New Controversial Theory

Any one remember the "Da Vinci code"? Remember the controversy it started? Believers everywhere where saying, "How dare they suggest that my Lord and Savior was married! And married to Mary Magdeline? A prostetute? HOW DARE THEY!!" But this new theory is totally going to trump that by a long shot!
Check it out!
Now believers believe that Jesus was born from a virgin, right? For the sake of arguement, let's say that that is not only possible but true. After all, it has been known to happen in the animal world among worms, insects and amphibians, why not with a human? However, if that did happen, the Virgin Mary would not have given birth to a boy. Since she did not have a sex partner, she wouldn't have the genes from a male partner and she wouldn't have had any Y chromosomes to play with. She would have given birth to a girl, an exact clone of herself.
The exact clone of the Virgin Mary. He wasn't married to Mary Magdeline, He WAS Mary Magdeline! Jesus was a woman!

OOOOooooOOOO!! CONTROVERSIAL!!

This is awesome! It'll have believers shouting, "BLASPHEMY!", and women's rights groups shouting, "WHY? Is there something WRONG with having a WOMAN as a Lord and Savior." Can't wait to go public with this

Interesting

Your idea has a logical fallacy. You use nature's laws when it suits you but do not use them at other times.

For instance, organisms capable of reproducing asexually generally transmit both an X and a Y (or the equivalent) because both are contained in the same organism. They just have male and female sections, if you will. There are some exceptions of course. Still, the idea is that a population can be self-sustaining AND still be able to genetically vary itself. This means that in all species where you see asexual reproduction, you also see some way of reconstituting genetic information, such as sexual reproduction, plasmid sharing (in the case of bacteria) or hyphal differentiation in the case of fungi. Your analysis discounts this as a possibility.

Now following your logic, we should adhere to strict genetic facts because you use this as the basis as your argument. However, you then make the argument that "humans can't do this, but if they could..." This negates the previous logical situation you just set up.

This is actually much less logically sound than the Christian view which adheres to one set of rules. The idea there is that God simply overrode the natural order of things. You either believe that or you don't. At least it still follows its own rules.