[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Don’t force your opinion on me. Don’t force your belief on me. Don’t force schools to teach things that should be taught at home. Don’t force churches to perform marriages that they don’t believe in.[/quote]
Don’t accuse me of doing something I don’t support. I couldn’t care less what your opinion/belief is. I think sex education in schools should only occur with the approval of the child’s parents. I respect the right of churches to marry whomever they want, and would never tell a church it has to marry a gay couple.
You, however, belong to a church that provided more than half the funding to pass Proposition 8. That directly and drastically affects the lives of thousands of people living in California, all because of your fairy tale belief that your god has said eternal life can only be granted to one man and one or more women.
See the difference?
Joseph Smith made up the Book of Mormon by looking into a hat. If that isn’t a fairy tale, I don’t know what is.
There is a hell of a lot more scientific evidence for a genetic component of sexual orientation than for Joseph Smith’s divine calling, I can tell you that.
Unless it means being asked by church leaders to donate to the passing of Proposition 8?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote: No, as I have said too many times, I acknowledged that gay marriage would have no effect on getting existing
children back into the care of the biological parents that created them. That they are already in the care of a single parent or foster care is a separate question, and marriage is designed to prevent children from ever being in this care as an initial matter.
[/quote]
You conveniently forgot to quote your non sequitur that while gay marriage doesn’t threaten straight marriage where existing children are concerned, it does threaten straight marriage where future children are concerned.
I was referring to your non sequitur, genius. You failed to show that gay marriage decreases the number of children that would be raised by their biological parents in the future, and I called you on it. Then you pulled your disappearing act.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Yes, I am fully aware that you’ve mentioned the Spartans and I have some information regarding the Spartans. However, I first want you to back up your claim regarding all of those heterosexual men that are supposedly having sex in prison. I’m not buying that…
Show me some evidence, or never mention it again.
Simple enough.[/quote]
I have no idea how many straight men in prison or foxholes have sex with one another. I do know that it happens, and even one case is sufficient to prove that people can have sex contrary to their sexual orientation.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Why then don’t you come forward with all of those great and successful past societies that were not Christian which allowed two homosexuals to get married?
Let’s see the list.[/quote]
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I never said anything about non-Christians sanctioning gay marriage.
I said that I oppose ANYONE that creates civil laws discriminating against me, especially when they do so based on fairy tale beliefs.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The controversy over the selection of Rick warren, threatens to put something of a damper on the inauguration festivities. Warren is senior pastor of saddleback Church in Southern California, and he supported a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."
[/quote]
I think Rick Warren was a bad choice. Fortunately, Joseph Lowery was chosen to say the benediction. Shocking as it must be to you, he is a Christian that supports gay marriage.
[quote]pat wrote:
I am not sure why you would want to get married again anyway. Did you not already betray the trust of one partner and family? Why put yourself in a position to do it again?[/quote]
I never cheated on my wife, and our decision to divorce was mutual.
If Jim Bob’s hand suffers a medical condition, I would not say Jim Bob’s hand represents a model for what an average human hand is capable of grasping.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If Jim Bob’s hand suffers a medical condition, I would not say Jim Bob’s hand represents a model for what an average human hand is capable of grasping.[/quote]
But you would say that the human hand is capable of grasping, even if Jim Bob’s hand is medically incapable?
[quote]forlife wrote:
I would say that the average human hand is capable of grasping, not that Jim Bob’s hand is capable or that it represents a model for the average hand.[/quote]
I said the average human hand is capable of grasping.
Saying the human hand is capable of grasping without that qualifier is misleading in the context being discussed here, because it implies everyone with a human hand can grasp with it. Obviously, that is not the case.
That would fit, had I asked if the human brain was capable of grasping. I asked you if the human hand is capable of grasping. Is that a function of the human hand?
