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.
I thought gays were such an inconsequentially small number (according to your side) that they are statistically insignifant?
I bet you at any given moment, significantly MORE straight couples are having anal sex than gay couples.
That small number is bound to grow significantly if SSM laws are passed, and more and more "gay education" is introduced to young children in public schools. Yeah I can't complain about my tax dollars funding that, but it's ok to complain about a school showing a picture of Jesus? Our country is going down the toliet.
I wouldn't use the term "plenty" when the statistics are saying 90%. We shouldn't be promoting the lifestyle, period.
I have never had anal sex. I know many heterosexuals that do.
No where on a marriage license does it ask about your sexual activities, if you want to make that a requirement of marriage, then go try to get that done but it would still allow homosexuals to get married.
As it stands now, it is none of the governments business what you do in the bedroom. Why do you want the government involved in your bedroom activities?
So, we now have.
Reproduction- Not required for marriage.
STDs- No test required for marriage. AND marriage reduces the spread of STDs.
Anal sex- not on the marriage license, and hets do it too.
"But the bible says"- has nothing to do with the laws of our country.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,834,525 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35
That small number is bound to grow significantly if SSM laws are passed, and more and more "gay education" is introduced to young children in public schools. Yeah I can't complain about my tax dollars funding that, but it's ok to complain about a school showing a picture of Jesus? Our country is going down the toliet.
Gay education? Ok, you must be a troll. No one in their right minds believe that. And of course pictures of Jesus shouldn't be in (non religious) schools outside of a comparative religion / humanities class. That isn't really up for debate in the civilized world.
That small number is bound to grow significantly if SSM laws are passed, and more and more "gay education" is introduced to young children in public schools. Yeah I can't complain about my tax dollars funding that, but it's ok to complain about a school showing a picture of Jesus? Our country is going down the toliet.
You can't catch "the gay". IT will not rub off on kids. You can't catch it from toilet seats. People don't just suddenly decide to try out "gay" if they are not attracted to the same sex already.
No school is teaching anyone how to have gay or straight sex. Schools ARE teaching how to have safer sex regardless of it being heterosexual or homosexual sex. It seem like you would be all for that since you were just banging on about STDs.
How about heterosexual have anal sex too. How about heterosexuals have and spread STDs too. How about the fact that STD transmission among lesbians is LOWER than heterosexuals, and not one case of HIV/AIDS has been shown to be from lesbian sex. Then add in the other health related costs of heterosexuals like pregnancy and child birth, many of which are paid for through taxpayer funded programs, and STD related costs for heterosexuals. Who costs more? The tiny fraction of homosexuals that may have health issues, or the vast majority of heterosexuals that have health issues?
So, if we are going to go by health care costs, only lesbians should be allowed to get married.
Nice try, but you can't get around the fact that 90% of gay men are engaging in a highly risky activity that spreads disease. Do you really think 90% of heterosexuals are doing this well? I don't think so.
Lesbians certainly risk transmitting the HPV virus which we know now can cause cancer.
Are you really suggesting we should have a gay society with no reproduction? If you can show me that heterosexual sex is just as risky and costy as homosexual sex then you have an argument.
However, if you have a married heterosexual couple who obeyed God's laws and married as virgins, practically zero health risks with intercourse. But if they engage in anal sex, there is danger even if they are both disease free.
Lately I've been discussing this on another thread and to avoid derailing the conversation, I decided to post it in a different thread.
I've heard the argument made by those in favor of gay marriage, quite a lot in recent years. It boils down to equal treatment under the law, "it's only love", "to each his own", etc. One thing that has always escaped me is where the gay marriage supporters would "draw the line"... as in, where they would stop applying that rationale when considering other types of marriage. So I have a few questions for y'all, and let's see what type of response I get.
1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? After all, it's only love. It may even be heterosexual love, and the two parties may be at or beyond the age of consent! There has even been a "condition" named for some people who feel this attraction - they call it "GSA" or "Genetic Sexual Attraction".
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Heck, some people even claim that their religion commands them to do so. If they can have a happy marriage and support multiple spouses, why not? After all, it's only love, and in so doing, each spouse would be relieved from a pressure oft felt by an exclusive spouse - the pressure to singlehandedly meet all of his/her spouse's needs!
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so (assuming the children also want it) because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Don't kid yourself... some kids know plenty about love. I've been a lover since age 2, and my development of feelings of romantic love was at least three years ahead of the average. I can't be the only one. Children can feel love too. The age of consent may be 16 but when people start dating, for real, around age 12 (or even younger, these days), that shows that they have an idea of what "love" is. And besides, many countries allow marriage of children for any number of reasons. It's legal on most continents in the world, and in most countries therein. American "children" engage in sexual relationships and get each other pregnant all the time. Why not legalize marriage of people under age 16 (without parental or judicial consent of any kind) in America?
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so, because only then would they be getting equal treatment under the law? Let's face it... animals have a pretty deep capacity for showing love. Certain types of animals are much less inclined to cause problems for people than people are. (I read this one time - "Try locking your wife, and your dog, in the trunk of your car for a few hours. When you open the lid, which one will be happy to see you?") It's only love... and how could it harm either the person or the animal?
Now... if you answer "no" to any of these questions, I'd like an explanation as to why... and to be fair, you should know that I will be examining the explanations to see how they differ from the explanations commonly used to support gay marriage. And if you start name-calling, your post will be reported. Let's keep this civil. Obviously I am not a gay marriage supporter, but liberal-minded people who support gay marriage often use the word "tolerance". Let's apply that and be tolerant of my views, seeing as I am coming at this civilly.
Marriage is the control of human behavior in today's society. When society gets to the point where marrying animals and children are even discussed that means society is not even worth defending or having laws for.
Marriage between consenting adults does not require FORCE. I have noticed those who speak of animals and children and family genetics are trying to protect living creatures who really are forced into something IE the creation of a law or the lack of laws. Now letting the government tell you who you can and can't marry already sets it up that they decide the requirements. Marriage has nothing to do with love in the eyes of society that is a fairly tale. Marriage in this society is social inclusion, and some BENEFIT rights of equal rights to see your loved one and taxes. Since I see no real reason for marriage and bounding yourself to some legal nightmare its already a doomed concept promoted by religion and governments for a way of control.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,938 posts, read 36,834,525 times
Reputation: 40634
Quote:
Originally Posted by txdave35
Nice try, but you can't get around the fact that 90% of gay men are engaging in a highly risky activity that spreads disease. Do you really think 90% of heterosexuals are doing this well? I don't think so.
Not to mention "homosexual" was not added to that verse until the 1940s. I'm amazed Taratova hasn't been banned yet. That they allow such a blatant display of trolling is ridiculous.
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.
You do realize most Christians believe in both right? Evolution is a fact. Theists who accept evolution are called Theistic Evolutionists.