|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/09/2006 : 14:39:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
For me its a matter of freedom of religion, if some religious sects allow gay unions then arent we obligated to comply? Many do allow it as far as I know.
More from Wikipedia
quote:
Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish religious tradition, permits rabbis to bless same-sex unions within their synagogues, though it does not use the words "wedding" or "marriage" in this context.
On July 4, 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ approved a resolution affirming equal marriage rights regardless of gender. The leadership of this denomination made claims like "the 1.3 million member UCC became the largest Christian denomination to approve marriage equality", despite the Synod's lack of authority to speak for the denomination's largely autonomous congregations. The specifics of the resolution did not change any church's religious marriage policies, but urged UCC congregations to advocate for civil marriage equality. In keeping with the polity of that denomination, doctrinal matters like wedding policies remain under the authority of each local congregation.
Religious same-sex wedding ceremonies are already performed in Unitarian Universalist churches, some Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish synagogues, some Quaker congregations (mostly associated with unprogrammed meetings; see the main article), and by the Metropolitan Community Church.
Jodo Shinshu, the dominant form of Buddhism in Japan (with a significant presence in the United States), states "there is no basic difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality" [5]. In accordance with that principle it offers religious rites for same-sex couples. This tradition of accepting same-sex relationships dates back to ancient Japan with only a brief discontinuance during the early 1900s (when Western nations suggested a proscription).
Actually, no. Freedom of religion means that they can practice and recognize whatever they want to and the government is held to be incompentent to forward or retard any religiously held belief. The state doesn't have to recognize the marriage if it is not recognized or illegal. If a congregation allows you to marry your first cousin, most states will not recognize the union. (Tennessee is odd like that.)
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 21:53:50 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, you keep talking about how the majority of Americans agree with you on this whole gay marriage, thing. Let's bring forth the actual statistics. Gallup polls from 1999 to 2004 have consistantly shown that about 6 out of 10 adult Americans oppose gay marriage. 60% is hardly an overwhelming majority. However, a Gallup poll from 2004 showed that 54% of Americans supported civil unions for gays. In other words, the majority of Americans support gays having all the benefits of married people, so long as it is legally called "domestic partnership" and not "marriage". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 21:56:13 [Permalink]
|
Um, has anyone else noticed that we are once again no longer talking about the subject of this conversation, which is relative vs. absolute morality.
Bill, you started this thread, and yet you seem much more interested in talking politics about gay rights than about actually proving your claim that morality is absolute. Once again I will ask you to explain the consequences that befall all people engaging in gay sex acts. If certain consistent consequences do not befall all people doing those acts, then there is no proof that those acts are morally wrong in an absolute sense. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/09/2006 21:57:40 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 22:04:36 [Permalink]
|
| Also in response to Bill's claim that heterosexual marriage is the foundation of the USA: even if heterosexual marriage is so darn important to the American nation, gay marriages don't reduce or detract from straight marriages in any way. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 22:26:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox said:
even if heterosexual marriage is so darn important to the American nation, gay marriages don't reduce or detract from straight marriages in any way.
Yes they do! I'm not sure how they do, and have never heard anyone articulate any explanation of just how gay marriage "damages" anyone elses marriage... but everyone is saying it does.
And, as we all know, as long as everyone says it's true, it must be true, regardless of any evidence or facts to the contrary.
Anyway.... Bill is gladly leading the topic off into one of his homophobic rants because he can't defend his original position in the original topic.
That is his MO here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 22:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: That is because marriage is not between man and man. Marriage by definition is man and women. No one is being denied their right to marry, only their right to inject their personal definition of marriage and the ability to trump the legal definition of marriage.
Bill, you aren't reading closely enough. Constitutional law (both in states and the federal Constitution) trumps other laws. That is why gay people can get married in Massachusettes now - because the Constitution was interpreted by judges (which as you wrote, interpreting the law is a judge's proper role) as being in conflict with the law about marriage being only for male/female pairing. Constitutional law trumps lesser laws. You keep referring to liberal judges who are overstepping their role - but how? What new laws have any judges created? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/09/2006 22:45:16 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 02:46:50 [Permalink]
|
I find myself reminded of this:
"LOGIC, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion — thus:
Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
Minor Premise: One man can dig a posthole in sixty seconds; therefore —
Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a posthole in one second.
This may be called the syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed." -- Ambrose Bierce
It has nothing to do with morals, neither relative nor absolute, nor gay marriage, nor the price of whiskey by the dram, but it rather demonstrates the form of logic Bill has challenged us with.
Here and here, Bill. Study them carefully and strive to follow to them in your writings, and you will not be open to ridicule such as this quite so often.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 08:10:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill, you keep talking about how the majority of Americans agree with you on this whole gay marriage, thing. Let's bring forth the actual statistics. Gallup polls from 1999 to 2004 have consistantly shown that about 6 out of 10 adult Americans oppose gay marriage. 60% is hardly an overwhelming majority. However, a Gallup poll from 2004 showed that 54% of Americans supported civil unions for gays. In other words, the majority of Americans support gays having all the benefits of married people, so long as it is legally called "domestic partnership" and not "marriage".
Bill, you keep talking about how the majority of Americans agree with you on this whole gay marriage, thing. Let's bring forth the actual statistics. Gallup polls from 1999 to 2004 have consistantly shown that about 6 out of 10 adult Americans oppose gay marriage. 60% is hardly an overwhelming majority. However, a Gallup poll from 2004 showed that 54% of Americans supported civil unions for gays. In other words, the majority of Americans support gays having all the benefits of married people, so long as it is legally called "domestic partnership" and not "marriage".
(bill) Poles? I refer you to the poles that were taken in 13 states in Nov. 2004. Now that is a pole that produces some real, empirical, data wouldn't you say?. You refer to snap poles, which have been proven to be inaccurate. Did we not learn a thing from Nov. 2000? Going into Tuesday the "poles" had Gore winning the office. Going into Tuesday night the "poles" had Gore packing his bags for Pennsylvania Ave. The "poles?" The "poles", going into Tuesday, showed JFK ahead of GWB. The "poles" had JFK cracking a smile Tuesday afternoon as he was going over is acceptance speech. The "poles?" The "poles" were showing that same sex marriage would pass in at least Oregon, and maybe Michigan. The "poles"...... The poles in November are the real poles...
First I want to say that your right. There is no reason for me to use inflammatory language that some might take offence to when discussing ideas. What is the point? I am sorry. I said fag a few times and it will end here. I just used homo to help speed up my typing as you all can tell I never started typing until a few years ago. (please no monkey typing wisecracks) Thank you for your patience. I abbreviate a lot of stuff and no harm was intended by that.
I don't understand why the gays want to get married? It is a religious institution that was hijacked, and then regulated, by gov.'s. It's like a man and a women going to a gay church and wanting to have gay civil union????
I suspect this is more about getting benefits then being able to use the word marriage or married. Ok, I can see that point.
I suppose if I were a politician in order to get this issue resolved I could offer this. A civil union contract, or what ever you want to call it, that gives the two gay parties certain rights that would be granted to a hetero couple in marriage. If a gay partner works at a place of employment where health issuance is offered to spouses of married couples then under civil union contract heath insurance would be offered to gay partner. Under civil union contract partners could will estates to each other and would have power of attorney in life and death situations. A divorce would be handled in much the same way. Properites are split 50/50 etc... etc... etc... That type of thing. I would have to draw the line at child adoption and here is why. IMO it is indisputable that design intent was man and women to come together and through that relationship offspring are produced for the survival of the species. One look at the anatomy of both sexes and it is beyond question that this was designed to go there, and the result of human offspring is the proof in the pudding. Without heterosexual sex civilization dies, period. This proves, beyond doubt, that the intent for the structure of human civilization and society is that a man and women will come to gather and through that relationship they will produce children, which they shall raise to proliferate civilization and society. This, without doubt, was the design intent of the deity, or natural selection, whichever you subscribe to. Even if you subscribe to the evolutionists worldview, when you look at the naked fact that man and women were designed to fit together and the result is offspring you must succumb to the fact that this was the natural way that was design intended to advance civilization, weather you subscribe to a deity or natural selection as that designer and intended. Ths would make a gay couple raising chilren unnatural or agaisnt design intent, whatever worldview you subscibe to. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 08:51:19 [Permalink]
|
Ah, at last a breath of reason...
And fair enough, I think. But I'm reminded that there are some churches that would marry gays, and these should not be prevented from doing so with whatever religious trappings they employ. As for child adoption, I really don't know. On the one hand, it doesn't seem natural; on the other, gay couples of both genders have successfully raised children origionally belonging to one or the other prior to divorce. So, I'll abstain on that one.
Y'know, I haven't had any morels, absolute or otherwise, since around last June. Gonna go our and hunt me up some new ones as soon as spring breaks.
 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 09:02:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I suppose if I were a politician in order to get this issue resolved I could offer this. A civil union contract, or what ever you want to call it, that gives the two gay parties certain rights that would be granted to a hetero couple in marriage. If a gay partner works at a place of employment where health issuance is offered to spouses of married couples then under civil union contract heath insurance would be offered to gay partner. Under civil union contract partners could will estates to each other and would have power of attorney in life and death situations. A divorce would be handled in much the same way. Properites are split 50/50 etc... etc... etc... That type of thing.
Which is all they are expecting. The same government benefits and duties that married couples have.
quote:
I would have to draw the line at child adoption and here is why.
Here we go.
quote:
IMO it is indisputable that design intent was man and women to come together and through that relationship offspring are produced for the survival of the species. One look at the anatomy of both sexes and it is beyond question that this was designed to go there, and the result of human offspring is the proof in the pudding.
In sexual reproduction, form follows function. Procreation is not the only function of sex. The proof is in the psychology.
quote:
Without heterosexual sex civilization dies, period.
And how does allowing homosexuals to marry and/or raise children cause an entire population to turn homosexual. Really, to show that homosexuality is bad, you have to show a reasonable harm caused by it.
quote:
This proves, beyond doubt, that the intent for the structure of human civilization and society is that a man and women will come to gather and through that relationship they will produce children, which they shall raise to proliferate civilization and society.
Yet you have no problem with sterile people having sex by excusing it as "well it worked before". The relationship of sterile people doesn't produce offspring either.
quote:
This, without doubt, was the design intent of the deity, or natural selection, whichever you subscribe to. Even if you subscribe to the evolutionists worldview, when you look at the naked fact that man and women were designed to fit together and the result is offspring you must succumb to the fact that this was the natural way that was design intended to advance civilization, weather you subscribe to a deity or natural selection as that designer and intended. Ths would make a gay couple raising chilren unnatural or agaisnt design intent, whatever worldview you subscibe to.
Funny, according to scientific studies, the "kids raised by homosexuals are damaged" argument is bullshit.
Lookee, another reference to a source. Sensing a pattern here, Bill?
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5359
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 09:47:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Ah, at last a breath of reason...
And fair enough, I think. But I'm reminded that there are some churches that would marry gays, and these should not be prevented from doing so with whatever religious trappings they employ. As for child adoption, I really don't know. On the one hand, it doesn't seem natural; on the other, gay couples of both genders have successfully raised children origionally belonging to one or the other prior to divorce. So, I'll abstain on that one.
Y'know, I haven't had any morels, absolute or otherwise, since around last June. Gonna go our and hunt me up some new ones as soon as spring breaks.
Ah, at last a breath of reason...
(bill) Oh come on, you know I have made some good points...
And fair enough, I think. But I'm reminded that there are some churches that would marry gays, and these should not be prevented from doing so with whatever religious trappings they employ.
(bill)What church are talking about? The church of Satan, the church of scientology, the church of etc... etc... etc... The whole oxymoron of a gay "Christian" church is a whole complete conversation in itself.
As for child adoption, I really don't know. On the one hand, it doesn't seem natural;
(bill) It does not seem natural because it is not natural. It is indisputable that this was meant to go there when looking at both anatomies of the sexes. This does not even take into consideration that fact that children, which proliferate the survival of the species, are only available when male semen is introduced to the female egg. This process only takes place through heterosex. If natural selection, or the deity, had intended for same sex couples to raise children they would have designed this into the grand scheme of things, but they did not.
Yes artificial insemination is unnatural as well I agree. But this is just unnatural in the mechanics of getting the male sperm to the female egg. The fact of the male sperm impregnating the female egg is a very natural event and everything that takes place afterward is natural.
on the other, gay couples of both genders have successfully raised children origionally belonging to one or the other prior to divorce. So, I'll abstain on that one.
(bill) Well successfully is a relative term and this does not refute the fact that it defies design intent of the deity, or natural selection.
Y'know, I haven't had any morels, absolute or otherwise, since around last June. Gonna go our and hunt me up some new ones as soon as spring breaks.
(bill) Now here is subject that we both can fully embrace. I am an avid fan of the wild mushroom and enjoy eating them even more.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 10:19:55 [Permalink]
|
If I remember right, the churchs were Episcopalian(sp?), or some derivitive thereof. I don't pay much attention to any of them and can't really sort them out.
But this brings up another point: if a church is officialy recognized as such, be it that of Wicca or anything else, should they be allowed by law to host weddings? Dig it: I, an atheist, am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church and am fully qualified to perform weddings, and have. Twice. They still seem to be to be shackled up pretty good.
So, if I should chose to preside over a gay wedding, and if asked, I just might if only to see how many people I could piss off, would it be legal? If so, and remembering that I am an atheist, would it be moral on my part?
Nice lookin' batch o' 'shrooms, huh? I hope to raise some next year.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 10:23:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
This process only takes place through heterosex.
Then why does artificial insemination work at all?quote:
If natural selection, or the deity, had intended for same sex couples to raise children they would have designed this into the grand scheme of things, but they did not.
Since it happens, how do you know this wasn't "designed?"quote:
Well successfully is a relative term and this does not refute the fact that it defies design intent of the deity, or natural selection.
Yup, another Christian claiming (against the advice in the Bible) to know the "design intent" of God. Such hubris will end you up in Hell, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 10:32:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
If I remember right, the churchs were Episcopalian(sp?), or some derivitive thereof. I don't pay much attention to any of them and can't really sort them out.
But this brings up another point: if a church is officialy recognized as such, be it that of Wicca or anything else, should they be allowed by law to host weddings? Dig it: I, an atheist, am an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church and am fully qualified to perform weddings, and have. Twice. They still seem to be to be shackled up pretty good.
So, if I should chose to preside over a gay wedding, and if asked, I just might if only to see how many people I could piss off, would it be legal? If so, and remembering that I am an atheist, would it be moral on my part?
Nice lookin' batch o' 'shrooms, huh? I hope to raise some next year.
Legal, sure. Legally binding, no.
Here's where you should put any liquids down and swallow. The absurdity of the law becomes comical.
As your joining of two people in matrimony defies the current definition for marriage, the act is considered a religious expression. It is not legally binding for the state and the act of religious marriage minus being reported to the state on the proper forms, is not binding. Attempts at filing these papers will have no effect as the registrar of marriages would likely throw the application for marriage out even if it was signed by the Pope of the Church of the Inside Straight, himself. (All shuffle to his greatness.)
Would it be moral? Sure. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2006 : 12:03:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
I suppose if I were a politician in order to get this issue resolved I could offer this. A civil union contract, or what ever you want to call it, that gives the two gay parties certain rights that would be granted to a hetero couple in marriage. If a gay partner works at a place of employment where health issuance is offered to spouses of married couples then under civil union contract heath insurance would be offered to gay partner. Under civil union contract partners could will estates to each other and would have power of attorney in life and death situations. A divorce would be handled in much the same way. Properites are split 50/50 etc... etc... etc... That type of thing.
Which is all they are expecting. The same government benefits and duties that married couples have.
quote:
I would have to draw the line at child adoption and here is why.
Here we go.
quote:
IMO it is indisputable that design intent was man and women to come together and through that relationship offspring are produced for the survival of the species. One look at the anatomy of both sexes and it is beyond question that this was designed to go there, and the result of human offspring is the proof in the pudding.
In sexual reproduction, form follows function. Procreation is not the only function of sex. The proof is in the psychology.
quote:
Without heterosexual sex civilization dies, period.
And how does allowing homosexuals to marry and/or raise children cause an entire population to turn homosexual. Really, to show that homosexuality is bad, you have to show a reasonable harm caused by it.
quote:
This proves, beyond doubt, that the intent for the structure of human civilization and society is that a man and women will come to gather and through that relationship they will produce children, which they shall raise to proliferate civilization and society.
Yet you have no problem with sterile people having sex by excusing it as "well it worked before". The relationship of sterile people doesn't produce offspring either.
quote:
This, without doubt, was the design intent of the deity, or natural selection, whichever you subscribe to. Even if you subscribe to the evolutionists worldview, when you look at the naked fact that man and women were designed to fit together and the result is offspring you must succumb to the fact that this was the natural way that was design intended to advance civilization, weather you subscribe to a deity or natural selection as that designer and intended. Ths would make a gay couple raising chilren unnatural or agaisnt design intent, whatever worldview you subscibe to.
Funny, according to scientific studies, the "kids raised by homosexuals are damaged" argument is bullshit.
Lookee, another reference to a source. Sensing a pattern here, Bill?
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5359
In sexual reproduction, form follows function.
(bill) Right. And what is required for procreation?
Procreation is not the only function of sex. The proof is in the psychology.
(bill) It certainly was the main, and most important one. Society and civilization will die with out the procreation effect of heterosexual couples, period. Again, the deity, or natural selection, is the one who designed the natural order of society and mechanics for the advancing of the pop. of said civilizations which is a man and a women. So your problem with this is not with me, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
Yet you have no problem with sterile people having sex by excusing it as "well it worked before".
(bill) How do sterile people having sex have anything to do with the natural structure of society and civilization put in place by the deity, or natural selection? I have no problem with sterile hetero couples adopting children. A man and a women raising children was the intent of the original designer for the structure of society and civilization, whomever that designer may be. If two men raising children was the natural and intended way to build a society and civilization then the deity, or natural selection would have made it so, period!
The relationship of sterile people doesn't produce offspring either.
(bill) So what? A man and a women raising children was the design intent of the basic structure of society and civilization. A sterile man and women raising children is still man and women raising children which meets design intent. It was not my idea to set it up this way, but rather the original designer, whomever that may be.
Funny, according to scientific studies, the "kids raised by homosexuals are damaged" argument is bullshit.
(bill) Oh I just demonstrated, using the poles from the 2000, 2004 elections as an example, that studies and poles can be wrong and manipulated to reflect what is desired. Beside I did not point to a study or a pole and said same sex should not raise kids did I? Say no. I said that it was the intent of the original designer, whomever that may be. So you can sight all the studies and poles you want, but the naked truth remains that the basic foundation for society and civilization, weather you subscribe to a deity or natural selection as the design agent, was that man and women would come together and from this relationship children to pop. the society would be produced, period. If the deity, or NS intended for same sex couples to raise children this would have been figured into the whole grand scheme of things, which it was not. So by placing children in a same sex home you are defying natural law, despite any pole or study you care to embrace.
Lookee, another reference to a source. Sensing a pattern here, Bill?
(bill) Yeah so what? You asked me to provide a source for the 40 states that I listed and I did. I provided the 04 election as reference to counter gallop. Now go get yourself a human anatomy book and look it over. You will soon see that it is very obvious that the man and women were designed to fit together in this way and the main result will be a continuation of the species. This was not my design, but rather the intent of the deity, or NS, whatever designer you subscribe to. So your problem with this structure of society is with them and not me, VAL.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
