So by all means, state the 'complexes of genes working synergistically'.
And since, by your own admission, we are nowhere near identifying them, wouldn't it be prudent, from a purely academic perspective, to defer any conclusions until then?
Clearly, you have endeavored in a scientific debate and you are up $hit creek without a paddle.
Because you are agitating for a law whose basis is entirely dependent on speculations of what science may or may not prove.
Surely, the only one keeping up pretenses of being stupid is you.
Nonsense. I have already mentioned the legal basis of marriage in the un declaration of human rights -- the same declaration the us is a signatory of and the same declaration that brought about various international conventions the us is legally bound to.
Surely, it is supreme idiocy to rant about your relative nonsense on matters of human rights and law.
Of course. A woman's right to motherhood is inalienable after all.
The consequence, of course, is that the woman who concieved the child is the child's mother by right. Obviously, one cannot say the same about homosexual men, now, can they?
I'd rather not say, given your tendencies to work yourself up to a sexual frenzy.
No. I have intentions to visit it someday, though. My sister lives there.
