Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:Nature invented marriage
about your post I am just seeing, ever heard of a civil union?
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Nature invented marriage
about your post I am just seeing, ever heard of a civil union?
Really? Where did we find marriage in nature? I think you're confusing the Bible with reality.
Phatscotty wrote:The nature is found in that the penis carries sperm, and the vagina carries eggs. The vagina is meant for the penis, and the penis is meant for the vagina. It's natural for the male and the female to connect, and it is what nature has intended. Sure, some bonobo monkeys practice homosexuality, and an otter might get a chubby from rubbing on a wet log, and maybe 2 male panda bears live together forever, oh and there was thing on US revolutionary general who liked guys, but nature has created purpose, and if it did not, we would not be here.
Phatscotty wrote:The nature is found in that the penis carries sperm, and the vagina carries eggs.
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The nature is found in that the penis carries sperm, and the vagina carries eggs.
![]()
Dude, that's not how it works.
Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Nature invented marriage
about your post I am just seeing, ever heard of a civil union?
Really? Where did we find marriage in nature? I think you're confusing the Bible with reality. Nature is teeming with examples where monogamy is absurd. We as a society constructed an institution where a person would only have one sexual partner for their entire life.
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow
If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.
Phatscotty wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow
If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.
it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.
I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper
Phatscotty wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow
If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.
it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.
I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper
Phatscotty wrote:Mets, on a "hunch" can I ask you something along the lines of another First Amendment section, the Freedom of Speech.
Just curious, to try to understand your views more clearly, do you think that speech which is offensive or oppressive should be illegal?
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow
If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.
it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.
I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper
Here you go:
http://www.amazon.com/Its-So-Amazing-Fa ... 546&sr=8-1
Phatscotty wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:wow........just wow
If that is a surprise to you and you would like a resource for learning basic human biology, I can provide you with a source on Amazon.
it's seems that you are unaware that a penis belongs to a male, and a vagina belongs to a female ( not surprised). That should be enough for you to get an extremely basic point without me having to give a dissertation on the scrotum and ovaries.
I think you sounded less stupid when you were attacking me as a Bible-thumper
Here you go:
http://www.amazon.com/Its-So-Amazing-Fa ... 546&sr=8-1
traditional marriage propaganda!
Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....
Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....
PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.
You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.
Metsfanmax wrote:... The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already....
Nobunaga wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:... The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already....
... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
... The Constitution became irrelevant to what happens in the U.S. quite some time ago, Metsfan".
... Where you been?
...
Metsfanmax wrote:You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.
Metsfanmax wrote:Phatscotty wrote:filling the void left by Woodruff I see....
PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.
You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users