Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Like gays/lesbians say, its all about being accepting, tolerating, open-minded, a happy family, not narrow minded, celebrating diversity, etc. So its a bit silly for them to call other so called preferences/orientations odd, perverted, dirty, etc. Go figure.
Where were they calling other preferences/orientations odd, perverted, or dirty? I must have missed that. (Or maybe you're making it up. Yeah, that's probably it.)
My question is... who has the authority to solely define marriage between a man and a woman? A look at the history of mankind shows that the institution of marriage existed before the idea of organized religion or even religion in general - so religion doesn't have the right to create that definition.
The homosexual radicals should love and embrace this but I’m sensing some intolerance and exclusivity from them on this. Ironic isn’t it? Whatever argument the homosexual radicals conjure up that manages to redefine marriage, if it ever comes to that, to no longer be a man and a woman, will pave the way for all manner of combinations and couplings as these groups will use the same argument for their unique agendas as well that the homosexual radicals use to destroy, er, redefine marriage. If marriage is ever redefined it will no longer be marriage anymore and as such it will be meaningless. Then again perhaps the ultimate goal is to destroy for everyone that which homosexuals cannot be a part of. If they can’t have it then they’ll see to it that nobody can!
No. You're the one who's being exclusive about this. You want only opposite-sex couples to be able to marry, and you want to exclude same-sex couples from that privilege. Opposite-sex couples get the option; same-sex couples do not. That's your version of fairness, I guess.
You have to do some real mental gymnastics in order to claim that same-sex couples are out to destroy marriage entirely. It's not logical. It's paranoid, lunatic thinking.
Then you have no problem redefining marriage as long as the other aforementioned coupling combinations are excluded? As long as the homosexual activists get their way who cares, right?
Most polls show 40-50% of Americans support same-sex marriage, so your assertion that only "homosexual activists" and "radicals" support it is just crazy paranoia.
Marrying a robot might be alright if we're talking about human-like androids... Like Darryl Hannah's character in Blade Runner:
Moderator cut: image removed
But marrying a R2-D2 style robot? C'mon that's just weird...
Last edited by picmod; 01-10-2014 at 04:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Or maybe you're making it up. Yeah, that's probably it.)
