On 11/9/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/9/05, Ben Doom wrote: > > > > I don't understand what you're getting at. > > That's ok most people don't :) > > I'll try again. The way our society understands marriage is between a > man and a women. That's the way nature intended. If a couple can't > have a child and adopt of use a test tube they're still doing what > nature intended, they just have a handicap or a good heart. > What I'm hearing now is people wanting it to be accepted that nature > intended gay marriage just as readily as heterosexual. I'm just saying > it's acceptable but not what nature intended. You know the whole > evolution thing. >
How do you know what "Nature" intended. Have you talked to him/her/it lately? Lets translate your idea, if something is "intended" by nature then you would expect that groups that follow rules inspired by "Nature" tend to survive etc. Then in that case being homosexual and in a same sex relationship is pro-survival. Passing one's genes on can be done through supporting your brother/sister's offspring etc. Therefore I would expect that groups are more accepting of gays would be healthier, longer lived etc.. larry ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:180741 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
