Home

Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause Posted on: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:01:59 +0000 (UTC)

On Nov 9, 8:50=A0pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> No One wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza writes:
>
> >> No One wrote:
>
> >>> Except comparision of identical to fraternal twins show that .ual
> >>> orientation has a strong genetic component to it.
> >> It's an extremely tentative conclusion that in no way constitutes
> >> "proof". =A0Try again.
>
> > You need to learn some biology
>
> You were talking psychology, queer.

He was talking science. Pure science.
2104013. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104014. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104015. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104016. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104017. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104018. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104019. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104020. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104021. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104022. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104023. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104024. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104025. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104026. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104027. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104028. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104029. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104030. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104031. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause
2104032. Re: Proposition 8: no violation of Equal Protection clause