[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Your “logical debate” consists of standard teenage insults…
[/quote]
You’re confusing me with your Joey the Cheerleader ally.
[/quote]
Are you telling me it’s not you normal state.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
It’s not pointing out science in particular; the diagram is depicting the “shove it under the carpet”[/quote]
The ‘shove it under the carpet’ attitude of the pro-aborts and state recognized gay-marriage folks.
Be it
- The human life murdered in an abortion
- The down syndrome child murdered in that abortion
- That the reason why governments should have any interest in state recognized marriage, if any, is found within the smallest biological unit capable of propagating the citizenry, raising them in intact homes, with both biological and natural parents present. Otherwise, have a bartender witness your exchange of vows and get to playing at house. A homosexual’s relationship is no more important than a strictly non-sexual friendship…It doesn’t deserve state-recognition any more than the friendship of a couple of fishing buddies.
You agitate from an emotional obsession with equalizing unequal things, and not science.[/quote]
Your opinions.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Lol. Science actually doesn’t tell us that. Neither of you have a very good grasp of what science tells us. In Sloth’s case, that’s okay. He’s not aspiring to understand it.[/quote]
I currently maintain a 4.0 GPA in the maths and sciences, as I work towards what most likely will be medical school. You MAY already have a degree in biology. But you butchered the hell out of it, turning it into a religion we’ve come to call scientism. Your degree, and even my own studies, have jack squat to say about the evil of child molestation. Nothing to say about what morals and virtues are good or evil. And it has zero to say about HOW we should live.
What are you speaking about ?
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
It’s not pointing out science in particular; the diagram is depicting the “shove it under the carpet”[/quote]
The ‘shove it under the carpet’ attitude of the pro-aborts and state recognized gay-marriage folks.
Be it
- The human life murdered in an abortion
- The down syndrome child murdered in that abortion
- That the reason why governments should have any interest in state recognized marriage, if any, is found within the smallest biological unit capable of propagating the citizenry, raising them in intact homes, with both biological and natural parents present. Otherwise, have a bartender witness your exchange of vows and get to playing at house. A homosexual’s relationship is no more important than a strictly non-sexual friendship…It doesn’t deserve state-recognition any more than the friendship of a couple of fishing buddies.
You agitate from an emotional obsession with equalizing unequal things, and not science.[/quote]
Your opinions. [/quote]
False.
- The human embryo is an individual human organism (life) already in it’s own life cycle.
- A single man and a single woman ARE the smallest unit capable of having and raising it’s own biological children within an intact home. I knew that before taking A&P.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
It’s not pointing out science in particular; the diagram is depicting the “shove it under the carpet”[/quote]
The ‘shove it under the carpet’ attitude of the pro-aborts and state recognized gay-marriage folks.
Be it
- The human life murdered in an abortion
- The down syndrome child murdered in that abortion
- That the reason why governments should have any interest in state recognized marriage, if any, is found within the smallest biological unit capable of propagating the citizenry, raising them in intact homes, with both biological and natural parents present. Otherwise, have a bartender witness your exchange of vows and get to playing at house. A homosexual’s relationship is no more important than a strictly non-sexual friendship…It doesn’t deserve state-recognition any more than the friendship of a couple of fishing buddies.
You agitate from an emotional obsession with equalizing unequal things, and not science.[/quote]
Your opinions. [/quote]
False.
- The human embryo is an individual human organism (life) already in it’s own life cycle.
- A single man and a single woman ARE the smallest unit capable of having and raising it’s own biological children within an intact home. I knew that before taking A&P.
[/quote]
- Is an opinion
- Is like saying : A single man and a single woman are the smallest unit capable of being a single man and a single woman.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
It’s not pointing out science in particular; the diagram is depicting the “shove it under the carpet”[/quote]
The ‘shove it under the carpet’ attitude of the pro-aborts and state recognized gay-marriage folks.
Be it
- The human life murdered in an abortion
- The down syndrome child murdered in that abortion
- That the reason why governments should have any interest in state recognized marriage, if any, is found within the smallest biological unit capable of propagating the citizenry, raising them in intact homes, with both biological and natural parents present. Otherwise, have a bartender witness your exchange of vows and get to playing at house. A homosexual’s relationship is no more important than a strictly non-sexual friendship…It doesn’t deserve state-recognition any more than the friendship of a couple of fishing buddies.
You agitate from an emotional obsession with equalizing unequal things, and not science.[/quote]
Your opinions. [/quote]
False.
- The human embryo is an individual human organism (life) already in it’s own life cycle.
- A single man and a single woman ARE the smallest unit capable of having and raising it’s own biological children within an intact home. I knew that before taking A&P.
[/quote]
- Is an opinion
- Is like saying : A single man and a single woman are the smallest unit capable of being a single man and a single woman. [/quote]
Wow. I’ll explain this to you one time.
-
The human embryo IS an individual, diploid, organism. It is not haploid, like the gametes of the parents. So, it not a gamete or a somatic cell of the parent. It IS an individual organism. An organism is alive. Life. The HUMAN embryo should’ve been all you needed to know to tell you what critter this particular life is. Do you object to human embryo? Of course not. Do you object to embryo=organism? I bet not. You can’t possibly object to organism=life, right? Human life.
-
One man and one woman are the smallest unit capable of reproducing and then raising it’s own biological children in an intact home. Birds and bees stuff here.
Your next objection I’ll just ignore.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, I take that back. Science does tell us that the smallest unit capable of having and raising it’s own biological children within an intact home is…the traditional state recognized marriage. Heyoooo![/quote]
Indeed.
And for those who don’t know, these sciences are called History, sociology, anthropology. And if you really need your dose of naturalistic reductionnism, you can add ethology to the list. [/quote]
Lol. Science actually doesn’t tell us that…[/quote]
Actually it does. Being that one man and one woman is the reproductive unit…
The OP’s questions and his presentation seem idiotic to me. Not trying to be rude. But hermaphroditism is extremely rare. Like Siamese twins. Are we going to start a thread asking about whether Siamese twins should marry and whether they should only marry other Siamese twins and whether both sets have to marry or whatever. It’s bullshit. I imagine it’s some sort of attempt to promote ‘gay marriage’ or something like that? Desperate stuff. Really grasping at straws here.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2. One man and one woman are the smallest unit capable of reproducing and then raising it’s own biological children in an intact home. Birds and bees stuff here.
Your next objection I’ll just ignore.
[/quote]
Really? Clearly you’ve never studied birds, bees, or humans(just to make this a little easier on you, I’ve not disagreeing with the first part regarding sexual reproduction, I’m disagreeing with the second part regarding raising offspring. You might want to go look into that a little further).
This is the most retarded thing I’ve read so far on these threads. The stupidity is overwhelming. The only thing to be glad about here is that you people don’t comprise the majority of the view points in the world.
I know a nice girl with 6 toes. If we were going to tie the knot, the extra one would be coming off.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
There is no place in the Western mindset for hermaphrodites. Therefore, you ignore them. [/quote]
Nope.
We don’t ignore them. But we won’t modify a fundamental institution just for them.
Because you know, laws are here to serve the general public interest, not to please each and every individuals. [/quote]
All clowning aside IC, this is the answer to your question, but I don’t see you responding. I bet you could get a sympathetic congressman to author a bill modifying the law to allow such true hermas to marry whoever they want. Wouldn’t bother me in the least.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
It’s not pointing out science in particular; the diagram is depicting the “shove it under the carpet”[/quote]
The ‘shove it under the carpet’ attitude of the pro-aborts and state recognized gay-marriage folks.
Be it
- The human life murdered in an abortion
- The down syndrome child murdered in that abortion
- That the reason why governments should have any interest in state recognized marriage, if any, is found within the smallest biological unit capable of propagating the citizenry, raising them in intact homes, with both biological and natural parents present. Otherwise, have a bartender witness your exchange of vows and get to playing at house. A homosexual’s relationship is no more important than a strictly non-sexual friendship…It doesn’t deserve state-recognition any more than the friendship of a couple of fishing buddies.
You agitate from an emotional obsession with equalizing unequal things, and not science.[/quote]
Your opinions. [/quote]
False.
- The human embryo is an individual human organism (life) already in it’s own life cycle.
- A single man and a single woman ARE the smallest unit capable of having and raising it’s own biological children within an intact home. I knew that before taking A&P.
[/quote]
- Is an opinion
- Is like saying : A single man and a single woman are the smallest unit capable of being a single man and a single woman. [/quote]
Wow. I’ll explain this to you one time.
-
The human embryo IS an individual, diploid, organism. It is not haploid, like the gametes of the parents. So, it not a gamete or a somatic cell of the parent. It IS an individual organism. An organism is alive. Life. The HUMAN embryo should’ve been all you needed to know to tell you what critter this particular life is. Do you object to human embryo? Of course not. Do you object to embryo=organism? I bet not. You can’t possibly object to organism=life, right? Human life.
-
One man and one woman are the smallest unit capable of reproducing and then raising it’s own biological children in an intact home. Birds and bees stuff here.
Your next objection I’ll just ignore.
[/quote]
-
Good try but this is no proof of embryo being a human. A single human cell is human life so are you telling every single cell in your body is also a human, wow just wow.
-
Define intact home
joebassin’s “logic” :
-a human embryo may be a non-human organism.
-“organism” imply “life” = “life” imply “organism”
raising offspring ?
offspring ?
seriously ?
You may think that gays could raise someone else’s kids, but you can’t seriously think they can raise “their own biological children” (Sloth’s words you disagree with).
I hope it’s the language barrier.
Btw, you didn’t answered my question. What insult aimed at Push in the other thread ?
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
2. One man and one woman are the smallest unit capable of reproducing and then raising it’s own biological children in an intact home. Birds and bees stuff here.
Your next objection I’ll just ignore.
[/quote]
Really? Clearly you’ve never studied birds, bees, or humans(just to make this a little easier on you, I’ve not disagreeing with the first part regarding sexual reproduction, I’m disagreeing with the second part regarding raising offspring. You might want to go look into that a little further).
This is the most retarded thing I’ve read so far on these threads. The stupidity is overwhelming. The only thing to be glad about here is that you people don’t comprise the majority of the view points in the world.
[/quote]
Reread the sentence Einstein, it’s factually accurate. Smallest unit…capable…intact home…both biological parents present. That would be one man, one woman. Wow. If you couldn’t disagree with ‘the first part,’ you CAN’T disagree with the second.
[quote]kamui wrote:
joebassin’s “logic” :
-a human embryo may be a non-human organism.
-“organism” imply “life” = “life” imply “organism”
[/quote]
Yep. I don’t have the time for that level of denial.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
joebassin’s “logic” :
-a human embryo may be a non-human organism.
-“organism” imply “life” = “life” imply “organism”
[/quote]
Yep. I don’t have the time for that level of denial.[/quote]
-
Since you guys have serious reading comprehension problems I’m going to explain slowly.
It’s a human organism but it’s not a person i.e. it’s not a human. -
A women as a right over her own body.