Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
- 1,340
Huh?I see you have learned the difference between whose and who's
My work here is done
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Huh?I see you have learned the difference between whose and who's
My work here is done
Yet we still do, go ahead and try and marry a close relative.All people are equal under the law. Period.
Marriage is simply a legal contract.
There’s no reason to exempt two consenting people from marriage. None.
Nope, it is easy now to see why you are such an unhappy person.
It's your story, tell it any way you like.
Just call it like I see it.
What was that different word that would've applied? I know that you don't know. Sorry, just teasing.I get it just fine. Marriage for the entire history of humankind has been a union between a man and a woman and the primary purpose of it is to establish blood lines, inherited traits, and provide a physically and emotionally stable situation for the children. It has been the strength of our nation and has provided far more advantages for individual as well as neighborhood, communities, states, and the country than any imperfections in it. And in the USA, almost ALL the marriage laws are to establish property rights and mostly for protection of any children produced by that marriage.
A gay relationship can be just as strong and just as meaningful but it can never be a traditional marriage. So same-sex couples were offered legal protections of inheritance, hospital visitations, tax benefits etc. but they would not be 'married' but a different word would apply. As there would be no children produced by the union, the same rules of no marriage between close relatives, blood tests, etc. would not be necessary but gay couples could have the legal protections they needed.
But that wasn't good enough. They wanted the WORD too. And therefore changed its definition probably forever which benefits nobody and in my opinion has weakened us as a strong society.
I don't expect you or any other hard leftists to accept or even understand the argument. But I will stand by it.
Give one single example, or leave the board, forever.Yet there are books in school libraries teaching boys how To give blow jobs to adult men and how to ise Grindr to arrange sexual hookups.
Gender Queer and This Book is Gay.Give one single example, or leave the board, forever.
You cannot prove they are in elementary schools. Leave the board!Gender Queer and This Book is Gay.
Acknowledge the truth as to what they contain or leave this board forever.
Gay marriage has nothing to do with religion. It does not affect the marriages held in churches. You are free to ban gays in your church.
Religion is a a cover.
The real motive behind the hate is the haters don't want gays receiving the same government cash and prices as they do.
They want gays dead or in prison. Or at the very least stuffed in a closet.
As a traditionally married Christian I'm more than good with getting rid of marriage altogether and just creating unions. Good enough.
I get it just fine. Marriage for the entire history of humankind has been a union between a man and a woman and the primary purpose of it is to establish blood lines, inherited traits, and provide a physically and emotionally stable situation for the children. It has been the strength of our nation and has provided far more advantages for individual as well as neighborhood, communities, states, and the country than any imperfections in it. And in the USA, almost ALL the marriage laws are to establish property rights and mostly for protection of any children produced by that marriage.
A gay relationship can be just as strong and just as meaningful but it can never be a traditional marriage. So same-sex couples were offered legal protections of inheritance, hospital visitations, tax benefits etc. but they would not be 'married' but a different word would apply. As there would be no children produced by the union, the same rules of no marriage between close relatives, blood tests, etc. would not be necessary but gay couples could have the legal protections they needed.
But that wasn't good enough. They wanted the WORD too. And therefore changed its definition probably forever which benefits nobody and in my opinion has weakened us as a strong society.
I don't expect you or any other hard leftists to accept or even understand the argument. But I will stand by it.
Gay marriage does not have meet the meaning of "traditional marriage" to traditional people, who need to mind their own business.Separate but equal never works, and that is what you are pushing.
Children do not have enough life experience to know when they are being groomedThe only “experts” are the homosexuals themselves
They know the feelings they have. They know if they were groomed, they know whether they someday ”changed”
Overwhelmingly, these experts say they have always felt this way
Nope. Not separate but equal at all. There is marriage which traditionally in ALL religious and cultural beliefs is the union between a man and a woman going back to the beginning of human recorded history. And then there is something else that meets the needs of others who for whatever reason do not wish to marry.Separate but equal never works, and that is what you are pushing.
“Non-binary?”The presence of the book “Gender Queer: A Memoir” in elementary libraries has sparked controversy in some states. The book, written by Maia Kobabe, is a graphic novel that tells the author’s story of growing up nonbinary. It explores themes related to gender identity and nonbinary experiences. However, opinions on its appropriateness for school libraries vary.
Here are some key points:
In summary, while “Gender Queer” is available in some high school libraries, its presence in elementary libraries varies by location. Some consider it valuable for exploring diverse identities, while others raise concerns about its content. Ultimately, decisions about library materials are made at the local level12.
- South Carolina:
- South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster raised concerns about the book’s content, calling some of its images “obscene.”
- He asked the South Carolina Superintendent of Education, Molly Spearman, to investigate how the book ended up in public school libraries.
- The book contains sexually explicit and pornographic depictions, which McMaster claims meet or exceed the statutory definition of obscenity1.
- North Carolina:
- Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson pointed to “Gender Queer” as an example of what he called “filth” in public schools.
- However, there’s no indication that the book is being taught in the classroom in North Carolina1.
- National Education Association (NEA):
- Local Decisions:
- Local school officials decide what to put in libraries, not the state.
- In some cases, school districts have determined that the book is not “age-appropriate” for students and removed it from libraries1.
Nope. Not separate but equal at all. There is marriage which traditionally in ALL religious and cultural beliefs is the union between a man and a woman going back to the beginning of human recorded history. And then there is something else that meets the needs of others who for whatever reason do not wish to marry.
I dont believe men’s buttholes were designed for sex with other menMac-7 believes what he believes is 'normal' and The Good. My goodness.
Marriage was a union between a man and a woman long before you came alongMarriage is a construct of society, thus society can define it any way they like.