Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 247
  1. #161
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But arguments do.

    So SUPPORT OR RETRACT your argument that it's a fact that there is no such thing as a biologically "proper" homosexual sexual relationship.
    I'm not arguing that homosexual sex acts are biologically improper. I'm stating the fact, a fact which needs no argument, only the most basic knowledge of human biology. And what I'm telling you is no matter how loudly you stamp your little boy feet, I don't have any obligation to take you by the hand and lead you through the basic biology of human reproduction. If you don't already know it, you've got no business in this debate.

  2. #162
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Support or retract that homosexual relationships are not proper.

  3. #163
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or retract that homosexual relationships are not proper.
    We're finished here. There's just no point to it.

  4. #164
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    I admit my previous response was a bit lazy (a little occupied at that time), so let me respond to your previous post more in-depth.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    I'm not arguing that homosexual sex acts are biologically improper. I'm stating the fact, a fact which needs no argument, only the most basic knowledge of human biology.
    Just claiming something is a fact does not make it so. And vaguely referring to something is not support - you have not even spelled out which particular fact(s) of human reproduction support your position. Are you saying that sexual activity that cannot result in procreations is improper and therefore perverse?

    So you have not presented any actual facts that support your position but just vaguely claimed that they exist.

    So again, support or retract that it's a fact that homosexual relationships are improper.

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    And what I'm telling you is no matter how loudly you stamp your little boy feet, I don't have any obligation to take you by the hand and lead you through the basic biology of human reproduction. If you don't already know it, you've got no business in this debate.
    You don't have any obligation to point me to the facts that support your argument. You don't have any obligation to support your argument at all.

    Again, I asked that you support OR retract your argument. So if you refuse to support your argument, you must retract it.

    And leaving the debate and not continuing your unsupported claims about how homosexuals relationships are improper will suffice as a retraction.
    Last edited by mican333; March 20th, 2014 at 08:06 PM.

  5. #165
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I admit my previous response was a bit lazy (a little occupied at that time), so let me respond to your previous post more in-depth.



    Just claiming something is a fact does not make it so.
    No, it doesn't. What makes a fact a fact is that it is so. And it is a fact that homosexual sex is biologically improper, is a biological perversion of the sex organs nature designed for certain specifically biological purposes.

    Now once again, I'm not going to argue over this with you. All you are doing here is feigning ignorance of a biological fact. You could do that for any word I write. You could start demanding "Support or retract" that the word "red" refers to a color, and when I pointed you to the dictionary definition, you could simply demand "Support or retract" that the dictionary meaning is correct. You can "support or retract" any debate on any subject right into oblivion if you want to, and I'm just not going to partner with you while you obviously try this transparent version of the child's "why" game in this one.

  6. #166
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    No, it doesn't. What makes a fact a fact is that it is so. And it is a fact that homosexual sex is biologically improper, is a biological perversion of the sex organs nature designed for certain specifically biological purposes.
    FINALLY! Support!

    But I'm a little unclear on what you are saying. So let me rephrase it as best as I understand what you are saying. And feel free to correct me if I don't get it quite right.

    Homosexual sex is improper because homosexual sexual acts involve using the genitals for purposes other than what they were designed for, such as inserting the penis into a part of the body other than the vagina.

  7. #167
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    FINALLY! Support!
    You have a very strange conception of what "support" means.

    I think we're finished here.

  8. #168
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    You have a very strange conception of what "support" means.

    I think we're finished here.
    What I mean is that you finally identified what makes homosexual relationships "improper" (in your opinion, that is).

    Before you were basically refusing to. You were basically saying "you know what I mean. I'm not going to explain it to you."

    And even if my best guess at what you meant is completely accurate I can't attack your position until you clearly state it.

    So you finally did clearly state your position. But anyway, whether you continue or not doesn't matter much to me.

  9. Likes JimJones8934 liked this post
  10. #169
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What I mean is that you finally identified what makes homosexual relationships "improper" (in your opinion, that is).

    Before you were basically refusing to. You were basically saying "you know what I mean. I'm not going to explain it to you."

    And even if my best guess at what you meant is completely accurate I can't attack your position until you clearly state it.

    So you finally did clearly state your position. But anyway, whether you continue or not doesn't matter much to me.
    Hmm, so pretty much "The Gay is bad for children because ... they're not using their genitals in the way God (the designer) intended". Notice nearly all the arguments have ended up with religion at some point or another; Talthas only took a couple of posts but this one was a quite a read - well done for your persistence!

  11. #170
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Hmm, so pretty much "The Gay is bad for children because ... they're not using their genitals in the way God (the designer) intended". Notice nearly all the arguments have ended up with religion at some point or another
    One doesn't necessarily have to invoke God. One can say that there are only certain appropriate uses for genitals (waste removal and reproduction) and using them in ways that don't do either is using them in a way that they were not built to be used and therefore using them incorrectly and therefore improperly.

    But I still don't see how that is anything other than a subjective position. Who determines that it's incorrect to use them in other ways than that? I have yet to see any basis for that argument that compels to agree with it. If you think that's it's improper and perverted to masturbate (and that would fall under the category of "improper use" by that standard), your opinion is noted. If you want to argue that it's a fact that that is improper, let's see that support. Or introduce a premise that I accept and then logically reach the conclusion that it's improper based on that. But just just forwarding criteria that appears to be subjective and basing one's argument on that does not result in anything resembling fact.
    Last edited by mican333; March 22nd, 2014 at 06:42 AM.

  12. #171
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    One doesn't necessarily have to invoke God.
    I agree but your opponent did by invoking a designer (through a faulty description of evolution that is typical for those that don't understand it) and that is what I was talking about.

    One can say that there are only certain appropriate uses for genitals (excretion on reproduction) and using them in ways that don't do either is using them in a way that they were not built to be used and then using them incorrectly and therefore improperly.

    But I still don't see how that is anything other than a subjective position.
    Also agreed, there is no objective reason as to 'proper' since in reality. Evolution allows for any use of genetalia 'proper' including homosexuality.

    Who determines that it's incorrect to use them in other ways than that? I have yet to see any basis for that argument that one needs to agree with.
    That is because simply one doesn't exist. For atheists, there is literally no reason at all. For the religiously inclined, the best they can do is to focus on higher priorities.

    If you think that's it's improper and perverted to masturbate (and that would fall under the category of "improper use" by that standard), your opinion is noted.
    I disagree actually. Masturbation provides sexual relief and is fully part of non procreative sex with another partner. That's two standards: individual psychological need and closer bonding with your sexual partner.

    If you want to argue that it's a fact that that is improper, let's see that support.
    The best arguments are religious since if God said so then you must obey. But that only works for believers and people that want to go along with the social norms of the society they happen to believe in. Believe me, we would not be having this conversation in a Muslim country! Or a Mormon social group either!

    It certainly doesn't work as an argument for public policy in the secular legal system that we live under!

    Or introduce a premise that I accept and then logically reach the conclusion that it's improper based on that. But just saying that there are only certain proper uses and all other uses are improper does not make it so.
    I have no argument with you. I could tell that your opponent was avoiding God in his responses so as to make his arguments more scientific sounding. You hit the nail on the head honing in on the word 'proper' as the only paths from there were social agreements (in which case, who cares) or design, which could only lead to God.

    Still, I am disappointed, mainly for Gemini, that he didn't get the answers he sought. But as I have been saying all along, there is only religion underlying all the reasons. I remain 100% correct on that issue across all the interactions I have had on that front.

  13. #172
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    What I mean is that you finally identified what makes homosexual relationships "improper" (in your opinion, that is).
    Oh for God's sake! What do you think the qualifier "biologically" did when I used it, what, six, seven posts ago?!!

    See, I know you're not this stupid, but you waste fifty posts acting like it, which is why I'm not going to try and have a meaningful debate with you on this subject. All you do is waste my time. You're not interested in having a substantive debate. Rather, your primary interest is in avoiding a substantive debate, while appearing to welcome it. It's a act, one I've watched you resort to only when your arguments are particularly weak, and the weaker your arguments are, the dumber you appear to become, even to losing command of your mother tongue if that's what it takes!

    I'm here to debate, not to serve as catspaw to your Tennessee Williams. When you decide to debate the question, instead of just screwing around, you let me know.

  14. #173
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    Oh for God's sake! What do you think the qualifier "biologically" did when I used it, what, six, seven posts ago?!!

    See, I know you're not this stupid, but you waste fifty posts acting like it, which is why I'm not going to try and have a meaningful debate with you on this subject. All you do is waste my time. You're not interested in having a substantive debate. Rather, your primary interest is in avoiding a substantive debate, while appearing to welcome it. It's a act, one I've watched you resort to only when your arguments are particularly weak, and the weaker your arguments are, the dumber you appear to become, even to losing command of your mother tongue if that's what it takes!

    I'm here to debate, not to serve as catspaw to your Tennessee Williams. When you decide to debate the question, instead of just screwing around, you let me know.
    I had a good idea of what you were referring to but I can't rebut the "facts" unless you specifically state what they are.

    Can you show me where in your past posts, you explicitly spelled out what you were referring to until the post where I said "Finally."

    I now realize that I probably should have just made your argument for you earlier and said "Did I get it right?' and once you confirmed that I did, I could then offer specific rebuttals.

    And I just did:

    "One can say that there are only certain appropriate uses for genitals (waste removal and reproduction) and using them in ways that don't do either is using them in a way that they were not built to be used and therefore using them incorrectly and therefore improperly."

    Now is THAT your argument because that is my best guess at your argument. And if I got it wrong, then for God's sake, tell me specifically what your argument is instead of telling me that I should know what it is and how unnecessary it is for you have to explain it to me.
    Last edited by mican333; March 22nd, 2014 at 09:09 AM.

  15. #174
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I had a good idea of what you were referring to but I can't rebut the "facts" unless you specifically state what they are.
    The original statement I made, containing the phrase "biologically proper", and explicitly denying that homosexual sexual relationships possess the property "being biologically proper", implicitly stated all the relevant facts necessary, as your below clearly now indicates has always been the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    One can say that there are only certain appropriate uses for genitals (waste removal and reproduction) and using them in ways that don't do either is using them in a way that they were not built to be used and therefore using them incorrectly and therefore improperly.
    All of your above was implicitly (and much more economically!) contained in my original statement about a gojillion posts ago, all of which you clearly understood correctly way back then before you started this banal pretense you didn't, again, as you've now clearly (and "Finally!") demonstrated for me and the rest of the English speaking world.

    So tell me again why I should grant you the respect of assuming you're being honest in your statements and questions to me in our debates?

  16. #175
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    The original statement I made, containing the phrase "biologically proper", and explicitly denying that homosexual sexual relationships possess the property "being biologically proper", implicitly stated all the relevant facts necessary, as your below clearly now indicates has always been the case.
    Right. But to make an argument you need to actually state all of the relevant facts, not hint at them!

    I have every right to refuse to address your argument until you yourself forward a coherent argument that I can directly respond to and I have every right to continuously ask you to spell it out instead of figuring out for myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    All of your above was implicitly (and much more economically!) contained in my original statement about a gojillion posts ago, all of which you clearly understood correctly way back then before you started this banal pretense you didn't, again, as you've now clearly (and "Finally!") demonstrated for me and the rest of the English speaking world.

    So tell me again why I should grant you the respect of assuming you're being honest in your statements and questions to me in our debates?
    Because I never stated that I did not have a good idea of what you were referring to.

    I was trying to get you to lay out your argument. Yes, know I know that for some strange reason you just weren't going to do it and it was up to me to state your argument for you.

    But anyway, do you want to continue bellyaching or do you want to debate? And if you want to debate, shall we accept this:

    "One can say that there are only certain appropriate uses for genitals (waste removal and reproduction) and using them in ways that don't do either is using them in a way that they were not built to be used and therefore using them incorrectly and therefore improperly."

    as the argument you are forwarding?
    Last edited by mican333; March 25th, 2014 at 06:38 AM.

  17. #176
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    That is because simply one doesn't exist. For atheists, there is literally no reason at all. For the religiously inclined, the best they can do is to focus on higher priorities.
    One can always use themselves as the moral source for a belief so an atheist can hold that it's "improper". But CStamford is saying it's a "fact" and I don't see how one can get there. An atheist's opinion is still an opinion and not a fact. Invoking God can make it more "factual" as in what God says is immoral IS immoral but then one has to prove that God exists before we can even begin to use that line of reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I disagree actually. Masturbation provides sexual relief and is fully part of non procreative sex with another partner. That's two standards: individual psychological need and closer bonding with your sexual partner.
    But if one holds that procreation is the ONLY proper sexual use for one's genitals then those things are immoral even if they do have some tangible benefits.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    The best arguments are religious since if God said so then you must obey. But that only works for believers and people that want to go along with the social norms of the society they happen to believe in.
    And likewise only works in a debate setting if one can prove their God actually exists. A mighty tall order indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I have no argument with you. I could tell that your opponent was avoiding God in his responses so as to make his arguments more scientific sounding. You hit the nail on the head honing in on the word 'proper' as the only paths from there were social agreements (in which case, who cares) or design, which could only lead to God.
    Or avoiding that ultimately his position is opinion, if even his own, and not fact.

  18. #177
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    One can always use themselves as the moral source for a belief so an atheist can hold that it's "improper". But CStamford is saying it's a "fact" and I don't see how one can get there. An atheist's opinion is still an opinion and not a fact. Invoking God can make it more "factual" as in what God says is immoral IS immoral but then one has to prove that God exists before we can even begin to use that line of reasoning.
    I agree. Further, even if God did exist, his is still an opinion, albeit a powerful one. So the only fact is that there is a belief that the Christian God says it is improper. I don't even believe this is even a valid position either and I'm working on this in my other thread exploring the issue.

    But if one holds that procreation is the ONLY proper sexual use for one's genitals then those things are immoral even if they do have some tangible benefits.
    I disagree - self or mutual masturbation is wholly part of the valid sex act.

    And likewise only works in a debate setting if one can prove their God actually exists. A mighty tall order indeed.
    Agreed! And the more they show that it is a religious reason, the less constitutional it is for them to create laws around it.

    The religious right's position is baffling as Talthas' hit and run comments in two threads show: they're easily defeated positions even on their own merits: non factual on almost every front, contradictory to even a cursory reading of the Bible and worse (which is where I think the charge of bigotry is valid) inconsistently applied to atheist or other religions.

    Or avoiding that ultimately his position is opinion, if even his own, and not fact.
    Yes, this would end much more quickly if the word fact wasn't used. Good luck with the rest of the thread

  19. #178
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I agree. Further, even if God did exist, his is still an opinion, albeit a powerful one. So the only fact is that there is a belief that the Christian God says it is improper. I don't even believe this is even a valid position either and I'm working on this in my other thread exploring the issue.
    Arguably, God is the arbiter of morality and therefore the ultimate authority and therefore one could be considered "factually wrong" if they disagreed with God on a moral issue.

    An analogy would be a fictional character disagreeing with the author of the book. In that situation, the author would be inherently correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    I disagree - self or mutual masturbation is wholly part of the valid sex act.
    If one holds that only procreation is acceptable, that would not be the case.

    Keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with you. IMO as long as no one is being harmed, there is no "wrong" sexual activity. I'm just relaying what I believe the "other side" would say.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Agreed! And the more they show that it is a religious reason, the less constitutional it is for them to create laws around it.
    But they typically aren't doing that. The primary arguments against gay marriage are, as far as I can tell:

    1. Appeal to the majority. The fact that a majority in a state voted against gay marriage is a valid reason to ban it. And of course, the will of the people is sometimes a valid rationale for a law but when it's put up against denying people of basic rights, that argument doesn't hold water.

    2. Appeal to tradition. That marriage has been defined as such in the past is a valid reason to not change it in the present.

  20. #179
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Arguably, God is the arbiter of morality and therefore the ultimate authority and therefore one could be considered "factually wrong" if they disagreed with God on a moral issue.

    An analogy would be to a fictional character disagreeing with the author of the book that he exists within.
    Well, that's stacking the argument a bit but it is still one opinion in the entire mathematical universe of opinions.

    A fictional character can disagree with the author and the author can be made to change his mind on the matter through the exploration of his writing. Similarly, you'll notice that God no longer engages in mass genocide to solve problems of his own making so clearly nothing is set in stone. In fact, further, he now speaks through Human avatars to engage with us better so even his physical form can take different aspects - more like a video game than a book.


    If one holds that only procreation is acceptable, that would not be the case.
    Yes it does because it is part of the arousal process. Also, since each copulation doesn't necessarily involve a fertilized egg, you have to have variety in order to keep things interesting.

    Keep in mind that I am not disagreeing with you. IMO as long as no one is being harmed, there is no "wrong" sexual activity. I'm just relaying what I believe the "other side" would say.
    I know, but it's interesting to explore things from the other side and alternative perspectives. You never know, there might be some kernel of truth somewhere in these arguments that have thus far eluded us.


    But they typically aren't doing that. The primary arguments against gay marriage are, as far as I can tell:

    1. Appeal to the majority. The fact that a majority in a state voted against gay marriage is a valid reason to ban it. And of course, the will of the people is sometimes a valid rationale for a law but when it's put up against denying people of basic rights, that argument doesn't hold water.

    2. Appeal to tradition. That marriage has been defined as such in the past is a valid reason to not change it in the present.
    Well, I'm taking about Talthas' argument specifically. The appeal to majority works both ways and it's leaning towards pro gay positions so you'll not see much of those arguments. Again, easily dismissed.

    Though he does appeal to 'tradition', even that doesn't hold water either factually or within his own universe of truth.

    Is there a prize for winning on ODN?

  21. #180
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Same-Sex marriage is bad for the Children!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, that's stacking the argument a bit but it is still one opinion in the entire mathematical universe of opinions.
    But regardless, one can posit that it's not just a matter of opinion - that there are moral positions that transcend a human personal opinion. Supporting that such a thing exists is probably impossible, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    A fictional character can disagree with the author and the author can be made to change his mind on the matter through the exploration of his writing.
    But the point is in the conflict between the two, the author will always be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Similarly, you'll notice that God no longer engages in mass genocide to solve problems of his own making so clearly nothing is set in stone. In fact, further, he now speaks through Human avatars to engage with us better so even his physical form can take different aspects - more like a video game than a book.
    Well, that is one specific version of God and one does not have to be referring to that particular entity when they talk about God.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Yes it does because it is part of the arousal process. Also, since each copulation doesn't necessarily involve a fertilized egg, you have to have variety in order to keep things interesting.
    But regardless, masturbation has no procreative potentiality. So one can say it's inherently immoral if they hold that only procreative sexual activity is "proper" and failed attempts at procreation would be allowable for it was not a "moral failing" on the part of the participants that conception did not occur.


    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, I'm taking about Talthas' argument specifically. The appeal to majority works both ways and it's leaning towards pro gay positions so you'll not see much of those arguments. Again, easily dismissed.
    I'm not saying the argument has merit. I'm saying that their arguments typically do not appeal to religion for legally banning gay marriage.

 

 
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 05:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 05:43 AM
  3. Marriage better for children
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: July 5th, 2009, 04:19 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 1st, 2007, 08:27 PM
  5. Do you have, or want children?
    By Jamie in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 24th, 2005, 05:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •