religion as an excuse they said the same things to keep blacks from getting rights.

brainwashed[..] little niccas

whats wrong with supporting gay marriage?

who does it hurt?

thats like saying whites and blacks shouldn't be able to marry.

and if you try and use religion as an excuse they said the same things to keep blacks from getting rights.

brainwashed[..] little niccas

whats wrong with supporting gay marriage?

who does it hurt?

thats like saying whites and blacks shouldn't be able to marry.

and if you try and use religion as an excuse they said the same things to keep blacks from getting rights.

brainwashed[..] little niccas

MLK didn't fight for !!ry !!
he would be sick to his stomach if he saw Brotha Jamal married to Brotha Malik, he didn't
say I have a dream where mans can marry each other and spread !!ry to future
generations. HE DID NOT say any of that !!,

whats wrong with supporting gay marriage?

who does it hurt?

thats like saying whites and blacks shouldn't be able to marry.

and if you try and use religion as an excuse they said the same things to keep blacks from getting rights.

brainwashed[..] little niccas

Proponents of the gay agenda like to say their lifestyle is genetically determined and they don't have a choice in the matter. Most homosecksuals reject God so they can't claim they were "created" the way they are. From this we can conclude that most agree with the tenets of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

However, this position poses a logical contradiction. Just consider the basic scientific definition of Evolution, which is, according to the MedTerms Online Medical Dictionary: "the continuing process of change, especially in reference to natural selection."

Under Darwin's process of natural selection, all "beings" — as opposed to the outmoded religious idea of "creatures" — are continually adapting to their natural environment in order to have a better chance of surviving. The weakest and most poorly adapted die off, while the strongest and most improved survive long enough to mate. Their offspring inherit their genes, and thus the species improves from one generation to the next.

Darwin "noted that successful species produce more offspring in each generation than are needed to replace the adults who die . . . The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction," MedTerms explains.

This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce secksually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. Under evolution, then, successful reproduction is the key. Homosecksuals would cease to exist because their secksual practices are such that they do not produce natural offspring.

Therein lies the quandary, then, for the gay activist seeking to make his intellectual case for respectability based on science and genetics. These secular gods have abandoned him to oblivion. By their iron laws of Natural Selection, he cannot possibly exist, let alone be genetically preserved and determined.

This poses a huge dilemma for both the homosecksuals and the evolutionists. Are the evolutionists willing to weaken their dogma by accepting the homosecksuals as a genetically determined subspecies? If evolutionists accept homosecksuals, the whole Darwinian argument falls apart.