LGBTQ+ Rights, Evolution

Really? can two people of the same sex create a family? The essence of that ideology in itself is the destruction of the family. Says a lot that you can’t see that. LGBTQ is ending bloodlines. There’s your destruction!

Yes they can. There's a thing called ADOPTION. Which, you know. IS A BYPRODUCT OF MOSTLY STRAIGHT RELATIONSHIPS. Then there's IVF and surrogacy? And it's not an "Ideology", people don't CHOOSE to be gay. They just are. Denying rights to people is a choice which LGBTQIA+ counters

Clearly, their amoral behaviour is entirely unnatural and abominable, as they cannot produce children.

So then I’d that same behavior abominable and unnatural for sterile couples?

Don't be absurd. The only reason sterile married couples can't have children is because something is wrong with their bodies, whereas perfectly healthy flamers still can't have children.

Yet they are still allowed to marry and do whatever they want with one another, so your problem isn’t the functionality, it’s the gender, which, once again, Christian belief cannot dictate in government as neither its religious texts, nor are the basic ideals of not favoring any religion are allowed to be attacked as of now, nor should they be at any time. One’s religion doesn’t have the power to dictate laws over others who believe in other religions with different values than yours, unless it is directly hurting fully grown humans with constitutional rights, as preve…  Read morenting the attacks upon others trumps religious beliefs. Gay marriage does not cause direct harm to others, and using your religious beliefs, no matter how logical you view them to be, as a basis for government (considering the Bible wasn’t intended to be a basis of law) decisions is still not okay.

Christianity, as the only logical possibility, should dictate in some form or another our laws because we know we can expect success from laws corresponding with Biblical values.

We tried that and it just became a theocracy, hence the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Britain, etc, they all evolved far past simply favoring a religion, because religion is an extremely useful tool that can be warped far easier than any other ideal. It’s also generally not fair to those who don’t believe in Christianity, so the law, regardless of what 200 men thought, should revolve around favoring none, and protecting all.

Great! Then it's time to remove evolution and the Big Bang from school textbooks, and stop showing favouritism to secularism, gender ideology, and socialism!

Evolution is quite literally science, and a heavily proven science at that. It happens on the macro and micro scale, that’s been empirically proven, what religious types tend to hate about evolution is the claim that humans had a common ancestor with apes, which isn’t really a necessary thing to mention if we HAVE TO change it.

The Big Bang is merely the most likely and proven theory of the universe so far, and rejecting it in science classes is both unscientific and unnecessary, since it’s a common consensus that’s open to scientific change, not a solidified fact quit…  Read moree yet. Secularism provides the most fairness to all by favoring none, if we refused one religion while promoting another, that creates conflict we can’t deal with, so everyone’s religion is either somehow taught in conflicting interpretations with one another, or we just don’t teach it and focus on actually learning.

Evolution is quite literally science

No, it's a scientific hypothesis with zero evidence supporting it. I want to clear a few things up – I believe in traits changing, over time, within different kinds of animals. I believe wolves were the common ancestor of dogs, coyotes, etc. I believe there was probably a common cat ancestor. That's the part that's "science" and has been "proven" – we see it happening. We see dogs changing into other dog breeds. What we never see though, is a Banana turning into a dog, or a Fish turning into a Gorilla, or a Mos…  Read morequito turning into a Kangaroo, or a bowl of electrified Soup turning into human beings. That's the part that has NEVER been proven (and is logically impossible.) The only "evolution" I believe in is variations in kinds, not the macro-evolution you are confusing with this form of "evolution" – though that in and of itself is not a good term, because in evolution, new genetic information must necessarily be created. For a bacterium to marry another bacterium, and have a fish, or something, an increase in genetic information is required – which is impossible. Every time creatures mate, genetic information decreases in terms of how much is passed on to their offspring. For example, each new generation of dogs has slightly less genetic information than the prior generation. This is Information Theory, and it is backed by a commanding body of evidence. Macro-Evolution, however, has zero evidence whatsoever behind it.

“No, it's a scientific hypothesis with zero evidence supporting it”

For microevolution, let's take the example of a simple organism like a bacterium. Bacteria reproduce so quickly that we can observe many generations in a short amount of time. This allows us to see evolution in action. For instance, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a well-documented example of evolution. When exposed to an antibiotic, most bacteria die. However, some may have a mutation that makes them resistant. These bacteria survive and reproduce, passing on the resistance trait to their offspring. Over time, the population becomes dominated by resistant bacteria - evolution has occurred.

As for macroevolution - we can see clear transitions between species in fossil records, such as the evolutionary sequence leading from primitive synapsid reptiles to mammals, or the transition from fish to tetrapods.