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.
Yep, African Americans are from my experience, much more religious as a race. Probably because they are poorer, and that poverty cycle is hard to break. Impoverished people tend to be more religious.
Black people aren't religious as a result of poverty. Religion has just been something that we have clung to throughout the hundreds of years to "make sense" and/or seek strength in the oppression we faced. It is natural that these religious beliefs are passed down to children. Has nothing to do with poverty.
It affords them most of the rights of marriage, but not all.
I would purpose that the name marriage be dropped for any couple, and allow any two human beings enter into a new civil contract, or role over the one they have now.
Have one year where all marriages from that date forth are null and void, and if you want to keep the one you had, you have to renew it at no cost. Hey, at least most of the newly "civilly unioned" couples would be happy, right?
I don't think homosexuals are against the rights of heterosexuals to retain their original marriage boundaries, but they want the same rights. No one is telling anyone else they have to marry a man or woman, but that you should have the right to decide either way.
And here is where the gay bull sh^t meets the road. Marriage, which has to this point been so important to homosexuals seeking to marry their own sex, is now thrown out the window provided it can be denied equally to heteroseuals.
Here's the question none of the homosexual marriage advocates have ever been able to answer. If marriage isn't based on the natural sexual design of males and females such that one man should marry one woman, by what objective and logically consistent principle is it limited to only two persons?
And here is where the gay bull sh^t meets the road. Marriage, which has to this point been so important to homosexuals seeking to marry their own sex, is now thrown out the window provided it can be denied equally to heteroseuals.
Here's the question none of the homosexual marriage advocates have ever been able to answer. If marriage isn't based on the natural sexual design of males and females such that one man should marry one woman, by what objective and logically consistent principle is it limited to only two persons?
You people like to slither out of everything.
What is stopping a marriage of two women to a man or to men to a woman?
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.