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.
I would rather be a hick than a pervert. Anyways, raison never provided me with any supporting evidence and the official version of history, one that I was taught in college and one that is being confirmed by Wikipedia is:
" While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. [2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions."
As you can read, I hope, there is long history of same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage. As Wikipedia says, concept of same-sex marriage is relatively new.
Now, if you want to comtinue this discussion beyond childish name calling you have to provide me with names of same-sex brides and dates such same-sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome or Greece.
If same-sex marriage was in fact a social and legal norm in ancient Greece and Rome you should not have a problem and we should have plenty of reports of such marriages being performed.
If you can't provide any proof just admit you are trying to revise history and go back to your closet.
Good grief. Claiming Wikipedia as a reliable source. And you claim you went to college? Was it an online junior biblical college where you could buy a 'degree'?
That's almost as funny as GNT posting sources from the Church of Scientology to back up his opinions.
Aha, so just by coincidence all of Christian countries around the world, in Europe and in Americas had been tamed by secular law while Muslim countries remained religious and intolerant.
Wow, that's again would be a big coincidence on a global scale. I hope you realize stupidy of your theory.
Really? I know my history and beside Spanish inquisition don't see many examples of intolerance, of course in a historical context. I see however a lots of intolerance in Muslim countries. Again, coincidence?
First of all Hitler was not exactly a church going Christian, furthermore he completely rejected and fought the church as he saw it as competition for the souls of Germans.
Second, absolutely secular countries like Soviet Union, Cambodia or Mao's China gleefuly murdered even more people while being way more intolerant that Christian church ever was. I can definetely see how atheist are so much moral... LOL
They were fleeing opression and seeking freedom to practive their own flavor of Christianity, yet still idetified themselves as Christians.
That's my point: Christians build America. Not Muslims and not Hindus but Christians.
Revolt? When Patriotes revolted to remove the British government they had to take up arms, I am not aware of any women fighting with arms for their right to vote Was there another civil war that I missed?
Womene did not revolt. They were granted their rights by majority.
Yes. And that's why Mormon minority was forced to abolish polygamy just because MAJORITY did not approve of it on moral grounds and that's how native Indian minority was forced to abandon their land. In democracy, majority rules. You need majority to pass a law, you need majority to amend the constitution, you need majority to overturn president's veto and need majority in Supreme Court to declare interpretation of the law binding and final. You see the common theme here: majority. Majority rules in democracy. American democracy is not an exception.
You are incredibly ignorant. As a matter of fact you are the worst kind of ignorant, one that really believes he knows anything on the subject. Learned ignorant. You are harmful. Now, go back to your ignorant closet.
I was thinking more along the lines of a child who was bisexual or had latent tendencies.
In this case, a homosexual couple as parents, would be far more likely to cause this child to steer towards the homosexual choice.
This is not right, because many adolescents take time to work out their correct hetero sexuality - so the last thing they need is to be pushed in the wrong direction, even if it only be subliminally.
No. You weren't 'thinking'. This is just nonsense with no basis in fact.
There are thousands of children who grow up without mothers and turn out fine. There are thousands of children who grow up without a father and turn out fine.
Of course they are. For a proper development child needs both feminine and masculine role models. Of course there are kids who were brought up by single parents but it doesn't prove this is an optimal situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
Two parents are ideal, regardless of gender. Both genders are not absolutely needed, neither are two parent.
They are only ideal in heterosexual world as they represent both sexes.
If you take the gender out of the equation and claim that both feminine and masculine role models are not needed for proper developemnt of a child than why stick with two parents? Why not three, four or five? What's the difference. Two is not a magic number but simply represents both sexes.
Ok, well lets say you have a child that is homosexual, if it is adopted by a heterosexual couple, that couple is more likely to promote and encourage their lifestyle to their wishes. It is also wrong as it can cause gender confusion and sexual roles....wait, gender confusion and sexual roles?
So you mean like who should be working and who should be cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the children?
Are you saying that women belong in the kitchen? Those are the only gender roles I know of.
I think we should ban Christianity as the bible teaches false history and false science, it can cause confusion of reality and how the world really works.
There are still countries that did that, banned the bible and religion alltogether. I think you would find North Korea or Vietnam extremely attractive. Good bye....
Good grief. Claiming Wikipedia as a reliable source. And you claim you went to college? Was it an online junior biblical college where you could buy a 'degree'?
Not a big fan of wikipedia? No problem. Quote a better source that backs up your claims. One controversial book by a biased, gay author will not do.
BZZZZZZT!!! Wrong again johnny. I think we just proved that you aren't studying history at all. If you were a historian or even just studying it, you would know that this country was founded on secular principles providing freedom of all religious practices.
Secular yet still based on Christianity and Christian moral values. Not Muslim, not Hindu and atheist. We celebrate Sundays, invoke the name of God in the Constitution, ban polygamy and celebrate Christmas as an entire nation. Why would it be if the country wasn't funded on Christian values?
This country was built by Christians not Muslims and not atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
So if the majority of the nation said we should nuke ourselves because sin is overwhelming, we are obligated to accept their morality and accept being nuked? Yeah, don't think so. LAWS and MORALS are challenged and changing all the time. Hey not too long ago it was immoral for a woman to speak up and against her husband, even if he was beating her.
Well, there are some people who advocate sex with the minors like NAMBLA.
But because the majority believes these acts to be immoral they are banned and prosecuted. There were societies that were not based on Christianity, like ancient Greece where sex with minors was considered acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre
But you don't disagree with them.
I totally agree that name calling make you look like a five years old.
Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE. Someone can write complete nonsense and lies and put in fake citations and it could be there for weeks before anyone else notices. (I know, I did it as a test)
If any Uni student ever used Wikipedia as a reference on an essay they would get a big FAIL.
Is that where you get your 'information' from? LOL!
No. I have my information from graduate history courses. Wikipedia just happened to contain generally the same information, although in a very concise format, and since it is available on line it is easier to copy and paste. If you disagree with info from Wikipedia that I posted then why don't you copy a part of a textbook or another reliable and accepted source.
If you can't find any, shut up and admit defeat.
Two daddies does not count as a proper upbringing.
Your opinion. Thank goodness studies show this to be false. Homosexual and lesbian couples have shown to be better parents than heterosexuals.
Quote:
No it doesn't you ****ing moron!
It is not the same thing.
The key element is missing - ie: the mother.
So what about single parent fathers?
You continue to not address single parents, seeing as it continues to destroy this part of your argument.
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.
And you claim you went to college? Was it an online junior biblical college where you could buy a 'degree'?
When Patriotes revolted to remove the British government they had to take up arms, I am not aware of any women fighting with arms for their right to vote 
