Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 05:36 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 04:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:  a. the church has no business defining or controlling the secular purpose of anything
b. the purpose of marriage is whatever the individuals involved want it to be


That is a prime reason why the church needs to be done away with. No institution covers the totality of anybody's life and them claiming to do that is one of the things that is most disgusting about them.

Sorry, I should have put natural not secular. The natural purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for children as well as to aid each other in survival. Now, since we are not purely instinctual, we are also able to set higher ends for our actions, hence why in Catholicism, the purpose of marriage is to aid the other in getting to heaven, while someone could posit that a marriage has a different end, if it is non pro-creative then it is not with human nature and if it is not ordered to God then it is inefficient. At least from a catholic perspective.

Also, why do you say it is impossible for an institution to cover ones entire life. Since faith and morals must invariably cover all of one's actions and thoughts, then any institution which has the role of teaching on faith and morals must logically cover all of one's actions and thoughts.

There is no "natural purpose" for marriage. Coupling EVOLVED, and ONE of the MANY reasons for it is raising children. There is NO evidence that same sex couples cannot provide a stable environment for children, or that that as an alternative to it's REAL alternative, a SINGLE PARENT home is not better. The fact that you are completely UNABLE to think critically apart from the nonsense you've been spoon-fed by the RC Church about these issues AT ALL is evidence all you ever got at the so-called college is nonsense. They NEVER taught you to think critically. You should get your money back

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 04:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-04-2015 03:55 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  In response to the thread that PetrovPolak resurrected and shat a steaming pile over a while back. Realized the OP's question would make a good essay for my Political Philosophy course. So I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and do both an essay and a thread post. So here it is, I tried to make it as logical (and boring) as possible, so please attack the logic, so I can refine it.


The Religious Right
Nicholas Smith

The question asked is as follows; Catholics, why do you see it as a moral right to legislate against homosexuality? First, the prudent thing may be to rewrite the question. Not to attempt to place words into the questioner's mouth in order to build a strawman but to better clarify what must be answered in this response. As such, The question may read, why would one who is a practising member of the Catholic Church think that he has a moral right to prevent the legalization of gay marriage? The distinction between the questions is very slight, but in order to create a response which is wholly comprehensive they do have their purpose. The reason for the changes is first of all that there is little in terms of movement towards legislation against those who have a homosexual tendency nor is there a particular movement to criminalize homosexual acts, the current issue of the day is the legalization of gay marriage and so we shall presume, hopefully not falsely, that this was the intended matter of the question. The next order of business will be to describe the subject of the question. This person is a Catholic, thus to simplify we shall presume that this person fully follows the teachings of the Catholic Church and holds her beliefs to be true. Since we are looking into why a Catholic may think he has a right then we shall not attempt to prove conclusively that one does in fact have this right but merely that it would not be illogical for a Catholic to think he has a right given his accepted premises.


With these principles and clarifications in mind, we shall now build the given and accepted premises, which shall be used for this treatise. Primarily we must identify what premises will be useful for our investigation. Since the question revolves around the concept of rights, by which we mean that which a man has, or believes he has, the ability to perform an action without hindrance from another member of his society, we are as such within the realm of political thought, unless I am miss inferring the word “right”, in which case it would be in the realm of Natural Philosophy. Since we are not examining whether or not one has a legal right to the matter, we are not in working with political science. Instead we are dealing with man's moral right which means we are instead in the realm of political philosophy. Since political philosophy pertains to man in society, we shall use the Church's teaching on man to form our premises. As such we shall accept that man has freedom of choice as our starting premise.


If free choice is a property of man, then man must be by nature a creature of action, since the purpose of choice is to choose between two courses of action. As such, we must characterize the actions of man. Man, it would seem, is capable of two actions. These being voluntary and involuntary. Since man has no choice over involuntary actions then we cannot place any moral bearing upon them and as such we shall ignore them. An ant may live in society but it is driven by instinct and as such we cannot judge the moral nature of an ant hill and, therefore, cannot discuss laws and freedom. This leaves us with voluntary actions. A voluntary action is one which is driven by the will and the intellect. The will is fundamental in moving a subject from potentiality to actuality. The intellect is fundamental in order to identify the end. Every voluntary action requires an end since, as St Thomas writes “ if, in a number of causes ordained to one another, the first be removed, the others must, of necessity, be removed also. Now the first of all causes is the final cause”.(ST. I-II Q.1 A.2) Thus we may conclude that every moral action has a final end.


Following upon this, I would like to include a piece by George Mallory, the eminent explorer, on why he was to climb Mount Everest. While other authors may put what is to be said more succinctly and philosophically, I believe the wondrous beauty of the passage to outweigh its negatives and as such included it in full as follows:

The first question which you will ask and which I must try to answer is this, “What is the use of climbing Mount Everest?” and my answer must at once be, “It is no use. There is not the slightest prospect of any gain whatsoever. We shall not bring back a single bit of gold or silver, not a gem, nor any coal or iron. We shall not find a single foot of earth that can be planted with crops to raise food. It is no use.”
So, if you cannot understand that there is something in man which responds to the challenge of this mountain and goes out to meet it, that the struggle is the struggle of life itself, upward and forever upward, then you won't see why we go. What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to enjoy life. That is what life means and what life is for.”1

To summarize, every action is done with the intended end being happiness, or joy, since every action is done with the intention of fulfilling the will. Joy can be considered as being the euphoria or satisfaction of having one's will fulfilled.
In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, he states that “some pursuits are subordinate to some one capacity; for instance, bridle making and every other science producing equipment for horses are subordinate to horsemanship, while this and every action in warfare are, in turn, subordinate to generalship, and in the same way other pursuits are subordinate to further ones”. (Nichomachaen I.1) Similarly, with joy, some actions are done subordinate to another joy. For example, a man may undergo the pain of surgery in order to enjoy an ultimately happier life despite the pain in the immediate future. As well, a man may enjoy the succulent taste of strawberries but the subordinating end is that of good health achieved from eating right. Now the question must be raised upon whether every action subsides within another, or one end within another? To answer this it is as simple as examining conflicting ends. One must only ask himself which he would prefer. Good health versus honour, knowledge versus relaxation. Essentially we must play a game of “would you rather”. If two ends come into conflict then one must win out. This process will play out until a single end remains. This end will be the final end and all ends subside within it. At this point I shall impose a second premise. Namely, the Catholic understanding of God, specifically the nature derived from the tetragrammaton, YHWH, I Am Who Am. This states that God is the totality of existence and all experience resides within God. Since all experience resides within God then to fully experience God, in so far as man is capable of doing so, is to fulfil one's will to the highest amount, and thus the greatest amount of joy is to be found in the full experience of God, known as the beatific vision. Since the greatest joy is to be found in the beatific vision, it would be logical to choose God as one's final end. Thus for Catholics, the beatific vision is the final end for all actions and any action must necessarily not be in conflict with achieving this end.


Thus we have dealt with man, now it is time to move on to society. Society is itself an act of man. As Pope Leo XIII said, the family is the smallest form of society. (Rerum Novarum 12) In Catholic teaching, a marriage must be free and as such it becomes a voluntary action. Since it is a voluntary action, it should subsist within the final end. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that the primary purpose of marriage is to aid oneself and ones partner in their path to the beatific vision. Similarly, to participate in society is to make a voluntary choice, although it is often a passive choice. There does exist hermits and thus this example demonstrates that man can choose not to live in society, thus the living in society is a passive action of acceptance of ones current situation.


A quick aside, in some cases people are not living in a society by choice. The clearest example of this deviation is children. The answer to this is that children do not have the complete capacity for free choice as an adult would. An infant is entirely dependant upon its mother. The clearest reason for this is that since making a choice requires an end, this requires the intellect in order to divine said end. A child does have an element of reason but it is not fully developed in its early stages. Along with intellect, physical development can also impede the ability for free choice. A man in shackled to a wall cannot choose to run down the street and actualize this act. Thus some people while having the capacity for voluntary action are not able to actualize it due to some either physical or mental retardation. This does not mean that they are not human, since free choice is in the nature of man, as they still have the capacity for voluntary action but they are prevented from actualizing said capacity.


Since a society must be formed out of at least two members and the formation of society is an act of free choice, and as such both members must consent to the formation of the society, then it stands to reason that they are moving towards a common good. Since we understand society to be a free choice, then it must be done towards a final end. Since every action can only have a single final end, therefore any action which does not subside within the final end will therefore be rejected. If two people enter into a society, then the main goal is cooperation. They presume that they may achieve their end better by being in said society through mutual cooperation, otherwise it would be better for them not to have formed the society. If the two members of the society do not share the same end then the society may not retain cooperation, since if a conflict in ends were to arise then presumably either one will win out or the society will break down. It is possible for a society to survive if the members do not share the same final end since some societies have limited ends. A sports team's end is to play a sport, for example, and this end can subside within many final ends, then conflict often times will not arise. However, as a society expands, not necessarily in members but more so in affecting areas of life, then the chance of conflict grows exponentially. A civil society is the second most involved form of natural society as it involves the entirety of ones public life (marriage is the most involved as it covers both one's private and public life). Since a civil society covers such a large segment of one's life then an accepted higher final end is much more important. This final end is known as the common good. Since God is the one true ultimate end, with the understanding that God exists as understood by Catholics, then a society should have as its final end the achievement of the beatific vision for all of its members. Now a society does not need to have as its final end God, but since any action is done best if the final end is realized and the greatest satisfaction is reached when one chooses the best of possible final ends, then it stands to reason that the best society is one in which God is the final end.


If God is the final end of society, then laws should be made which allow man to most effectively achieve Heaven. That which should be prohibited are those actions which lead a man away from God. Regardless of whether or not it is true, the Catholic understanding of homosexual marriage is that it is against God. Thus homosexual marriage should be prohibited in a society which has God as its final end. Marriage Ceremony is a public declaration, since there is nothing inherent to the ceremony beyond announcing to those around that a marriage has taken place. A marriage is a natural institution in which two people decide to enter into a society together. Thus a couple could be married without ever having a ceremony. Since the ceremony and its documentation is meant to publicly declare that this society exists, and the purview of a state society is the management of public life, then it would be the responsibility of the government as to whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Thus any Catholic should feel that he has the moral responsibility to legislate against homosexual marriage since he has a moral right to ensure that the state has what is best for the society in which he lives as a member of said society since he is culpable for the actions in which the society makes because he has freely joined the society and agreed to its end. Thus we have logically proven that a catholic would feel the moral right to legislate against homosexual marriage. Q.E.D.


All totally and completely irrelevant. Human rights arise by virtue of a human being a human. The basis of law in a secular society can NO LONGER be based on ANYTHING that is related to the gods. I thought there was supposed to be some "logic" in it ? No "maybe. Just a "no".

Your paper is worthy of the thinking of about an 8th Grader, (or less). I hope your parents are pleased they wasted all that money on your indoctrination. The fact that that could pass at your place without you being told to do it TOTALLY over, proves my contention. No competition, and you're not being g taught to think critically. It's very sad someone writing that could actually be a year or two away from a professional school. OMG.

Well this was a rather useless comment. You call my logic faulty and instead of pointing out where my logic was faulty, you attack my school. I like how you commented on my indoctrination since no where in the essay did I claim God existed or the homosexual marriage was wrong. The essay was written from an entirely agnostic point of view.
I'm rather surprised that you are at Harvard, they must have lowered their standards, since you don't seem to understand what logic actually is. While it does appear that you have attacked one of my premises, it is very unclear and vague that I can't really work with it. I can't tell if you are making the same objection as Chas or whether you failed to understand the purpose of the paper. At least when Chas had problems with my paper he actually pointed out a flaw in the logic, and as such I was able to increase my knowledge and correct my reasoning, all you have done is throw out ad hominum attacks. Considering my essay, I'd say your comment was impressive, at least from a kindergarten standpoint.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
[Image: 126.jpg]

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 06:05 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 05:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 05:36 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Sorry, I should have put natural not secular. The natural purpose of marriage is to provide a stable environment for children as well as to aid each other in survival. Now, since we are not purely instinctual, we are also able to set higher ends for our actions, hence why in Catholicism, the purpose of marriage is to aid the other in getting to heaven, while someone could posit that a marriage has a different end, if it is non pro-creative then it is not with human nature and if it is not ordered to God then it is inefficient. At least from a catholic perspective.

Also, why do you say it is impossible for an institution to cover ones entire life. Since faith and morals must invariably cover all of one's actions and thoughts, then any institution which has the role of teaching on faith and morals must logically cover all of one's actions and thoughts.

There is no "natural purpose" for marriage. Coupling EVOLVED, and ONE of the MANY reasons for it is raising children. There is NO evidence that same sex couples cannot provide a stable environment for children, or that that as an alternative to it's REAL alternative, a SINGLE PARENT home is not better. The fact that you are completely UNABLE to think critically apart from the nonsense you've been spoon-fed by the RC Church about these issues AT ALL is evidence all you ever got at the so-called college is nonsense. They NEVER taught you to think critically. You should get your money back

I never once said that a homosexual nor a single parent home is either better or worse, (although from a hunter gather standpoint two is probably better than one). So I don't know why you are building a strawman. Secondly, I never said how marriage came to be. Considering that I said that it was part of human nature and since humans evolved I see no logical reason to deny that procreation as a purpose for marriage evolved, although I think the institution probably predates Homo-Sapiens sapiens.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 06:06 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 05:58 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 04:15 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All totally and completely irrelevant. Human rights arise by virtue of a human being a human. The basis of law in a secular society can NO LONGER be based on ANYTHING that is related to the gods. I thought there was supposed to be some "logic" in it ? No "maybe. Just a "no".

Your paper is worthy of the thinking of about an 8th Grader, (or less). I hope your parents are pleased they wasted all that money on your indoctrination. The fact that that could pass at your place without you being told to do it TOTALLY over, proves my contention. No competition, and you're not being g taught to think critically. It's very sad someone writing that could actually be a year or two away from a professional school. OMG.

Well this was a rather useless comment. You call my logic faulty and instead of pointing out where my logic was faulty, you attack my school. I like how you commented on my indoctrination since no where in the essay did I claim God existed or the homosexual marriage was wrong. The essay was written from an entirely agnostic point of view.
I'm rather surprised that you are at Harvard, they must have lowered their standards, since you don't seem to understand what logic actually is. While it does appear that you have attacked one of my premises, it is very unclear and vague that I can't really work with it. I can't tell if you are making the same objection as Chas or whether you failed to understand the purpose of the paper. At least when Chas had problems with my paper he actually pointed out a flaw in the logic, and as such I was able to increase my knowledge and correct my reasoning, all you have done is throw out ad hominum attacks. Considering my essay, I'd say your comment was impressive, at least from a kindergarten standpoint.

The fact it, your "paper" (or whatever it is) is so *all over the place* it's not even possible to know where to begin to address the crap in it. YOU presume a "god" when YOU introduced the Catholic position, you idiot. Nowhere did you justify IMPOSING those values on society, define what "natural" is, or define ANYTHING at all. There is NO LOGIC in ANYTHING, which is why I said it's beneath 8th Grade. Its simply utterly pathetic. It deserves an F-. It's a completely worthless pile of shocking shit. I don't care what you think about my comments. YOU have presented a crap paper, presented NOT ONE reason to support ANYTHING in it, that anyone outside your little enclave of priests should accept, and the WORST part about it all, is that you are SO uneducated, infantile, indoctrinated, and drunk on the cool-aide, you don't even get how bad it is, and why.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2015, 06:07 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 06:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 05:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "natural purpose" for marriage. Coupling EVOLVED, and ONE of the MANY reasons for it is raising children. There is NO evidence that same sex couples cannot provide a stable environment for children, or that that as an alternative to it's REAL alternative, a SINGLE PARENT home is not better. The fact that you are completely UNABLE to think critically apart from the nonsense you've been spoon-fed by the RC Church about these issues AT ALL is evidence all you ever got at the so-called college is nonsense. They NEVER taught you to think critically. You should get your money back

I never once said that a homosexual nor a single parent home is either better or worse, (although from a hunter gather standpoint two is probably better than one). So I don't know why you are building a strawman. Secondly, I never said how marriage came to be. Considering that I said that it was part of human nature and since humans evolved I see no logical reason to deny that procreation as a purpose for marriage evolved, although I think the institution probably predates Homo-Sapiens sapiens.

Take a class, (at a REAL school). Pair-bonding pre-dates Homo sapiens by millions of years.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 06:09 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 05:36 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Also, why do you say it is impossible for an institution to cover ones entire life.

I did not say it was impossible, I said none did.

Quote:Since faith and morals must invariably cover all of one's actions and thoughts, then any institution which has the role of teaching on faith and morals must logically cover all of one's actions and thoughts.

Faith, in the theistic sense, is a barrier to rational thinking and can not logically be involved in any aspect of your actions or thoughts. Believing things and acting on them without evidence is not an approach that is likely to be optimal. That you can't see that is understandable because you accept faith as a valid tool.

The Catholic Church teaching on morals? Now THAT is funny. If any institution is evil, it is the Catholic Church. That again, I'm sure you can't see because your faith requires you to whitewash everything it does.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
02-06-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 06:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 05:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no "natural purpose" for marriage. Coupling EVOLVED, and ONE of the MANY reasons for it is raising children. There is NO evidence that same sex couples cannot provide a stable environment for children, or that that as an alternative to it's REAL alternative, a SINGLE PARENT home is not better. The fact that you are completely UNABLE to think critically apart from the nonsense you've been spoon-fed by the RC Church about these issues AT ALL is evidence all you ever got at the so-called college is nonsense. They NEVER taught you to think critically. You should get your money back

I never once said that a homosexual nor a single parent home is either better or worse, (although from a hunter gather standpoint two is probably better than one). So I don't know why you are building a strawman. Secondly, I never said how marriage came to be. Considering that I said that it was part of human nature and since humans evolved I see no logical reason to deny that procreation as a purpose for marriage evolved, although I think the institution probably predates Homo-Sapiens sapiens.

You paper stated the purpose of marriage was to provide a "stable environment" for children. You implied the values of your cult are the values that lead to that. It's not a "strawman". It's addressing YOUR assumptions. You never said "procreation" (that BTW is a Catholic biased term) is "a" purpose. You implied it was THE purpose. I never realized how dishonest you are.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-06-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 06:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 05:58 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Well this was a rather useless comment. You call my logic faulty and instead of pointing out where my logic was faulty, you attack my school. I like how you commented on my indoctrination since no where in the essay did I claim God existed or the homosexual marriage was wrong. The essay was written from an entirely agnostic point of view.
I'm rather surprised that you are at Harvard, they must have lowered their standards, since you don't seem to understand what logic actually is. While it does appear that you have attacked one of my premises, it is very unclear and vague that I can't really work with it. I can't tell if you are making the same objection as Chas or whether you failed to understand the purpose of the paper. At least when Chas had problems with my paper he actually pointed out a flaw in the logic, and as such I was able to increase my knowledge and correct my reasoning, all you have done is throw out ad hominum attacks. Considering my essay, I'd say your comment was impressive, at least from a kindergarten standpoint.

The fact it, your "paper" (or whatever it is) is so *all over the place* it's not even possible to know where to begin to address the crap in it. YOU presume a "god" when YOU introduced the Catholic position, you idiot. Nowhere did you justify IMPOSING those values on society, define what "natural" is, or define ANYTHING at all. There is NO LOGIC in ANYTHING, which is why I said it's beneath 8th Grade. Its simply utterly pathetic. It deserves an F-. It's a completely worthless pile of shocking shit. I don't care what you think about my comments. YOU have presented a crap paper, presented NOT ONE reason to support ANYTHING in it, that anyone outside your little enclave of priests should accept, and the WORST part about it all, is that you are SO uneducated, infantile, indoctrinated, and drunk on the cool-aide, you don't even get how bad it is, and why.

Anyone writing the paper has to presume that God exists, because the question is why would a Catholic think he has the right. It has nothing to do with whether or not he has a right in actual fact or not, and I never claimed whether he did or not either. That is what I meant by I wrote it from an agnostic point of view. I could write this exact same essay from the point of view of Islam, but that does not mean I believe that Islam is true, considering you can't seem to understand that, I can now understand some of the historical posts you have written regarding the Bible. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

It's funny you should mention other schools since almost everyone who goes on to get a degree ends up getting higher than they did at my school. My friend could barely pass at OLSWA and then he went to UPEI and got a 96 on an essay on love and sex. I'll worry about how good my education is when a better alternative comes up. But at least I know I can cross Harvard of the potential list.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-06-2015, 06:21 PM
RE: Catholics, gays and Logic? Maybe
(02-06-2015 06:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-06-2015 06:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I never once said that a homosexual nor a single parent home is either better or worse, (although from a hunter gather standpoint two is probably better than one). So I don't know why you are building a strawman. Secondly, I never said how marriage came to be. Considering that I said that it was part of human nature and since humans evolved I see no logical reason to deny that procreation as a purpose for marriage evolved, although I think the institution probably predates Homo-Sapiens sapiens.

Take a class, (at a REAL school). Pair-bonding pre-dates Homo sapiens by millions of years.

Excellent, I was correct on something I have never spent any time researching. Ya, still not showing me why I need to go to a "real" school.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: