[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
But same sex marriage likely has little to do with this. Adopted children will be in this same situation even if adopted by opposite sex parents (unless you advocate lying to the child about its biological parentage, which seems unlikely from your post), and I doubt that the availability of same sex marriage is really a factor in whether or not parents put their children up for adoption.

Likewise, it's possible for members of a same sex couple to have children (by adoption in some states, and by donor/surrogate/prior relationship means in AFAIK all states) even though the child is biologically only the child of one of the members. So I don't think that whether or not such couples can marry has any noticable impact either, other than at the most the couple having concern over the other parent not having parental rights at law.

Except that same sex marriage can never produce a child of both parents. A surragate is always required when they couple wants a "child." Strike one for abnormality. Strike two, most surragates either legally give up rights to the offspring or remain completely anonymouse. Strike three, "children" of same sex marriage will permanently and forever have a set of abnormal parents and abnormal parentage.

I would go so far as to accept gay marriage but I will forever oppose allowing two gays or two lesbians the "right" to have or raise children because biologically it's impossible or at best a perverted abnormal way to raise a child.

[dcolton]

Marrying for a tax break is possible now. You would have to be a fool to think that there are no opposite sex sham marriages, not that I doubt your sincerity. Of course, such sham marriages are illegal now, and would of course be illegal under same sex regimes. Proving it can be a pain in the ass, but it's possible.

So I guess that as far as you're concerned, we crossed that line back in what, the 30's, when we started providing tax breaks for married couples at all. Or that as usual you managed to say nothing. Either works.

And marrying for a tax break as a heterosexual is just as bad if not worst than allowing gays to marry for the same purpose.

Don't try to demonize the institution of marriage to justify your desire to join it. Sort of doesn't make much sense to me.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You are confusing 'normal' with public opinion. I could respond a little better if you would give me a specific example.

So far you seem to be using both. What's the difference I'm missing?

[cpt kangarooski]

Spoogepieces--

Except that same sex marriage can never produce a child of both parents.

Actually, I'd say we're probably only 20 years or so away from being able to combine the genetic material from two eggs and get a healthy baby girl out of it. There would need to be at least a small amount of third party genetic material, however if one wanted to vary the gender or use material from two sperm. That would probably be more difficult. But given that parthenogenesis is well-known in nature, it shouldn't be that hard for us to do it, and isn't far from the test-tube babies of the present.

So I wouldn't really rely on saying 'never.' Rather, 'can't currently' since we're pretty close to changing the status quo as this goes.

A surragate is always required when they couple wants a "child." Strike one for abnormality.

Why the quotes around 'child?' It really is a child, it's not a rock or something.

Anyway, the use of surrogates of one form or another -- sperm or egg donors, surrogate mothers, or in an adoption -- is hardly unusual. Lots of opposite sex couples do this too. It's not so much a matter of mutual gender as it is mutual procreative ability, which is seperate, and likely soon to not be as big of an issue even with persons of the same gender. While not absolutely commonplace, it's hardly a negative as you see to be trying to make it out to be. And it still has **** all to do with marriage.

Strike two, most surragates either legally give up rights to the offspring or remain completely anonymouse.

What's the bad part about this?

Strike three, "children" of same sex marriage will permanently and forever have a set of abnormal parents and abnormal parentage.

Aside from the fact that this is not a third strike, as it is just a restatement of the previous two conclusions, so what? Just because something is commonplace, that doesn't make it good.

My parents are members of a religious minority. Does this mean that my childhood was bad because they had this unusual thing about them, which has affected me as well, since I profess the same religion? Or is it just one of those differences that makes the world an interesting place?

Would I be a better person somehow if my upbringing or upbringers were different? Maybe. But it could just as easily be worse. Lacking omniscience, I'm prepared to say that unless there is an extreme failing involved -- on the level of actively physically abusing children more or less -- it's much better to hope for the best, and accept that intervention probably would be ill-conceived and itself harmful regardless of good intentions.

I would go so far as to accept gay marriage but I will forever oppose allowing two gays or two lesbians the "right" to have or raise children because biologically it's impossible or at best a perverted abnormal way to raise a child.

Well, the biological impossibility is not going to be true for much longer. True, it requires some medical assistance, but that's nothing new or objectionable; that's been going on forever, and rather successfully lately.

As for abnormality, again, just because it is not in every respect perfect, that doesn't mean it's bad, or should be opposed. Frankly, I would find any government that got that involved and was that picky to be the worst sort of tyrrany.

dcolton--

And marrying for a tax break as a heterosexual is just as bad if not worst than allowing gays to marry for the same purpose.

Well, given that no one appears to be advocating that people of the same sex be able to marry purely for financial purposes (n.b. that in a sham marriage, sexual orientation probably can't be inferred from the gender of the spouses since that's not their purpose anyway), I'll just take your comment as agreeing to set aside that point.

Don't try to demonize the institution of marriage to justify your desire to join it. Sort of doesn't make much sense to me.

Incidentally, you should look before you make personal attacks. You have said that I have demonized [opposite sex] marriage due to a desire to be able to marry.

This is, of course, untrue.

I have not demonized marriage; I've said that there's nothing special about marriage that must restrict it to opposite sex couples, and that there's nothing bad that would only occur if same sex couples could marry. This is not demonization by any standard.

I also have no desire to marry anyone. Hell, I'm not even seeing anyone now, nor have I ever been in a relationship that was serious enough to even think about the subject. And since I'm straight, it's not as though there are any amazing stumbling blocks in my way if I did want to marry some woman, other than of course, finding a woman who'd agree to marry me.

I mean, were you really so deluded as to think that there weren't heterosexuals in favor of same-sex marriage? It's easy for me to do. To me it's not really marriage that's of interest, but it's that I'm in favor of civil liberties and equal treatment, and this is merely an aspect of that.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:


dcolton--

Incidentally, you should look before you make personal attacks.

I apologize. No personal attack was meant.

You have said that I have demonized [opposite sex] marriage due to a desire to be able to marry.

This is, of course, untrue.

IMHO, I believe that attacking marriage is part of the gay agenda for some reason. Why else would all of the gay advocates cite divorce, marrying for tax breaks, childless families, etc?

I also have no desire to marry anyone. Hell, I'm not even seeing anyone now, nor have I ever been in a relationship that was serious enough to even think about the subject. And since I'm straight, it's not as though there are any amazing stumbling blocks in my way if I did want to marry some woman, other than of course, finding a woman who'd agree to marry me.

Sorry, thought you were gay. Now I guess I see why you thought it was an insult. Quite interesting that you would support gay marrigae but consider being called gay (mistakenly) is an insult. Perhpas you should reevaluate your position.

I mean, were you really so deluded as to think that there weren't heterosexuals in favor of same-sex marriage?

Nope

[Spliffdaddy]

"Sorry, thought you were gay. Now I guess I see why you thought it was an insult. Quite interesting that you would support gay marrigae but consider being called gay (mistakenly) is an insult. Perhpas you should reevaluate your position."

This is something that happens all day long. Most folks don't even notice they do it. Everytime some guy's 'manhood' is questioned - everytime a girl isn't being very 'ladylike' in somebody else's opinion.

For most folks, to be anything other than heterosexual is to be doomed to a miserable life. "You're gay?...omg, I'm sorry to hear that. You poor dear." Heh, may as well be a heroin addict as far as they're concerned. Somebody to have pity for. A genuine Victim with a capital by-God V.


They'd go on to suggest that *other* people need to show respect for homosexuals. Since they themselves already do. Or believe they do. But they don't believe it's normal and they wish that all homosexuals could be heterosexuals but until that day everyone should pretend they're just like us and 'accept' them.

Utter bu11****.

Either they're human beings just like myself or they're not. There is no choice in 'accepting' people. You accept them all because you are better than exactly none of them - or you continue to fool yourself into thinking that you're enlightened enough to rank and judge everyone else.

[Cody Dawg]

I have gay friends. One of them is like a brother to me.

One of my sons may be gay for all I know.

But, with all of them, I like them, or I love them as I would a relative...but I never profess to tell them that I understand their sexual predilection because I do not.

I also cannot understand schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or kleptomania.

It does not mean that I hate or despise the person; it just means that I do not understand their actions or behavior.

With that much said, I do not accept it readily. I do not tell them to stop their behavior because apparently they will not or cannot. I accept them but do not accept their behaviors, but I do not discriminate against them because they happen to like the same sex. I simply think there is something wrong with them. They *somehow* ended up liking the gender that is the same as their own, which is not physiological normal. I have heard many times over and over again, "I wish I could like women, but I am just not attracted to them the way I am to men." I feel sorry for them -- and sometimes they feel sorry for themselves. Who would choose this for themselves? Not many. Therefore, I think that they have problems and/or are not normal.

Someone said this:

IMHO, I believe that attacking marriage is part of the gay agenda for some reason. Why else would all of the gay advocates cite divorce, marrying for tax breaks, childless families, etc?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they attack marriage on purpose, but it does seem to me that they want to be afforded the same privileges and rights as heterosexual couples and it may come across as a blatant attack against heterosexuals because it is heterosexuals that are against affording gays the same privileges as themselves.

Sorry, but I could not bequeath my children to two gay men to raise, no, in the event that I died prematurely (before they were adults.)

It does not mean that I dislike them...it means that I want my children to have a traditional upbringing in a household with a traditional union and commitment with two members of the opposite sex.

Does that make me a gay-basher? No. My gay friends know that I do not understand them...and in fairness they also say that they do not understand ME.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Does that make me a gay-basher? No. My gay friends know that I do not understand them...and in fairness they also say that they do not understand ME.

I don't think people can grasp the idea that disagreement is not a sign of hate...it is simply a difference of opinion.

[Cody Dawg]

Also, sex is so much more than just physical gratification.

The act of sex, when ultimately successful, results in pregnancy and having a baby.

Having a baby and raising children is mind-blowing cool, fun, awesome, fulfilling, and thousands of other positives.

I feel sorry for people who cannot have children, to be honest. It is/has been the most fulfilling experience in my life. I am sure that gays are aware of this and it must bring sadness and disappointment to some of them. They are envious. Envy sometimes turns into jealousy, the green-eyed monster. Jealousy can result in hatred.

Maybe that is why gays will fight and attack heterosexuals: They have what they may (and probably) will not have.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Also, sex is so much more than just physical gratification.

The act of sex, when ultimately successful, results in pregnancy and having a baby.

Having a baby and raising children is mind-blowing cool, fun, awesome, fulfilling, and thousands of other positives.

I feel sorry for people who cannot have children, to be honest. It is/has been the most fulfilling experience in my life. I am sure that gays are aware of this and it must bring sadness and disappointment to some of them. They are envious. Envy sometimes turns into jealousy, the green-eyed monster. Jealousy can result in hatred.

Maybe that is why gays will fight and attack heterosexuals: They have what they may (and probably) will not have.

errrr...you are being sarcastic, aren't you?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I want my children to have a traditional upbringing in a household with a traditional union and commitment with two members of the opposite sex.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting that, and there's nothing wrong with doing it -- but don't stop others who will go the other route.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

IMHO, I believe that attacking marriage is part of the gay agenda for some reason. Why else would all of the gay advocates cite divorce, marrying for tax breaks, childless families, etc?

That is certainly not an attack on marriage. It's an attack on a misconception of marriage.

If someone wrongly believes that marriage is, e.g. only intended to promote procreation, then facts such as the availability of marriage for childless couples are brought out to refute the misconception. This is an attempt to demonstrate that marriage is in fact more or less a relationship between spouses; children aren't enough of a factor to warrant banning same sex partners from marrying.

Demonstrating that marriages aren't what people might have thought they were is hardly an attack on marriage itself. Indeed -- if same sex marriage proponents were against marriage, why would they be trying to open up marriage to more groups of partners?

Basically a lot of these are just a careful examination of what the core of marriage must be, based upon observations of marriages that are actually out there, rather than made-up ideals, in order to determine whether this core of marriage is or isn't compatable with same-sex marriages. Apparently same-sex marriages are fine; unless of course you ignore actual marriages in favor of imaginary idealistic marriages.

So I think the lesson is to not conflate a demonstration of unpleasant truths with an attack.

Quite interesting that you would support gay marrigae but consider being called gay (mistakenly) is an insult. Perhpas you should reevaluate your position.

Actually, what I was thinking was more that you were deliberately insulting me. I would take offense to the intent, regardless of the content of the insult, even if it were something that was true about me; it's the thought that counts. But, since no attack appears to have been meant, no harm done.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Maybe that is why gays will fight and attack heterosexuals: They have what they may (and probably) will not have.

This is fantasy land. Straights don't fear being bashed by roving gangs of homosexuals. Unfortunately, the opposite is all too common.

[Cody Dawg]

Yer right on that, Simey.

Look, I'm not a saint and I have my own problems and I don't hate or despise gays.

I don't understand them, that's all.

Doesn't make them bad people and I have them as friends. One of them left this morning (lent him a chain saw) and he's a good guy.

I just don't understand how a guy could want to be with another guy and not with someone like Uma Thurman or Angelie Jolie or...well, pick one!

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
dcolton--


That is certainly not an attack on marriage. It's an attack on a misconception of marriage.

Misconception? Once again, it seems as if the pro-gay marriage faction wants to redefine marriage and claim misperception when in reality...the perception of marriage is simple. It is easy to point to failed marriages because the destruction of the institution appears to be the gay agenda. They wont point to people like my grandparents who will be celebrating 50 years of marriage with their 5 children and countless grandchildren. Why, because it illustrates the true intent of marriage. A patriarch and a matriarch, celebrating their marriage and their FAMILY. My grandparents have contributed so much to the community as a married couple. They raised lovely children who in turn did the same. They created a modest dynasty not of money or valuables, but of love and life. The define marriage in every aspect.

If someone wrongly believes that marriage is, e.g. only intended to promote procreation, then facts such as the availability of marriage for childless couples are brought out to refute the misconception. This is an attempt to demonstrate that marriage is in fact more or less a relationship between spouses; children aren't enough of a factor to warrant banning same sex partners from marrying.

I wonder how many married couples do not pro-create versus those who do. I would venture to say that couples who have children outweigh those who don't or can not. Procreation is a major aspect of marriage. It is an inborn desire to continue the gene pool.

Demonstrating that marriages aren't what people might have thought they were is hardly an attack on marriage itself. Indeed -- if same sex marriage proponents were against marriage, why would they be trying to open up marriage to more groups of partners?

Marriage is what we think it is. Just because a pro gay marriage person wants to redefine marriage doesn't mean there is a misperception...it means that the gays are trying to destroy the institution and rebuild it so they can have special rights.

Basically a lot of these are just a careful examination of what the core of marriage must be, based upon observations of marriages that are actually out there, rather than made-up ideals, in order to determine whether this core of marriage is or isn't compatable with same-sex marriages. Apparently same-sex marriages are fine; unless of course you ignore actual marriages in favor of imaginary idealistic marriages.

What are the core principles/ basis for marriage as it sttands now?

1. Man/ Woman
2. Pro-creation
3. Love

So I think the lesson is to not conflate a demonstration of unpleasant truths with an attack.

No. There are a lot of truths...the lesson is that gays will look for negative truths in order to rape the institution of marriage.

Actually, what I was thinking was more that you were deliberately insulting me. I would take offense to the intent, regardless of the content of the insult, even if it were something that was true about me; it's the thought that counts. But, since no attack appears to have been meant, no harm done. [/B]

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is fantasy land. Straights don't fear being bashed by roving gangs of homosexuals.

Pink Panthers.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Yer right on that, Simey.

Look, I'm not a saint and I have my own problems and I don't hate or despise gays.

I don't understand them, that's all.

Doesn't make them bad people and I have them as friends. One of them left this morning (lent him a chain saw) and he's a good guy.

I just don't understand how a guy could want to be with another guy and not with someone like Uma Thurman or Angelie Jolie or...well, pick one!

The answer is obvious. Gays react to men that they find attractive the same way you apparently react to Uma Thurman. Conversely, gays react to women you find hot with the same disinterest that you have when you look at a good looking guy. It might be hard to understand emotionally, but it ought not be that hard to understand at least intellectually.

In the same way you can also understand how gay couples bond with exactly the same feelings of love that heterosexual couples do. Gay relationships are to them exactly what straight relationships are to you. Once you can empathize with that, I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything that is calculated to hurt people. Preventing couples that love one another from marrying does hurt them. I don't see how anyone can justify that and at the same time maintain that they don't have ill feelings towards the people they are hurting.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Pink Panthers.

That's just a gun club. Law abiding citizens have guns are for self defense and sport. Gays have second amendment rights just like anyone else.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't understand the logic here. That gays and lesbians want so much to be married ought to be a reminder to straights that marriage is a precious and important thing, something not to be taken for granted, not to be taken lightly, and not to be abused. By reminding people of that, gay marriage will strengthen marriage. It's not a symptom of the weakening of marriage. It is part of the backlash against the weakening of marriage.

1. Great posts by SimeyTheLimey. Mucho props

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
To be fair - a child always has a real mother and a real father.

Very good point. But also note the divorce rate, and how it's increasing in the US. There's an enormous amount of children with only 1 parent in the United States. I'm part of that generation. A good half of my good friends (middle class for the most part, a few on either extreme) are from single parent households for most of their upbringing. It's not uncommon. It's become the norm.

Originally posted by dcolton:
We'll start off with your first, close minded and hateful comment:

I didn't know disagreeing with the great Karl G equates to hate. Oh well...

Agreed hate comments aren't necessary, or appreciated, or accepted.

I guess you were home schooled. Kids are mean and this is just one thing for other kids to take out on the son/ daughter of a same sex couple. Of course, the kid will probably be messed up already, so kids with traditional families picking on kids with same sex parents will be nothing more than an excuse to further push the gay agenda.

Only 2 generations ago, kids in integrated schools were teasing the african americans in the class for being different. Heck, I know people whose parents dropped out of high school becuase of this. In one case the story involves the teachers being involved.

This isn't anything genetic. This is *taught and reinforced* behavior by people with your mentality.

Let's put it this way. Hetero couples can have a normal sexual relationship with the ability to pro-create a child that is of both parents. Gay couples can only have sex for pleasure...and that sends a message to children about casual sex.

Birth Control, vasectomies, prevelence of online pornography (most homes subscribe to it)... and guess what... all those are prodominantly heterosexual things.

Sex for peasure is something Humans and Dolphins have in common. It's part of human nature. Go back 500 years, and slaves were used for just this purpose. Women in all cutures at some point were pure sex objects.

This is a rather bogus argument.


If sex was about procreation, people would go to sexual clinics to do things like get sperm counts, and check eggs....

rather than hang out in the hallway of schools trying to find someone 'hot'.

Sex is pleasure. That's society. If you don't like it.... your gripe is against society as a whole.

Again, your just targeting homosexuals to promote your 'hate agenda'.

Gays can't be alcoholics are drug fiends? Why are you trying to attribute all negative aspects to heteros while you hold gays up to the highest possible esteem?

This argument goes both ways... so it's rather pointless. Drug adicts are not a good environment for children. That's pretty clear. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.

By whom? Last I noticed, there aren't too many gay couples with live in children. Yeah, a gay person can have a child then change teams, but the fact is that the children ususally live with the normal parent

Actually, it's somewhat common to adopt (in states that don't put them on hold indefinately).

There are millions of children living in foster families as well. A much worse situation (normally very limited, cash, and a 'parent' who is burdoned with several kids).

Then you have tons of kids with 1 heterosexual parent working a full time job+ so he/she can support those kids that they never see because they are working.

Again, a silly argument.

Normal is something 80% (more in this case) of the people practice. If 9 out of 10 people are hetero and 1 out of 10 is gay...which is normal?

Hmm... who else shares that ratio:
Left handed people
Non Christians
IIRC Asians in several regions of the US

What's your point? Left handed people can't take care of children because they make up less than 10% of the population? Great argument!


The person who wins the nobel peace prize must be a real ass, since there's only 1 of them per year for billions of people on this globe... they are incapable of peace.

We can do this for pretty much anything.

Macs aren't useful as computers because they make up less than 10%.

Not at all. Who would want to raise their children in a hostile environment? Well, I guess we already know the answer to that since gays don't seem to care how their actions and agenda negatively affect those around them. It is called selfishness.

Again, look whose creating the hostility with silly pointless arguments.

Countless psychologists with worldwide recognition have said there is clearly no harm with a homosexual couple as parents. I'd love to see your degree, and cridentals before you make such baseless statements. The leading psychologists for decades have said there is no basis for any accusation of harm. And the psychological community backs them up.

Where's your degree? What are your cridentials? How do you expect anyone to believe you when literally hundreds with respect in their field completely contradict you. And thousands of others back them wholeheartedly after reviewing the research.

See above. It is called caring about your offspring. Of course, if gays have children, the child can only be the offspring to one parent. I guess it goes back to selfishness.

More sillyness.

Well, a normal childhood isn't trying to decide which daddy to call mommy or vice-versa.

WTF is a 'normal childhood'? IIRC every child has a different upbringing. There's literally billions of environmental variables different from conception onward. Nobody will ever be able to count them all.

Your getting even more baseless.

Since the majority of American's are against gay marriage, I would say the morality issue is on my side.

Agian, civil rights movement had the same demographics in the beginning. Does that mean civil rights is unjust? I'd think not.

America was very upset about the womans suffrege movement as well.

I have an issue with adults exposing sex to children...gay or str8. The case with gays, since there is no pro-creation, the idea of gay relationships can be seen as a relationship based solely on love (LMAO) or a relationship that is defined by sexual gratification where the only deterrent is disease, not childbirth.

So we agree, exposing children to sex isn't a good thing.

Both relationships are unquestionably based on sexual gratification. This is considered psychological fact for well over 100 years. There's no debating this. It's human biology. You can trace it to chemistry and horomones if you wish.

But who is to say either orientation will expose the children to sex? I can recall a case on TV not to long ago of heterosexual couple being arrested for having sex in front of the children (the kid told a teacher in school what he saw). That's acceptible?

orientation has nothing to do with what they expose their child to.

Once again, trying to justify gay marriage by attacking traditional marriage. Why?

And vice versa. Your arguments so far are completely bogus, and clearly focused on hatred, rather than anything substantial. Your best argument is that they have to face your hatred (far from justified by any standards).

[dcolton]

Only 2 generations ago, kids in integrated schools were teasing the african americans in the class for being different. Heck, I know people whose parents dropped out of high school becuase of this. In one case the story involves the teachers being involved.

Apples...Oranges. Circle....Square. Why is it that you always want to compare a choice to a genetic disposition. You know, I will sum it up like this...a gay man can always go back in the closet if he can't take the heat. A black man can't. See the difference? To take it even further, a gay man doesn't even have to be in the closet...he just has to NOT force his/ her gay values on the people around them.

This isn't anything genetic. This is *taught and reinforced* behavior by people with your mentality.

Agreed hate comments aren't necessary, or appreciated, or accepted.

Birth Control, vasectomies, prevelence of online pornography (most homes subscribe to it)... and guess what... all those are prodominantly heterosexual things.

Most homes subscribe to online pornography. BS. Maybe most gay want to be married homes. But for the most part...a family with values do not subscribe to online pornography.

Sex for peasure is something Humans and Dolphins have in common. It's part of human nature. Go back 500 years, and slaves were used for just this purpose. Women in all cutures at some point were pure sex objects.

This is a rather bogus argument.

If sex was about procreation, people would go to sexual clinics to do things like get sperm counts, and check eggs....

THEY DO! Fertility clinics are on the rise. Those couples who couldn't have offspring, now can due to medical advancement.

rather than hang out in the hallway of schools trying to find someone 'hot'.

I see it is a maturity issue. While you have a HS mentality of getting your peepee wet, there comes a point in a man's life where he looks for someone to settle down with.

Sex is pleasure. That's society. If you don't like it.... your gripe is against society as a whole.

I like sex too! But the difference is that sex can ONLY be for pleasure for gays.

Again, your just targeting homosexuals to promote your 'hate agenda'.

Again, you are spewing your hate by attacking those who disagree with you.

This argument goes both ways... so it's rather pointless. Drug adicts are not a good environment for children. That's pretty clear. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Exactly, that was my point. Someone was justifying gay marriage because *some* heterosexuals are scum when it comes to child rearing and being a good and common citizen.

Actually, it's somewhat common to adopt (in states that don't put them on hold indefinately).

There are millions of children living in foster families as well. A much worse situation (normally very limited, cash, and a 'parent' who is burdoned with several kids).

And your point? Are you saying allowing gay marriage will rid the world of orphans? I guess you are only talking about newborns and VERY young kids, because I don't know many 12 year olds who would want to be raised by william and william.

Then you have tons of kids with 1 heterosexual parent working a full time job+ so he/she can support those kids that they never see because they are working.

Again, a silly argument. You are attacking traditional marriage, pretending gays wouldn't have the same challenges while creating some warped sense of justification as to why gays should marry.

Hmm... who else shares that ratio:
Left handed people
Non Christians
IIRC Asians in several regions of the US

What's your point? Left handed people can't take care of children because they make up less than 10% of the population? Great argument!

Hmmm...I am starting to understand...not enough time to explain. Basically, I think you should try to comprehend this again.

The person who wins the nobel peace prize must be a real ass, since there's only 1 of them per year for billions of people on this globe... they are incapable of peace.

Like I said. Re-read get a clue

Countless psychologists with worldwide recognition have said there is clearly no harm with a homosexual couple as parents. I'd love to see your degree, and cridentals before you make such baseless statements. The leading psychologists for decades have said there is no basis for any accusation of harm. And the psychological community backs them up.

I would love to see case studies. How could there be many case studies by the way?

Where's your degree? What are your cridentials? How do you expect anyone to believe you when literally hundreds with respect in their field completely contradict you. And thousands of others back them wholeheartedly after reviewing the research.

And another hundred contradict them. I don't need a degree to think.

More sillyness.

Agian, civil rights movement had the same demographics in the beginning. Does that mean civil rights is unjust? I'd think not.

America was very upset about the womans suffrege movement as well.

WTF are you talking about?

Your arguments so far are completely bogus, and clearly focused on hatred, rather than anything substantial.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Apples...Oranges. Circle....Square. Why is it that you always want to compare a choice to a genetic disposition. You know, I will sum it up like this...a gay man can always go back in the closet if he can't take the heat. A black man can't. See the difference? To take it even further, a gay man doesn't even have to be in the closet...he just has to NOT force his/ her gay values on the people around them.

If it is apples and oranges, why did you make it a comparison?

It's true that racial minorities don't have the "option" of the closet. Then again, lots of gay kids don't have that option either. It's really only available to people whose flame level is low enough to pass plausibly as heterosexual. Or for those surrounded by exceptionally dim heterosexuals. For example, would you believe that some people thought Liberace was straight?

But the closet can be as much a prison as a refuge. It is not fun living a double life. Racial minorities, unlike gays and lesbians, don't face the trauma of coming out. They don't have to fear rejection by friends and family because of their race because unlike gays and lesbians, they share their minority status with their friends and family. Unless, of course, the racial minority person is also gay.

So yes, there are limits to the analogy. But structurally, there are similarities. There is a minority group that is rejected and discriminated against by the majority. That shows itself in the majority abusing its majority status to write laws against the minority. And you have a minority asserting their humanity and right to equal treatment as citizens. You also have a majority slowly becoming aware of their obligation to reach out to the minority. And you have holdouts within the majority community who to the end will refuse to recognize what they are doing is wrong.

[Cody Dawg]

Apples and oranges convos here?

Hey, down here in Florida where I live we don't have any food...

Apples and oranges conversations make me hungry!



Simey said:

Once you can empathize with that, I don't see how anyone can rationalize anything that is calculated to hurt people. Preventing couples that love one another from marrying does hurt them.

I agree with the first sentence, not necessarily the second.

They don't have to marry to be together.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:


I agree with the first sentence, not necessarily the second.

They don't have to marry to be together.

No, obviously not, which is why I have never understood the argument that recognizing gay marriage will encourage homosexuality. People are homosexual regardless of whether they are married or not. And people will form relationships whether or not they are married.

The question is therefore how you can justify disadvantaging those couple legally and financially by refusing to let them marry? How you can justify withholding from them inheritance rights, immigration rights, and so on? And how also you can justify punishing them by withholding the social status as a couple? Can you imagine how galling it is to be in a relationship every bit as important to you as any heterosexual's but to still have to check "single" on every form?

No, the law as it stands hurts gays and lesbians. It doesn't prevent us from shacking up, and it doesn't do anything to discourage or prevent homosexualitry. But it does hurt us, and for no rational reason.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

It is easy to point to failed marriages

Are you saying that when people marry being unwilling or unable to procreate, or that where they have completed their child-raising (e.g. parents that outlive their issue) that their marriage is failed?

While you might not see why such people have a desire to be married, at the very least, it doesn't seem to be a basis for the government discouraging or prohibiting them from doing so.

They wont point to people like my grandparents who will be celebrating 50 years of marriage with their 5 children and countless grandchildren.

Sure. I think it would be great to see a same sex couple that was happily married for 50 years and who, by whatever means, raised their children well, etc.

The thing is though, couldn't your grandparents have lived together for 50 years in a committed relationship, still having children, raising them equally as well, and so forth? If so, then we can see that marriage is not a necessary prerequsite to such a happy outcome. If not, then you're saying that none of that could have occured but for governmental recognition of the marriage.

We can rapidly see how absurd that would be: If you're married, and you get a divorce, you can't remarry until the divorce is effective. If the divorce is defective for some reason, later putative marriages aren't real marriages. So assuming for argument that your grandparents both had been briefly married before, and that their divorces were only discovered to be ineffective now, would the fact that they had unknowingly not been married for the past 50 years invalidate everything? I can't see how it would.

And of course, as we've seen, merely having a marriage doesn't guarantee a happy marriage, children, etc. either. There seem to have been numerous unhappy or childless marriages throughout history, just as there have been numerous unhappy or childless non-marital relationships.

This indicates that marriage must be independent from having a good relationship, procreating, etc.

Why, because it illustrates the true intent of marriage. A patriarch and a matriarch, celebrating their marriage and their FAMILY.

And yet, if that were the intent, which it is not, then it would beg the question of why the government doesn't prohibit people from getting married if they are known to be unable to have children, or unwilling to, or why the government doesn't divorce people against their will where the marriage is unhappy or otherwise unsuccessful.

Since it doesn't do those things, it follows that you are wrong as to the intent of marriage, as least as far as it matters with regards to prohibiting people from marrying. (Intent that has no effect on keeping people from getting married, I couldn't care less about; it's a nullity)

My grandparents have contributed so much to the community as a married couple. They raised lovely children who in turn did the same. They created a modest dynasty not of money or valuables, but of love and life. The define marriage in every aspect.

Is this impossible for a same sex couple. N.b. that you said 'raised' children, not 'jointly procreated.'

What are the core principles/ basis for marriage as it sttands now?

Consenting people, desiring to formalize their relationship with one another.

Love is nice, but it's not entirely necessary, and there's a lot of indication that a mild love that grows over time out of familiarity works out as well as a passionate love right from the get go.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Apples...Oranges. Circle....Square. Why is it that you always want to compare a choice to a genetic disposition. You know, I will sum it up like this...a gay man can always go back in the closet if he can't take the heat. A black man can't. See the difference? To take it even further, a gay man doesn't even have to be in the closet...he just has to NOT force his/ her gay values on the people around them.

Actually it's considered fact by most respectible psychologists that it's not a 'choice', any more than left handedness, or any other trait.

So unless you can show the scientific evidence, and your cridentials... again, bogus argument.

Agreed hate comments aren't necessary, or appreciated, or accepted.

So we agree on something. Good, this is pretty basic.

Most homes subscribe to online pornography. BS. Maybe most gay want to be married homes. But for the most part...a family with values do not subscribe to online pornography.

May want to look at how many subscribe to online pornography in the US. Hint: Unless the number of US households is vastly underestimated on the US census, it's a majority. It's a big industry. Unlike things like playboy, nothing foul in the mail, or anything the neighbors need to see.

The only person who knows is you and your credit card bill.

This is a rather bogus argument.

Actually it's quite relevent... because it proves yours to be pointless. Heterosexuals and sex is no different than homosexuals an sex. Motives and additudes are exactly the same. There's nothing to dispute there.

THEY DO! Fertility clinics are on the rise. Those couples who couldn't have offspring, now can due to medical advancement.

Again, that's post-marriage. People don't meet potential spouses based on sexual reproductive capibilities, but looks (lust). It's human nature. Nothing anyone can do about it. Lust attracts people together regardless.

Your point was invalid.

BTW: you just blew the 'morality' argument, as that clearly makes using modern medicine to aid in reproduction 'immoral'. That was the best case 'reasoning' (if it even counts) posted on this forum ever... and you just threw that argument in the trash.

I see it is a maturity issue. While you have a HS mentality of getting your peepee wet, there comes a point in a man's life where he looks for someone to settle down with.

Again... human instinct isn't to interview, and do a 360degree... it's lust based. No exceptions. The relationship is built on lust, and something *might* form on top. But the relationship is found on *lust*. Lust is the core of any human relationship.

If it wasn't, for this, fat people, and ugly people wouldn't have trouble. (couldn't resist... but it's sadly true).


[qoute]I like sex too! But the difference is that sex can ONLY be for pleasure for gays.[/quote]
Who says there's even sex? In both types of relationships, it's not 100% for various reasons, including (shock) personal choice.

Sex toys is a multi-billion dollar industry. That's not pleasure though is it?

Again, you are spewing your hate by attacking those who disagree with you.

I'm smelling that "MLK was a communist trying to destroy america..." posts coming.

Exactly, that was my point. Someone was justifying gay marriage because *some* heterosexuals are scum when it comes to child rearing and being a good and common citizen.

it's a two way street with this argument. Again, no points for either side.

And your point? Are you saying allowing gay marriage will rid the world of orphans? I guess you are only talking about newborns and VERY young kids, because I don't know many 12 year olds who would want to be raised by william and william.

Actually to some extent it already has in states that allow it.

BTW: Most kids 10+ don't want to be adopted period. Hence the reason most aren't (to many problems trying), and left to the system until they are legally independant at 18. Most adoptions are young (under 5).

[Again, a silly argument. You are attacking traditional marriage, pretending gays wouldn't have the same challenges while creating some warped sense of justification as to why gays should marry. [/b]

Now, just countering that your point was worthless, and off center. This isn't a gay 'advantage' as you try to spin it. It's just showing that they have nothing different. Thanks for proving that point!

[Hmmm...I am starting to understand...not enough time to explain. Basically, I think you should try to comprehend this again.

Like I said. Re-read get a clue
[/b]

No reply? I though using % was accurate way to judge a person?

I would love to see case studies. How could there be many case studies by the way?

This has been a topic for well over 30 years now, many studies.

One of the most respected just a few weeks ago issued their position:
http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html

And another hundred contradict them. I don't need a degree to think.



WTF are you talking about?

Love to see one with someone with a real degree (note, a theology degree != psychological degree in north america... though it used to be in some countries).

More sillyness.

Your arguments so far are completely bogus, and clearly focused on hatred, rather than anything substantial.

I'd love for someone to take a look at this one.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
dcolton--


Are you saying that when people marry being unwilling or unable to procreate, or that where they have completed their child-raising (e.g. parents that outlive their issue) that their marriage is failed?

Where are you getting all of this from?

While you might not see why such people have a desire to be married, at the very least, it doesn't seem to be a basis for the government discouraging or prohibiting them from doing so.

Ahh...but the governement does reward for procreation. Tax breaks.

Sure. I think it would be great to see a same sex couple that was happily married for 50 years and who, by whatever means, raised their children well, etc.

The thing is...this just can't happen. Their cannot be a patriarch and a matriarch. One part of the couple would have ZERO genetic connection to his psuedo-family.

The thing is though, couldn't your grandparents have lived together for 50 years in a committed relationship, still having children, raising them equally as well, and so forth? If so, then we can see that marriage is not a necessary prerequsite to such a happy outcome. If not, then you're saying that none of that could have occured but for governmental recognition of the marriage.

What is your point. My point is that my gp's have been married for 50 years, created 5 lovely children and a dynasty they can be proud of. A gay couple couldn't do this. It is biologically IMPOSSIBLE

We can rapidly see how absurd that would be: If you're married, and you get a divorce, you can't remarry until the divorce is effective. If the divorce is defective for some reason, later putative marriages aren't real marriages. So assuming for argument that your grandparents both had been briefly married before, and that their divorces were only discovered to be ineffective now, would the fact that they had unknowingly not been married for the past 50 years invalidate everything? I can't see how it would.

There you go again. If ands or buts. No argument sake needed, I am talking about marriage and you aren't. You are creating a fictional situation to justify homosexual marriages.

And of course, as we've seen, merely having a marriage doesn't guarantee a happy marriage, children, etc. either. There seem to have been numerous unhappy or childless marriages throughout history, just as there have been numerous unhappy or childless non-marital relationships.

Like I said, why do you feel the need to attack the institution of marriage to justify gay marriage?

This indicates that marriage must be independent from having a good relationship, procreating, etc.

No it doesn't

And yet, if that were the intent, which it is not, then it would beg the question of why the government doesn't prohibit people from getting married if they are known to be unable to have children, or unwilling to, or why the government doesn't divorce people against their will where the marriage is unhappy or otherwise unsuccessful.

Since it doesn't do those things, it follows that you are wrong as to the intent of marriage, as least as far as it matters with regards to prohibiting people from marrying. (Intent that has no effect on keeping people from getting married, I couldn't care less about; it's a nullity)

The government encourages procreation through marriage. What else do you need?

Is this impossible for a same sex couple. N.b. that you said 'raised' children, not 'jointly procreated.'

Don't play the word game with me.

Love is nice, but it's not entirely necessary, and there's a lot of indication that a mild love that grows over time out of familiarity works out as well as a passionate love right from the get go.

As I stated over and over again...gay marriage isn't about love...it is about destroying an institution and gaining special rights.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
[B]Actually it's considered fact by most respectible psychologists that it's not a 'choice', any more than left handedness, or any other trait.

So unless you can show the scientific evidence, and your cridentials... again, bogus argument.

Nay, not so. Gay Myth.

May want to look at how many subscribe to online pornography in the US. Hint: Unless the number of US households is vastly underestimated on the US census, it's a majority. It's a big industry. Unlike things like playboy, nothing foul in the mail, or anything the neighbors need to see.

The only person who knows is you and your credit card bill.

How about a link? You are making stuff up, as usual.

Actually it's quite relevent... because it proves yours to be pointless. Heterosexuals and sex is no different than homosexuals an sex. Motives and additudes are exactly the same. There's nothing to dispute there.

Like I said...sex is good. Still doesn't change the fact that heteros can reproduce while gays cannot.

Again, that's post-marriage. People don't meet potential spouses based on sexual reproductive capibilities, but looks (lust). It's human nature. Nothing anyone can do about it. Lust attracts people together regardless.

It has been proven that the animal instinct in humans causes us to look for a partner to reproduce with. I will guarantee you that if there was a poll most people wouldn;t marry if their spouse was unable to have children.

BTW: you just blew the 'morality' argument, as that clearly makes using modern medicine to aid in reproduction 'immoral'. That was the best case 'reasoning' (if it even counts) posted on this forum ever... and you just threw that argument in the trash.

Using medecine to aid in reproduction is immoral? LMAO

Again... human instinct isn't to interview, and do a 360degree... it's lust based. No exceptions. The relationship is built on lust, and something *might* form on top. But the relationship is found on *lust*. Lust is the core of any human relationship.

DIFFERENCE between hetero and homo relationships...Apparantly, homosexual relationships are based on lust (as I stated all along). Heterosexuals, well it is a bit more complicated. Ever heard of pheremones?

If it wasn't, for this, fat people, and ugly people wouldn't have trouble. (couldn't resist... but it's sadly true).

Sadly, it is not true, but you continualy prove my points.

Who says there's even sex? In both types of relationships, it's not 100% for various reasons, including (shock) personal choice.

Like I said...why do ou look for the the abnormal to justify gay marriage?

Sex toys is a multi-billion dollar industry. That's not pleasure though is it?

Point?

I'm smelling that "MLK was a communist trying to destroy america..." posts coming.

Whatever. I am black. This is why I take offense to a white gay guy comparing his plight to that of my father, my grandfather...hell, myself.

it's a two way street with this argument. Again, no points for either side.

ok

BTW: Most kids 10+ don't want to be adopted period. Hence the reason most aren't (to many problems trying), and left to the system until they are legally independant at 18. Most adoptions are young (under 5).

You sure? How about you back up that statement

[Sock Puppet Theater]

Originally posted by dcolton:
DIFFERENCE between hetero and homo relationships...Apparantly, homosexual relationships are based on lust (as I stated all along). Heterosexuals, well it is a bit more complicated.

I find your insinuation that homosexual relationships are devoid of love and exist only to exercise their carnal desires to be insulting. And I'm not even gay. If I was I'm sure I'd have some choice words for you.

[cpt kangarooski]

dcolton--

Where are you getting all of this from?

You said that it is easy to point to failed marriages. The marriages I've been pointing to to refute the specious claim that marriages must only be between members of opposite genders because only they can procreate have been those marriages between persons of opposite genders where no procreation occurs due to inability, unwillingness, or where it has no lasting effect.

In a marriage between a man and a woman who cannot procreate together, or will not procreate together, or who's progeny die without issue after the point where the spouses cannot or will not procreate further, they're pretty much indistinguishable in terms of their progeny from a same sex couple. That's why I point to them, and you said I point to failed marriages.

So I am curious whether you're saying that such marriages are failed.

Ahh...but the governement does reward for procreation. Tax breaks.

Not quite. They reward for child REARING. Child BEARING is the culmination of the procreative act, and it is where same sex couples have difficulty between themselves. Anyone can raise children. Hell, we have stories of children being raised by animals, e.g. Tarzan, Mowgli.

And you don't get AFAIK a tax break for having a kid. You get a tax break for raising a kid. If my parents died, and my brother and sister were minors, and were in my custody, I would get tax breaks for them as my dependents, as head of household, etc. Ditto AFAIK for same sex couples raising children, but I don't want to get into the IRC to check for sure. Perhaps Simey might remember more from Tax than I do?

Tax breaks based on marital status have nothing to do with one's children. You get them because you're married, even if you have no kids, don't want kids, can't have kids, etc.

The thing is...this just can't happen. Their cannot be a patriarch and a matriarch. One part of the couple would have ZERO genetic connection to his psuedo-family.

As we see in families with step-children, adopted children, some illegitimate children, etc. Does that matter? Is it bad? Hell, the first example that springs to mind is that of Jesus and Joseph, who had no genetic relationship. Are you saying the Holy Family was failed? (of course, I'd be a bit pissed, getting cuckolded by God, but what're you gonna do, eh?)

What is your point. My point is that my gp's have been married for 50 years, created 5 lovely children and a dynasty they can be proud of. A gay couple couldn't do this. It is biologically IMPOSSIBLE

I do not see why biology matters. You cannot deny that there are families including adopted children that are just as successful as that one is. And you certainly can't say that the government can base a ban on marriage on such a stupid basis as mere procreative ability. Nor do they.

There you go again. If ands or buts. No argument sake needed, I am talking about marriage and you aren't. You are creating a fictional situation to justify homosexual marriages.

Don't be an ass. For all I know your grandparent example is fictional. It isn't relevant.

You're making a claim -- though you aren't clearly stating it -- that unless spouses are capable of having children that are biologically their issue, they should not be married.

Furthermore, you are saying that unless partners are married, they cannot have a successful relationship, successfully raise children, etc.

Both ideas of yours are both so far from the truth that I suspect you're posting from the antipode of truth.

I think that marriage should be available without any regard whatsoever to procreative desire or ability. And guess what, it IS!

And furthermore I think that happiness and success is unrelated to marriage: you can have good or bad marriages, you can have equally good or bad non-marital relationships. And that's demonstrably true too.

So to date, you've managed to avoid the truth like deadly poision. It's impressive.

Like I said, why do you feel the need to attack the institution of marriage to justify gay marriage?

I feel no such need, nor have I made such attacks.

No it doesn't

You can't just say that, you have to support it. So now you have to show how you cannot be happy, you cannot be successful, you cannot have children, unless you are married. If these things are possible without marriage -- and two of them are subjective for the persons involved, remember -- then you are dead wrong.

The government encourages procreation through marriage. What else do you need?

How does it encourage it? Be VERY specific.

Don't play the word game with me.

Then you have to use the word you mean. People can and do raise children that are not biologically their own. My brother and sister were, to a notable degree, raised by our maternal grandmother and my parents' housekeeper.

I have friends who were similarly raised by extended family members, rather than parents, who were raised by adoptive parents, and they clearly were not their progeny. Don't know -- AFAIK -- anyone who was raised in an orphanage, but it happens too, with some degree of success.

We are talking in English, we have a gigantic vocabulary to draw upon -- if you're using a word, I'm generally going to assume it was on purpose and that you knew what it meant.

As I stated over and over again...gay marriage isn't about love...it is about destroying an institution and gaining special rights.

Do you deny that gay people can love? Do you deny that gay people might desire to marry out of their love? Sounds like.

And that's not far from saying that they're not even people.

You know, I will sum it up like this...a gay man can always go back in the closet if he can't take the heat. A black man can't. See the difference?

That's not necessarily true. Some black people are sufficiently light-skinned that they can pass for white, and have, when there was a dramatic difference in treatment.

One of the more notable examples was actually from Plessy, who could have passed for white, but made a point of his race and brought about his tragically decided case.

There have been similar instances of women disguising themselves as men in order to live such a life, particularly in going to war, or being a sailor.

And of course, plenty of Jews pretended to convert to Christianity to avoid persecution, and lived as marranos, or 'secret Jews,' practicing in private. This wasn't only limited to the distant past; it happened during the Nazi era too, where feasible.

Nevertheless, it should not have to happen for anyone, and it is frankly inhuman to suggest that it's okay, or that it should. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nay, not so. Gay Myth.

no, as a matter of FACT that's not a myth at all. people who are gay have a genetic predisposition towards being homosexual.

[saab95]

I Need Your Opinions of Gay Marriage

Here's one:

Government has no constitutional right to regulate marriage between two individuals.

To do so is a violation of their individual rights.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
no, as a matter of FACT that's not a myth at all. people who are gay have a genetic predisposition towards being homosexual.

Show me proof!

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
"How does Gay Marriage threaten Traditional Marriage?"

It doesn't, but those Bible Beaters have nothing else to do so thats why we always see it in the spotlight.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by stevesnj:
It doesn't, but those Bible Beaters have nothing else to do so thats why we always see it in the spotlight.

The majority of Americans...who just happen to oppose gay marriage are bible beaters?

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by saab95:
Here's one:

Government has no constitutional right to regulate marriage between two individuals.

To do so is a violation of their individual rights.

Ah, so incest should be legal if both individuals are 18 or older?

So, why can the government ban polygamy as was the case in Utah for Utah to join the union?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The majority of Americans...who just happen to oppose gay marriage are bible beaters?

Narrow and declining majority. That's why there is this desperate attempt to write the ban in the constitution now -- before the majority becomes a minority.

Unfortunately for you, while a majority presently are against gay marriage, only a minority think it is important enough to amend the Constitution over. So you might as well get used to the idea that gay marriage is coming sooner or later.

And just a prediction: the sky won't fall.

[stevesnj]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Narrow and declining majority. That's why there is this desperate attempt to write the ban in the constitution now -- before the majority becomes a minority.

Unfortunately for you, while a majority presently are against gay marriage, only a minority think it is important enough to amend the Constitution over. So you might as well get used to the idea that gay marriage is coming sooner or later.

And just a prediction: the sky won't fall.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[B]Narrow and declining majority. That's why there is this desperate attempt to write the ban in the constitution now -- before the majority becomes a minority.

Because of the gay agenda...and you say it has no effect

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Because of the gay agenda...and you say it has no effect

LOL! No, because most Americans are fundamentally decent and believe in equal rights for all citizens.

Call it the American Way.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
LOL! No, because most Americans are fundamentally decent and believe in equal rights for all citizens.

Call it the American Way.

No, because of will and grace. Because of makeover madness. Because of the glorification of gayness in the media. Because of the gays agenda to destroy the institutiotn of America.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No, because of will and grace. Because of makeover madness. Because of the glorification of gayness in the media. Because of the gays agenda to destroy the institutiotn of America.

God Bless the institutiotn of America.

[cpt kangarooski]

Spoogepieces--

So, why can the government ban polygamy as was the case in Utah for Utah to join the union?

Actually, they probably can't, though it could be regulated in some way so as to be conducted sensibly. Take a look at the relevant Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. US, 98 US 145 (1878). It ranks up there with such greats as Dred Scott, Plessy, and Bowers. While there hasn't been a case challenging it AFAIK, it is too poorly reasoned and at too great odds with modern precedent to be taken seriously IMO.

OTOH, I suspect that there are those here who could write something similar today.

[BRussell]

This is the time for some truth behind The Gay Agenda.

Incidentally, I've heard that one Republican strategy for this Nov. will be to have gay marriage on the ballot so it turns out those Bush voters. It could make the difference in some swing states.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
no, as a matter of FACT that's not a myth at all. people who are gay have a genetic predisposition towards being homosexual.

Yea, pretty much.

Then again, there still people who believe African Americans are genetically of lower intelegence for their own silly reasons

(of course there's no real basis for either of these silly biggot beliefs in modern science).

[Dakar]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yea, pretty much.

Then again, there still people who believe African Americans are genetically of lower intelegence for their own silly reasons

(of course there's no real basis for either of these silly biggot beliefs in modern science).

Why am I suddenly thinking about a book called The Bell Curve?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Yea, pretty much.

Then again, there still people who believe African Americans are genetically of lower intelegence for their own silly reasons

(of course there's no real basis for either of these silly biggot beliefs in modern science).

Show me! Or are you showing me by making your ususal, degrading comparison of gays to blacks?