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.
Legal does not equal the right thing to do. Slavery was once the law all over the world. As was child sex. And child sacrifice. If you didn't follow the law you were killed. People who think we are smarter than those before us have to wait until they're old and sick to figure out how stupid they were.
Legal does not equal the right thing to do. Slavery was once the law all over the world. As was child sex. And child sacrifice. If you didn't follow the law you were killed. People who think we are smarter than those before us have to wait until they're old and sick to figure out how stupid they were.
Wow, I missed that part, when was slavery the LAW? When was child sex and child sacrifice the LAW?
In what country/countries? During what time frames? Please illuminate me.
Conservatives only disapprove of same-sex marriage because of ignorance and prejudice.
That's a rather sweeping statement. You might consider me a conservative but your above statement is completely wrong.
I disagree with same-sex marriage for many reasons. Some of those reasons are:
1. There is no science to support the born that way theory.
2. Science is actually hostile to the born that way theory.
3. There is a growing population of ex-gays. For example, take Michael Glatze who co-founded the Young Gay America magazine. Mr. Glatze left the homosexual life. Charlene Cothran was the publisher for Venus Magazine, a magazine for homosexuals but she left the homosexual life as well and now uses Venus Magazine to help others leave the homosexual life.
IMO, changing the definition of marriage based on a changeable sexual behavior is social suicide.
That's a rather sweeping statement. You might consider me a conservative but your above statement is completely wrong.
I disagree with same-sex marriage for many reasons. Some of those reasons are:
1. There is no science to support the born that way theory.
2. Science is actually hostile to the born that way theory.
3. There is a growing population of ex-gays. For example, take Michael Glatze who co-founded the Young Gay America magazine. Mr. Glatze left the homosexual life. Charlene Cothran was the publisher for Venus Magazine, a magazine for homosexuals but she left the homosexual life as well and now uses Venus Magazine to help others leave the homosexual life.
IMO, changing the definition of marriage based on a changeable sexual behavior is social suicide.
Are you arguing for ignorance? You're doing a hell of job, scripy
How does legalized gay marriage force anything upon anyone ...
A good question. Here's something you might not have considered:
Let's say John and Martha marry and have a long life together. If John dies before Martha, Martha receives John's pension until Martha dies as well. But, what if Martha dies first and John decides to give his pension to his son, so he marries his son. Nothing wrong with that, right? I mean it's a same-sex marriage and they can't have kids so why not? Well, what about that pension and how does that affect others by continuing the payments for another 30 years? What about social security?
Why limit marriage to a single same-sex couple? Why not 5 same sex couples forming one marriage? Why not 5 opposite sex couples forming one marriage?
There's a well-known homosexual activist named Frank Kameny who says bestiality is okay as long as the animal doesn't mind. Should we allow marriage to animals or just let some people have sex with animals because they have the freedom to do so?
Should transgenders get medical benefits for surgery? How does that affect your medical premiums?
How does alll this affect our culture and society? Where do we draw the line?
A good question. Here's something you might not have considered:
Let's say John and Martha marry and have a long life together. If John dies before Martha, Martha receives John's pension until Martha dies as well. But, what if Martha dies first and John decides to give his pension to his son, so he marries his son. Nothing wrong with that, right? I mean it's a same-sex marriage and they can't have kids so why not? Well, what about that pension and how does that affect others by continuing the payments for another 30 years? What about social security?
Why limit marriage to a single same-sex couple? Why not 5 same sex couples forming one marriage? Why not 5 opposite sex couples forming one marriage?
There's a well-known homosexual activist named Frank Kameny who says bestiality is okay as long as the animal doesn't mind. Should we allow marriage to animals or just let some people have sex with animals because they have the freedom to do so?
Should transgenders get medical benefits for surgery? How does that affect your medical premiums?
How does alll this affect our culture and society? Where do we draw the line?
IMO, changing the definition of marriage based on a changeable sexual behavior is social suicide.
People used to feel that way about interracial marriages too.
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.
