Subject:
|
Re: Christian morality (cont)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:41:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1717 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kevin Wilson writes:
> Dave, I don't think this has any bearing on Steve's original statement, • **snip**
> The male animal bearing a fetus that you speak of was not a result of
> homosexual sex, nor could it have been. Since homosexual sex can only
> involve just eggs or just sperms, ain't no way it's going to result in an
> egg and a sperm getting together.
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, though, you're right, of course, that my comment is
beside the actual point.
> Not that I agree with argument Steve makes (that homosexual sex is immoral)
> based on that fact, still it's a fact.
I understand now (and I agree with your own assertion).
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
34 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
