Re: The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:

Nicklas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 06:15:32 -0700, Peter Franks
> <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> buckeye wrote:
>>> Peter Franks <none@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> :|buckeye wrote:
>>>> :|> Thursday, May 08, 2008
>>>> :|> 
>>>> :|> The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:
>>>> :|
>>>> :|Who/what is an example of the "Religious Right"?
>>> Ahhhhhh, the man who never runs out of questions expecting others to
do his
>>> homework and or research for him.
>>>
>>> My answer is:
>>> Are you totally helpless? Look it up yourself.
>> This is a discussion forum.  I'm attempting to discuss the topic.  Dump

>> and run posting is not appreciated.
> 
> No, you're a troll
> 
> If you want to "discuss" that kind of crap 

Are you referring to what buckeye posts?

> , then YOU
> must accept the fact that a "religious right" does
> exist, that it has financial and political clout, and
> not evade by asking  for a "citation" that it's "there"

I'm not evading anything.

> Secondly, you must recognize that NO ONE can prove the
> so-called god-inspired laws are in fact true---that in
> order to argue things like "homo***uality"---you
> require somone to accept biblical things as "fact" or
> true

Yes, no one can prove it.  That is the point of faith, right?

> No one says YOU can't,  on a matter of faith, accept
> those things without proof, but you cannot require
> others to do so too.

Sure.

> It is a "fact" that they're in the bible----but it is
> not a provable fact that they were ever "god-given"
> laws.

Yep.