Gay marriage

The passing of the gay marriage act

Hurray! Now we can all marry whoever we want!

Great news! I’ll marry Carol Vorderman, then.

But she’s already married.

But you just said we can marry whoever we want.

Oh. Well, what I meant was: we can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else.

OK. Not Carol Vorderman, then. I’ll marry Nigella Lawson.

How do you know Nigella Lawson?

I’ve never even met her, but you just said we can marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else.

Well, what I meant was: we can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else, AND you know them (and they want to marry you).

OK. Not Nigella Lawson either. I know - I’ll marry my sister.

You can’t marry your sister.

Go on – why not?

OK. We can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else, and you know them, and they want to marry you, AND you’re not a close relative.

Hold on! You’re already married!

So?

Right. Listen. We can all marry whoever we want as long as they’re not already married to someone else, and you know them, and they want to marry you, and you’re not a close relative, and you’re not already married.

So we can’t actually marry whoever we want?

No, I suppose not.

I thought it was all so simple now!

Evolution II

Ok - I think I understand it now. Each species evolves as an improvement over its predecessor. Or, at least, no worse than its predecessor.

Yes, that's it.

So, a predecessor of the cheetah, let's call it cheetah-minus-1, was not as fast a runner. But the fastest of them were better at reproducing, because they caught more prey, got the best food, and generally impressed the girl (or boy) cheetah-minus-1s.

Yes

So over the generations, the cheetah-minus-1 evolved into the faster cheetah that we have today.

That's it, yes.

I think I understand!

Hooray!

So the panda, which is on the verge of extinction because it is so bad at reproducing, evolved from a panda-minus-1, which was just as bad or even worse?

Er, yes.

And the panda-minus-1 evolved from a panda-minus-2, which was just as bad or even worse. And the panda-minus-2 evolved from a panda-minus-3, which was just as bad or even worse. And so on, going back over millions of years to the very start of life on earth, successive species, each just as bad as the panda at reproducing, or actually worse than the panda?

Er . . .

It makes you wonder how they've survived so long, doesn't it.

Evangelical Andy avoids tricky questions

Evolution

Ok - I think I understand it now. Darwin saw very similar finches on neighbouring islands, but each island had different kinds of nut trees, and the finch beaks were adapted for the particular nuts.

Yes, that's it.

So, originally, a load of finches live on one of the islands, and eat the nuts there.

Yes

And at some point, a few of them fly to a neighbouring island, or get blown there in a storm or whatever.

Yes

Their beaks evolve so they can eat the nuts on the new island.

That's right.

So eventually there are two species, very similar, but on adjacent islands and with different beaks.

Yes

I think I understand!

Hooray!

Just one thing.

Yes?

Whilst they were evolving on their new island home, what did they eat?

Er . . .

Je Suis Charlie

Christians and Atheists

Why would an atheist try to convince their loved one to stop believing?

TV comedian and atheist Dara O Briain recently spent time on one of his panel shows explaining how he had attempted to convince his devoutly Catholic father that he was wrong to believe.

I wondered why. What are the possible consequences of success and failure?

Dara is a scientist, having studied Theoretical Physics at UCD in Dublin. He must surely have weighed up the consequences of his actions before speaking to his father.

Possible Result #1
Dara fails - his father retains his faith - Dara is correct and God does not exist.
Result: his father dies happy and content in his ignorance, and blinks out of existence

Possible Result #2
Dara fails - his father retains his faith - Dara is wrong and God does exist.
Result: his father dies happy and content in his faith, and goes to heaven

Possible Result #3
Dara succeeds - his father renounces his faith - Dara is correct and God does not exist.
Result: his father dies dejected and miserable for having wasted all that time at church, and blinks out of existence

Possible Result #4
Dara succeeds - his father renounces his faith - Dara is wrong and God does exist.
Result: his father dies dejected and miserable for having wasted all that time at church, and then has to face the almighty and explain himself

I ask again - why would an atheist try to convice their loved one to stop believing?
Whether God exists or not, no possible reason other than to win an argument, which they think is more important than the feelings, and possible post-death destination, of the loved one.

How utterly utterly selfish!

What should we do with Muslim extremists?

What we should do with Muslim extremists:

Simple: preach the Gospel of Christ to them, to try and convert them to Christianity!
If we succeed, they will stop being violent, and start doing good.
Even if they become Christian extremists, all they will do is run a food bank or open a soup kitchen for the homeless!

Who would object to this policy?

Not "real" muslims, who say that the terrorists are not real muslims. After all, it shouldn't matter to them whether these 'non-muslims' are Christians or atheists or anything else.

Not atheists / liberals / muslim apologists. After all, it shouldn't matter to them whether they are Christians or muslims - they think all believers are deluded fools.

Not those of other faiths. After all, it shouldn't matter to them whether they are Christians or muslims.

Of course Christians wouldn't object.

The only possible opponents of such a policy are those who support the Islamisation of western society.

Let's suggest this, and see who objects!