 | | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) a (...) Dave, I don't think this has any bearing on Steve's original statement, which was that (...) The male animal bearing a fetus that you speak of was not a result of homosexual sex, nor could it have (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Actually, I think it was quite on topic. Dave! was just trying to expose the precise line at which point it becomes immoral according to the proposed moral law. For example, IF (big if) homosexual sex could produce a child, would it then be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) **snip** (...) Well, if you're going to get all technical on me... 8^) I confess I was reading from Larry's statement forward, that there was indeed the medical possibility of a male carrying a child. Put in the terms you revealed to me, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
|
(...) Right. But my thesis is that it is not necessary for an egg and a sperm to get together for a viable embryo to result. Two sperm carry sufficient genetic material to complete the needed chromosomes for a viable embryo, as long as one is (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
