BlindMan:

so are you opposed to homosexuality, and if so, why?

Lets see muslems chop off the head of an American and none seems to mind yet some preacher makes a bad joke and everyone here gets angry?

Cutting off the head of an American = Ok
Making a bad joke = Death

No wonder your loseing a war to a backwards people.

Oh did you hear the news now magazines want parents to talk to ten yearolds about having sex. Anyone remember when it was 16 yearolds? I do.

Religion of Peace!

BearToy:

Here's teh ghey agenda, since you missed it...

1. Take over world
2. Decorate it tastefully
3. Profit!

Diogenes a Gay gene does not exist yet I would not be suprised if a scat gene does.

BlindMan

1) Having no effect on 'you' is not a criteria
ex: Nuking fallujah would have no effect on you. In fact it might have a net positive effect on you. Yet and still, I suspect you oppose it.

There's a difference between being opposed to the nuclear annihilation of a city and being opposed to the expression of love between to people who are the same sex. One is murder, the other is not. Are you against murder, even if you're not the one being murdered?

2) The definition of 'harm' is highly debatable, that aside - every moral notion is not necessarily predicated on anyone being 'harmed' - period.
ex: If I piss all over the Koran, no one is physically harmed. Is it moral to do so?

A molested child is demonstrably harmed - theres no debate there.
Also, MOST moral arguments are based on whether anyone is harmed. It's one of the primary tests we can use. In fact, it's the basis of law.
You CAN piss all over the Koran (or Bible), you can burn it, you can crap on it. You'll get no moral argument from me. I might think you're a cock though.


3) Somethink making people happy is not a criteria
ex: Robbing you presumably makes robbers happy.

Yes, but see point 2 above. Robbery creates a victim. There's no victim in a homosexual relationship. Except you, I guess.

What if all the gays surround ol' Jimmy and say "We're going to kill you and tell God you died," but sarcastically. How do you think ol' Jimbo would take that?

He'd shiat a farking brick and claim he was threatened, that's what.

The man is a loser. Religion is for pussies.

Arcadian,

Also, I believe I really tried to point out that I was using a harsh example. What should I have chosen that wouldn't have offended you? Drug addiction? Alcoholism? Plural marriage? Incest? You find one that won't offend anybody, and I'll use it.

Heterosexuality. Compare homosexuality to that. It's the most valid comparison you'll find.

They're both sexual orientations. They're neither positive nor negative orientations.

Of course that doesn't support your "They choose to engage in gay relations, so fark em." stance.

I quote:

I don't see why people keep saying they don't. It isn't "being gay" that gets them marked by the raving hordes like Swaggart, it's the "living the lifestyle" that gets them marked by the "godhatesfags" crowd.

I'm not saying gays should hide in the closet and eventually (as BearToy put it) go suicidally insane as a result of repressing themselves. I'm just saying that this whole "they don't choose to live the lifestyle" crap is, well, crap.

This sounds, to me, suspiciously like the argument that misogynists bring out when discussing rape:

"Oh, well, she chose to go out at night dressed like that. She has a choice. She could've chose to stay home or she could've chosen to dress in something less revealing. If she had, she wouldn't have been attacked and raped on the way back to her car."

Your argument is essentially one that puts the blame on the victims. You say that gays are opening themselves up to beatings/killings simply because they choose to have a boyfriend/girlfriend that's of the same sex. You say that they could avoid the violence if they'd only act straight.

What the hell kind of life do you think that would be for someone?

What would you say if all the gays got together and decided to go "breeder-stomping" in your town? Would you simply say, "Oh, well, it's my choice to act straight. If I get beaten down for acting straight, I've pretty much brought it on myself."

2004-09-22 05:39:38 PM Republic Of Filth
Lets see muslems chop off the head of an American and none seems to mind yet some preacher makes a bad joke and everyone here gets angry?
Cutting off the head of an American = Ok
Making a bad joke = Death
No wonder your loseing a war to a backwards people.
Oh did you hear the news now magazines want parents to talk to ten yearolds about having sex. Anyone remember when it was 16 yearolds? I do.

Well yeah, isn't it obvious? Personally Im happy when soldiers get their heads cut off, thats why Im in a thread talking about gays.
Seriously, why are you even here, are you retarded?

Republic Of Filth

Well, was the guy they beheaded gay? If not, it's a threadjack. We covered beheading yesterday.

He is a media whore, that is all. He also suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. For these people any kind of attention, good or bad, is actively sought. I know he doesn't have ideas about killing gays. Isn't this obvious to everyone. I know this because I have done extensive research on the topic.

"No wonder your loseing a war to a backwards people"

Nice to see illiteracy isn't just a problem in the US.

Let the heathens know what the Big Guy thinks...

Church Sign Generator - Create your own custom church signs!

It's funny.

Click on it.

Now!

/Found it from www.godhatesshrimp.com

wh0mprat: You flat out said the "godhatesfags" people hate them and kill them because they 'live the lifestyle'.

You're right, I did. Again, how does that express to you what I think homosexuals should do or not do? If I said "The KKK beats up on blacks because of the colour of their skin" would you interpret that as "blacks should all bleach themselves like Michael Jackson"?

Now, it seems to me that a gay man who wanted to preserve his life would avoid living the lifestyle, and you seemed to be OK with that.

I'm "okay" with whatever people choose to do with their own lives, even if it is self-destructive. So, yes, if a gay man felt that, in order to preserve his life, he should avoid the lifestyle, yes, I am okay with that. I am also OK with a gay man who says "Fark the Swaggarts!" and lives his life as a flamboyant homosexual. Again, his choice. I am not giving him advice one way or the other, merely stating the fact that his choices have consequences -- one leads to persecution, the other to a rather unfulfilled realisation of the self and unsatisfying life.

My real question is, is that OK? Did you man to say "These people should not act gay so they won't be persecuted."?

Not even in the least.

Your argument is specious anyway. The point isn't whether gays should act gay, it's whether preachers and religious types should advocate their murder. I think we can all agree thatthe answer is no.

Actually, the point was yes, they do "choose to be gay" in the sense I was 'correcting' whomever I was responding to. And that was pretty much about all I was saying.

ANNOYED

Tough shiat. I am not trying to do "good" or not. Please take your crybaby nonsense elsewhere. If you can't take the sentence for what it is, rather than trying to find the hidden meanings in it, tough shiat. In case you hadn't noticed by now, I am not exactly Mr. Subtlety. If my intent was "fags are every bit as evil as child molestors" I would have said so in very very plain English.

BearToy: Tell me, just what about this lifestyle is so evil?

Can't help you there. Why ask me? I can't recall calling it evil.

BearToy

Unfortunately those who are in the "hate the lifestyle" crowd think that all gay people live in one big queer as folk episode. Apparently only straight have "normal" relationships. I think that Britney Spears proves them wrong.


//Bible thumping wingnuts = scary mofos

SchlingFo

I said:
The example was brought up as a logical objection to the notion that it's wrong to be opposed to homosexual practice simply because (it's being argued) that 'people are wired that way and can't help it'.

You said:
I never made that argument. I don't think you'd ever see me make that argument.

Boatloads of other people in this thread - not to mention society at large depend on that argument. If you want I'll cut and paste all the comments from above, but that's kind of boring since you can read it yourself.

1)I don't think it's wrong to be opposed to homosexual practices. You can be opposed to anything you want, even things that don't effect you.

We agree on this one.

What I think is wrong is when people try to prevent two consenting adults from getting married or having relations because they're opposed to it. There are plenty of things that I'm opposed to that don't affect me, and I wouldn't dream of trying to stop consenting adults from engaging in those things.

I'm really not 100% decided on this notion. It's clear enough that beign a member of society obliges you to do all sorts of things that you don't want to do (ex: pay taxes) and to not do all sorts of thing you do want to do (ex: go to work in a thong - or is that just me?). I'm sure that in itself doesn't solve it.

The first question is what is moral... depending on how that is answered:

I don't know if things that we consider immoral should be actually illegal or not. I guess that depends on what your understanding of the role of government is. I'm not decided on that issue. That said - I think recognizing 'gay marriage' is a silly notion at best. In basically every society 'marriage' is an instituion involving men and women... If turtle farkers want to marry turtles are we legally obliged to change the definition of marriage to accomodate turtles? Hot turtle sex simply has no bearing on marriage one way or the other, it's not so much an opposing concept as a completely unrelated notion.

2)I really hope you're able to see that equating homosexuality to pedophilia is a loaded, insulting comparison. It pains me to think that there are people out there so oblivious to the feelings and/or perceptions of others that they'd feel comfortable making these comparisons.

Of course it's loaded, but it does serve several clear and legitimate rhetorical purpose. I don't believe in beeing needlessly hurtful, but I also don't believe that you should restrict logic in important debates because somebody might be sad.

To me the question resolves this way:
1) Every major world religion says that homosexuality is immoral to one extent or another.
2) If every major world religion is wrong, the whole notion or morality in general dissolves.
3) If morality per se is a bunch of bullshiat, then why should the majority of people 'feel bad' about making some minority of other people 'unhappy' anyway?

skinink


" Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart apologized Wednesday for saying in a televised worship service that he would kill any gay man who looked at him romantically."

But what about someone like me, who's not gay, but would still like to fark Swaggert up the arse ? Would he be more friendly towards me ?


And a girl with a strap on, would that be ok for him as well ? "If thy bunghole offendeth thee, then cut it off; it is better to go thru life without a brownhole, than to be cursed by it."

That'd be grudge farki'n

It was a slip of the toung. He mean that he'd Kick them in the box, and shove them.

BlindMan


Other than about 100 times in this thread alone, you mean?

Really? Because I'm pretty sure LiA said it was a choice, BearToy responded, and the conversation from that point was centered on whether or not it was a choice... not that the fact that it isn't means homosexuality is ok. Regardless, since LiA "brought it up", as it were... that's where the word "counter" comes in.

I disagree with those three reasons seperately, and I don't think three logically flawed notions somehow aggregate to one valid one.

1) Having no effect on 'you' is not a criteria
ex: Nuking fallujah would have no effect on you. In fact it might have a net positive effect on you. Yet and still, I suspect you oppose it.

Gee, and here I was unaware two men having sex kills millions. Good example!

2) The definition of 'harm' is highly debatable, that aside - every moral notion is not necessarily predicated on anyone being 'harmed' - period.

Please explain to me how two consenting adults of the same sex having intercourse harms anyone. If it doesn't, then why is homosexual behaviour immoral?

I have absolutely no problems with you pissing on the koran, or bible. Go for it.

3) Somethink making people happy is not a criteria
ex: Robbing you presumably makes robbers happy.

But the guy robbed isn't too happy, is he? Both of the guys having sex are, if they did it right. Since robbing harms people, and (unless you disagree), gay sex doesn't (well... not without consent), that's not a terribly good comparison.



Please explain why you apparently think homosexuality is immoral, I'm dieing to know.

Arcadian, I'm confused.


If I said "The KKK beats up on blacks because of the colour of their skin" would you interpret that as "blacks should all bleach themselves like Michael Jackson"?

Nope. But you've pointed out several times that gays are persecuted becuase they 'act gay', and not once have you said that such persecution is wrong.

So, yes, if a gay man felt that, in order to preserve his life, he should avoid the lifestyle, yes, I am okay with that.

You're ok with gay people being murdered by Fred Phelps' minions? Why is that? Would you be offended if the KKK were still lynching blacks? Or if McCarthy were still hunting down "commies"? Can the gay man not be free to be gay in America without fearing for his life? Like I said before, that's some definition of freedom. Freedom to not stand out. Bravo.

Actually, the point was yes, they do "choose to be gay" in the sense I was 'correcting' whomever I was responding to.

So like I asked before, is a black man still black even if he doesn't perform "black acts" or like the black lifestyle?

Isn't it about time to bring back the arena and state-sponsored persecution of religious fundamentalists?

I say that Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens must battle Jimmy Swaggert to the death in the great gladitorial arena! The winner shall be mercifully fed to lions.

Lets see muslems chop off the head of an American and none seems to mind yet some preacher makes a bad joke and everyone here gets angry?

Er...both threads on the beheadings went to infinity. I'm guessing that the odds are good that a few people in those threads were of the "nuke Mecca!" variety.

If you're going to dog people for not getting angry about something, at least take the time to look through the previous two days worth of posts.

ArcadianRefugee

I see your point. However, the problem with Pedophilia (from a legal standpoint, at least) is consent. An adult can legally give consent, a child cannot.

Whether you think homosexuality is right or wrong, I think we've gotten past the stage in the game where sexual activity between any two consenting adults presents legal difficulties. It's when there's a lack of consent on one party's part that the problems arise.

That being said, yes, it's a wiring thing. But it's an unfair comparison.

Blindman,

If turtle farkers want to marry turtles are we legally obliged to change the definition of marriage to accomodate turtles?

You show me a turtle that can provide positive consent to marriage, and I'll support their marriage 100% :)

I'm really not 100% decided on this notion. It's clear enough that beign a member of society obliges you to do all sorts of things that you don't want to do (ex: pay taxes) and to not do all sorts of thing you do want to do (ex: go to work in a thong - or is that just me?). I'm sure that in itself doesn't solve it.

I'm of the opinion that the onus should be on the government to prove that something is quantitatively harmful to society in order for something to be made illegal. If they can prove, quantitatively, that your ass in a thong is harmful to your coworkers, then go ahead and make it illegal :)

I don't believe in beeing needlessly hurtful, but I also don't believe that you should restrict logic in important debates because somebody might be sad.

It shows. You and Smell the Glove have managed to make your points about the validity of the comparison without being needlessly hurtful or rude.

ArcadianRefugee, however, seems to be the type of person that isn't likely to give the feelings of others any consideration before they speak. I really don't have much time or patience for those people.

I've got to jet, though. Nice talking to you :)

wh0mprat

I said:
1) Having no effect on 'you' is not a criteria
ex: Nuking fallujah would have no effect on you. In fact it might have a net positive effect on you. Yet and still, I suspect you oppose it.

You said:
There's a difference between being opposed to the nuclear annihilation of a city and being opposed to the expression of love between to people who are the same sex. One is murder, the other is not. Are you against murder, even if you're not the one being murdered?

Of course there are a million and one differences! But one of those difference is not that one effects you and that one doesn't, because neither do. That isn't sufficient to make either right independant of everything else... That's the point.

I said:
2) The definition of 'harm' is highly debatable, that aside - every moral notion is not necessarily predicated on anyone being 'harmed' - period.
ex: If I piss all over the Koran, no one is physically harmed. Is it moral to do so?

You said:
A molested child is demonstrably harmed - theres no debate there.
Also, MOST moral arguments are based on whether anyone is harmed. It's one of the primary tests we can use. In fact, it's the basis of law.
You CAN piss all over the Koran (or Bible), you can burn it, you can crap on it. You'll get no moral argument from me. I might think you're a cock though.

I disagree that it's the basis of law. That's arguable. I'm not going to get into it one way or the other because you yourself say 'MOST moral arguments are based on whether anyone is harmed.' which clearly means that SOME aren't. Therefore anyone being harmed is not necessary for an act to be immoral.

I said:
3) Somethink making people happy is not a criteria
ex: Robbing you presumably makes robbers happy.

You said:
Yes, but see point 2 above. Robbery creates a victim. There's no victim in a homosexual relationship. Except you, I guess.

The point has nothing to do with victims. The idea is that in both cases someone is happy, but that doesn't make it ok. You're missing the overall structure of my argument here.

No one part of the threefold criteria proposed to evaluate the morality of an action stands up on its own. We can clearly think of examples where things are immoral even though they don't satisfy any given criteria. As I said originally, I don't think three logically unsound propositions somehow become sound when you squish them together.

2) If every major world religion is wrong, the whole notion or morality in general dissolves.


I'm sorry, did you just say morality is inseperable from religion? Are you saying it's impossible for me, as an atheist, to be a moral person since I live by my own morals, as opposed to the ones some book told me about?

SchlingFo

Compare homosexuality to that. It's the most valid comparison you'll find.

But completely useless in this case, as heterosexuality is not "universally reviled" or whatever the phrase used was.

If we were talking anything about people, and I said "Okay, look at it this way: say this apple is a person..." would you jump on me for comparing a human life to a simple food commodity?

They're both sexual orientations. They're neither positive nor negative orientations.

Agreed.

Of course that doesn't support your "They choose to engage in gay relations, so fark em." stance.

???

Where the hell do you see me say "fark 'em"? or anything even remotely close to that?

This sounds, to me, suspiciously like the argument that misogynists bring out when discussing rape

Not a good analogy, what with 73-year-old nuns having been raped. But, assuming it was a good comparison, then yes, in your example, she *did* have the choice of whether to dress like a slut or not. Well, except that I never said, "Oh well" or "fark 'em" or "they deserved it" at any point. Ever.

You say that they could avoid the violence if they'd only act straight. What the hell kind of life do you think that would be for someone?

As stated earlier, one devoid of fulfillment and a failure to fully realise one's self. In short, a life that is basically exactly the same as if they had chosen to be open, only much slower and disallowing the chance to heal.

Again, I've never said either was a good or bad choice.

Okay, let's look at this comparison:

I've a cousin who's got a thing for black men. Her parents are, to be blunt, complete racists. Now, she could have chosen to marry a white guy and remained a respected member of the family. Instead, she chose to marry a black guy and is pretty much the "red-headed stepchild" of her family now as a result. She had a choice -- acceptance, or self. She chose self, and is dealing with the consequences, external ones. Had she chosen acceptance, she would still have consequences to deal with, only they'd be internal.

My stating that she had the choice does not mean I felt either was the better choice. Honestly, I was against he marriage to the black guy, but only because he is good-looking, charming, and educated, whereas she is rather repugnant, visually and socially.

Philbb
At what point does what behavior cross the line?

Simple--when it ceases to become acceptable in the eyes of God.

Trying to figure that point out, of course, is the tricky part. That's why it's best to err on the side of caution.

Of course, if you don't believe in God, this probably won't help you much. But then, you've got a lot worse problems to worry about than your choice of sexual behavior.

swaggert is to the republicans what the ELF whacks that blow up SUV's and laboratories are to the democrats.

only difference is morons send swaggert money after watching his TV show.

well put, mouser

frontierpsychiatry

Really? Because I'm pretty sure LiA said it was a choice, BearToy responded, and the conversation from that point was centered on whether or not it was a choice... not that the fact that it isn't means homosexuality is ok. Regardless, since LiA "brought it up", as it were... that's where the word "counter" comes in.

Ok, see my response to wh0mprat above, because it addresses almost all these points and I'm not going to type them out as carefully again.

I disagree with those three reasons seperately, and I don't think three logically flawed notions somehow aggregate to one valid one.

As I emphasized to wh0mprat, the thing you are missing is simply this - the KEY CRITERIA being illustrated in each example is held constant (1 - no effect on you, 2 - not harmful to others, 2 - makes someone happy), nothing else is. The idea is that even though you can satisfy one of these criteria, an action may be immoral... so the three criteria are seperately invalid for evaluating morality - and brought together they don't become so.

Please explain why you apparently think homosexuality is immoral, I'm dieing to know.

As stated above, it's as simple as this to me.

It seems pretty clear that what people variously regard as revealed religion says it is wrong.
(please note: god also clearly says extramarital sex is wrong, and I've done that, so don't think I'm here to throw stones at anyone)
If we discount all revealed religion then we've got bigger issues than homosexuality to deal with. Actually scratch that, no we don't... we're all dead and it makes fark all difference how you treat anyone.

wh0mprat: not once have you said that such persecution is wrong

This is correct. I've also not said it was right, merely that it is. Do I have to take a stance to simply discuss its existence?

You're ok with gay people being murdered by Fred Phelps' minions?

Again, how do you interpret "What Bob chooses to do with his own life is OK by me" as "What people do forcibly to others is OK by me?"

Would you be offended if the KKK were still lynching blacks?

Yes.

Or if McCarthy were still hunting down "commies"?

Also yes.

Can the gay man not be free to be gay in America without fearing for his life?

Unfortunately, at the moment, no. Someday, maybe. Again, however, notice that my saying "no" does NOT translare to "I hope that day never comes". Just because I haven't jumped up and down crying about the plight of the gay man does not in any way mean that I am all giggly about his persecution.

So like I asked before, is a black man still black even if he doesn't perform "black acts" or like the black lifestyle?

Dress up 20 guys -- 19 Swaggarts and 1 O.J. Simpson -- in the same clothes. Could you tell who the black man is? Now, do the same, but in addition make one of the Swaggarts gay. Can you spot the gay guy?

What is a "black act" anyway?

frontierpsychiatry

I said:
2) If every major world religion is wrong, the whole notion or morality in general dissolves.

You said:
I'm sorry, did you just say morality is inseperable from religion?

Yes.

Are you saying it's impossible for me, as an atheist, to be a moral person since I live by my own morals, as opposed to the ones some book told me about?

No.

/this is a WHOLE other can of worms, but unfortunately it's impossible to get into the other question without verging on this one... if you want to delve more deeply into it, I will, but for now - the above terse responses.

palanthos: the problem with Pedophilia (from a legal standpoint, at least) is consent.

Again, I don't know what the legal terminology is, but I am pretty sure they don't use "paedophile" when they mean "child molestor", despite the common usage of the word to mean such. That is why I pointed out that I was making the distinction between the two. If I had had a handy words to mean "practicing homosexual" and "non-practicing homosexual" I would have used those as well. As it is, I thought I had made it clear that I was using paedophile in its more clinical sense of a simple aberrant attraction, and reserving "child molestor" for the actual criminal conduct.

An adult can legally give consent, a child cannot.

Agreed. Of course, each state in the U.S. has different rules to determine "adult"... but that's rather off-topic.

I think we've gotten past the stage in the game where sexual activity between any two consenting adults presents legal difficulties. It's when there's a lack of consent on one party's part that the problems arise.

Agreed.

That being said, yes, it's a wiring thing. But it's an unfair comparison.

Only insomuch as people freaked when Santorum made his infamous comparison of homosexuality with incest and plural marriage. While he may well have been attempting to disparage homosexuality (I actually don't know enough of the guy to say), the actual comparison was dead-on accurate -- which was "if we are going to reanalyze our concept of what a marriage is so as to allow homosexual marriages, then we will have to reexamine it fully so that incest and polygamy are considered as well".

But my thoughts on marriage are also off-topic.

2004-09-22 06:05:54 PM Mouser

So true. I don't believe in God and I am constantly worried about bigger things than sexual orientation.

For instance:

What to have for dinner?
What to watch on tv?
Does the purse match the shoes?
Right hand again tonight, or spice it up with the left?

The thing that doesn't worry me at all:

Burning in an imaginary lake of fire while some horned headed, cloven footed shoves extra spicy hot wings down my throat FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! Muahahahaha!!!!

Speaking of which...can you quit ramming your Big Book Of Fairy Tales down my throat? The Debbil's going to need the room to chock me full of burning coals and other silly nonsense.

PocketfullaSass

Actually I forgot that anyone made that turtle comment before... several people were referencing turtles in a joking way above and it amused me to reference that.

Now that you mention it though I do remember reading something about that, though.

Anyway, that was mostly a joke to illustrate a point... something like poligamy is a more germane example.

I think recognizing 'gay marriage' is a silly notion at best. In basically every society 'marriage' is an instituion involving men and women...

Well that's not a very good reason. "Everyone else is doing it, so we should, too!"

Hot turtle sex simply has no bearing on marriage one way or the other, it's not so much an opposing concept as a completely unrelated notion.

This is true, but what bearing does it have on homosexual marriage? One involves two consenting people. Maybe one day when the turtle can speak up for himself and inform us of his opinion, and have any rights accomodated him, and pay taxes, maybe then we might allow turtle marriage.

In the broadcast, Swaggart was discussing his opposition to gay marriage when he said "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry."

WTF do you expect? It took me 12 years to find Mr. Right.

And Soup4Bonnie demonstrates my point quite eloquently. Thank you.

Soup4Bonnie

So true. I don't believe in God and I am constantly worried about bigger things than sexual orientation.

For instance:

What to have for dinner?
What to watch on tv?
Does the purse match the shoes?
Right hand again tonight, or spice it up with the left?

Fortunately I know atheists much more thoughtful than you.

The thing that doesn't worry me at all:

Burning in an imaginary lake of fire while some horned headed, cloven footed shoves extra spicy hot wings down my throat FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! Muahahahaha!!!!

Speaking of which...can you quit ramming your Big Book Of Fairy Tales down my throat? The Debbil's going to need the room to chock me full of burning coals and other silly nonsense.

You know what I'm REALLY worried about... the alarming multiplication and repetition of unfunny atheist cliches. This might have been funny the first million or so times someone invoked it, but by now it's just incredibly lame.

How about this...

Once there were this fish who kind of swam up on land a little bit, and thought it was pretty awesome - so then he decided that his kids would grow legs... so the little fish had legs and ran off down the beach and their flippers fell off. HA HA HA LOLOLOL!!!!!!@@11@!1 OMFG EVOLUTION is teh SUX0rz!!

Now that's a pretty fukcing stupid mischaracterization of evolution, but it sounds pretty ridiculous if you don't know any better. Unfortunately, being as you don't know what you are talking about, you don't realize how farkign stupid what you are parroting is. For heaven's (or whatever's!) sake though, please at least realize how unoriginal it is.