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.
At least gay sex can't be blamed for the number of abortions in this country - although I'm sure there are some who would figure out a way to do it.
Gay stuff aside, what a tragedy Roe v Wade is. The human cost is almost eclipsed by the permanent harm it did to our country's psyche and its political climate.
Prior to 1973, it woud have been hard to imagine a nation where millions of women celebrated obtaining the power to end the life of their own children...or where the cheapness of life would come to outweigh its hopefulness and promise.
Entrusted as they have been with such awesome responsibility, our courts may yet be the death of this Republic.
I am glad that they support you. That means they love you.
They were in support of gay marriage long before they knew I was gay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
But seven midgets can. That's a pretty big (or smallish) loophole.
Not really. They're jointly defined rights - rights defined for couples. I have absolutely no moral objections whatsoever towards polygamy. However, the rights of civil marriage don't make sense in a polygamist context. Think about it - should anyone have the right to go down to Loreto Mexico, marry all 14,000 residents, and then bring them to the United States under 14,000 spousal immigration visas? Should I be allowed to marry all 213 of my friends so that I, as a military member, can get an extra $200,000 a year pay increase for a family housing allowance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
As I said elsewhere in this thread, it of course up to the courts as to their desire to irrevocably shred our culture to serve the desires of an annoying minority with unusual tastes. They were certainly willing to condemn millions of unborn children to death in 1972 to serve the desires of irresponsible people incapable of love. Nothing could be more rational than that...
Again, civil marriage has nothing to do with any religious or cultural institution or notion of marriage. It's simply a construct of our civil, secular law that confers to the couples who contract it some 1400 civil rights. Denying gay couples from getting civilly married denies them these 1400 civil rights - something the constitution prohibits.
If you really want to "keep marriage" consistent with some specific religious or cultural or familial viewpoint you hold, then I'd suggest you dedicate your efforts to getting the government out of recognizing marriages (or civil unions or whatever) at all rather then trying to define a special set of rights withing our civil, secular law that are given only to heterosexuals.
Even though this gentleman was a member of the church for decades and left money to the church in his will; he initially was denied funeral services. However after public pressure the church relented and reversed it's initial decision.
Too bad the Catholic Church is not so quick to address it's pedophilia problems but will quickly deny a family funeral rights while they are grieving over their loved one.
A sad commentary on our society, it's values and organized religion. If not for the public outcry the church would never have reversed it's decision.
The homophobic agenda within this country and forum is truly appalling and treating your fellow man this way is something "your God" will make you answer for upon your demise........Love thy neighbor as you love yourself.
I find it ironic the Church was willing to take this man's money all his life and upon his death........
It seems many people loathe themselves as they post lies and misinformation to degrade any and all gay people and posters!
Years ago when I was still a flight attendant for a major U.S. airline, I had a passenger on one of my flights that was on her way to The Oprah Winfrey Show.
This women had retired from a job at an all-white college where she was employed as, I believe, if my memory is correct a cleaning lady. In any case, her job would definitely not be considered "professional".
In spite of her average salary, this women had managed to save, and subsequently donate a million dollars to the university where she had been employed.
I was not able to watch her appearance on the Oprah show, I was working and did not own a computer. Not sure if it would have been online then any way.
I have often wondered what motivated a black women to leave a million dollars to an all-white college.
Our perception of our world is clouded by, firstly, the habitual responses that we are taught by society, and secondly by the habit forming creation of our own selves or egos.
So I ask again in the context of this thread, in the simplest of terms: Why does a gay man attend and leave money to a church that would deny him entrance to heaven?
Why does a black women donate a million dollars to a college that would deny her admission?
They were in support of gay marriage long before they knew I was gay.
Not really. They're jointly defined rights - rights defined for couples. I have absolutely no moral objections whatsoever towards polygamy. However, the rights of civil marriage don't make sense in a polygamist context. Think about it - should anyone have the right to go down to Loreto Mexico, marry all 14,000 residents, and then bring them to the United States under 14,000 spousal immigration visas? Should I be allowed to marry all 213 of my friends so that I, as a military member, can get an extra $200,000 a year pay increase for a family housing allowance?
Again, civil marriage has nothing to do with any religious or cultural institution or notion of marriage. It's simply a construct of our civil, secular law that confers to the couples who contract it some 1400 civil rights. Denying gay couples from getting civilly marriage denies them these 1400 civil rights - something the constitution prohibits.
If you really want to "keep marriage" consistent with some specific religious or cultural or familial viewpoint you hold, then I'd suggest you dedicate your efforts to getting the government out of recognizing marriages (or civil unions or whatever) at all.
wow...
you have no objections to polygamy.
why not?
nobody is arguing about "religion and marriage" in this thread. but you seem very vehement on making your point.
I fail to find the harm in people choosing to live together in an intimate, group relationship. It doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, but if that's what makes them happy, good for them.
I fail to find the harm in people choosing to live together in an intimate, group relationship. It doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, but if that's what makes them happy, good for them.
if you ****k.. you may have kids.
so
kids with like 3 mommies is ok?
humans are not pound puppies... we have families. associations and networks
I fail to find the harm in people choosing to live together in an intimate, group relationship. It doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, but if that's what makes them happy, good for them.
whatever the fawk school YOUR kids are in....
TELL ME SO I CAN REMOVE MINE!
OK!
DANGEROUS SOCIALIZATION DANGEROUS.
AND I DON'T SPEAK FROM A RELIGIOUS STANDPOINT.
EVER. I NEVER USE RELIGION FOR MY OPINIONS BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY CRAZY!
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.
