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.
You might want to tell that to the judge that ruled over the prop 8 issue.
Right. He broke the law. And surprise surprise, the court that defended his ruling is the most overturned circuit court in America, and the judge is the most overturned federal judge.
Who said anything about CATCHING "the gay disease?" HIV is a public health concern. It costs us money.
But that's not the point I'm raising. By pointing out the HIV statistics I'm showing that the community of homosexuals is too irresponsible to know what is healthy and what is not healthy.
So married hetros are going to catch this gay disease from married gays??? Is that the harm you're claiming?
Jj, this character would take a quackery study with 77 hand picked subjects as gospel if it said the right thing. A peer reviewed study with 14,000 subjects that debunks the quackery from a well respected association is bias in their world. Sorta tell you where this person is, it sure makes you question anything they have to say.
Ummmm... they were closeted, in denial, and/or possibly bisexual? In case you weren't aware, the phrase "coming out" means to come out of the CLOSET. Duh.
You should also look up the term "beard" - which was quite popular in earlier generations, especially among famous homosexuals like Rock Hudson, Dick Sargeant (he never married, but Fannie Flagg was his beard-girlfriend for many years), Meredith Baxter (she had 5 children and 3 husbands prior to coming out), Oscar Wilde, and so forth. Just because somebody is gay, that doesn't mean they can't make babies or get married to the opposite sex.
and what were they when they were with the person who they had children?
Nice try, but the claim of "equality" ends when you're INTELLIGENT enough to realize heterosexuals can marry the person they love while homosexuals cannot. So no, it is not equal or fair no matter how you slice it. Trust me, if the tables were turned somehow, and you could only legally marry another man - you'd understand how unfair such a law really is. But you're too stubborn to even think about such a thing, let alone consider it with any objectivity.
so your saying that gay people can't love member's of the opposite sex (I guess all those gay people who were married with biological children fooled me.)
so your saying that gay people can't love member's of the opposite sex (I guess all those gay people who were married with biological children fooled me.)
this is the biggest croc in recent history
It's called bisexuality (or polysexuality, or even pansexuality).
You know, the ability to love more than one gender?
Oooooor, the person married somebody and started popping out kids as a method to hide his or her actual sexuality - because most of society at the time was not the kindest to homosexuals. It's actually sad the length that homosexuals had to go through to hide their homosexuality.
so your saying that gay people can't love member's of the opposite sex (I guess all those gay people who were married with biological children fooled me.)
this is the biggest croc in recent history
I was married to a man. Tried it twice in fact. It was what was expected of me, what I was taught, by my very religious parents, I should do.
I wasn't happy, and had severe depression problems, serious physical health problems, and heavily medicated. Now, my mom isn't too happy, but I'm happy, off all medications, and healthier than I have been in years.
So, yes it can be done. It is not a good way to live.
How would you like to live denying a significant part of yourself?
Married people tend to earn more than their single counterparts. So, it would bring in more tax money, spending money, and increase home buying. Married people tend to have better healthcare and are less of a burden on society compared to singles given they have a partner to care for them.
It's just the opposite actually, children cause one of the parents to adjust their career so they can spend more time with their kids.
People living together w/o children usually have a higher income as a couple then their married counterparts with children. A couple that choose not to adopt children can devote their lives to their careers, and they don't have to buy the bigger home, the bigger car and the bigger refrigerator, or buy the clothes, food and toys etc... to accommodate the needs of their children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Living together and being married are two entirely different animals. The level of commitment resulting from a marriage plays out in the day to day, year to year.
Agreed, but single couples who decide not to get married will devote their time to their careers. Since their relationship may only last a few weeks to a few years, they both want to ensure they can provide for themselves if they decide to split up. But your argument seems to be that the act of getting married somehow lowers a person's income level, which is absurd.
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.
There are counseling services that help people do this. Don't worry. You're not alone.
