Bias Laws Romans 1:20-32(VILE AFFECTIONS) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corrruptible man,and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and recieving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness,maliciousness; full of envy, murder,debate,deceit, malignity, whisperers. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affections, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God , that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Leviticus 18:22(ABMONINATION) Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination. *** Homosexuality is labeled as an abomination. 1 Kings 14:24(REJECTED SODOMITES) And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Isreal. Deuteronomy 22:5 SEX PERVERSION(either)IN OTHER'S DRESS The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do are abmination unto the Lord thy God. Genesis 19:5 ( SIN OF SODOM) And they called unto Lot, and said unto him. Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we many know them. Upon the revelation of sexual idenity many homosexuals proclaim the notion of creation for their behavior. While intentially or not such claims opens the gate way for other alternative sexual behaviors. True enough, homosexual behavior is considered a consentual lifestyle by society. However, the creation theory, scientist hasn't back it up. As I mentioned before those who practice pedophelia,bestalism, and incest could easily make the same unfounded claims. Simiply put, just because society accepts homosexualiy as creation(unfounded) doesn't mean their isn't a gene for the other's as well. Despite the consentual issue, laws would have to be changed or modified to ensure equality and fair treatment of all people, and we can't in good conscious hold people accountable for their DNA make-up. For this reason it would be wise to wait on science. * I have listed a couple of arguments that pedofilians, bestalist,and those who enjoy incest could make without the potent argument of creation or the given scriptures above. Feel free to play the prosecutor. This is poorly put together so bear with me, Incest: * Incest is forbidden due to the chances of producing a retarded child.(right? wrong?) Defense: If law makers genuinely cared for the well being of a child ciggaretts & alcohol which is know to cause: * Low birth weight * Premature birth * Undeveloped lungs *slow learners * stunt growth * Death * Nicotine & Carbon Monoxide(gas that comes out of car's exhaust pipe) are posions that prevent child from getting food & oxgen. * Fetal Alcohol effects: * Central nervous system damage (1) learning disabilities * Death (2) hyperactivity (3) Memory or Attention deficient (4) inablity to manage anger (5) poor judgement (6) difficulties with problem solving *** Does not the incestous consenting couple take the same risk as the smoking or drinking parent(while pregnant) However, while incest is forbidden alcohol and ciggaretts merely warn. Should not the law hold both parties responsible for actions which endanger the welfare of a child? Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for the well being of a child abortion would be against the law. Except for the cases of rape and high risk pregnacies, which puts the mother's life in danger,many fetus are normal developing babies,which are aborted, due to unwanted pregnacies that can be prevented. *** Babies are expendable so what does it matter if the incestous consentual couple aborts their retarded child. Pedophelia: Pedophelia is forbidden in order to protect underage children from sexual relations with adults(right? wrong?) Defense: If law maker's genuinely care for children celebrity's such as R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson(to name two) shouldn't be able to use wealth to avoid prision. In situations where parent's give consent to adults to have illegal sex with their children should they be locked up as well?(R.Kelly case) Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for our children, so called holy men accused of pedophelia, would be under the prision. *** Is the poor pedophelia being discriminated against due to his lack of funds? Or perhaps because he doesn't wear a coller and go by the title of Father, Rabbi, or reverend? p.s. The creation theory could help the religious pedofilian greatly Bestalism: * Bestalism is forbidden because animals can't consent to sex (right? wrong?) Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for animals: * We wouldn't slaughter them to fill our bellies * Obtain hunting licenses to shoot & kill them * Capture them from natural enviroment and put them in cages *** Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be eaten? Did it answer? Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be hunted and killed? Did it answer? Did you ever ask an animal if it wanted to be taken from its home and put in a cage for our pleasure? Did it answer? So why do lawmaker's suddenly start caring and expect animals to miraculously answer when asked for sex? *** Could not the pedofilian, bestalist or consentual incestous couple use the above scriptures as well to demand change of our bias laws? In order to establish that God created sexual deviant behaviors we must prove it before accepting it as fact. And we do have the resource's to investigate creation claims. As mentioned before anyone can use God as an excuse for a behavior, therefore, we can't in good conscious punish people for their DNA make-up, despite if it is an " acceptable behavior" or not. For this reason it is important for science to prove or dissprove claims before society accepts rumors as truths. At this moment scientist have not proven homosexuality,pedophelia,incest or bestiality to be linked to gene's. It is safe to say that perhaps it is wiser to wait on science before spreading rumors.
Heterosexual Quiz "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -Lynn Lavner
Matthew 7:1-5 (DO NOT JUDGE) Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
As an enemy I am now going to ask a simple favour of you, which will benefit myself as much as you. Go study law, philosophy and religions outside of Christianity as well as proper debate and logic. Now... "Incest is forbidden due to the chances of producing a retarded child.(right? wrong?) Defense: If law makers genuinely cared for the well being of a child ciggaretts & alcohol" Wrong. Incest is illegal for a number of reasons. It has been illegal for centuries due to it being considered immoral. Currently, while certain groups would like to see it legal, it remains illegal for a number of reasons. One is the chance of retard children. The other is that incest generally involves one member above and one below consenting age (pedophelia). "Defense: If law maker's genuinely cared for the well being of a child abortion would be against the law. Except for the cases of rape and high risk pregnacies, which puts the mother's life in danger,many fetus are normal developing babies,which are aborted, due to unwanted pregnacies, that can be prevented." Ignoring the fact that you and many, many Christian anti-abortionists want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone around them... Just in case you're a moron; a fetus is not a child or a baby. "Defense: If law maker's genuinely care for children celebrity's such as Woody Allen, R. Kelly, and Michael Jackson(to name a few) shouldn't be able to use wealth to avoid prision. In situations where parent's give consent to adults to have illegal sex with their children should they be locked up as well?(R.Kelly case)" I don't know who you've been talking to but Woody Allen married his of-consenting-age step-niece, not a woman who was under consenting age. And the kid who Michael supposedly raped/fondled(/whatever) agreed to take Michael's millions of dollars as opposed to pushing the case. Second, pedophelia is not illegal because of the reason you seem to state. Pedophelia is illegal because in the majority of cases of pedophelia being acted out the child (under 16) becomes a victim. So creation has nothing to do with this. Also, pedophelia is not a result of genetics. "In order to establish that God created sexual deviant behaviors we must prove it before accepting it as fact. And we do have the resource's to investigate creation claims. As mentioned before anyone can use God as an excuse for a behavior, therefore, we can't in good conscious punish people for their DNA make-up, despite if it is an " acceptable behavior" or not. For this reason it is important for science to prove or dissprove claims before society accepts rumors as truths. At this moment scientist have not proven homosexuality,pedophilia,incest or bestiality to be linked to gene's. It is safe to say that perhaps it is wiser to wait on science before spreading rumors." You don't understand a single thing. Homosexual behaviour is not legal and accepted because "god created it" (which most of the population doesn't even care about. you seem to think eveyrone cares about your god - we don't). It is legal and accepted because there is no victim involved.
Foucault said it, I believe it, that settles it Homosexuality is unnatural, to be sure, but this is exactly what makes it a more spiritual sort of sex. Okay, so I'm paraphrasing a argument in Plutarch that Foucault dissects. *Xev nails a "Do not feed the troll" notice to the nearest tree and leaves*
Tyler, Wrong. Incest is illegal for a number of reasons. It has been illegal for centuries due to it being considered immoral. Currently, while certain groups would like to see it legal, it remains illegal for a number of reasons. One is the chance of retard children. The other is that incest generally involves one member above and one below consenting age (pedophelia). ** This is why I specifially mentioned consentual incestous relations ** homosexuality is considered immoral as well Ignoring the fact that you and many, many Christian anti-abortionists want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone around them... Just in case you're a moron; a fetus is not a child or a baby. ** Thats according to your religion ( I guess) ** Women usually don't deny it's a life growing inside of us. I don't know who you've been talking to but Woody Allen married his of-consenting-age step-niece, not a woman who was under consenting age. And the kid who Michael supposedly raped/fondled(/whatever) agreed to take Michael's millions of dollars as opposed to pushing the case. ** Is that considered a form of incest in some states?(Woody Allen) ** Michael Jackson should have been throw in prision as well.(see how bad he is) Second, pedophelia is not illegal because of the reason you seem to state. Pedophelia is illegal because in the majority of cases of pedophelia being acted out the child (under 16) becomes a victim. So creation has nothing to do with this. Also, pedophelia is not a result of genetics. ** But could pedophelia's use the creation theory anyway? You don't understand a single thing. Homosexual behaviour is not legal and accepted because "god created it" (which most of the population doesn't even care about. you seem to think eveyrone cares about your god - we don't). It is legal and accepted because there is no victim involved. [/B][/QUOTE] ** Yet there has been many victims of homosexual acts. s an enemy I am now going to ask a simple favour of you, which will benefit myself as much as you. Go study law, philosophy and religions outside of Christianity as well as proper debate and logic. ** Can't we all just get along? ** What religion would you recommed?
I shouldn't, but ... This is one of those things I shouldn't touch with a twenty-foot pole. But, in reading the topic, I broke that rule. However: • Lady: This is your third topic attempting to classify homosexuality negatively without paying attention to the issues at hand. I can only wonder why you still bother. I find these topics to be ill-organized to the point that you will simply press forward with talk of immorality and abominations and such while utterly ignoring the practical answers put before you. Like I said in the first topic: Church and religious folk ought to regard homosexuality according to the mandate of the religion. It's really quite simple. If that perspective leaves the church folk outside the evolving mainstream of human societies, then so be it. Thus, I expect Christians to dislike homosexuality. What is more disgusting, though, than reckless presumption and social persecution, is that those Christians to whom this issue seems important have little or no demonstrable idea of how they have managed to alienate themselves from human necessity and social contract. What is it, in the end, that you want? A conclusion that God is not powerful enough to create human beings as they are? A conclusion that homosexuals are Satanists? What? Accepting for the sake of argument that God creates everything and accepting also the limits and attributes awarded Him by the Bible, the answer is that everything is created as it is, and that's all there is to it. What we humans do about it is a different issue. God may create a pedophile, but to view it from a Christian context, our duty is to protect each soul we come across and help them along the way to God. As such, there is much to figure out. In the meantime, though, allowing pedophiles to stalk and rape children would pretty much undermine the whole purpose of human society. We have an obligation to the species to ensure our perpetuation, and allowing the damage of future reproductive units in this form is unacceptable. That's why issues of consent are so important. And that's why it doesn't matter if God creates the pedophile. Very simply, the pedophile may be acceptable to God, but the pedophile is not acceptable to the mission with which God charges us. Some things are illegal because they sicken people--e.g. having sex with a goat. But such superstitions do not hold in other parts of the law. The difference between homosexuality and bestialism when attempting to view them as perversions is that one allows consent, and the other does not. Furthermore, I think it's odd to point out that "there are victims of homosexuality". Statistically speaking, they are far, far outnumbered by the victims of heterosexuality. The problem with presuming the notion of something being right is that the notion becomes fixed. Right and wrong are abstractions. To me, rape is rape, and it doesn't matter whether it's hetero- or homosexual. Furthermore, there is something absurd about directly comparing same-gender sexual contact with cross-species sexual contact. The two are not the same. Furthermore, in light of the evolution of Christianity, I'm left wondering what this holdout is. Many Christian churches endorse second marriages after divorce. This is prohibited in the Bible, as was pointed out by an article entitled Jesus Was Gay that seemed to whiz right by you, since you chose to dodge questions about what to tell children about remarried people. I had hoped with that article to establish a neutral parallel for you to examine, but you seemed to not understand why it was important. In the end, Lady, I have come to doubt your motives, your intellect, and your character. For that, I'm sorry. But your persona is all I see of you, and if you would like to be viewed differently, perhaps you could show a little more consideration, a little more intellect, and a little more human compassion. In the meantime, you've been answered on these issues multiple times by myself and others, and all you seem to do is restate the criteria and have another go. Stop beating your head against the wall; it would be funny, but my sense of compassion pings me every time I start to take enjoyment at how much of a fool one of my fellow humans is making of themselves. And yes, animals want to be eaten. I read it in Douglas Adams, in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. A book says so; it must be true, right? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"This is why I specifially mentioned consentual incestous relations homosexuality is considered immoral as well" Homosexuality is only considered immoral by those who follow religions. And religion has no bearing on law. As for "consentual incest", there is a victim - the child of the parents is often a victim. "Thats according to your religion ( I guess) Women usually don't deny it's a life growing inside of us." No, it's not according to any religion. It's according to scientific fact. A child is something different than a fetus. Yes, it is a life. However, 'life' does not mean child. You seem to, in addition to not knowing logic, have no comprehension of English. Also, before you reply then that abortion should be illegal because it is taking a 'life' - that's a moral decision. And laws should never be based on morals as they are subjective. "Is that considered a form of incest in some states?(Woody Allen) Michael Jackson should have been throw in prision as well.(see how bad he is)" Woody - nope. Michael - do you have proof that he abused a child? Seems to me if the child was so concerned about Michael being a pedophile, he wouldn't have taken the millions of dollars and would have pressed the issue until they proved Michael was guilty. "But could pedophelia's use the creation theory anyway?" No. For the love of all that is good and holy, go learn about law. Laws have NOTHING to do with your god. They have to do with what benefits/is detrimental to society. "Yet there has been many victims of homosexual acts." What the fuck are you talking about? Who's the victim when two of-age males or females have sex?? "Can't we all just get along? What religion would you recommed?" I'll get along with you just dandy if you get a couple things through your head. 1) Laws are not based on god 2) Laws are not based on your view of god 3) Laws are not based on morals 4) Laws are based on what is for the good of/bad of societies 5) Morals/Ethics are subjective 6) Pedophelia has no relation to genetics (or, as you call it - creation) 7) Incest has no relation to genetices (or, as you call it - creation) As for what religion I recommend... To study? All of them. It will open your mind and hopefully allow you to view things in as objective a manner as possible. To follow? None. As there is no proof a god exists I see no reason to believe in a god let alone a specific one.
Tyler Homosexuality is only considered immoral by those who follow religions. And religion has no bearing on law. As for "consentual incest", there is a victim - the child of the parents is often a victim. ** Are all law maker's atheist? ** Is the child of two mommie or daddies a victim? No, it's not according to any religion. It's according to scientific fact. A child is something different than a fetus. Yes, it is a life. However, 'life' does not mean child. You seem to, in addition to not knowing logic, have no comprehension of English. ** As far as I undestand science is still debating that one. ** Will a fetus ultimately be a child? What the fuck are you talking about? Who's the victim when two of-age males or females have sex?? ** Who's the victim when the one is not of age? Woody - nope. Michael - do you have proof that he abused a child? Seems to me if the child was so concerned about Michael being a pedophile, he wouldn't have taken the millions of dollars and would have pressed the issue until they proved Michael was guilty. ** The law should have been concerned. I'll get along with you just dandy if you get a couple things through your head. 1) Laws are not based on god 2) Laws are not based on your view of god 3) Laws are not based on morals 4) Laws are based on what is for the good of/bad of societies 5) Morals/Ethics are subjective 6) Pedophelia has no relation to genetics (or, as you call it - creation) 7) Incest has no relation to genetices (or, as you call it - creation) **Are all law maker's atheist? ** Does homosexuality have relations to genetics? As for what religion I recommend... To study? All of them. It will open your mind and hopefully allow you to view things in as objective a manner as possible. To follow? None. As there is no proof a god exists I see no reason to believe in a god let alone a specific one. [/B][/QUOTE] ** I got it ........ISLAM
"Are all law maker's atheist? Is the child of two mommie or daddies a victim?" I don't care if they're buddhists, christians, jews or believe Zeus is king of the gods - their personal religious beliefs should interfere with their job. Oh and, just so you know, in a democracy the "lawmakers" technically should be the public. You mean a gay couples' child? No. How is he/she? "As far as I undestand science is still debating that one. Will a fetus ultimately be a child?" You understand wrong. There is a clear difference between a child and fetus. Yes. But what does that matter? We have criminal charges that pertain only to youths...but they will ultimatly be adults, so should they be charged as an adult? Nope. Regardless, as I said morals do not enter law. "Who's the victim when the one is not of age?" The one who's not of age. "The law should have been concerned" Wrong again. See, a person has a choice of whether or not to press charges. This kid, as I said, was happy to take Michael's millions over seeing Michael in jail. Maybe you should be questioning the child's ethics if Michael really did abuse him. "Does homosexuality have relations to genetics?" Evidence at the moment points to yes, it does have a relation. However, we do not yet have concrete evidence that shows what that evidence is. Also, regardless of genetics, nurture I believe also effects it. "I got it ........ISLAM" Ummmm, okay. Islam is a good one to study. Then Judaism. Then Buddhism. Then Hinduism. Then ancient religions. Then....
Re: I shouldn't, but ... Tiassa, • Lady: This is your third topic attempting to classify homosexuality negatively without paying attention to the issues at hand. I can only wonder why you still bother. ** Perhaps you should wonder why you keep writing me. Thus, I expect Christians to dislike homosexuality. What is more disgusting, though, than reckless presumption and social persecution, is that those Christians to whom this issue seems important have little or no demonstrable idea of how they have managed to alienate themselves from human necessity and social contract. ** Dislike homosexuality true but not the individual. ** I don't feel aleinated. ** Let me explain to you what upset me. Awhile ago my pastor was reading from the bible, and the particular book condemed a wide range of people's actions from murder,incest.......................homosexuality......fornication, you get my drift. I'm sure most of us was guilty of the things he read...I'm sure the pastor himself was guilty...I know I was but most of us just remained silent but not the homosexual bunch. Now our pastor's is being forced to step down .. basically they have caused a big rift in the church. I don't undestand? And perhaps I should find a gay forum and ask. Accepting for the sake of argument that God creates everything and accepting also the limits and attributes awarded Him by the Bible, the answer is that everything is created as it is, and that's all there is to it. What we humans do about it is a different issue. God may create a pedophile, but to view it from a Christian context, our duty is to protect each soul we come across and help them along the way to God. As such, there is much to figure out. In the meantime, though, allowing pedophiles to stalk and rape children would pretty much undermine the whole purpose of human society. We have an obligation to the species to ensure our perpetuation, and allowing the damage of future reproductive units in this form is unacceptable. That's why issues of consent are so important. And that's why it doesn't matter if God creates the pedophile. Very simply, the pedophile may be acceptable to God, but the pedophile is not acceptable to the mission with which God charges us. ** Perpetuation? homosexuals can't do that naturally Furthermore, I think it's odd to point out that "there are victims of homosexuality". Statistically speaking, they are far, far outnumbered by the victims of heterosexuality. ** But there are victims of homosexual behavior. What is it, in the end, that you want? A conclusion that God is not powerful enough to create human beings as they are? A conclusion that homosexuals are Satanists? What? ** I want homosexuals to stop claiming creation (unfounded) before it opens the door way to other unacceptable sexual behaviors. ** Quit destroying churches in which everybody is condemed not just homosexual behavior- Quit playing helpless victim that everybody's picking on. ** Quit trying to decieve straight people.(sexually) ** Show justification for wanting special laws ** And allow all to enjoy the gay parade without gesture's of sodomy or nudity. ** Know that God didn't purposely create them homosexual and that his Love is Unconditional. Some things are illegal because they sicken people--e.g. having sex with a goat. But such superstitions do not hold in other parts of the law. The difference between homosexuality and bestialism when attempting to view them as perversions is that one allows consent, and the other does not. ** How will we ever know if an animal want to get on with a human? Did you ask? The problem with presuming the notion of something being right is that the notion becomes fixed. Right and wrong are abstractions. To me, rape is rape, and it doesn't matter whether it's hetero- or homosexual. Furthermore, there is something absurd about directly comparing same-gender sexual contact with cross-species sexual contact. The two are not the same. ** The things I've heard about bamboon's who knows someone might enjoy that.......who are we to judge? Furthermore, in light of the evolution of Christianity, I'm left wondering what this holdout is. Many Christian churches endorse second marriages after divorce. This is prohibited in the Bible, as was pointed out by an article entitled Jesus Was Gay that seemed to whiz right by you, since you chose to dodge questions about what to tell children about remarried people. I had hoped with that article to establish a neutral parallel for you to examine, but you seemed to not understand why it was important. ** I didn't see that post....however if they want to find out what the bible saids concerning divorce.......they best be looking it up. ** My church doesn't condone it, however. In the end, Lady, I have come to doubt your motives, your intellect, and your character. For that, I'm sorry. But your persona is all I see of you, and if you would like to be viewed differently, perhaps you could show a little more consideration, a little more intellect, and a little more human compassion. ** but yet you continue to write me........hey.. mabey you love me. In the meantime, you've been answered on these issues multiple times by myself and others, and all you seem to do is restate the criteria and have another go. Stop beating your head against the wall; it would be funny, but my sense of compassion pings me every time I start to take enjoyment at how much of a fool one of my fellow humans is making of themselves. ** That's the satanist talking.......futhermore, perhaps I like beating my head against the wall. And yes, animals want to be eaten. I read it in Douglas Adams, in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. A book says so; it must be true, right? ** Ask the animal forget the book. I find these topics to be ill-organized to the point that you will simply press forward with talk of immorality and abominations and such while utterly ignoring the practical answers put before you. ** Perhaps I don't agree with all the info......likewise? Like I said in the first topic: Church and religious folk ought to regard homosexuality according to the mandate of the religion. It's really quite simple. If that perspective leaves the church folk outside the evolving mainstream of human societies, then so be it. ** All sinners are welcomed to church.........just don't rip the church apart due to scripture read from the bible. This is one of those things I shouldn't touch with a twenty-foot pole. But, in reading the topic, I broke that rule. ** but you loved me so much that you couldn't help yourself(true love)
Tyler, I don't care if they're buddhists, christians, jews or believe Zeus is king of the gods - their personal religious beliefs should interfere with their job. Oh and, just so you know, in a democracy the "lawmakers" technically should be the public. ** Do you mean shouldn't interfere with job? ** The public is made up of many different religions and I live under a predominately Catholic state and the laws reflect the beliefs. (unfortunate for me) You mean a gay couples' child? No. How is he/she? ** kids can be cruel( the worst) You understand wrong. There is a clear difference between a child and fetus. Yes. But what does that matter? We have criminal charges that pertain only to youths...but they will ultimatly be adults, so should they be charged as an adult? Nope. Regardless, as I said morals do not enter law. ** Were I live the catholic's are the law. ** If it wasn't for stem- cell research or abortion I don't think this issue would exist. Being that your a man you could never understand what women go through after abortion- we have the maternal bond. Wrong again. See, a person has a choice of whether or not to press charges. This kid, as I said, was happy to take Michael's millions over seeing Michael in jail. Maybe you should be questioning the child's ethics if Michael really did abuse him. ** I think the kid should have got the millions however the law should have made an example that not even the rich can get away with pedophila. Evidence at the moment points to yes, it does have a relation. However, we do not yet have concrete evidence that shows what that evidence is. Also, regardless of genetics, nurture I believe also effects it. ** So shouldn't the homosexual communinty wait for the concrete evidence? ** Should we also look for the cause of other sexual behaviors ( In the DNA?) science is obligated?
