Anyway how can there be an ‘official party line’ on gayness?

I think the official party line is whether or not gays can get married in a church. As has been said, most Christians don’t have a problem with it

…and some of it is good. I’m liking the happiness line

molgrips – Member

I still thought it was reasonable… Anyway how can there be an ‘official party line’ on gayness?

Have you heard of this?

🙂

We’ve just got to move on to how to interpret the bible and we’ve done our usual trinity.

Well done RS – now we have all three. can we close this now?

The majority of Christians I think have no problem with homosexuality. You may be confusing the vocal nutters with the quiet moderates.

I think you/they may be the confused one..the bible is unequivocal on God’s view of homosexuality

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

Anyone who believes in string theory must be as thick as two Planck lengths!

🙂

and I believe that Max was a Christian, but he obviously didn’t understand science…

I think you/they may be the confused one

Yep – there is a lot of confusing stuff there. I wouldn’t claim to understand or be happy with it all

Complexity and Re is increasing with computational power available.

True, yet there are many here who would remove Re from the school curriculum

True, yet there are many here who would remove Re from the school curriculum

class 🙂

No, but really, DNS can’t predict transition yet can it? I take it by low Re, you mean laminar flow?

I think you/they may be the confused one..the bible is unequivocal on God’s view of homosexuality

Well that’s a whole nother theological debate isn’t it? Biblical inerrancy and all that. Leviticus vs Jesus (love thy neighbour) etc.

Leviticus vs Jesus (love thy neighbour)

So long as they’re a different sex and there’s no coveting of asses going on.

Oh, as for speciation, one definition of “species” is that an animal can or will only mate with its own species. So that would make a chihuahua a different species to a great dane.

By that measure “speciation” has certainly happened in human, if not single lifespan, timescales.

an animal can or will only mate with its own species. So that would make a chihuahua a different species to a great dane.

Surely that’s just a matter of logistics. What if you had a chihuahua with a stepladder?

Surely that’s just a matter of logistics. What if you had a chihuahua with a stepladder?

reminds me of a joke about an elephant and a fly

2 Canis lupus familiaris 🙂
and for the homophobic, yes they are both male. So what.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4F5zXbPrNc&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

Breeds do not meet the criteria for subspecies since they are all considered a subspecies of the gray wolf; an interbreeding group of individuals who pass on characteristic traits and would likely merge back into a single homogenous group if external barriers were removed.

looks as if the we have our own idiots spouting this kind of crap. The National Trust.