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.
He wasn't arrested because he committed a gay sex act--he was arrested because he committed a sex act in a public bathroom. If he'd been caught there having sex with a woman it would have also been public indecency.
He wasn't arrested because he committed a gay sex act--he was arrested because he committed a sex act in a public bathroom. If he'd been caught there having sex with a woman it would have also been public indecency.
So-called straight Republican man with three kids who fits the profile of somebody who usually throws gay slurs around or speaks anti-gay rhetoric. We've been seeing many of these type of individuals arrested for gay activities. Connect the dots........
So-called straight Republican man with three kids who fits the profile of somebody who usually throws gay slurs around or speaks anti-gay rhetoric. We've been seeing many of these type of individuals arrested for gay activities. Connect the dots........
He's in the closet, freaked out and ashamed of who he is, and if he thinks he yells loud enough and long enough about how bad gays are, no one will think he might be like that too.
So-called straight Republican man with three kids who fits the profile of somebody who usually throws gay slurs around or speaks anti-gay rhetoric. We've been seeing many of these type of individuals arrested for gay activities. Connect the dots........
I caught it.....sometimes irony is a hard thing to convey online.
I haven't heard a single argument on here asking for "separate but equal." No one is asking to make new laws to create a special class--they want to remove the bias from the existing laws. You're talking in circles.
Since the current law does not ask what your sexual preferences are, there is no bias against gay people.
Quote:
The issue is that the existing laws surrounding marriage are biased against people who have a different sexual orientation--meaning a biologically based attraction to the opposite sex.
Except that marriage law is not based on sexual attraction.
Quote:
By your argument, the only option for marriage for gays would be with people who they can't emotionally or sexually bond with as a life partner because of biological differences. You believe it's a choice vs. biology, and based on YOUR RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES, you believe the choice is immoral. Others believe it's entirely biological--the individual can't choose differently, and are being discriminated against because of who they biologically are. Homosexual sex isn't the CAUSE of being gay--it's the effect. We have obviously have other instances in this country of ensuring people's rights based on those types of biological differences--women's rights, racial issues, and the treatment of people with disabilities.
The legal system doesn't care about "bonding", or attraction. Is that even considered when granting a marriage license? They certainly didn't ask my wife and I if we loved each other when we got our license.
Quote:
Here's the other part of this whole debate that makes me insane. When we talk about gay marriage, we're not talking about making homosexual acts legal or illegal--most states have removed those laws from the books. It's not a crime. We're talking about two people having the same legal benefits as the rest of humanity if they want to form a life long partnership with someone who happens to be a member of the same sex. How is wanting to live a monogamous life immoral in any way? It's the opposite of the arguments on promiscuity that people make about gays.
I really haven't commented much on this in regards to gay marriage. My view that it is immoral is irrelevant when it comes to the subject of gay marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl
No sweetie, you're wrong.
Thats YOUR argument, stop trying to put words in my mouth.
I have been talking about extending the same civil union rights to gays that everyone else has, and you know that.
They already have the abiility to marry. If they don't want to get marreid under the current system it's not my problem. They have teh exact same right to marry that I do--no more, no less. Nobody is telling them that they are gay so they can't marry--there are just rules about how/who to marry.
Quote:
Want me to go through this thread and quote everything you have said?
I hear eating crow is good for the soul.
knock yourself out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brattpowered
You don't have to discuss it for them to find out somehow, and evict. Can this happen to you because you are straight? No. Can it happen to a gay person? In most states, yes. One right you have that gays don't.
How so? Are you saying that gay people are different in some way? How can you detect a gay versus straight person? I used to live with male roommates prior to getting married but no one ever asked us if we were gay.
Is it how they talk? Or dress? They faaaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous shoes!?
Quote:
Your rationalization has nothing to do with whether or not, objectively, this is another right that gays do not have. Second right that you have that gays don't.
Except that they do have the right--but are demanding the ability to marry someone of the same gender, which no one has. That, in effect, is a "special right".
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.
