Homosexual Marriage (last part)

i am trying to enable you to see it for yourself.

So answer the questions or you are denying your own comprehension.

not my choice

 

So your 'scientific evidence' amounts to nothing more than your opinion? Opinion is not 'scientific evidence': If private and personal opinion is to be considered as scientific evidence, then guess what... my opinion and the opinion of all those countless millions of Christians out there have just been elevated to the level of scientific evidence of the existence of God as spoken of in the Bible. On that note, I would say that your depiction of god is outnumbered by a tremendous amount. Also, that would cause your opinion to be nothing more than the mere rambling of someone who is living in the rocks on the side of a hill and is being plagued by a 'legion'.

 

your definition of marriage is still incorrect. You don't need to enable me to see it for myself. I already pointed out that it was incorrect.

 

when did i define marriage other than to point out what marriage was originally for?

can lean a jack to water and make it drink either

you believe same sex intercourse is normal too...............

Heck i could say the sky is blue and tell you that aint correct 1/2 the time too.

 

someone had to be the first

but the fact is, i know nothing except by application and 'standing on the shoulders of giants' (the information of the previous generations conveyances)


ie... you didnt write the babble either, you read someone elses material.

The difference between you and i is, i have created light, literally based on the fields (electric and magnetic). I have done the math. I have experimented and i have and can apply, describe and enable others to comprehend 'life' itself.


can you?

and anyone can read them opinions and find out for themselves, they cannot even tie their shows with them.

With science, medicine and knowledge, people can save lives and enable others to live longer.

Cant do that with your material scope of information.

Again, had to be an initial ONE to wake up.

I didnt choose to be that idiot. I just bumped into realizing it.

david and goliath

weird, and sad, but true

ie... with knowledge upon the head............... there is no greater sword!

to enable the next generations is all i care about.

i will not write 'the name' but the logic and comprehension is all over the world now.

and nothing will stop it.

 

that is the historical reason for the usage of marriage; lineage protection

idiots think it is for tax benefits or will use wiki to suggest the legal definition is THE definition.

which is stupid

i am


idiots just like to deny reality or what is real just to be stubborn.

ie... being obtuse

so has murder

'entire'?

from bonobos to dolphins.............. frustration!

ie..... cant procreate ini the normal fashion and will f..... anything that moves. If that is normal to you, then okey dokey.

The problem with your posts are the lack of integrity to dialogue.

It is like asking a professor to define 'sexual orientation' and many an idiot from berkeley will try to sustain the choice to be homosexual is a genetic foundation, when the fact is often the choice is purely like the lies of the irresponsible, a personal preference.

the sexual orientation to a bilogical life form is bound to the gender and the single exception is the hemorphridite in which both genders are within the single bilogical life.


from religious observance to the concept of gravity thru to the scope of biologically sustaining life;

rahl, you are getting a straight answer and just dont like it

that's your choice to deny what is real

 

No! You like anyone else playing with materials already created, have simply manipulated matter in such a way that light was emitted. Light, as you have defined it as being magnetic waves that exist in and around everything, is already there. YOU CREATED NOTHING. I too, could as easily say that I have created light every time I 'click my bic' to fire up a cigarette. Your arrogance and egotism are so noted.

Answered above in the affirmative. Using those em forces that are in and around everything ...according to you.

Finally a grain of truth from you in the above statement.

Yep.. just ask those members of the Challenger.

My material scope? Sollie Challie .. It is you that is making such a 'to do' with regard to the material scope... Remember EM is a member of the temporal world.

Have you found that 'initial one' as yet? Not here....

Now you are referring to yourself as an 'idiot'. Amazing. You refer to your own being as an "idiot" then you expect others to respect the things that you say? WOW!!!!

Where? I know they can be found in the words of the Bible and a sundry of other places where the terms are used. Where specifically are you seeing them?

Yes! You are both weird and sad, but the only truth to be found therein is the fact that you keep posting this non-sense.

You can place as many books upon your head as you want, but that number of books will only make paper swords.

You are truly enabling the next generations by showing the example of 'what not to do', by your own personal activity.

Because you don't know any special name. If you did, being the braggart that you appear to be, you would certainly spew it forth along with all the other drivel.

Define 'nothing'.

 

i know that.

heck jesus mentioned the 'cross' (electric and magnetic fields of light (em)) is a perfect rendition of light................ perhaps HE DID IT?

'why didnt i think of that?'

you breath, eat and sheet light in some form or another.... but just now figuring out what 'light' is.

ie... what is the aura of a living thing?

every heart beat

and even your thoughts run on 'light'.... so temporal or incorporeal... still a light thing.

ie..... the spirit of everything you ever even imagined

rather be an idiot and live than a punk who lives on BS, bound for extinction

each time a child learns to tie his shoes (the spark destroys the ignorance)

kind of like what darwin did; mankind left the creation BS for the understanding of life

this is the 21st century; we have the internet (riding the lightning)

how is that?

i am sure each cant wait to be a judge unto themselves and the liars

in a sense, i often wish i did

then i would rule the world with the power of money

 

so are you telling me, marriage is more than a tradition?

then legally, same sex cant get marrried unless within certain locations.

get over it

it is like charlie brown; a comic

sure it does; the life is not procreating

ie... same sex dont enable life and if people comprehended the truth of that matter, they perhaps would not be same sexing it.

you comprehend it, but are too selfish to give a hoot about anyone but yourself.

sorry but science and reality is what sustains truth

quite the opposite

the gender is how to identify the sexual orientation and you know it

i aint denying it exists

i am denying the concepts validity to nature, science and life

ie... homosexual; is same sex copulations (cant make babies)

marriage is for lineage protection; making babies

the two terms dont belong together and idiots continue to lie thru their teeth to defend the pursuit of the monetary benefits versus what it right; the truth

 

Why should this be anyone's business other than the parties "same sexing it" as you put it? How does the act of "same sexing it" violate your rights in any way?

 

it dont

it violates the rights of the life

kind of like stopping the cell divsion of the skin

 

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

 

then perhaps you aint thinking.

ie.... life is not the persons self identify. A dog, an amoeba, a fish, a cell are all alive............. the process in motion is the life.

What you are not comprehending is people can think they are making a choice as it is their life and yet, be going against the laws of life.

ie.... same sex copulation does not procreate but the life of the person wants too instinctively.


Perhaps you need to check yourself before doubting

 

The debate about "gay marriage" wouldn't even be happening if it wasn't for the masses of sheep who go along with the self-interest propaganda that says people are born gay. I'm still amazed at the number of people who fall for that although the strange, unsupported belief is now in decline.

It's pretty clear that the masses will believe anything if it is stated forcefully by those who stand to gain from saying it. Anyone can say anything. You can listen but nothing says you have to believe it.

Here's a novel idea: seriously think through what propagandists are saying before you decide to dummy up and believe it just to make them happy.

If there was a "gay gene" (which there is not), how would such a gene even survive past the first generation if so-called gay people don't procreate? Anyone?

 

And what of the masses of sheep who follow anti-gay propaganda promoting the idea that it's a choice?

There is no credible evidence that it's a choice. While there is nothing conclusive yet regarding a cause for same-sex orientation, There is a growing body of evidence supporting the theory that it is inborn.

On the contrary, you won't find any credible medical and mental health organizations endorsing the notion that it's a choice, and plenty who have concluded that there's sufficient evidence to say that it is not, even without knowing the precise mechanism(s) that give rise to it.

On the other hand, there's no shortage of hateful people who cling stubbornly to unsupported prejudices against homosexuals and who'll believe just about any crackpot nonsense if it's affirming of those prejudices.

That applies to the anti-gay, too.

The answer is twofold:

First, it doesn't have to arise from a gene to be inborn. There are other things that influence development in utero.

Second, and more to the point: Gay people are capable of procreation, and they do so in growing numbers. That you would even pose this question shows how little you actually know about gay people.

 

If you were born straight, it makes perfect sense that people were born gay.

 

You seem to think that there is a intrinsic value in many babies, in many people. I don't see that value. Maximizing the number of people on the planet is not my primary goal.

That notion is based upon your philosophical basis, one that not everyone share, an "opinion". Thus, you shouldn't (my opinion says) impose it on others.

If there was a green-eyes gene, how would such a gene survive since they are recessive compared to brown and blue eyes? Same logic. Besides, gays have been forced to procreate by social rules for quite some time.

Edit: I'm not saying that I believe that homosexuality is purely genetic (I believe it's more complex than that, but that's not relevant for the moment), I just react when I see faulty logic.

 

there is; the instinct to live

it is quite opposite of the intent to equilibrate

many dont but breath atonomously just the same

Your very skin cells divide, without you knowing it; to survive

that's a conscious choice, but instinctively, your body intends/intended to procreate

my scope is the life of all

i aint imposing the mind with contradictions to nature, i live with her

the eye gene, is irrelevant

the logic that YOU apparently comprehend, is that the only way the gays can procreate is with the use of words (lying to people)

it is how religions grow too

where is my faulty logic?

I see that you are believing that populating the world is my foundation when the natural scope of the intent of a living thing, the life, to procreate is of nature, universally.

ie... my logic is bound to reality, not belief

 

that's a crock of a post

the ONLY genetic branch of 'born gay' is the genetic life of hermaphradite, in which both attributes of both genders are present

the sexual orientation of a life is identified by the gender unless hermaphradite

it's basic common sense, unless living on a lie

 

Homosexual behavior can be observed among other animals too, not just humans.

Says who?

 

nope. gender and sexual orientation are 2 seperate things. they don't rely upon eachother.

 

Much of ones sex life is an unalienable right.

"enjoyment of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness"

If ones sex life does not fall under this catagory I am not sure what does ?!

1) Homosexuality is not adultery
2) even if it were Adultery is not a crime

The Constitution was written to protect people from religion. One of the purposes of the document was to stop religious people form imposing their moral beliefs on others through use of the state power.

What you are espousing is akin to Sharia Law.

 

So what is your ultimate goal, in clear English? Where are the limits? Would a planet completely covered with humans be closer to your ideal than this world?

I have a wish to live, but I am required to live to have that wish. Rocks don't wish things, they have no consciousness, they don't live. Unborn or simply as-of-yet-non-existent things do not wish. The only things that do not benefit from not allowing it to exist, do not exist, and therefore don't feel disheartened from it.

I admit that my view is based on a preconceived notion of an ultimate goal, but I don't see how the preconceived goal of maximizing the amount of living things is a "better" one.

Nature strives towards more life and, as I understand it, that is why you approve of it (correct me if I'm wrong). But nature also strives to give things low potential energy, does that mean that it is your duty to go push things over?

Ah, so this is why you're so hard to argue with, you don't read more than one post back. This answer was not meant for you, it is a response to a quote from another poster.