Originally posted by cpurser:
1) You are being a hypocrite. First you slam my link to family.org, then you link to gaycity.com, errr, I mean sfgate.com.
No, i was making a point that sources are like statistics. Remember your Samuel Clemens. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".
Originally posted by cpurser:
2) One of the articles I listed simply states that the study linking genetics to homosexuality was wrong, and it gave facts supporting the article. There was no bias to it. Since homosexuality is NOT genetic, then the gay activists have no basis for marriage.
Genetics has little to do with a marriage that by choice or medical issues cannot issue offsrping. The only part genetics plays in marriage is if offspring result.
Originally posted by cpurser:
3) The other article I linked to gives specific examples of how homosexuality is social, not genetic. Yes, the title may turn a you away, but the arguments in the article are real.
The source of homosexuality is not what I care about, i care about the rights of ALL AMERICANS, including homosexuals.
Originally posted by cpurser:
4) In your article, it lists specific instances of same sex marriages. I'm sorry, but it is not a "sanctified" or "Christian" marriage if it is same-sex. I don't care what the anthropologist says. The second example is hardly a good one, either. Are the Romans around today? I didn't think so. Why aren't they? They became obsessed with overindulgence.
I don't give a rat's bunghole about whether or not a marriage is "sanctified". That is an issue that needs to be resolved between the intended couple and the flavor, I mean religion of thier choice. The Romans sold out the defense of their country to mercenaries. Where is the solid NON BIASED evidence that sucking a little cock led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire? Hey, didn't the Gauls/Goths/other "barbarians" have something to do with it?
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
| 
