What about people that believe homosexuality is immoral because that's what the bible says.  Would they fall under category 1?

You have a talking bible?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Here's an example of something that is a negative trait with regards to evolution: waiting until your 30s to have kids. Birth defect rates increase dramatically.

But we don't make moral judgements of people who wait. Why? Because we aren't really worried about what minuscule impact we might make on the human race regarding evolution.

But we worry about the miniscule impact we might make by refusing SSM?

WTF?

Was at Disney all week, they had talking everything...and tons of screaming brats. 

You stole from Disneyland?   Heathen.

IF ANOTHER JEHOVAS WITNESS KNOCKS ON ME DOOR, I'M GONNA SHOVE THOSE TRACTS RIGHT UP HIS/HER ARSE

CAN I GET A WITNESS!?!??!?!?!

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2013 3:37:00 PM (view original):
You stole from Disneyland?   Heathen.

The mouse's hand was in my pocket all week, some reciprocation was in order.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
I answered. It's evolution neutral. Someone is, for whatever reason, choosing not to procreate.

Inability to procreate is not evolution neutral.  It's evolution negative.

If all 7 billion people on the planet today somehow became strictly homosexual tomorrow (to appease bistiza, let's say we all choose to go full out ****), then the human race would become extinct within the next 100 years.  Probably sooner.

How, exactly, is that "evolution neutral"?

I'M NOT JOINING YOUR *** PARADE, TEC!!!!!

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
I answered. It's evolution neutral. Someone is, for whatever reason, choosing not to procreate.

Inability to procreate is not evolution neutral.  It's evolution negative.

If all 7 billion people on the planet today somehow became strictly homosexual tomorrow (to appease bistiza, let's say we all choose to go full out ****), then the human race would become extinct within the next 100 years.  Probably sooner.

How, exactly, is that "evolution neutral"?

Individual homosexuals still have the ability to procreate.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/10/2013 3:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Here's an example of something that is a negative trait with regards to evolution: waiting until your 30s to have kids. Birth defect rates increase dramatically.

But we don't make moral judgements of people who wait. Why? Because we aren't really worried about what minuscule impact we might make on the human race regarding evolution.

But we worry about the miniscule impact we might make by refusing SSM?

WTF?

Shockingly, I'm not seeing your point. Or you aren't seeing mine.

Jellybabies don't count.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 4:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 3:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
I answered. It's evolution neutral. Someone is, for whatever reason, choosing not to procreate.

Inability to procreate is not evolution neutral.  It's evolution negative.

If all 7 billion people on the planet today somehow became strictly homosexual tomorrow (to appease bistiza, let's say we all choose to go full out ****), then the human race would become extinct within the next 100 years.  Probably sooner.

How, exactly, is that "evolution neutral"?

Individual homosexuals still have the ability to procreate.

What part don't you understand about strictly homosexual?

Should I use different words?

How about "exclusively homosexual"?  If the human race became exclusively homosexual tomorrow, would that be an "evolution neutral" event?