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.
Sounds like a dumb presentation, but you realize that "the gay" isn't something that can be taught, right? You either are or aren't, and to be perfectly honest, an attempt to force people into gay situations would probably do the exact opposite of what you think it would. Meaning that they'd be more likely to not like gay people, which I'm sure you're 100% for.
I'ld have to say shoving down throats was a figure of speech since gays are more apt to shove things in another orifice somewhat lower than the throat.
The startling and dense posture that is assumed in the homosexual movement, is that homosexuality can be aligned with the word decency in any way whatsoever. Homosexuality is the epitome of indecent sexual expression, that is what we know in the whole comprehension of homosexuality.
de·cent
Adjective
Conforming with generally accepted standards of >respectable or >moral behavior.
(note>Appropriate; (note>fitting: "they would meet again after a decent interval".
Your attempt to label a non-choice as a moral stance is ignorant. It's like accusing a left-handed person of being a witch. No doubt you would've been first in line with a rock in hand, though.
Once again we have insults instead of a substantive rebuttal.
Always so predictable.
How about you tell everyone specifically why I'm wrong on the facts.
You haven't offered anything substantive to respond to. Threads like this are easy. You have a bunch of repressed, religious people who are ignorant and afraid of things they don't understand. They make statements that are in line with those conditions and then get angry when they're not taken seriously or righteous.
Actually if you listen many have said this I don't have time to pull up every feminist that wants to destory marrige.
Thanks for the feminist site that really helped!
If you want to argue that this is in fact a GAY agenda and not just an agenda for a tiny non-percentage of gays, then yes, you're gonna have to do a whole lot more than what you've done. As for the website that answered a question you asked, you're welcome. If you wish to claim some part of its content is untrue, I suggest you gather some references of your own.
You haven't offered anything substantive to respond to. Threads like this are easy. You have a bunch of repressed, religious people who are ignorant and afraid of things they don't understand. They make statements that are in line with those conditions and then get angry when they're not taken seriously or righteous.
I'm neither oppressed or religious but I don't understand how college boys teaching mid schoolers that girls are sluts if they wear short skirts or have a few boyfriends isn't condemned by the same people who are instead defending them.
Your attempt to label a non-choice as a moral stance is ignorant. It's like accusing a left-handed person of being a witch. No doubt you would've been first in line with a rock in hand, though.
Well..in order for your idea to be convincing we will need to see proof and evidence that a person can be born into developing a need to block another's waste passage, in place of and in the pretense of having sex, with the same gender.
Good luck with that. Even a couple of weeks with Neanderthals would straighten that confusion out, that's how far behind what your inferring is.
Proof including evidence is all that will be accepted.
I'm not denying you or anyone thats truly in love to be together, but there are those who are out to destroy marriage and family. Some have no intentions of starting from some where they want the
"marriage title" or nothing at all. So just who should you be mad at.....
You do realize some benefits that come with marriage are not benefits at all, if the marriage ends in divorce then you could pay big time.......... as of now it's just walk away.
In 1997, we issued a
report identifying 1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in
which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital
status is a factor.2
In preparing the 1997 report, we limited our search to laws enacted prior
to September 21, 1996, the date DOMA was signed into law. Recently, you asked us to
update our 1997 compilation.
We have identified 120 statutory provisions involving marital status that were enacted
between September 21, 1996, and December 31, 2003. During the same period, 31 statutory
provisions involving marital status were repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate
marital status as a factor. Consequently, as of December 31, 2003, our research identified a
total of 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which
marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.
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.
