You don't need church to achieve the social conditions you have described.

You don't need church to achieve the social conditions you have described. </font>[/QUOTE]Did I say it was preclusively the domain of a church?

Americans don't live in any of those societies, unless you discount the constitutional seperation of church and state.

Even if we did, Homosexual civil unions are forbidden (except in Vermont) so I am unsure what you are talking about. Until recently homosexual sex was also forbidden ( against the law) so you are wrong there also. </font>[/QUOTE]The society is founded on Judeo-Christian ethics as opposed to say Vedic ideas of human sacrifice or the Hindu Caste system for example.

A social principle doesn't need to be enshrined in law, to be foundational to the society.

Secondly, that it's forbidden is not the point. Society can punish without law, and tolerate even if legal prohibition exists.

Example A. When multinational developers in Queensland built an unpopular development in a town, a guy blew the building up. What he did was illegal. He was arreted and sent to court, where the Jury - none in favour of the development - all aquitted him.

I'm sure you have less palatable examples in America.

Society as a whole hasn't chosen anything like that. Gays can adopt as well as become foster parents. Besides, individuals make choices, not societies. </font>[/QUOTE]And what is a society other than a collection of individuals? Societies certainly do make choices.

Erm, this topic is at volume 2? Geez, same sex must be on everybodies mind at IW. Woot! [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Well, not me. I prefer woman. Can't beat that. ;)

Here's how I feel, being utterly conservative in my notions of government, I believe that homosexuals should be able to legally marry, adopt children, or whatever, in the same way as any heterosexual couple, but it would be obviously an abuse of the First Ammendment in the United States to force any spiritual institution with objections of principle to perform the ceremony. So, if they do it in an institution that welcomes them and their relationship, and all is good, there is no logical reason to object, aside from archaic moral beliefs with no logical back drop. I'm conservative in the sense that I think there's only 3 things any government should do:

1. Pave the Roads
2. Keep the Barbarian hordes out
3. Catch the Criminals

Now, as for the Vatican, they have no right dictating what policies are to be made for secular governments. These governments are there to protect their citizens, not to enforce existing codes of morality. Only a code of morality set down by the founders of the government. However, they are the only ones with a right to tell Catholics how to behave. If they say no Gay Priests, no gay priests. It's their right and authority. It's a private institution, with it's own rules, and it's international nature means that discrimination wouldn't come into play in this case. It would be against their right as a religion, and would thus compromise any meaning it ever had (which I always found highly debatable, as Lenny Bruce would say, "You walk through Spanish harlem, and this man has an $8,000 dollar ring on his finger, and you wonder how he can walk through a neighborhood where there's 40 Puerto Ricans living in 1 room together!") to force them to compromise their rules as an institution.

That was my question to the anti side earlier today that has gone unanswered. They seem to be more interested in picking part comments then answering this or chewies list of questions. </font>[/QUOTE]The VAST majority of those questions were answered on the first pages of the original thread, I answered, as did TL BEFORE they were asked. ;)

Actually human beings can procreate in a petri dish. Sorry to throw your scientific notion out the window. </font>[/QUOTE]Show me ONE child that is alive from a petri dish! Yes I said it one child. I'll show you hundreds if not thousands that were feritlized in a petri dish but HAD, (as in no other way, impossible by human standards to do it without) were then transfered to a female so she could carry it. Show me one child that was never carried by a human female, just one out of nearly 6 billion people that shouldn't be hard.
Not even close to throwing it out the window, "Hale" you didn't even hit the wall. ;)

bzzzzzzzzztttttt wrong but thank you for playing!
Within 5 years you will see the birth of the first cloned human. Therefore all that is needed is a uterus to carry the fetus. Give it another decade or two and you may not even need that. </font>[/QUOTE]*******WARNING***********
I'm in a good mood and itching for a scrap ;)

I'll take that bet, all day long all comers, just sign at the bottom. Easiest money I'll ever make.

Oh by the way a side note cells have a set number of times they split, so if you were to take the cells of a 40 year old human and clone them. The human clone might have another 40 years or so. If anyone doubts this please see "Dolly" the first cloned sheep. Dolly died years ahead of the life span of a normaly procreated sheep. Why BECAUSE she was cloned from an adult sheep, that is a fact not wish, a hope, or a dream. So if you even attempted to clone a human, that you DIDN'T want to knowingly CONDEMN to a shortened life span you'll have to clone the cells of a New fetus. Each and every succesvie clone from the clone would have an even shorter life span. SO in order to Clone and continue to have Humans walking the earth you'd Have to procreate using male and female in order to have new fetusi in which to seed the clones of future generations. :D

Oh by the way thanks Rokenn for proving that, Hetorosexual is currently the only way to procreate, and I quote " Therefore all that is needed is a uterus to carry the fetus." A petri dish sure as "Hale" can't carry a fetus now can it. You testify against your own arguement. The rest of your post is based on "If's" and "Maybe's" not on facts. If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he jumped, but he doesn't and he does. [img]smile.gif[/img] And based on "If" & "Maybe" that is the standard for claiming an weak arguement. COME ON where's the Vaulted logic that can even attempt to back up "If" & "Maybe" as trumping anything? Please bring it on I love crushing "If" & "Maybe" presented as "Are" & "Is".

As for the natural order of things, because there is homosexual activivy in the animal kingdom. Asked and Answered (page one or two of original thread Asked by TL answered by me) NO COUNTER ARGUEMENT was ever even attempted to be put forth.
Come on TL, you know in a court of law I would have just BLOWN your case out of the water, one shot at the water line striking your powder magazine. "Hale" I'm gone for a few days and you rehash a defunked arguement. ;)

Of couse he's leading him, I crushed the animals do it arguement on page 1 or 2. And NOBODY has tryied to refute it, only ignor and try to take advantage of me being gone for a few days to rehash their crushed, like grapes in a cheap wine press argument. ;)

[ 08-08-2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]