Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 11:49 PM
24 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, Tanypteryx (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,148 Year: 15,184/19,786 Month: 1,907/3,058 Week: 281/404 Day: 95/73 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 271 of 309 (162535)
11-23-2004 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Zachariah
11-23-2004 2:15 AM


Zachariah writes:

quote:
What about the kids rights?

What about them? Kids have the right to be raised in a loving, supportive environment free from those trying to tear their families apart simply because you disapprove of the parents.

Why are you so determined to destroy families? Don't you care about the children?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Zachariah, posted 11-23-2004 2:15 AM Zachariah has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4047 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 272 of 309 (162558)
11-23-2004 6:27 AM


rrhain drops...
No, it shows that your analogy is meaningless... You see, people have a sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what we call it. We are dealing with something much more fundamental.

My analogy is worthwhile, this is not about labeling sexual orientations and/or banning them. This is about a name on a legal contract because the name currently used has a historic traditional definition. That is the same as labeling a food product as Kosher.

That is exactly what we're talking about: There is a fundamental urge to pair-bond in humans. Whether we call it "marriage" or something else, we are referring to something basic.

Last I checked marriage has nothing to do about pair bonding... looks again at laws... nope. You may pair-bond at will without one, and you may pair-bond with others beyond your spouse with one. The only thing marriage does is set up legal constraints on a relationship, if you so choose to, with some consequent rights given due to that legal status.

What, pray tell, is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants? You're saying that gay people don't love each other the way straight people do.

Well, given the level of incredulity I am seeing, I'm beginning to wonder if many have the intellectual capacity to fully consent.

Oh was that offensive? Maybe you should drop your offensive tactics as well... It's a cheap shot at me, and a cheap ploy to switch subjects. We both know I don't think there is a difference in how anyone loves each other, or that this is what I am discussing.

Devoid of emotional baggage, we are talking about the legal contract that currently has a definition which will prevent same-sex couples from using it. It currently uses a name with vast historical connotations of being mixed sex couplings. This is because these laws were created in a culture where that was the only necessary legal entity needed.

Now same sex couples are finding it necessary, and desirable to get the same rights that come with said legal contract.

There are many different options. For practical purposes I'd say just remove the mixed sex definition. However there are other options which are valid, including coming up with a new contract that uses a different definitional requirement for the participants.

Incorrect. I've mentioned Boswell's book before. Same-sex marriage is quite old. The Catholic Church even has a rite for it.

I have read your posts and the info from B's book. You are being highly disingenuous.

The union B discusses is held separate from mixed sex marriage rites, yes or no???? It is not given the same name, yes or no???? By all indications it was infrequently used over a short span of history, yes or no??? It was not necessarily legally binding, yes or no???? It ended up disappearing into obscurity many centuries ago and so has not in any way shape or form impacted current concepts of what "marriage" is, yes or no???

Right. Have you read the work? Have you read the text of the rite? To call it something other than "marriage" is to fall into the same semantic argument.

See, now you are the one getting all semantic. You are arguing because it was marriage-like it was marriage. Even if I agree that it actually was supposed to be about same sex lovers uniting (for sake of argument), it is clear that it was held separate from mixed sex marriage, with different rights... yes or no???

If you are going to use that as precedent, then your current hatred towards civil unions seems confused.

Nice try, but I was not the one saying that finding a religious rite was justification. That was you. You were the one saying that there was no religious recognition of same-sex couples until recently and that that was justification to say that recognizing same-sex couples today is some sort of change to the "traditional" idea.

You just can't get your facts straight. I was not asking for justification. I was stating the facts. There have been no set gay marriages, as we are talking about here, throughout history and cultures, that is in any way that would have had any connection to our marriage laws.

When and where did B say those marriage-like rituals took place? Explain how it had an influence on traditional understandings of marriage in this nation?

Therefore, this example of a Catholic ritual recognizing same-sex couples that originated in pre-modern times and lasted for hundreds of years refutes your claim... I am simply saying that since you find it to be a justification, then you have no claim to say that same-sex marriage is "modern."

It existed... and not necessarily as law... for a short duration in history and then disappeared essentially completely, until B rediscovered it. Yeah, that means that the concept of recognizing marriage as a same sex union is a modern one.

I will repeat the other fact, unless you have some evidence to present, that even when homosexuality existed without stigma (even without definition) marriages were relegated to legal unions between mixed sex couples. The major purpose for legal marriage was protecting property and children.

Increased legalization of other rights and benefits, as well as the growing ability of same sex couples to have children, create a need today like there had not been in the past.

Is there something about it being modern that makes it less to you?

Burden of proof, holmes. You know better than that.

Yes, yes I do.

Um, please explain to me how your arguing for "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights" as something that is "possible" is not arguing for "separate but equal."

It's simply using a different name and definitional requirements for participants on a legal contract?

Since we know that there is no way to ever have "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights," how is that ever "possible"?

You don't know this because it is not true. I suppose I could have been more clear using business licenses rather than motor vehicle ones. States have different contracts with different names (and forms) depending on the structural organization. For much of these the differences are entirely semantic. Business law pertains to all of them.

The only way to do that is to treat them identically...which requires calling them the same thing. Whether that term is "marriage" or "civil union" is immaterial. However, the term needs to be identical or there will be legal discrepancies between the two.

All that is needed is a law, which could even be a part of the law creating the new legal contract, that they are both covered by laws and legal precedents regulating or giving rights to either. Thus legally, they are identified and treated the same, only requiring a different makeup in the participants.

No, I don't recall saying that at all. Are you sure it was me? I have never said anything about polygamy and breaking the law.

Yes, yes you did. I brought up the fact that in some states polygamists were issuing marriage licenses which did not require one on one partnerships. You dismissed this as people flouting the laws of the state, and not a movement trying to get rights (or likely to get them).

And I laughed my ass off when not much later SF started doing the exact same thing. I then posted to ask you about why you were not ripping into them in the same manner you had criticized the polygamists... silence was the answer.

I am sure that you want to forget that you said anything like that as it undercut your desire to watch your own side do the same thing. But amnesia, convenient or not, is no excuse.

So do you want to change your position? Do you now believe that polygamists issuing licenses in areas of the US are best demonstrating against the legal discrimination they are facing?

You literally do not know what you're talking about, holmes.

Hahaha... nice use of the pet peeve I mentioned in your thread on linguistic pet peeves. That makes the statement as annoying as it is incorrect.

Wait a minute...you just said that opposite sex was not mentioned in the law books. Now you're saying that it was. Which is it?

Yes, pay attention to what I am saying will you? There were no laws originally against same sex unions. However there was a contract for unions between same sex couples.

People began to get worried in recent years and tried, some successful, in getting laws on the books preventing gays from creating legal marriages.

This effort just got another bump this year.

And let's be honest here, race was mentioned in the law books as a pre-req. That's the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia.

I am a victim of brevity, both my writing and your attention span. You will note that I did reference the existence of such laws in the following...

Same race was not set law, and while discrimination like this was "common", it was not wholesale.

To which your reply was...

Incorrect. At the time of Loving v. Virginia, 16 states, nearly one-third of the nation, had miscegenation laws on the books.

I do not in any way see a discrepancy between my statement and yours regarding the facts. 1/3 of the nation does not mean same race marriage was the set law of the land, and given those stats it certainly was not wholesale.

The important thing is that the term used for a mixed-sex couple must necessarily be the same term used for a same-sex couple.

Why? There is no logical necessity for this, beyond your semantic needs.

There is also a thing called "Uncle Tom."

To quote your own words back at you more appropriately than you used the term... Non sequitur.

If the laws were the same for all the vehicles, then the license would be the same. In California, for example, there is a difference between the M1 and M2. M2 only lets you drive a moped or a motorized bicycle. M1 allows you to drive any two-wheeled motorcycle as well as any M2-class vehicle.

Sorry about your brain capacity. I was getting at the idea that drivers licenses, no matter the different category, give you the same right to drive.

Your own examples here only support what I have said. The licenses restrict you to a type of vehicle, though you achieve the same results with any. The fact that CA also grants special rights to different classes of vehicle, not the license, is something else altogether.

If it makes things easier, switch to business licenses. While some do indeed endow different entities with different rights, some do not. Some use different names (and forms) to represent the fact that they have a different structural makeup. The laws remain the same with same rights and responsibilities.

That's because we live in the real world, not this fantasy hypothetical of yours... If you could guarantee that every legal proceeding everywhere across the entire country into perpetuity would always and forever say "marriage or civil union," then you might have a case.

If you cannot address a hypothetical, because of the answer you might have to give, then you have an issue.

In the end your idea that civil unions cannot be legally tied to rights and responsibilities of marriage is only a theoretical possibility. It is not a necessity, and if you can see the problems, you can fix them in the laws that are being made.

That isn't the way the law works. By using different terms, you are legally saying that there is a distinction and thus there necessarily exists something that applies only to one and not the other.

Yes, the definitional requirement for the nature of the participants.

Otherwise, you would use the same term for both. There's a reason why it's "do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those terms do not mean the same thing.

Yes, they'd have definitional requirements for the nature of the participants.

In other words, instead of fighting this battle and resolving it once, we have to fight it every single time a law is written in every single municipality, county, state, and national forum.

If any particular law creating a civil union would create this situation, then that law should be fought as not good enough. However there is absolutely no logical obstacle to creating a civil union law which avoids the problem you just outlined.

You do understand that pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality and one cannot claim that a pedophile is homosexual simply by looking at the sex of the children who are molested, yes?

That is true. I have not implied otherwise, though I realize that is a very big issue for you.

You obviously did not read the study under discussion. It included, and we were discussing findings that homosexual orientation was highly correlated to being the victim of nonconsensual sex acts, as an adult just as much as if not more so than in childhood, and exhibiting psychological problems.

As an offshoot of this there is the logical suggestion that even in adults toward adults, there is an increased preying by homosexuals on others.

The ultimate question was connection of harm to homosexuality. The irony lay in the fact that the study was presented as an example of harm from pedophilic acts. It did not show this and instead showed a strong correlation between homosexuality and mental/physical harm.

Given the stigma attached to homosexuality and the feelings of having brought it upon oneself (both internally and externally claimed), I am not surprised that the victim of same-sex molestation may have some issues.

Unlike the stigma attached to having sex at all at a young age of course! Ahem, the fact is that this does not take away from a suggestion that same sex contact is more damaging for a person.

Whether it is socially derived is wholly besides the point in this thread, or at least that seems to be the case.

And since pedophiles don't really see children as male or female, they don't view themselves as gay even when they are molesting children of the same sex.

This is a generalization that cannot be made. Pedophiles certainly can see children as male and female and have preferences. Their are definitely pedophiles who have sex with boys but feel they are not gay (or bisexual), but that is definitely not all of them, and I would argue is rather counterfactual.

There are plenty of men who assault other men and say they are not gay, that does not make it so. The fact is power trip is power trip. Some may rape anyone based on needing power indiscriminate of general orientation. Sex is sex. If one is actually attracted to young boys one is at the very least bisexually oriented, whether or not they want to think of themselves as such.

Perhaps this intellectual schism is brought on by repressed negative views of homosexuality and so they want to see themselves as different from them. Just as some homosexuals want to pretend that pedophiles cannot be gay at all and go into hyper fits of denouncing anyone that brings up the subject when in fact it is being done for logical reasons.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2004 8:11 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4047 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 273 of 309 (162561)
11-23-2004 6:32 AM


God can hate the sin but not the sinner
It has been said that it is logically impossible for God to hate the sin but not the sinner. This is not true.

It is difficult not impossible.

What is practically impossible, if not logically impossible, is to legally punish the sin without punishing the sinner. That is where all these moral lawmakers get it wrong when they use the fact that you can hate sin without hating the sinner, to argue that a law against something is okay.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 7:08 AM Silent H has responded

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 274 of 309 (162565)
11-23-2004 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Silent H
11-23-2004 6:32 AM


Re: God can hate the sin but not the sinner
In mathematics it's logically impossible but we know human logic goes a different way many times. And God's logic is also different since his logic is based on mercy and forgiveness. He always has mercy and will always forgive anyone who asks for forgiveness

This message has been edited by jazzlover_PR, 11-23-2004 07:08 AM

This message has been edited by jazzlover_PR, 11-23-2004 07:09 AM


Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2004 6:32 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2004 9:55 AM Itachi Uchiha has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4047 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 275 of 309 (162608)
11-23-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Itachi Uchiha
11-23-2004 7:08 AM


In mathematics it's logically impossible but we know human logic goes a different way many times.

Uhhhhhh, what? Why is it logically impossible in math? It is a statement. Even if one is to use symbols to convert the statement to some form of mathematical equivalent, it will still have to fulfill the rules of logic.

Here is another example of the same statement. I hate the sipping of coffee such that it makes that loud slurping sound. It drives me up a freaking wall.

Yet just because I hate that activity, does not mean that I hate my coworkers, who usually do sip their coffee loudly.

I, and everyone else, can separate action from the actor.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 7:08 AM Itachi Uchiha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 9:46 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4047 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 276 of 309 (162611)
11-23-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by General Nazort
11-22-2004 12:51 PM


Re: More fun with statistics!
Ok, but now HIV has entered both the homosexual and heterosexual sectors of the population, and yet diagnoses of HIV (which estimate new cases) are still higher for homosexuals.

Not to act like this has any bearing on using HIV as a stigma for sexual activity, I thought I should note that your above statement has now been shown to be incorrect.

Here is a very up to the minute report on a recent study HIV infection.

Inside you will find these very interesting tidbits...

"Increasingly the face of AIDS is young and female," said Dr. Kathleen Cravero, deputy executive director of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

In every region of the globe, the number of women infected with the deadly virus has risen during the past two years. East Asia had the highest jump with 56 percent, followed by Eastern Europe and Central Asia with 48 percent.

In sub-Saharan Africa, three-quarters of all 15- to 24-year-olds living with HIV are female.

Sixty-four percent of all HIV positive people worldwide and 76 percent of all women with the virus are in sub-Saharan Africa.

This sort of throws your theory out of whack even if it had some merit to begin with.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by General Nazort, posted 11-22-2004 12:51 PM General Nazort has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4582 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 277 of 309 (162770)
11-23-2004 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Rrhain
11-23-2004 4:59 AM


Re: 1978!?! historical perspective needed.
quote:
Again, the US throws a loop in everything when you are trying to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's pretty much the last place on earth where HIV is transmitted primarily by homosexual sex. Even Europe flipped over to primarily heterosexual vectors back in 1999.

In other words, Africa is not atypical. It is the norm. It is the US that is the bizarre outlier.


Although this is true it is mostly because - in the UK at least - of the impact of immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa. This article from the Daily Telegraph in December 2000 quotes some figures from the British government. A few key numbers :

  • 1,277 people contracted HIV through heterosexual contact (45% of the total cases)
  • 42% of new cases were through homosexual contact
  • In the remainder of cases the disease was passed on by injecting drugs with infected needles, blood transfers or from mother to child
  • Only 114 cases of HIV diagnosed among heterosexuals were "probably" acquired in Britain, according to the Public Health Laboratory Service
  • Of these, 81 cases involved exposure to a partner who was infected outside Britain; only 33 contracted the infection in Britain from heterosexual contact with a partner who was infected within Europe and who was not also in a high-risk category
  • The vast majority of new cases in heterosexuals were contracted in Africa
    • 908 in Africa
    • 63 in Asia
    • 61 in Latin America
    • 43 in Europe
    • 7 in North America
    • 6 in Australasia
  • About 50 new cases were due to injecting drug use

So at the time the UK (and I believe the rest of Western Europe) flipped over to primarily heterosexual vectors it was largely because of the combination of the influx of people from sub-Saharan Africa and Brits who had sex in sub-Saharan Africa. IIRC that was still true in the latest set of figures issued earlier this year. In other words Africa is actually skewing the UK figures quite dramatically.

Having said all that I think your point still stands - heterosexual sex is the dominant form of transmission. Even if we somehow removed the African component from new cases in Western Europe it would only cause a temporary drop. The alarming rise in heterosexual transmission in Eastern Europe coupled with the significant involvement of the former Soviet/Warsaw Pact countries in the Western European sex trade almost certainly means we are going to see a large rise in cases either originating in the East or from Western Europeans having sex with someone from there.


Confused ? You will be...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 4:59 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 278 of 309 (162783)
11-23-2004 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Silent H
11-23-2004 9:55 AM


There must be some misunderstandig. I was supporting your position and agree with you that God hates the sin but not the sinner. Somebody stated that this reasoning was logically impossible (i think it was Ryhain). He based this claim on mathematical logics. I said what I said because human logic (and i'm not even going to go into God's logic) is not the same. Mathematical logic is not affected by feelings, beliefs, or any other type of bias but human logic is. Get it.


Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2004 9:55 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by berberry, posted 11-23-2004 9:57 PM Itachi Uchiha has responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 309 (162787)
11-23-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Itachi Uchiha
11-23-2004 9:46 PM


jazzlover_PR writes:

quote:
I said what I said because human logic (and i'm not even going to go into God's logic) is not the same. Mathematical logic is not affected by feelings, beliefs, or any other type of bias but human logic is.

Incorrect. Logic is logic, and it is never influenced, in any way whatsoever, by "feelings beliefs or any other type of bias".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 9:46 PM Itachi Uchiha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 10:07 PM berberry has responded

Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 3843 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 280 of 309 (162792)
11-23-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by berberry
11-23-2004 9:57 PM


berberry writes:

Incorrect. Logic is logic, and it is never influenced, in any way whatsoever, by "feelings beliefs or any other type of bias".

Prove it


Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova
This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by berberry, posted 11-23-2004 9:57 PM berberry has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by berberry, posted 11-23-2004 10:13 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded
 Message 283 by NosyNed, posted 11-23-2004 10:14 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded
 Message 288 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 5:20 AM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

  
AdminJazzlover
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 309 (162793)
11-23-2004 10:12 PM


Soon Closing
By the way I am closing this thread soon since homosexuality has been beaten to death in this forum and I dont really believe anything new will pop up except the usual going around the same argument without reaching anything. So to all the posters here I recomend a wrap up post on your position.


Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas
Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by berberry, posted 11-23-2004 10:15 PM AdminJazzlover has not yet responded
 Message 286 by NosyNed, posted 11-23-2004 10:15 PM AdminJazzlover has not yet responded
 Message 287 by Lammy, posted 11-24-2004 12:59 AM AdminJazzlover has responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 309 (162795)
11-23-2004 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Itachi Uchiha
11-23-2004 10:07 PM


logic (lòj´îk) noun
Abbr. log.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2. a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic. b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow. c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science. a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions. b. Computer circuitry. c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

Where in this do you see room for beliefs or bias?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 10:07 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8858
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 283 of 309 (162796)
11-23-2004 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Itachi Uchiha
11-23-2004 10:07 PM


by the rules
There are independent rules of logic which are agreed to before they are applied. The reasons for them can be articulated and examined.

When they are applied they produce unique results. This is not true of all forms of reasoning.

In general when there are disagreements it is because of different assessments of the inputs rather than the logical steps.

That said, logic of this type of rigor is not what is used when arriving at many scientific conclusions. It may only support part of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 11-23-2004 10:07 PM Itachi Uchiha has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 284 of 309 (162797)
11-23-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by The Dread Dormammu
11-15-2004 10:22 PM


Test...

This message has been edited by Admin, 11-23-2004 10:17 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 11-15-2004 10:22 PM The Dread Dormammu has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 309 (162798)
11-23-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by AdminJazzlover
11-23-2004 10:12 PM


Re: Soon Closing
That's all true, but it's quite clear that one side has all reason and logic on its side while the other has only beliefs, superstition and bias.


Dog is my copilot.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by AdminJazzlover, posted 11-23-2004 10:12 PM AdminJazzlover has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2004 5:26 AM berberry has responded

RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019