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.
Are you a animal expert? Or a animal brain expert? Homosexuality in animals is not based on "humping" as the links below show. Please educate yourself on things before spouting opinions that are clearly colored by closed minded religious thinking.
The gay agenda pushers will never cease to amaze me. Make anything taboo normal just so you feel better about yourselves. To each, his own I guess.
The hate and discriminate agenda pushers will never cease to amaze me. Make anything hateful and discriminatory normal just so you feel better about yourselves. To each, his own I guess.
Male homosexuality is taboo to me because it involves having sex in a very unsanitary place and is very septic and dirty, that's why.
So female homosexuals are OK then? When are you going to start railing against heterosexual's "unsanitary" sex acts.
Did you know that at one time in the not so distant past that a white woman having sexual relations with a black man would have also been considered "unsanitary"?
Sex by it's very nature is not very sanitary to begin with.
By what right do you or anyone have to deny them the joy of matrimony? Careful you bigotry is showing.
Who are you to redefine marriage?
And if you are able to redefine marriage, why am I not?
Who decided only your opinion matters?
Marriage stipulates sexual fidelity to prevent children being conceived outside of the marriage. The couple who enters into marriage is provided legal recourse when a partner fails to honor the sexual exclusivity agreement. This protects the partner and also children born into the family. Since homosexuals don't procreate, why do they need this protection?
So the government should make a point to reserve special words for special and better (those who are not sexually abnormal - in your eyes) people? That's the role of government in your view? (that sounds like the school principal who's been in the news for sending a memo to his staff reminding them the Constitution is only for and only protects the rights of Christians).
Marriage - in the context of civil law - is simply a contract between two people, given power by the State, that confers a collection of joint rights (benefits and responsibilities) to that couple. As a contract within civil law, it should be applied equally to all couples - all couples should have equal access. Furthermore, it should be called the same thing for everybody. We shouldn't have separate names for equal and identical laws based solely on the classification of the people availing themselves to the law. That's disgusting and about as un-American as it gets.
One legal principle - one contract - one name. Whether it's marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, or laksdjlakfjdalsdkjfas, I don't care.
So should a woman be allowed to marry her grandmother?
If not, by what consistent objective standard is this one couple forbidden to marry while another couple is not?
And if you are able to redefine marriage, why am I not?
Who decided only your opinion matters?
Marriage stipulates sexual fidelity to prevent children being conceived outside of the marriage. The couple who enters into marriage is provided legal recourse when a partner fails to honor the sexual exclusivity agreement. This protects the partner and also children born into the family. Since homosexuals don't procreate, why do they need this protection?
You do realize that gay couples do have children so.....non argument. Try again.
Why are you against gay marriage? In what way does it hurt anyone? Prior to 1967 interracial marriage was illegal. We redefined marriage then why not now?
And if you are able to redefine marriage, why am I not?
Who decided only your opinion matters?
Marriage stipulates sexual fidelity to prevent children being conceived outside of the marriage. The couple who enters into marriage is provided legal recourse when a partner fails to honor the sexual exclusivity agreement. This protects the partner and also children born into the family. Since homosexuals don't procreate, why do they need this protection?
That is a bunch of bull and you know it. A marriage certificate is not going to stop a man from cheating on his wife and it does not protect the children from his infidelity. Nothing says a married couple must have kids to validate their marriage, nor must a couple be married to have kids. Where is your sorry excuses when it comes to divorce? No you would rather prevent gays from enjoying marriage then to stop yourselves from divorcing each other. Typical from you and I do not expect a real answer, just another bigotted attack.
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.
