Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal question
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 106 of 193 (20333)
10-20-2002 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by John
10-19-2002 7:04 PM


[QUOTE][B]Why wouldn't it be Gene?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Because just because someone is genetically predisposed to a behavior
does not make that behavior "natural" to them.
I'm waiting on your side to show that it is.
Now think about this.
From an evolutionary perspective, disregarding any supernatural beings, what is the purpose of sex?
To reproduce.
Why do we crave sex?
So our genes get passed on.
Homosexuality is an aberration of that. A fluke. It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.
Schrafinator's point seemed to be that it is "natural" for people to be that way. Even if she could prove it were natural it would not mean it was "right". Moral values transcend simply trying to transmit genes.
[QUOTE][B]You should realize this is a false analogy.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I don't see it as a false analogy because, like same-sex marriages, they are not allowed by the church.
Also, like homosexuality, they are all genetically predisposed.
Therefore, if having a biological predisposition towards being gay makes it morally ok to be gay, being genetically predisposed to having violent episodes must make it morally ok to kill or do whatever may occur during one of those episodes.
Now, granted, the law (IMO, rightfully) makes a distinction for the insane, but that doesn't justify crime.
Therefore, there must be more to the issue than just rather or not a person (to use Schraf's words) "is 'really' gay". That is the purpose of my analogy. And by the way, I just want to clear up the original question, that it is my opinion that they *are* actually gay, though I suspect the gay culture occasionally sweeps in 'natural' heteros from time to time.
The "problem" with my analogy is that we have different worldviews.
Your definition of "immoral" is something that hurts someone, or perhaps, even only behaviors that hurt someone else. My definition of "immoral" is wider than that. Some behaviors can be "immoral" without hurting somebody, at least directly. I believe homosexuality is immoral, as are the other behaviors I mentioned. You apparently believe that only the behaviors that harm others are immoral. I respect that, you seem to be good people so your moral values, at least the ones that affect others, are strong. But the problem is that I can never prove to you that homosexuality is immoral, so I have to try to skirt around it. The purpose of this analogy was just to demonstrate that a genetic predisposition cannot be used to justify being gay. Taken in that context I fail to see how it is flawed. Please re-examine it and comment further in future posts. On to the next point.
[QUOTE][B]Certain behaviors, when not checked, are very bad for such associations. Homosexuality is not one of those behaviors.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Hey, I agree with that. I need to point out first that by the nature of the culture of the place where I live I'm not knowingly around people who are openly gay so I can't really be sure about this, but I don't think I have anything against gay people. I don't see how they're doing anything bad to society by being the way they are. I'm not openly supporting same-sex marriage but I'm not *necessarily* against it either (open minded there). I also don't believe in the "homosexual agenda" those infuriating "Christians" talk about on the radio all the time (I actually heard one of them praise Stalin for his anti-gay policies once).
*But* I believe it is contrary to the way God would want it to be. Obviously there are two sexes and I don't see any way around it. Plus Mormon theology comes into play but I'm not going to try to explain it, it is quite pointless to people who do not adhere to those beliefs and I would rather not have sacred things ridiculed.
Suffice to say the Church does not recognize same-sex marriages. I
don't think that's a problem because gay people are not required to join unless they want to, and if they believe in the church, then obviously they must also believe the policy is correct. Theology is a package-deal and I don't think anyone should criticize us for it.
After all, these are our beliefs, everyone has a right to worship (or not worship) God as they choose. It is easy for some of you here on this board to show tolerance towards a minority of society like homosexuals and at the same time show intolerance towards the LDS church (or whoever) because they don't share the same worldview as they do. Granted, homosexuality-at-large does not have a whole theology or worldview different from yours like we do, but I think you should try to be more consistent.
[QUOTE][B]Already covered this.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I don't think "natural" should be the only criterion here. I think the "natural" perspective ultimately serves my position but we humans have very much distanced ourselves from what we would do "in nature". A good example someone mentioned in a later post was the observation that we normally don't have offspring as early as we would do otherwise.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by John, posted 10-19-2002 7:04 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 10:21 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 115 by John, posted 10-22-2002 2:29 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 122 by nator, posted 10-22-2002 10:54 AM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 107 of 193 (20335)
10-20-2002 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by nator
10-20-2002 5:14 PM


[QUOTE]Schafinator on whether or not being gay is a person's rightful state: [B]Sure, why not?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
In that case, why are there two sexes?
[QUOTE][B]Can you tell me how people of who are in loving, committed relationships are a detriment to anyone in a comparable way to murderers or thieves just because they are the same gender?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I've given a commentary on my analogy in the post above.
Suffice to say I don't think someone that is gay is some "bad" person like a murderer or a thief. However genetically predisposed murderers (IMO) make an excellent analogy to why just being prone to something does not necessarily make it morally acceptable.
[QUOTE][B]I have always considered something to be immoral if it is detrimental to innocents. How are gay people hurting anyone by loving each other?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Just because something is not directly hurting someone does not necessarily make that behavior morally acceptable.
Why homosexuality is immoral becomes obvious if you presuppose that
the sexes were created for a reason, and that procreation plays a role in the spiritual order of things. I'm not going to further discuss theology because you (Schrafinator) have an unfortuante tendency to belittle my beliefs but I just want to point out that you do not understand my worldview and your model of ethical values does not work in this discussion for that very reason.
A problem here is that love does not provide moral justification either.
A person could have a deep and loving relationship with another person. It could be "true love". But that person could also be married and having an affair with their "true love". In which case it would be immoral no matter how much they loved each other.
[QUOTE][B]My whole point about the Bonobos is that homosexuality is not some wierd, cultural peculiarity to some humans, but a widespread primate behavior.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
But that doesn't make it an appropriate thing for humans to do, just because it occurs in nature. As you pointed out, in nature people would have children during the pre-teen years. That doesn't make it a good idea, or morally acceptable.
[QUOTE][B]and in reality serves to strengthen bonds in the Bonobo social network.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
"Strengthening bonds" doesn't justify a behavior either. Great bonds can form in war, but that doesn't mean running around shooting people is always a moral thing to do. Gang rituals and hazings also come to mind when we talk about social bonds.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 10-20-2002 5:14 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 10:37 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 114 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 9:14 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 128 of 193 (20588)
10-23-2002 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mammuthus
10-23-2002 10:26 AM


[QUOTE][B]Actually by his definition of aberration, any behavior which jeapordizes the individuals ability to pass on genes is an aberration. So altruistic behavior would be an aberration and thus the basis for complex social interaction.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually that sounds like the kind of philosophy we could get from evolution sans religion. That *is* the evolutionary scenario, is it not, everything is about passing on genes? Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Anyway, no I think that altruism is also a natural tendency (complex social interactions are selected for) therefore it (altruism) is natural and not an aberration, even in a completely naturalistic worldview.
If Schrafinator is correct in that homosexual behavior forms a social network in bonobos, it may also be selected for. However, as I have stated in a prior post, being selected for does not necessarily make something morally correct. Lots of nasty behaviorisms in nature have been selected for, after all.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mammuthus, posted 10-23-2002 10:26 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 129 of 193 (20589)
10-23-2002 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by nator
10-23-2002 10:14 AM


[QUOTE][B]In that case, does one also choose to be heterosexual?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Good point! Yes. As long as there is the possibility of being homosexual, one *must* choose, at some level, to be heterosexual.
BTW, you opened the door for this when you insisted that people aren't 100% heterosexual.
[QUOTE][B]You still have not explained how homosexuality is harmful to anyone.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Homosexuality, as far as I can tell, is not harmful. But that does not make it moral. I think it should be allowed to be practiced in the open. I think homosexual partners should have the same legal rights as nonmarried heterosexual partners. I'm not sure about my opinion on homosexual marriages, I feel like I could argue that either way.
My problem with your reasoning is that you think that moral values are based entirely on what is and is not harmful to others. You don't recognize the possibility, that with some kind of ID and a sense of "purpose" for gender differences, it becomes more complicated than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:14 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:13 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 130 of 193 (20590)
10-23-2002 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by compmage
10-22-2002 11:02 AM


[QUOTE][B]No, it isn't, as to people choosing...while I agree when it comes to adults converting to LDS (though I'm sure some convert without knowing the churches stance on some matters), what about children that are raised in the LDS church? How many of these actually evaluate the values they have been taught? How critical will they really be when too question the church is a sin? How much of a choice is it when other options are feared?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I have actually wondered this about all religions, and never reached a solution. Do parents have the right to teach their children their religious values? (I can hear lots of people recoiling in horror right now). The question is absurd, but I don't *really* know the answer. However, should I rear children, I'm sure you can all guess what religion they will first be exposed to...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 11:02 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by compmage, posted 10-24-2002 2:48 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 131 of 193 (20591)
10-23-2002 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nator
10-21-2002 10:21 AM


[QUOTE][B]It is still around because it doesn't hurt anyone, and it actually helps with social bonding.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
What does not hurting anyone have to do with it still being around, from a naturalistic perspective? Cannibalism is quite popular in the animal kingdom, probably more so than homosexuality, and you can't argue it doesn't hurt "anyone".
As for social bonding, see my war analogy.
[QUOTE][B]But what harm does homosexuality cause to herterosexual people, Gene?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I have not claimed that it did harm heteros. You're building a strawman.
[QUOTE][B]How can you possibly equate the act of murder with two people who happen to be of the same gender loving each other? That is completely irrational.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Because the analogy proves that being predisposed to a behavior does not necessarily justify that behavior. I still stand by the analogy.
[QUOTE][B]I am not saying that "a genetic predisposition = morally OK."[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Good.
[QUOTE][B]I am saying that the LDS statement is utterly wrong in it's strong implication that gay people aren't that way by nature.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I didn't get that implication from reading, or rereading it for that matter.
[QUOTE][B]I have many gay co-workers and friends.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
You are implying that my opinion is based upon a lack of experience around homosexuals. However, it is equally valid for me to claim that your opinion is based upon your being around homosexuals all the time, and therefore you have become biased.
I suggest we leave our respective environments out of it. The ideal environment is probably in between these two extremes anyway.
[QUOTE][B]If you want to think that being gay is immoral, then fine, but it is not rational in the least to say that it isn't natural, as there is a lot o' homosexual behavior in nature.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I will allow that it is "natural" in the sense that it occurs in nature (and its presence in nature has no relevance to morality). I do not allow that it is "natural" in a different connotation, that it is a part of God's plan.
My fault for not being clear.
[QUOTE][B]Didn't God make them the way they are?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
"God made us, and made our weaknesses as well. The test is if we can overcome our weaknesses and immoralities, that is, if we can prove that our sense of reason and morality is stronger than our genes. If we can, then we are valiant and noble creatures indeed, and have proven true agency."
(From: The World According to Gene90; 2002 edition )
By the way, God also made sociopaths. I'm sure that under different circumstances you would have pointed that out by now.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 10:21 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:40 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 132 of 193 (20592)
10-23-2002 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by nator
10-21-2002 10:37 AM


[QUOTE][B]It's funny you should mention war, though, because I think it was the ancient greeks who's soldiers used to have gay lovers because they believed that the loyalty and devotion would be greater, thus would protect each other more fiercely.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually homosexuality was rampant in Greece, even outside the military. Even the word "Lesbian" is derived from the Isle of Lesbos, which was a Greek city-state. The widespread homosexuality of the Spartan army could have partly been because it was believed to form close relationships, but it probably had everything to do with the fact that those men didn't have access to their wives for years at a time.
Now tell me, if being gay is simply an expression of a person's "nature" (that people do not choose to be gay), why was it so common in Greece and not in other cultures?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 10-21-2002 10:37 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:52 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 133 of 193 (20593)
10-23-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by John
10-22-2002 2:29 AM


[QUOTE][B]It seem to be a request that the side making the iconoclastic claim provide the evidence. What is interesting is the assumption that Schraf and I are making the iconoclastic claim.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I was the one that was attacked, and I am the one that is outnumbered.
The way I see it, starting up these little arguments against Mormon theology with me is often tantamount to harrassing Mormons on the streets. I feel like I was (once again) pulled into this one, and while I'll defend myself, I'm not going to allow it be any harder for me than it is. I don't think I'm the iconoclast. Some cultures in history have taken up homosexuality but traditionally the US is not one of them.
[QUOTE][B]I am interested in knowing what you consider "natural" in that case.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I've been really slippery with use of the word "natural". In this context I think it the way a person is or should be. I don't think that a predisposition to something, whether its violence or something rather innocuous like homosexuality, justifies that person deciding to be that way.
That's different from me claiming that homosexuality does not exist in nature, it does. It is also different from claiming that gay people are not predisposed to homosexuality by their biology, they are, at least most of the time.
[QUOTE][B]Look around. Sex is everywhere. Do you really think all that is about making babies?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Ultimately yes. But I've had to concede that sex plays a role in society as well. But society still exists to raise babies.
[QUOTE][B]It could be that it simply isn't harmful.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
You know that isn't true. I'm about to get very un-pc by pointing this out but where was HIV first discovered? Anytime you exchange bodily fluids you have potential for disease transmission. Homosexual sex, just like hetero sex, can kill you. And it won't make babies. It's an evolutionary hazard with no immediate evolutionary reward, unlike heterosexual sex, that sometimes produces pregnancy.
I agree it isn't harmful to heteros but it *can* be harmful to its practitioners, just like hetero sex.
[QUOTE][B]We ARE nature, Gene.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
That's debatable. In fact a lot of the more extreme environmental groups will happily disagree with you. But it's not my fight.
[QUOTE][B]But do you truly believe that male/male sex or female/female sex is an crime equivalent to murder?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
No! I thought I had pointed that out. I frankly don't care, same-sex sex isn't bothering me. I'm simply arguing that it isn't "moral". And your root problem is that my moral values are more complicated than "it's not hurting anyone so it's ok" so I don't see how this debate can be settled.
[QUOTE][B]You could if you had evidence for the belief.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I didn't know there were any "evidences" for even the existance of morals. I thought they were a subjective thing. Oh well.
[QUOTE][B]Nor can the concept of natural vs. unnatural be used to condemn homosexuality.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
It is if you presuppose that the sexes were made for particular purposes by an IDer. That's that huge difference in our worldviews I keep pointing that means we won't agree.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by John, posted 10-22-2002 2:29 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by John, posted 10-23-2002 6:00 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 140 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:16 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 135 of 193 (20596)
10-23-2002 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by nos482
10-23-2002 4:28 PM


[QUOTE][B]It is bad enough, to them, when heterosexuals engage in sex other then for reproduction. They concider sexuality of any kind to be evil and dirty, even when they deny it. They will even compare it to things which are totally unrelated. I.E. pedofilia, mental illness, and cannibalism.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
There's our Strawman of the Day.
I suppose he is partly correct, some sects have claimed in the past that sex is dirty...the Shakers for one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 4:28 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:02 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 141 of 193 (20611)
10-23-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by nos482
10-23-2002 6:16 PM


[QUOTE][B]HIV is a primarily heterosexual disease.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Yes. But have you forgotten what was going in on in the early 80s?
[QUOTE][B]Unless you believe that the vast majority of Africa is gay?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
No, HIV got out of Africa primarily through prostitution along the Kinshasa Highway. Prostitution is, of course, another thing I consider immoral but we'll save that for next time. Why HIV is so widespread in Africa now I do not know, probably a combination of drug use, lack of monogamy, and refusal to use rubbers.
[QUOTE][B]As was stated somewhere else homosexuality may serve the purpose of limiting population growth when a popultion either grows too fast or too much.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I considered that already but did not find it credible. There is no evidence to indicate an increase in the proportion of homos to heteros with increasing population. Instead changing cultural values tends to affect the proportion (example: US vs Ancient Greece) which seems to support many cases of homosexuality being an artifact of the environment or the culture.
[QUOTE][B]BTW, only 2 out of every 100 heterosexual acts result in a pregnancy.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
That's an interesting figure. Are all of these "heterosexual acts" intercourse? And do they include the ones where contraceptive is used?
[QUOTE][B]Also, I thought that you said that life was more than proving one's fitness to reproduce?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Life is more than proving fitness. In fact I'm arguing that there are more to morals than self-preservation. However consistent I have had to go to the a naturalistic perspective and argue from there as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:16 PM nos482 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 142 of 193 (20612)
10-23-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by nos482
10-23-2002 6:02 PM


[QUOTE][B]Some? How about most. Christianity sees sex for pleasure as immoral.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I disagree. If you're married, most don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:02 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:29 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 153 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:06 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 143 of 193 (20613)
10-23-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by John
10-23-2002 6:00 PM


[QUOTE][B]I dislike the 'homosexuality is unnatural' argument. It has no grounds that I can tell.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Well homosexuality does exist in nature, if that's what you want to hear, take it and be happy. You can blame the whole thing on my not be clear about my two alternating definitions of "nature".
[QUOTE][B]Which is it? Is, or should be? I can easily think of circumstances where the two are not the same.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Should be.
[QUOTE][B]This does not mean, however, that everyone in the society needs to breed.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
But if the sexes were created for a reason by a creator, don't you think that giving in to the temptation to go after the wrong sex is contrary to the will of the creator?
[QUOTE][B]Why does this matter?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
You said homosexuality was harmless. No sex is necessarily harmless.
[QUOTE][B]You hit it on the head. There isn't any evidence. They are subjective.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Then what right has Schrafinator to attack the LDS church for women and the priesthood or her interpretation of the president's commentary on homosexuality?
[QUOTE][B]Why should I presuppose?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
That was meant rhetorically. I presuppose, and unless you consider that position my version of morality will make no sense to you.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by John, posted 10-23-2002 6:00 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:34 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 154 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:09 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 162 by John, posted 10-24-2002 4:16 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 144 of 193 (20619)
10-23-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Delshad
10-23-2002 5:29 PM


I agree. "Christians" shouldn't go around trying to wage a "holy" war against homosexuals. I heard about one recent incident in Texas where a gay student was murdered and a bunch of "Christians" had an outdoor event a few weeks ago on the anniversary of the murder, 'to celebrate his death and entry into Hell.' And that's a close quote, I think they even played a soundbyte of some minister saying that on the radio.
I don't agree that homosexuality is the 'right' way to go, but I'm not saying that they should be denied their choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Delshad, posted 10-23-2002 5:29 PM Delshad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:38 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 158 of 193 (20725)
10-24-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by compmage
10-24-2002 2:48 AM


I think parents should raise their children, not the government. That includes raising them however they want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by compmage, posted 10-24-2002 2:48 AM compmage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 4:47 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 159 of 193 (20726)
10-24-2002 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by nator
10-23-2002 11:11 PM


[QUOTE][B]Coming from a Catholic background, I could tell you some things about what they told the young kids about contraception and other birth control, and about sex in general.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I've seen Catholic fliers about contraception.
But the brutal fact of the matter is that frankly I don't care what the Catholic stance is, they don't speak for non-Catholics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:11 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 4:49 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024