OK.
" * A free society should allow students to pray in public schools.
A free society would not give one religion preference over any other. Either all prayer needs to be restricted or no prayer should be restricted. Your choice.
However, a theocracy would legislate a religious preference.
Which is the author advocating?
" * Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.
Is this a case of the 'continuum fallacy'? I thought AG and BB debunked that idea?
By that logic, shouldn't an ovum and a sperm be considered human life?
" * The health of any society is significantly reduced when homosexual activity increases. Historical evidence supports this.
Do you really think that homosexual marriages will significantly reduce the health of current society? How does the legal marriage of gays increase gay activity?
The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage.
" * Restrictions to protect children are necessary for a healthy society.
Child porn is already illegal. Adult porn is restricted such that children have no access.
" * Same as above.
See above.
" * Same as above.
Absolutely!
" * Abstinence works 100% of the time. Nothing else comes close. What needs to be taught to children is both of those facts and what the consequences are for ignoring them.
Abstinence only works 100% if followed 100%. Abstinence programs have nowhere near 100% compliance and work more poorly than other programs.
The author's reason for including these programs is because of religious teachings.
" * Science should be taught in government schools, free from ideologies.
Indeed, but it should also not be taught free of research and logic. Creation science fails in that regard.
BTW, I have yet to see any Creation Science free from ideology.
" * Hey, the constitution works. ;-)
That wasn't the point. The author is playing the martyr and wants Christian preferential treatment. Theocracies are based on preferential treatment for a specific religion.
I can see that you are spinning this with all your might but you fail to be convincing in your attempt to show these are not religiously motivated points.
Actually, Sopater quoted an article that concluded with "What kinds of public policies do we evangelical Christians want to see take place in America today?" (followed by a long list of demands).
These demands are indeed religiously motivated--by evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians are a small percentage of the population of the US, but they would love to take over and establish a theocracy. Then they could get all of their demands enacted as law, and everyone would have to follow their particular beliefs.
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Answer: NO. Life comes from their synergistic combination, not from either one or the other standing alone. They call this process: fertilization, or conception. Not till fertilization does life exist. But once it occurs, it irrevocably specifies the "blueprint" of a living individual human being, from that inception (fertilization, conception) till natural death.
And not coincidentally, that is the very thing the United States Constitution undertakes to protect, preserve, and defend.
Or do you see this issue differently?
So what's wrong with that?
Homosexuals want to impose THEIR belief system's definition of marriage.