That depends on whether one believes that controlled desires are sinful in their own right, as opposed to only actions being sinful. One could, if dispositioned toward believing the Bible, make the argument that God gave homosexuals such desires so that they might have greater opportunity to prove their faith by not fulfilling in them.

You seem to be under the delusion that using technical terms makes you correct.

You’ve assumed that the question implies “public”, school “policy” regarding prayer.

I've assumed it means what it asks. The question is whether school prayer should be allowed in schools. The bodies which have authority to determine what is allowed in schools are schools and the bodies which regulate them. Thus, the question is whether these bodies should allow school prayer, which is directly a question of school policy. These are English words which you should know.

The part about public schools is pertinent on the grounds that the question is general, which means it entails the policy of public schools as a subset of the policies to which it applies. Regardless, my comment about public schools was directed at your own comment on this regard, which was universal and so did explicitly entail public school policy.

You assert that school policy should not dictate Christian behavior regarding prayer, at all, which is a universal predication. Then in your next sentence you quickly establish an exception to the universal predication. Those two sentences contradict each other.

The statements don't contradict each other; the second just modifies the first by introducing an exception. That is, you are mistaken in assuming that first statement is independent of the second. There is no more a contradiction than there is in the statement "Excepting only the Sun, stars are located outside of our solar system."

You asserted no position that is applicable to a Christian’s refusal to prayer in school.

I said that I asserted no position that is applicable to a Christian's refusal to pray in school. Let me make it more explicit for you: I do not believe a school should be able to force or forbid prayer by students. If a student does not wish to pray in school, they should not be forced to do so.

Consider this rebuttal an exercise in logic;

I would if you seemed capable of grasping the fundamental principles thereof.

My argument doesn’t assert the bible is an authority to affect the policy of public schools

It absolutely does. The question is "Should school prayer be allowed in schools". This is a question of school policy in general, which includes public school policy. Your answer is that it should not, and the reason you give is that the bible instructs Christians to pray privately. Thus, you are suggesting that a biblical command should dictate public school policy; ie, that school prayer should not be allowed on the grounds that public prayer is prohibited by the bible.

Are you suggesting that public school policy should dictate Christian behavior regarding prayer?

I am not suggesting that school policy should dictate behavior regarding prayer at all, save only that they should prohibit it when it directly interferes with the educational activities of the school.

Would it bother you if Christians refused to pray in school?

No. If you had bothered to read my post for content, you would have seen that I am against enforced prayer, but for allowed prayer. You seem unable to distinguish between the two.

From whom have you derived the just authority to determine the place of prayer of 300+religions?

I have no such authority, nor have I claimed such. I am speaking to a "should", not a "must", and my position is precisely that schools shouldn't be determining this. That is, that the only time a school should be restricting prayer is when that prayer is directly interfering with education which is the school's mandate.

The platypus is classified as a mammal, and it does have the "main features" of a mammal: hair, mammary glands, et cetera.

A science teacher should know this.

Are we supposed to let the bible dictate public school policy, now?

The question is whether "school prayer" (a curiously ambiguous term) should be allowed in schools, not whether Christians should pray in schools.

To answer the question:

If "school prayer" is meant to be individual prayer that doesn't interrupt the normal flow of courses (ie, students aren't gathering in the back to pray instead of paying attention in class), then I don't think the school should have the authority to prevent it.

If "school prayer" is meant to be school-sponsored prayer, or mandatory prayer, then it should certainly not be allowed.

In short, schools should not dictate or interfere with the religious practice to their students, save when that practice directly conflicts with educational activities.

You seem to take a lot of rebuttals quite personally.

everything we know?....what about wat we dont know?

What about it? You made a positive claim regarding an event that you claim has happened and will happen. I simply asked for a citation supporting that claim.

I NEVER said i was right but go ahead PROVE im wrong you master debater.

The principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, along with General Relativity, strongly suggest that a body such as the Earth will not spontaneously come to a stop unless some outside force causes it to do so. There is no evidence to suggest that this has ever happened, or that it will happen prior to the Earth's destruction in the event of our Sun's death. Moreover, there is no reason to assume that it would, if such an event did occur, spontaneously begin orbiting the Sun again.

AND HOW CAN WE ASSUME WE KNOW EVERY THING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WORLD.......is there a limit to what we can know? that is my reason in itself for how, yes, it MAY be possible.

By this reasoning, one could assert that tomorrow the Earth will turn into a 25kg blue duck, but that doesn't make suggesting that it will do so a valid argument.

im sorry im below you and you cant comprehend my simple explanation....

Again, why you take things personally is completely beyond me. I offered a comment on your debate point, which is sort of the point of a debate. In doing so, I neither suggested nor believed that you were somehow "below me".

THAT aside, when one takes into account the ferocity of nature,it would be rediculous to assume that OUR planet is exempt from destruction.One only needs to look at the universe to see that the death of a planet is in fact possible.

Of course the destruction of a planet is possible; it probably happens almost every time a star goes nova. The question at hand is whether there is any reason to believe that it will happen to our planet in 2012.

While OUR Planet Earth spins, at any point of time, (No set date is possible),nature, not man,will cause a sudden jerk,(not a 180degree rotation),literally,upon its motion,and everything on the earth will become ONE, literally,smeared togeather, as it has done so before,

Do you have a citation for the claim that the Earth has stopped moving and "smeared together", because that would seem to defy everything we know about the physical world.

This is a tough one.

I believe that 2012 will exist (in the sense that any interval of time can be said to exist), so I'm tempted to call it "Real", but at the same time I get the distinct impression that you're really asking about the various supposed doomsday scenarios that are supposed to occur, which I certainly don't anticipate (as a result of my tendency not to believe in things for which there is absolutely no evidence).

Also, the answer-options don't match the question, which seems to pre-suppose that 2012 (or, more likely, the 2012 doomsday events) is (are) either a conspiracy or true, but which fails to account for the possibility that it (they) will be just like any other year (aren't going to happen).

The dictionary defines marriage as: "the social institution under which a MAN and WOMAN establish their decision to live as HUSBAND and WIFE by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Some dictionaries, maybe.

Merriam-Webster gives us a similar definition, but also "(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Regardless, words change, and dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive: a given dictionary serves only to reflect the usage of words at the time of its printing.

so what if someone wanted to marry their pet? Should we allow that too?

No, at the very least on the grounds that an animal is incapable of consenting to marriage.

People are really starting to lose the understanding of what marriage really means.

On this, at least, we agree. Marriage is, in origin, a religious practice, and it should remain so without any legal connotations.

My personal preference remains that the state should remove itself completely from the issue of marriage and all legal unions should be "civil unions". Then, every church may decide the capacity of its marriages, but the state would be free to place secular restrictions on civil unions. Thus, polygamist-religions can have their multiple-marriages, conservative christian groups can forbid gay-marriage, liberal-christian groups can allow gay marriage, and the legal benefits in all cases remain the same: none. Then, any two people who want the current legal benefits associated with marriage can file for a civil union in much the same way that they are currently required to file for a "marriage license".

"Not as bad as someone else" is entirely different from "Not that bad".