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.
Of course, if you're a kid who finds homosexuality disgusting because of the behavior immune system you were born with, don't look for a liberal or homosexual activist to explain that you are entitled to be what you are.
There is a valid reason to teach children to be more accepting of homosexuality, but there could also be harmful effects if it is note done without proper input from Christians in the process. Not to teach the religion, but to have their viewpoints included because the nation itself was founded with Christian principles.
That is insane...I'm an Atheist and have more morals than any of the people "against" homosexuality here.
We do not support the Christian lifestyle in my family.
Bwahahah! That was funny. The idiot who wrote that had plenty of platitudes - "common sense", "foundational values", "irrational" - but failed to present a single argument for actual damage done.
That is insane...I'm an Atheist and have more morals than any of the people "against" homosexuality here.
We do not support the Christian lifestyle in my family.
The only prolem I have with this is that it's a very short step (but a very expensive one) from recognizing civil unions -- gay, straight, monogamous or polygamous -- and linking them to a further strain on the pension systems and the treasury. And this is developing at a time when increased competitiveness in emerging democracies is reducing the formerly more-dominant position of the American ecoomy.
As usual, the people most likely to benefit don't want any attention called to the price tag.
Yes, except for the overwhelming majority of states which have voted against it.
A temporary quirk of demographics. Older folk tend to vote more and are more likely opposed to SSM. Younger folk tend to vote less and are more likely in support of SSM. As the older voters die off and are ultimately replaced by younger voters who hold different opinions, that will change.
In the 60's, roughly 90% of people were opposed to the concept. Today, it's roughly 50/50, though as noted it appears the 50% opposed tend to vote more than the 50% in favor. 40 years from now it'll be 90/10 in favor.
It's inevitable.
Regardless, polls and votes should never apply to civil rights. I predict SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM far sooner than we get to the point it'll pass in redneck states, though, eventually, we will get to that point.
The war is over, we just don't know it yet.
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.
