…and this is a 
Another reason to wear underwear at all times
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: May 21, 2008 11:46 AM, by PZ Myers
Uh-oh. The creationist expectation of an abrupt transformation from one species to another has been demonstrated: the picture below is of a chicken egg that was cracked open to make a meal, and inside … a dead gecko. A bird giving birth to a reptile?
Actually, no, sorry. A chicken giving birth to a lizard is the kind of thing creationists imagine that evolution predicts, but which would actually surprise and disturb scientists if it happened — we'd have to rethink a lot of genetics if a solid instance were documented.
In this case, there's an alternative, if rather disgusting, explanation. The poor mother hen had a gecko crawl up her cloaca (probably in a pushy attempt to sell her insurance), die somewhere in the oviducts, and then got incorporated into the egg before the shell was laid down. The deposition of a calcium-containing shell is one of the last steps in egg production, so it's possible…it would just take a very persistent suicidal gecko, or one that was profoundly lost.
Don't tell Geoffrey Simmons — he's been on a credulity junket lately, crowing about every functional adaptation, including the egg, as proof of purposeful design. I don't know about you, but a system that muddles excretion with reproduction and that allows random lizards to crawl up your butt and squat in your oviduct doesn't sound like great engineering to me.
Life Science
Comments
Ha!
Its clearly a baby crocoduck.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 21, 2008 11:51 AM
Is that a gecko in your oviduct or are you just happy to see me?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2008 11:53 AM
This could also be evidence of a, shall we say, sexually experimentative chicken.
In other news, Persistent Suicidal Gecko would make a decent band name.
Posted by: Ted D | May 21, 2008 11:54 AM
Gross. I was hoping the gecko made a meal of the embryo. Reminds me of the candiru, a fish with a penchant...
Posted by: True Bob | May 21, 2008 11:55 AM
WOW now I really feel sorry for chickens.
Posted by: The Backpacker | May 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Mmmmmm. Chigecken.
Posted by: SC | May 21, 2008 11:56 AM
turduckengo?
Posted by: True Bob | May 21, 2008 11:58 AM
I heard Richard Gere had a gecko crawl...
oh never mind
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2008 11:58 AM
The Australian Egg Corporation? I love it that it happened in Darwin. Man, that is gnarly. I hate eggs.
Posted by: Eximious Jones | May 21, 2008 11:59 AM
Don't tell John A. Davison. He's rather fond of Goldschmidt and other proponents of hopeful monsters.
So fine, all of our experiments trying to get a dog to give birth to a cat have failed. We now have our chicken laying an egg out of which a fully formed gecko came.
It's a triumph for every strawman constructed by creationists, then.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 21, 2008 12:02 PM
Walter Garstang, 1922: "The first bird was hatched from a reptile's egg."
Actually, this is technically true (given that classificatory scheme). But not in the way that creationists would imagine.
Posted by: Colugo | May 21, 2008 12:03 PM
A normally rational, but edging-on ID, friend once tried to argue to me that the perfect balance and intention of the universe could be seen in the fact that "a dick fits inside a pussy."
I must've pushed her to the limits, because usually her arguments are a twa more sophisticated.
So I agreed that, yeah, a dick does generally fit a pussy, although there are certainly exceptions. But it also fits into a bottle (of various mouth sizes, depending), a mushy banana, a donut hole, your mouth, and, if you work at it, your anus. Plus, it's also where a man pees out of.
In birds and reptiles, urine, feces, and babies/eggs all come out of the same hole.
And aphids and some fishies can reproduce without ever having known the joy of that perfect dick/pussy union.
But, yeah, the fact that the human male and female reproductive organs fit together TOTALLY proves that God has a plan, and not just that evolution tends to modify pre-existing structures to perform new functions. Of course not.
Posted by: EntoAggie | May 21, 2008 12:03 PM
May a thousand geckos invade your oviduct!
Posted by: PatrickHenry | May 21, 2008 12:04 PM
Clearly the simplest explanation, and to be honest, the only one that makes sense is that God (tm) designed hens to occasionally lay eggs with lizards in them instead of baby chicks.
Oh, praises be to god!
;]
Posted by: Robert Ward | May 21, 2008 12:04 PM
I do not welcome, but fear our Chicken Butt lizard overlords.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2008 12:08 PM
But on the upside, I just saved a ton on my car insurance!
Posted by: Oren Nimelman | May 21, 2008 12:08 PM
Aussie chooks don't wear underwear? That explains a thing or two.
Imagine you're a chicken and a gecko, albeit a very small gecko, crawls up your ass. What do you... Do you even notice... never mind; scratch that; let's not imagine it at all. Compared to the egg, it's just kinda oddly shaped, and maybe tickley.
Do those microgrippy gecko toes work on a mucous surface? Or was it sheer scrambling persistence on the part of the gecko? Inquiring minds want to know, though just now they're not sure they want to picture it any more.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | May 21, 2008 12:09 PM
"Clearly the simplest explanation, and to be honest, the only one that makes sense is that God (tm) designed hens to occasionally lay eggs with lizards in them instead of baby chicks."
Sadly, I think this is just about what the IDiots would like to see biological journal articles (and biology courses) reduced to. We could fit a whole year's subscription into a thin volume the size of a couple Chick tracts! Biology 101 can be wrapped up in a one-hour night course!
With all our newfound free time, we can get back to what really matters--getting right with Jesus and giving back to our communities. Or, watching extra reruns of American Idol. You know, whichever one Americans are more likely to do.
Posted by: EntoAggie | May 21, 2008 12:11 PM
Another image to add to the scary picture of alligators in sewers: Marauding Butt Geckos!
Healthy Family Hint: Teach your kids to always check the water before sitting on the toilet. Public restrooms, especially those near shopping mall pet stores, are a complete no-no. We won't even talk about outhouses.
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 21, 2008 12:12 PM
Maybe, butt it works fairly well. Within the constraints of bird life, it may work well enough, or even be better than the alternatives.
In fact, birds are almost certainly fortunate in inheriting the reproductive structures that they did, since female bats have to fly around with bat fetuses in them. That saves the time spent on the nest, but the weight during flight means that bats can't produce many young in a season. For that reason, it's likely that birds overall have a "better reproductive design" than bats do, though obviously if a designer were responsible, it would actually think about bat flight requirements, not stupidly stick with a mammalian reproductive system (save monotremes) where design considerations would favor egg-laying.
A single opening might save meaningful weight for birds as well, though that might not matter as much for a chicken as for a swallow. Bats likely would not gain much by being monotremes, except by laying eggs instead of having the young develop within themselves.
Monotremes probably are somewhat disadvantaged compared with the rest of mammals, since whatever weight savings that egg-laying, and even single openings, might afford, hardly matter for their lifestyles.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 21, 2008 12:14 PM
I'm not sure a better example of IDers knee-jerk hysteria (as opposed to their other documented hysterium) can be crafted.
05/11 - Beaumont discovered the egg
05/13 - Simmons finds out (how?) and immediately blogs with an entry from his crappy book...which doesn't say anything about the details but still presumes it as evidence of intelligent design
05/15 - Australian news agencies start reporting the story with the scientific explanation
If Simmons had just waited for clarification, he wouldn't look like such a moron for being amazed that eggs are vulnerable to predators.
For any IDers watching this story, let this be a lesson: patience is a virtue.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 21, 2008 12:16 PM
Which reminds me of the quip by Neil deGrasse Tyson during a presentation at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference which went something like this:
'What Intelligent Designer would put an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage works?'
So you see TwitterWit some of us are interested in more than just biology, check out Tyson's line of enquiry.
Posted by: Lionel A Smith | May 21, 2008 12:16 PM
No way, man. You are staring a Hopeful Monster right in the face and don't even recognize it? Next thing you know you'll be telling us that there is no such thing as Virgin Birth....
Posted by: Greg Laden | May 21, 2008 12:21 PM
Has Twitterwill been plonked? He's not in the dungeon, but Lionel's comment seems to be hanging.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 21, 2008 12:23 PM
Lemmiwinks?
Posted by: Cthulhu | May 21, 2008 12:24 PM
As much as I enjoy Neil DeGT, that is not his original quote. He's a great speaker, but that's an old old joke. FYI.
Posted by: True Bob | May 21, 2008 12:24 PM
um humm
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2008 12:25 PM
Gross!
Posted by: Stacy S. | May 21, 2008 12:25 PM
Um,
Isn't it the simplest explanation that the whole thing is a fake?
The article indicates that the egg/gecko being examined, but doesn't say anyone has yet done anything which rules out fakery.
Kne
Posted by: Kne | May 21, 2008 12:29 PM
Al the Cali marriage threads are old, so this is OT:
Jeff Jacoby: still an ass
Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 12:31 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2008 12:39 PM
YOU STOP RIGHT THERE, MISTER!
I so do not want to hear about it. Just the name brings a tear to my eye...
Gyaaagh!
I suddenly have the urge to do a silly walk.
Posted by: Dan | May 21, 2008 12:40 PM
Am I the only one who felt an involuntary clenching upon reading that description?
Posted by: craig | May 21, 2008 12:41 PM
For those who are interested, I am attempting to refute the notion that the people commenting on this blog know the Bible better than most Christians. If you would like to participate: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/another_reason_to_wear_underwe.php#comments
In particular, read comments 109, 136, 137, 139, 140 and the ones they are responding to. Then have at it. The battle is joined.
Posted by: twitterwill | May 21, 2008 12:43 PM
I am humbled. First the Bad Astronomer, now PZ!
Simmons' most recent post regards the rearward facing pouch on the wombat. My response this time around is to ask why stop there? There are a couple of other interesting things about the wombat that favor design more directly. Sounds like someone didn't do all their ID homework.
Posted by: Jim Chatham | May 21, 2008 12:44 PM
Dennis N @30:
(From the linked article):
"Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions - no matter how devoted and enduring - cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society has a survival stake." (emphasis mine)
Wow. Another person obsessed with sex sex sex, and making babies. Under his guidance, postmenopausal women, infertile couples, and those who prefer to adopt should probably just get divorced right now. After all, *marriage* is only for baby-makin'. As opposed to, you know, having certain legal benefits, being recognized as a family unit in the eyes of the law, the psychological aspect, etc. Nope, just about that good ol' sperm and egg union, which also CANNOT POSSIBLY HAPPEN outside of marriage. Pshaw.
I also love his own little slippery slope. I mean, after all, if two women can get married, how long will it before before A PARAKEET AND A DOG CAN GET MARRIED??!!!1111
Posted by: EntoAggie | May 21, 2008 12:44 PM
Posted by: Dustin | May 21, 2008 12:44 PM
Strike three, curly.
Posted by: Dustin | May 21, 2008 12:47 PM
twatterwill (#34) challenged,
Well, I've been attempting to refute the notion that Christians aren't self-centered and aren't so hyperactive that they put the wrong link in their comments.
You've provided me enough evidence on both counts. Thank'e!
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 21, 2008 12:48 PM
Oh, yeah, that's the stuff. I've been falling behind on my PBF lately.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 21, 2008 12:48 PM
Christians know the Bible?
I suppose they know the Bible about as well as a dog knows the ingredients in a bowl of kibble.
Posted by: Dan | May 21, 2008 12:51 PM
Might want to check your link before you start trolling the wrong post.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2008 12:52 PM
Oops. Trying again. Thanks Ryan.
For those who are interested, I am attempting to refute the notion that the people commenting on this blog know the Bible better than most Christians. If you would like to participate: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/ambitious_vandalism.php#comments
In particular, read comments 109, 136, 137, 139, 140 and the ones they are responding to. Then have at it. The battle is joined.
Posted by: twitterwill | May 21, 2008 12:52 PM
Battle?!?
Sorry. I forgot. A lot of Christians are big fans of hyperbole. Everything has to be a battle or a crusade with you folks. No wonder why you treat a hangnail as cause for martyrdom.
Posted by: Dan | May 21, 2008 1:00 PM
I don't know about you, but a system that muddles excretion with reproduction and that allows random lizards to crawl up your butt and squat in your oviduct doesn't sound like great engineering to me
Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it...
Posted by: asad | May 21, 2008 1:00 PM
Jeff Jacoby: still an ass
You're being far too kind to that oozing pestule of gecko spooge.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 21, 2008 1:00 PM
I think this was just a slightly belated April Fools joke on the part of the chicken.
"Heh. That'll teach 'em to make omelettes out of MY kids!"
Posted by: MikeM | May 21, 2008 1:01 PM
Could another explanation be that a Gecko laid an egg in the hen's nest and she hatched it? It's hard to tell from the picture what it is.
Or, as pointed out above by Kne, #29, it could just be a fake.
Posted by: Caveat | May 21, 2008 1:03 PM
UGH! If that picture is real...yuck! I have 10 two week old chicks brooding in a dog crate right now. You've convinced me PZ, I'm not letting out my ditties with no panties.
Posted by: Patricia C. | May 21, 2008 1:11 PM
I don't know about lizards up the butt (really, I don't!), but I was subjected to the wonderful world of the divorce attorney once. I wonder if that's comparable.
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | May 21, 2008 1:21 PM
A similar incident took place recently in the town of Kajaani, Northern Finland, where a three-centimeter key was found inside a chicken egg.
Posted by: Antti | May 21, 2008 1:21 PM
Has there been any mention about what the source of the egg is? I know that one of the tricks that some psychics use is to surreptitiously insert a gecko or other small lizard into an eggs as part of a cleansing ritual. Of course, they claim that the gecko appearing in the egg is part of their "magic," but the trust is that they prepared the egg in question.
So I guess what I'm getting at is that could it be that this is one of those eggs, and not a lizard crawling into the nether reaches of the chicken?
Posted by: Lledowyn | May 21, 2008 1:22 PM
And here is another "What are the odds" moment. Brought to you by your very disgusting breakfast.
Posted by: Michelle | May 21, 2008 1:24 PM
did the chick masturbate or what
Posted by: toto | May 21, 2008 1:24 PM
if two women can get married, how long will it before before A PARAKEET AND A DOG CAN GET MARRIED? - EntoAggie
You know, I never liked it when my school maths textbooks dressed up math problems in natural language like this - can't you just state it as a set of PDEs?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | May 21, 2008 1:30 PM
Oh, the abomination. When will they start allowing marriage for PYGMIES + DWARVES?
Posted by: True Bob | May 21, 2008 1:34 PM
I'm surprized nobody mentioned "Jurassic Park" yet. _I_ think there was a mix-up at the egg producer and one of the eggs from the experimental breeding program in the basement lab got out. THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED! Apparently they are doing their development using geckos, and we all know that geckos are famous for the occurrence of hermaphrodites and of parthenogenesis, not to mention that the sex of the offspring is determined by incubation temperature, not genetics! What will happen when they start doing the experiments with raptor DNA? You'll be cracking-up an omlette, and the last egg you open will REALLY be your last! Grab the pitchforks and torches - we have to DO something!
http://www.pangeareptile.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4382
http://www.uga.edu/srelherp/lizards/hemgar.htm
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan | May 21, 2008 1:36 PM
Meanwhile in cdesign proponentist HQ: 'Expelled is a failure, let's stick this gecko up a hen's chuff. That'll convince them!'
Posted by: Peter Mc | May 21, 2008 1:47 PM
It's a basilisk! Don't look at its eyes!
Posted by: amk | May 21, 2008 1:50 PM
Mmmmmm. Basiliskicious.
Posted by: Sloegin | May 21, 2008 1:52 PM
twitterwill - You do realize that whatever standard of Biblical "knowledge" you demand must also be applied to every other sacred text belonging to any other religion, right? Do you know them all inside and out? Then shut up.
Posted by: Taz | May 21, 2008 1:56 PM
#12: "I must've pushed her to the limits, because usually her arguments are a twa more sophisticated"
Is one of those words missing a terminal 't' or did you have something else in mind?!!
#31: ""Another" reason? What was the first one, again? "
Well you know that the first thing they do if you're in a serious accident is to examine your underwear. If you're not wearing any, what on Earth are they going to find to talk about?
Posted by: Ian | May 21, 2008 2:03 PM
Wasn't there a few similar cases in New York City back in the '80s involving humans and hamsters (or was it gerbils)? Was there any evidence of duct (duck?) tape on the gecko?
Posted by: (((Billy))) | May 21, 2008 2:04 PM
Armageddon?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 21, 2008 2:08 PM
Variation on joke @ #22:
An animal with a cloaca doesn't know whether it's coming, or going.
Posted by: Barn Owl | May 21, 2008 2:14 PM
There was a story once about a duck that apparently swallowed a golf ball, which eventually came out the other end covered in a shell.
Posted by: AAA | May 21, 2008 2:20 PM
duct (duck?) tape
Duck tape is correct. Invented by the army as a waterproof tape for ammo boxes. Used on duct's it is absolutely the worst tape possible. Even cellophane tape works better on ducts.
Posted by: SteveM | May 21, 2008 2:23 PM
As for the gecko-in-the-egg story: interesting.
rather like the old tale of a mouse in a beer bottle, only true.
as for the religious person attempting the thread-jack:
Uh, ok.
so, some guy here wants to argue knowledge of a 2000-odd year old book. Uh, you do realize that said volume is posted on the Internet, and that this forum is on the internet?
You know... that place where they have them there search engine thingies ?
Posted by: DLC | May 21, 2008 2:25 PM
SteveM (#67): Thanks. Didn't know that. When I was a whitewater raft guide, we used it for temporary repairs on raft bladders and, in an emergency (we did this once with for an individual coming close to hypothermia) to start a fire (it will burn even when wet). We even used it once to tape together a fiberglass Old Town kayak which had been bent around a small rock.
Posted by: (((Billy))) | May 21, 2008 2:29 PM
Looks like somebody's lost a spokesbeast.
When I'd heard the GEICO Gecko was touring zoos, I dinnae think he'd get THAT up close. What a way to go.
Posted by: Colwyn Abernathy | May 21, 2008 2:56 PM
What's the point? You've already posted what you think the answers are.
Posted by: Nimravid | May 21, 2008 3:03 PM
I'm crying fowl. The whole thing strikes me as a bit too ludicrous. a.) Where's the yolk? b.) if there was no yolk, I'm thinking there would be a slight difference in weight c.) if there was yolk, why is the butt gecko fully formed and not deteriorating?
I think there is definitely a marauding butt gecko at work, but that's not him in the pic.........
Posted by: janeothejungle | May 21, 2008 3:13 PM
@67, et al: Duct/Duck tape
real DUCT tape is a solid metallised tape -- I can image using that on an oviduct would leave a very seventies result :)
Duck tape on the other hand is the roadies best friend (sticks everywhere, tears laterally by hand, wide enough for major cable runs, can be used as a repacement for balky latches (there's a bar to get to!))
YMMV
tony
Posted by: tony | May 21, 2008 3:13 PM
That reminds me, I must pay my car insurance.
Posted by: Christianjb | May 21, 2008 3:17 PM
re: Twit's request: to refute the notion that the people commenting on this blog know the Bible better than most Christians.
first you need to verify that 'most Christians' can actually read. Then write. Then 'converse' on a blog. then you can make your comparison. Otherwise, it's a self selected population and most definitely not most christians.
Having said that, I'd be surprised if you could win, regardless: almost every poster here is adept at goggle-fu, so irrespective of specific knowledge would whup ass.
toodles.
tony
Posted by: tony | May 21, 2008 3:18 PM
Public restrooms, especially those near shopping mall pet stores, are a complete no-no.
Obligatory OT: In women's restrooms, the reason it's sometimes nasty to sit on the toilet seat is because too many idjits refuse to sit on the toilet seat.
In an ideal world where every female restroom patron(ess) would just sit on the @#&$*& toilet seat, it would stay dry, and not contact that wasn't cleaner than most people's hands. In the current imperfect world, where inconsiderate mothers still probably tell their little girls to suspend themselves over the seat without touching it, the user sprays urine all over the seat, her underwear, her shoes, and the floor.
Ladies, SIT ON THE DAMN SEAT. If you don't want your butt cheeks to touch it, use the seat covers. If there are no seat covers, put down a couple of pieces of toilet paper first. Sheesh. Don't make my gecko come over there.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | May 21, 2008 3:21 PM
Are you "most Christians"? If not, even if you "win", how would that disprove the notion?
Posted by: windy | May 21, 2008 3:25 PM
re: 76. the reason it's sometimes nasty to sit on the toilet seat is because too many idjits refuse to sit on the toilet seat
I have to agree, but with regards to 'family' restrooms. I repfer to take my daughter to family restrooms if possible (more room, for one thing) but I'm appalled by the frequency of pee on the floor, on the seat, everywhere...
why can't people leave a restroom the way they'd like to see it? no fucking cosideration, that's what!
strangely - men's restrooms tend to be better regarding the seat... but that's about all! I refuse to enter a stall if I need to flush the damn lav!
[/rant]
Posted by: tony | May 21, 2008 3:28 PM
this image is a hoax, there is no way you can grow an embryo without a yolk sac a vitelline membrane etc. which remain stuck to he shell, in addition if the embryo is so small ther should remain yolk
Posted by: toto | May 21, 2008 3:50 PM
Re #36
A truly intelligent designer, if intending that marriage be solely for procreation, could have set it up so that humans become fertile only after an exchange of vows. It seriously wouldn't have been that hard to do, either. Just hook up some additional neural circuitry linking the part of the speech center responsible for generating the phrase "I do" (or maybe the sensorimotor cortex area that maps to the base of the ring finger) to the hypothalamus, and presto, teen pregnancy becomes impossible!
Given that the designer obviously did no such thing, what does that tell us about his intent?
(BTW, we are only halfway to basilisk, since that critter has to hatch from a rooster egg, if my memory serves. . . .)
Posted by: amphiox | May 21, 2008 3:50 PM
#72 and #79, you folks are seriously confused about what is shown here.
The egg has been cracked and emptied. The dead lizard is adhering to the empty shell. Read PZ's explanation again; it makes sense.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 21, 2008 3:57 PM
Wow. Another person obsessed with sex sex sex, and making babies. Under his guidance, postmenopausal women, infertile couples, and those who prefer to adopt should probably just get divorced right now. After all, *marriage* is only for baby-makin'. As opposed to, you know, having certain legal benefits, being recognized as a family unit in the eyes of the law, the psychological aspect, etc. Nope, just about that good ol' sperm and egg union, which also CANNOT POSSIBLY HAPPEN outside of marriage. Pshaw
It's not just Jacoby. It's the New York Court of Appeals as well.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 21, 2008 3:59 PM
Partially buried in the shell in fact. This whole thing both amuses me and makes me squirm.
Also makes me wonder if some enterprising company is going to start seeding chickens like oyserts for pearls only wiht breakfast foods.
Posted by: Lynnai | May 21, 2008 4:00 PM
All this talk of ducts is causing me to have a 'Brazil' moment.
Bobby "Tuttle" Earle
Posted by: BobbyEarle | May 21, 2008 4:02 PM
Okay, mechanistically, fine, but:
Why the hell would the gecko go up there?
It's not like an open cave--he'd have to push his way in and up.
Something's not right here.
Arrest that guy for sexually abusing his chickens.
Posted by: Inky | May 21, 2008 4:12 PM
If Pharyngula readers have trouble remembering to attire themselves in the proper foundation garments, I have concocted a little song to help them: (To the tune of "Jealousy")
"The Underwear Tango"
Underwear!
Always wear clean Underwear!
Into a bus you'll blunder,
And you'll be torn assunder!
Then you'll be glad you're wearing Underwear!
So your bottom isn't bare,
You'd be embarassed,
And what would Mother say?
(It'd ruin her day)
Well, that's just the verse, there's a "bridge" too, but it should be enough, don't you think?
Posted by: Mooser | May 21, 2008 4:17 PM
The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life
And therefore, should be the most closely regulated, perhaps even banned!
Posted by: Mooser | May 21, 2008 4:20 PM
The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life
There is a group of whiptail lizards at the door who would like to have a word with you.
Posted by: Carlie | May 21, 2008 4:34 PM
I guess Jeff Jacoby never went to high school prom...Marriage is definitely not the only union to produce life.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 4:36 PM
I don't really get that whole "marriage is only for having children" argument. Does anyone really think that restricting the definition of marriage will produce more child-bearing families?
"Well, I can't get married to the man/woman I actually love, so I guess I will give up this whole 'homosexual lifestyle choice' and have some kids! Oops, but get married first, obviously! Thanks, Jeff Jacoby!"
Posted by: Watt | May 21, 2008 4:39 PM
It's so sad, I thought we'd be past that crap in the northeast. Alas, even the Boston Globe pays people to be ignorant.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 4:43 PM
it's not that "marriage is only for having children" but that women should only have babies for jeebus(tm)
obviously, to make sure those lyin' whorin' jezebels do the right thing means
locking them downtying them up inbinding themjoining them in matrimonytony :)
Posted by: tony | May 21, 2008 4:48 PM
They will have to wait in line. The amoebas and Bdelloid rotifers are ahead of them.
I don't recall my cat's mother being married either for that matter.
Posted by: raven | May 21, 2008 4:51 PM
Whenever I see a rant about the US goin down the t00bz, I always hear statistics about "out of wedlock births". Is that valid criteria? I don't see anything wrong with babies born outside of a marriage.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 21, 2008 5:05 PM
My personal, highly scientific opinion is:
EWWWW!!!
Posted by: Alcari | May 21, 2008 5:13 PM
raven, that's too funny - I actually typed "bdelloid rotifers", then switched it out for the lizards. So many parthenogenic species, so little time!