Michael Madigan wrote: > Marriage was designed for procreation, however, the > author doesn't suggest that baron couples > divorce(although they should stop being annoying). > Humping was designed for procreation. Marriage was designed as a way to keep 2 parents around long enough to raise a kid. But regardless, this statement was one of the three examples of casual assumption that Stephen asked for.
Honestly, it was one of the stupidest choices the article could have made, as it's the most easily assailed. They would have been better off being honest, and saying that they believe it is an institution designed by God, for one man and one woman, for the purpose of mutual support, raising of children, etc. That would have been both honest, and unassailable. (Even if you don't believe in God, you literally can't attack "We believe God made it.") Instead, they slapped out a stupid, sloppy article. Whatever your stance on gay marriage, it's a lousy article. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
