Ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional

A short attention span can make learning seem boring to students...

Blessings,

Dave

 

And too much repetition will make the mule start to buck because they are smart enough to get it the first time.

 

God says it's a detestable practice (NIV: Lev 19:6); I didn't say it. You can choose to ignore the scripture but you can't honestly say its meaning is ambiguous.

Blessings,

Dave

 

Then why does the mule feign ignorance, if it needs no further instruction?

Blessings,

Dave

 

However, they don't have the same opportunity as someone of the opposite sex. Unless you are saying separate but equal is really equal.

 

But what is its primary function, as evidenced by the design?

Blessings,

Dave

 

Yes. Scientists and groups of scientists interpret things. "Science" does not.

Yes. And what does this prove in relation to heterosexual versus homosexual sex? Absolutely nothing! The human foot's "primary function" is to be walked on, does that mean it is wrong to wear socks and shoes, or for acrobats to walk on their hands?

 

Lev 19: 6 It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; anything left over until the third day must be burned up.

I missed the reference.

If you mean "Lev 18:22 in KJV - Thou shall not lie with man as with woman for such is an abomination before God." then I got it.

I understand that the verse is quite clear - I just don't believe it.

Back to the beginning - you believe and your views are based on that. I don't believe and my views are based on that.

Buck. Buck.

 

Does that line actually make sense? How does the "mule feign ignorance"?

The mules throws a rider that is too dim to know the mule already understands and doesn't need any more instruction.

 

But why be limited to it's orginial design if you can think of more fun things to do with it?

 

No, it's not wrong to wear socks and shoes, if you have a foot, but what does that have to do with human reproduction? What does science say?

Blessings,

Dave

 

Yes, Lev 18:22 and 20:13...

I'm essentially saying your views are based on nothing at all...

Blessings,

Dave

 

My views are based on my religion and upbringing, just as yours are based on yours.

No, you said I didn't understand the passage. I do understand, just don't believe. (There's that repeating problem again.)

 

Yes, you do remind me of a stubborn mule; your word to describe your behavior. When presented with reality, the mule resists for no apparent reason, braying all the louder...

Blessings,

Dave

 

If you understood the objective truth of the passage, you would believe it...

Blessings,

Dave

 

I am using an analogy. Your message, to state it very plainly, says "a male genital organ should only be used to put inside a female genital organ because science says that is its intended and primary purpose". This is a ludicrous statement and I think you should stick to your main reason of "just because God said so in Leviticus" and not bring science into it. I will again restate the reasons why:

1) There is no major organ of the body that is used for just one purpose . Even genitals serve the double purpose of urination and sex.
2) Your message relies on a faulty interpretation of the design of the human body, and based on that faulty interpretation you would impose arbitrary limits. E.g. "we don't have wings so we shouldn't fly" or "since we have feet for walking acrobats shouldn't walk on their hands".
3) Science doesn't say anything. Science is not some important guy in a tie who walks around handing out authoritative messages. Science is a method of inquiry.

 

I'm not sure I know what an "abomination" is. Eating shellfish is one. Weaving linen and wool(?) together is another, IIRC.

I can't recall the actual Hebrew word for "abomination" but I THINK it has to do with the service of other gods.

I will say that the form of the verb is doubled, usually translated as "you will SURELY not do" whatever it is. It is undeniably emphatic; whatever an "abomination" may be, God does NOT want to see us doing it.

Sigh, sigh. I like lobster!

 

What does science say about your felt need to correct me with such poorly constructed prose?

So the dual purpose of some feature of the human body obviates it's primary purpose?

So it is ludicrous to state that the primary purpose of the human reproductive system is human reproduction?

So science has no common interpretations or conclusions that we can refer to in casual conversation?

Blessings,

Dave

 

Interesting concept! Exactly where will the two guys store the kid for the nine months of initial development? Besides, could you imagine the hyper-testosterone involved in a YY unit? Not good!

 

Well, it might be a good opportunity for builders of bath houses...