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.
As soon as you jump the shark into pedophilia, incest, and bestiality, any credibility you might have had, or any respect for your opinion, I might have had flies right out the freakin' window...........
Heck, the OP might as well be upset about blacks and whites marrying too and just round out their hatred towards others.
I believe that immoral activity should be shunned, not accepted. Homosexuality is wrong. When Obama endorsed gay marriage, he lost my vote and all of my support.
Actually, we're talking about legalization here, not 'acceptance' -- but then, perhaps you can't distinguish between what you dislike and what you want banned by law. Personally, I don't care for your repugnant bigotry. But I don't want to see it banned, noxious though it may be.
But then, I'm not a control-freak who wants to outlaw what with which I disagree. YMMV
I doubt the President cares about 'losing' the votes of regressives, who overwhelmingly oppose him anyway. You've probably got no more than two more Presidential elections in which there will be a major political party opposed to same-sex marriage. Even Republicans can see which way the wind is blowing.
I believe that immoral activity should be shunned, not accepted. Homosexuality is wrong. When Obama endorsed gay marriage, he lost my vote and all of my support.
So two men loving eachother is immoral but being hateful towards them is the right thing to do?
Sounds like a ****ed up standard of morality to me
I really don't understand what justification people have for being against homosexuals other than "ewww I think they're icky", it just doesn't make sense
I seen no compelling reason, whatsoever, that it is in society-at-larges's best interest to disturb the current definition of marriage - a definition that has stood for ages to the betterment of society - be it in the sexual compositon or orientation, familial realation (sibling, parent-child, close cousin), or number of partners involved.
In the absence of such compelling information, and especially in light of the damage to the instituion resulting from overly-liberal divorce rule changes in the last half-century, I must oppose such disrupion in strong terms.
However, if someone can show clear and convincing evidence that any of the aformentioned modifications would definitively and substantially make society as a whole, better, I would be open to change. I see multiple partners as having the best and most-rational chance of meeting that standard.
Heck, the OP might as well be upset about blacks and whites marrying too and just round out their hatred towards others.
NOPE, why would I be upset about that? Gays like to bring the race thing into the debate, but the reality is, as long as they are different genders and produce viable off spring, who am I to question why a man and a woman decide to marry.
If however, blacks and whites weren't able to produce viable off spring, I would question the validity of these unions.
NOPE, why would I be upset about that? Gays like to bring the race thing into the debate, but the reality is, as long as they are different genders and produce viable off spring, who am I to question why a man and a woman decide to marry.
If however, blacks and whites weren't able to produce viable off spring, I would question the validity of these unions.
Well it is good to know you have a line.
What about those that cant produce children or don't want children?
The real agenda is for churches to lose their 501c3 tax status. The legal theory is based on Bob Jones University losing their 501c3 for not allowing interracial dating.
I used to report on political organizations and have to many meetings at grass roots organizations and NGOs.
NOPE, why would I be upset about that? Gays like to bring the race thing into the debate, but the reality is, as long as they are different genders and produce viable off spring, who am I to question why a man and a woman decide to marry.
If however, blacks and whites weren't able to produce viable off spring, I would question the validity of these unions.
Gays have children, both bearing and adopting. That the other partner in the marriage is not the biological parent of that child is no more relevant than they fact that opposite-sex couples adopt children.
You are flailing about, trying to find some rationale to excuse your bigotry.
Gays have children, both bearing and adopting. That the other partner in the marriage is not the biological parent of that child is no more relevant than they fact that opposite-sex couples adopt children.
You are flailing about, trying to find some rationale to excuse your bigotry.
And you're failing, miserably.
So, gay couples can't actually have children with each other, they need the opposite gender in order to procreate. What a fascinating phenomenon.
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.
