Search results

Except that the research I posted above shows that that is not the case. Do you agree with those countries?

You may think that. But as usual, you're incorrect. If you're unhappy with the news articles, well, here is the actual clinical research behind them. See: Goldberg. A.E. (2009) Perceived parenting skill across the transition to adoptive parenthood among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual...

But you keep on making the mistake that the Bible should prove anything to people who don't believe in it. Lol. Which is why religious arguments are invalid when they only have the Bible to stand on.

Yeah tbh my personal opinion is just straight out abolition of the welfare state. But hey, one tries to be conciliatory

I was more thinking a HECS-style loan, which you repay once you're able to. Like I said, I didn't really think it through :p

How about providing short-term low (or no) interest loans for the unemployed instead of payments? Incentive to get a job to repay, it's not technically welfare.. I haven't thought this through or anything, I'm just throwing it out there.

Say what? Do you know anything about what those words mean in the scientific vernacular (which I assume you're applying)?

Lol okay I concede that point, but when and how were they actually married? Depending on the context, "wife" could be a translation of just "female partner". PWAR WHERE ARE YOU

Nah, it says "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." That's justification for marriage. But it doesn't say that Adam and Eve are married.

So, uh, where does it say that Adam and Eve were married?

Lol, I was meh before I read the Bible. Then I started reading it (in year 7) and now I am an agnostic atheist.

And your argument is "waa waa religion". I think fairness and freedom trump that eh? It would benefit/end discrimination for part of society (gay couples) and not harm the rest. Laws have been made for less. It's been done before, without destroying society (like, uh, slavery? Which...

Just because it's caused by genes, it does not make it a defect or a condition or anything negative, just as having red hair is not a defect. And there's no doubt that it is gene-based at least in part, even though we haven't found the exact genes responsible yet. This is not a flaw in the...

Well, it is your religious text. Not mine. I'm admittedly painting you rather deliberately into a corner because I'm 95% certain there isn't such a verse. No shit. Now stop saying they're free to marry whomever they want as long as they're the opposite sex. WE ARE AWARE OF THIS VERY...

Uh. Please cite the verse where it says they were married. Lol I actually read some interpretation of this - that God supposedly married them in the creation of Eve. Now that's some hokey interpretation, given it never actually says they were married. But I digress. Obfuscating by...

That's obfuscation and you know it. So change the definition. The legal definitions of words have been redefined before. That's what we're asking. Change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to a contract between two or more consenting adults. And yes, I include polygamy...

*sigh*

As someone who scrutineered at a booth for the Bradfield by-election, I can say that on the whole, they are. It's amazing how many.

I want at least two husbands simultaneously.