Tell us what the difference is.You are the member in here completely at a loss concerning this issue.
I've already given you "a" purpose. Prove design.Who needed to show the penis and vagina "can be" used as sexual organs? And who needs to prove they're designed to be sexual organs? They're reproductive organs and thus sexual organs, you pile colossal error on top of colossal error. Your argument is becoming amusing, if not flat out ridiculous.
Sad. You do not understand what a logical fallacy is. Interesting since that is how you debate."Guilty" of appealing to "nature?" And "over and over" even? Wow. Imagine our shame...appealing to reality and nature. Tsk tsk.
Any data you have given has been trumped by the information and data I have provided. How does it feel to lose so colossally huge?I've sent a flock of data over you've yet to address, your assumption here is untrue, it isn't even close. You purposefully remove one of the genders from a child being raised, to pretend that has no affect is stratospherically wrong.
Now you have proven that you do not know what this debate is about. Marriage IS about a contract and IS about what benefits the state. That is why the government sanctions it. You just put your foot in your mouth...again.Procreation is necessary though...for child rearing, homosexuality in fact anything homosexual whatsoever...is absolutely and clearly unnecessary. Not understanding that heterosexuality is the necessary sexual behavior and orientation to conceive children is profoudly wrong and shakes your entire theory to the ground. And your argument finally coned down here to 'benefits from the state', it appears that's all this argument is to the pro-gay movements and arguments. Marriage becomes merely a contract(absolute nonsense), the arguments coned down to what benefits are in it for us, how can we legitimize ourselves in the eyes of the 'state.'
Standard Charles Martel rebuttal: say nothing and end your comment with poppycock.Removing these wrong-headed and clearly confused arguments from yourself and jallman and others...setting them on the ground in neat order and on column...and piecemeal destroying each isn't misrepresentation. It's the utter destruction of the error prone points and arguments you and others are trying to make here. Pretending two women can raise a child, purposefully removing the father and faking like everything is just the same. What poppycock.
Not in the least. Dismantling your position was simple.Not only provided proof, reminded you of the blatant facts as well......and they clearly shoe you're wrong.
You have opened my eyes to your argument. And I see it for what it is: absolutely nothing.The number of colossal errors within your post certainly needs an excuse and a long day is as good as any other. I hope and pray I;ve been able to open your eyes a little more towards my side of the argument. Please read my links and explain your arguments if you can.