Which in my thoughts goes right back to what CMPO had to say about being gay and not acting on being gay. Not that I believe that someone is born gay. It's a life choice to me because no one can prove otherwise.

Why does it make any difference whether it's a "life[style?] choice" or being "born gay", or a combination of the two?

[snicker] Ummmm, design.

Do you believe that qualifies as an answer to the question asked?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You should pull the tree from yours.

From one using Ancient Greek texts to prove a point & moving onto an unproven news report is saying volumes....

...ran out of texts to quote?

---

Which in my thoughts goes right back to what CMPO had to say about being gay and not acting on being gay. Not that I believe that someone is born gay. It's a life choice to me because no one can prove otherwise.

Why does it make any difference whether it's a "life[style?] choice" or being "born gay", or a combination of the two?

[snicker] Ummmm, design.

Do you believe that qualifies as an answer to the question asked?

And law. No more will you get.

And law. No more will you get.

So you're not going to answer any of the direct questions asked of you then....

....that's a shame as this was a lively thread....also a shame you're gonna let it die without closure.

---

Bobby,

Not exactly. The unit for natural selection is the individual. The individual makes choices, genes do not. But yes, I am arguing that social institutions are derived from individual choices and preferences that themselves derive from successful adaptation and are a result of the evolutionary process through natural selection.

Also see last post. Think I know where you might be going with sterility… Similarly, celibacy may also prove a good adaptive choice for a population although for an individual it seems counter intuitive.

Obviously sterility would be anathema to most religious systems, but my points are not limited to natural selection, as stated it one aspect of natural law. You may have an interesting angle here…

Hey CMPO,

Welcome to the boards. Glad I asked. I hope you would agree that it goes without saying that many of our social institutions arose before an awareness of natural selection, this includes the concept of "natural law". While it could be argued that natural selection acted at a deeper level in shaping our society than we are consciously aware, I suspect that such an argument would be problematic and subject to so many caveats that it would take an effort of will to conclude it provided a satisfactory answer to "Why SCOTUS?" or, the perhaps simpler, "Why opticians?"

Rather than take that route and attempt to determine what systems are most in alignment with our genetic inheritance, I suspect John Rawls' approach is likely to lead to a more morally justifiable outcome.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You should pull the tree from yours.

From one using Ancient Greek texts to prove a point & moving onto an unproven news report is saying volumes....

...ran out of texts to quote?

LOL, and the man being a child molestor is a proven point?!?

No, he was not a child molestor.

The point...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'


Which is to be master in MY country, rulings from the bench and from Prez Barry? Or the people themselves? That is the question that NEEDS answered, who is to be master?

Words have meaning. This is an absolute. This is how we convay thought, in spoken words and written words. We look for root words to find out what people in the past were saying to each other. Words have meaning, over time they change but if the root is found intent of meaning can be found. Words are an absolute that we use to communicate. Many here use them to confuse and misdirect as was done to Alice, as is being done in D.C. Alice objected as I do and looked for the truth of the matter.

We have no masters here on this earth. We are masters of our own destiny with the Gift of freewill given to us by our Maker. We do so by making our own laws that we follow and them laws are a reflection of our morals, knowing right from wrong at birth, a Design and a Gift.

The real question is who gets to be master, thats all.

Are ya'all daft?

We do so by making our own laws that we follow and them laws are a reflection of our morals, knowing right from wrong at birth, a Design and a Gift.

The real question is who gets to be master, thats all.

As a devout catholic, you should know that no man is a "master".

Wow so you're admitting that your faith is in conflict with the law. Which is it to be with you? God's law or Man's law?

I DO INDEED, STAND CORRECTED ABOUT WHO'S CHURCH IT IS.

Im blowing my stack because Im not and have NOT!!!!!, made the argument from a MORAL POINT OF VIEW! You idiots changed it over to that issue.

I STOOD ON POINT OF LAW! RULE OF LAW! DAMNIT! I have just ANSWERED the charges made against the BIBLE!

So which one will you choose should it become law in the USA for gays to be able to marry?

---

When one attends court, one has to place one hand on a bible & hold up the other & swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth".

Perhaps a bible and swearing are in use in your country, but not so in the USA. Having just served jury duty ...

Maybe not now, but it used to be.

---

Actually I believe skildude said that in post message ID 1232525. And once again he has the RCC position right on this.

It is a well-known fact that back in the day, many homosexual men joined the priesthood and they are not considered "bad" for having that sexual inclination. It was considered very proper for a person of that persuasion to join if they felt the calling, and provided a way out before gays were openly accepted by the public at large. Of course acting it out would be a sin... and that would be true for unmarried heterosexuals so there is no discrimination on that front. However, the homosexual is denied marriage to a same sex partner... so there you have it.

It’s a love the sinner but hate the sin kind of deal. The Church has the same position on alcoholism and drug addiction and I think it is thought of in a very similar way.

your mocking laughter merely demonstrates that you have encountered another discussion for which you are ill equipped to participate.

So is ID in that case as he's constantly bypassed direct questions, or doesn't that suit your "legal" abilities?

---

your mocking laughter merely demonstrates that you have encountered another discussion for which you are ill equipped to participate.

So is ID in that case as he's constantly bypassed direct questions, or doesn't that suit your "legal" abilities?

I believe I've used the words "idiotic" and "lies" in connection to ID's posts.

[ETA]In the past I have attempted to engage Guy, he was similarly evasive to ID. I have no desire to be as tolerant when a quote is willfully taken out of context and is used as justification for mockery.[/ETA]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

BUT, as we're all humans we make mistakes, say the wrong things & as this thread is regarding Laws, Morals, possibly Faith on a particular topic & as I've personally seen lawyers mocking in a court of law, & with the topic being debated, there is nothing wrong with a little mocking, especialy when that mocking was related to refusals to answer "direct" questions"

If I'm actually out of order on this, then my apologies, but I found the phrase "ill equipped to participate" insulting!

---

Concenting adults who are in love dont really give a FRACK about any issues..such I believe is the nature of when one is love.

No one is likely to ask me for a policy on this issue but my own personal view is that adult folks should be free to be happy and secure in rheir realtionships irrespective of colour creed politics or gender...as long as they dont hurt anyone else.

There you go again using that word absolute, totally wrongly.

Words have meaning. This is an absolute.

Of course words have meaning, but only in context, and at the time they are written. So they are NOT absolute.

Words change meaning over time and sometimes additional meanings are added to words, Some over the meanings now associated with the word "queer" Lewis Carroll would not have known about.

BUT, as we're all humans we make mistakes, say the wrong things & as this thread is regarding Laws, Morals, possibly Faith on a particular topic & as I've personally seen lawyers mocking in a court of law, & with the topic being debated, there is nothing wrong with a little mocking, especialy when that mocking was related to refusals to answer "direct" questions"

If I'm actually out of order on this, then my apologies, but I found the phrase "ill equipped to participate" insulting!

I believe I addressed CMPO's comments directly, if s/he finds my response unsatisfactory, then I'll try again. If Guy believed my response was evasive, then I believe his would be the first post in this thread to accuse me of such behavior, and I do not believe mocking is a suitable response to a first offense.

If it was a error on Guy's part, I will accept his apology and red x my own post. Absent of that, what you label an "insult" I prefer to label a "challenge", Guy can prove me wrong by demonstrating a willingness to engage.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You should pull the tree from yours.

From one using Ancient Greek texts to prove a point & moving onto an unproven news report is saying volumes....

...ran out of texts to quote?

Sirius, considering the source what else could one expect? ID, IMO is intellectually corrupt and delusional. He makes up things and then cites them as facts.

---

Bobby,
Thank you for the welcome. Natural selection is not really a thing you can point to, it is an outcome... through a process of elimination. Until Darwin, this process was not fully defined, as we understand it today. I am not sure how many people consciously model their life on this principal now that we are aware of it, and I am probably one of those rare birds. But for at least tens of thousands of years, when it has come to marriage and alliances, I am sure what is best for survival and for the survival for one’s children was a primary consideration. Today people actually think less that way, they are more concerned about their personal rights and preferences.

Per SCOTUS I would just say this. SCOTUS, is a proper noun, a specific outcome, and I am not ready to argue why SCOTUS over say the Supreme People's Court of PRC. I would be willing to craft an argument that both of these have their roots organizing principals based on natural selection… and both through religious/philosophical systems... in the former the RCC in the latter Confucianism.

Would my argument be convincing, not sure. However it may be interesting. I am going to try to pull this into a new thread and share an argument I have been working on so I am not hijacking this board. Hopefully I will see you there.

BTW I am not sure I would call the set of Opticians an institution, but would more generally place that under the institution of Medicine, which is a science, and I would argue that current dominance of science also has its roots in the same organizing principals that cognitively drive the religious impulse.

Concenting adults who are in love dont really give a FRACK about any issues..such I believe is the nature of when one is love.

No one is likely to ask me for a policy on this issue but my own personal view is that adult folks should be free to be happy and secure in rheir realtionships irrespective of colour creed politics or gender...as long as they dont hurt anyone else.

Evolution in progress.. What Des said.

---

Janice

I believe I addressed CMPO's comments directly, if s/he finds my response unsatisfactory, then I'll try again. If Guy believed my response was evasive, then I believe his would be the first post in this thread to accuse me of such behavior, and I do not believe mocking is a suitable response to a first offense.

This is a public forum, not a courtroom & with your education, you could have phrased it better - regardless of what you reply, that phrase was insulting, no 2 ways about it.

No disrespect or offence Bobby, stop acting like a lawyer & if you are one, please realise, you're not in a courtroom!

---