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.
I love the way gays always use cooked-up "scientific" studies to further their cause.
You mean you love how "the gheys" have actual scientific and peer reviewed studies, the AAP, AMA & APA to back us up and you have NARTH.
There are no reliable studies. Upon examination they have small samples and often are self reported. So much for reliable.
what's next for gays with marriage bennies......medical care for the inability to conceive....?
Obastardcare will probably cover it....
so what's next....designer babies....?
and you idiots think 'gay marriage' won't cause societal problems....
'gay marriage' is just one step forward in the godless Secular agenda...
Do heterosexuals get infertility treatments covered under their health care?
Are gays infertile?
You mean you love how "the gheys" have actual scientific and peer reviewed studies, the AAP, AMA & APA to back us up and you have NARTH.
There are no reliable studies. Upon examination they have small samples and often are self reported. So much for reliable.
Right..that's why the AMA, APA and AAP all support gay parenting AND gay marriage, because there have been no studies.
You are going to be so bitter in a few years...
If the argument against marriage equality is for procreation, why allow the elderly or folks without functioning reproductive systems marry? Why allow prisoners to marry? What about couple who decide not to have children? Should they be permitted to marry?
If the argument is a homosexual marriage is unnatural and therefore should be banned, what about children conceive in vitro? Certainly that is an unnatural means of conception. Should in vitro fertilization be banned because it too is unnatural?
If the argument against marriage equality is that such marriages would redefine the word "marriage", what real harm would come to heterosexual marriages? Would that redefinition render all other marriages void? Would a same sex couple present a genuine threat to the institution of marriage?
What does more harm to the institution of marriage: marriage equality or no fault divorce?
If indeed marriage is a stabilizing institution in society, wouldn't the benefits of that stabilization also work for same sex couples? Doesn't marriage make those in that contract more responsible?
If there is a good argument against marriage equality, I've yet to hear it.
If the argument against marriage equality is for procreation, why allow the elderly or folks without functioning reproductive systems marry? Why allow prisoners to marry? What about couple who decide not to have children? Should they be permitted to marry?
If the argument is a homosexual marriage is unnatural and therefore should be banned, what about children conceive in vitro? Certainly that is an unnatural means of conception. Should in vitro fertilization be banned because it too is unnatural?
If the argument against marriage equality is that such marriages would redefine the word "marriage", what real harm would come to heterosexual marriages? Would that redefinition render all other marriages void? Would a same sex couple present a genuine threat to the institution of marriage?
What does more harm to the institution of marriage: marriage equality or no fault divorce?
If indeed marriage is a stabilizing institution in society, wouldn't the benefits of that stabilization also work for same sex couples? Doesn't marriage make those in that contract more responsible?
If there is a good argument against marriage equality, I've yet to hear it.
That's a fallacy that "ability to procreate=ability to marry". It is either a deliberate distortion to reduce the argument ad absurdam or it is the product of abject stupidity. In your case possibly both.
The state sanctions marriage because marriage tends to produce stable families with children and is the best vehicle to do so. The fact that some of those marriages will not produce the desired outcome is irrelevant.
I love the way gays always use cooked-up "scientific" studies to further their cause.
You mean you love how "the gheys" have actual scientific and peer reviewed studies, the AAP, AMA & APA to back us up and you have NARTH.
There are no reliable studies. Upon examination they have small samples and often are self reported. So much for reliable.
If the argument against marriage equality is for procreation, why allow the elderly or folks without functioning reproductive systems marry? Why allow prisoners to marry? What about couple who decide not to have children? Should they be permitted to marry?
If the argument is a homosexual marriage is unnatural and therefore should be banned, what about children conceive in vitro? Certainly that is an unnatural means of conception. Should in vitro fertilization be banned because it too is unnatural?
If the argument against marriage equality is that such marriages would redefine the word "marriage", what real harm would come to heterosexual marriages? Would that redefinition render all other marriages void? Would a same sex couple present a genuine threat to the institution of marriage?
What does more harm to the institution of marriage: marriage equality or no fault divorce?
If indeed marriage is a stabilizing institution in society, wouldn't the benefits of that stabilization also work for same sex couples? Doesn't marriage make those in that contract more responsible?
If there is a good argument against marriage equality, I've yet to hear it.
That's a fallacy that "ability to procreate=ability to marry". It is either a deliberate distortion to reduce the argument ad absurdam or it is the product of abject stupidity. In your case possibly both.
The state sanctions marriage because marriage tends to produce stable families with children and is the best vehicle to do so. The fact that some of those marriages will not produce the desired outcome is irrelevant.
50% of marriages fail. Please try again.
You mean you love how "the gheys" have actual scientific and peer reviewed studies, the AAP, AMA & APA to back us up and you have NARTH.
There are no reliable studies. Upon examination they have small samples and often are self reported. So much for reliable.
I love the guy on the left in a skirt, Rabbi.
I didn't say 'ability' as in your stab at logic: ability to procreate=ability to marry. I said if the argument against marriage equality is procreation, why allow those who do not desire to or have the ability to procreate marriage. Children can come into a marriage by procreation or adoption. As the Right abhors abortion, and this anti abortion policy would indeed produce more unwanted children eligible for adoption, wouldn't a stable married couple, same sex or not, be the best venue for these unwanted children?If the argument against marriage equality is for procreation, why allow the elderly or folks without functioning reproductive systems marry? Why allow prisoners to marry? What about couple who decide not to have children? Should they be permitted to marry?
If the argument is a homosexual marriage is unnatural and therefore should be banned, what about children conceive in vitro? Certainly that is an unnatural means of conception. Should in vitro fertilization be banned because it too is unnatural?
If the argument against marriage equality is that such marriages would redefine the word "marriage", what real harm would come to heterosexual marriages? Would that redefinition render all other marriages void? Would a same sex couple present a genuine threat to the institution of marriage?
What does more harm to the institution of marriage: marriage equality or no fault divorce?
If indeed marriage is a stabilizing institution in society, wouldn't the benefits of that stabilization also work for same sex couples? Doesn't marriage make those in that contract more responsible?
If there is a good argument against marriage equality, I've yet to hear it.
That's a fallacy that "ability to procreate=ability to marry". It is either a deliberate distortion to reduce the argument ad absurdam or it is the product of abject stupidity. In your case possibly both.
The state sanctions marriage because marriage tends to produce stable families with children and is the best vehicle to do so. The fact that some of those marriages will not produce the desired outcome is irrelevant.
There are no reliable studies. Upon examination they have small samples and often are self reported. So much for reliable.
Right..that's why the AMA, APA and AAP all support gay parenting AND gay marriage, because there have been no studies.
You are going to be so bitter in a few years...
I never said there were no studies. Man, this has really unhinged you, hasn't it? It's like someone is questioning your whole right to exist. Of course it is no such thing. It's the 21st Century. No one cares if you like to munch carpets. Of course we don't need to hear about it, or pay for it, either.
I'm not the one on the wrong side of history and who is losing in this issue, you are.
I didn't say 'ability' as in your stab at logic: ability to procreate=ability to marry. I said if the argument against marriage equality is procreation, why allow those who do not desire to or have the ability to procreate marriage. Children can come into a marriage by procreation or adoption. As the Right abhors abortion, and this anti abortion policy would indeed produce more unwanted children eligible for adoption, wouldn't a stable married couple, same sex or not, be the best venue for these unwanted children?If the argument against marriage equality is for procreation, why allow the elderly or folks without functioning reproductive systems marry? Why allow prisoners to marry? What about couple who decide not to have children? Should they be permitted to marry?
If the argument is a homosexual marriage is unnatural and therefore should be banned, what about children conceive in vitro? Certainly that is an unnatural means of conception. Should in vitro fertilization be banned because it too is unnatural?
If the argument against marriage equality is that such marriages would redefine the word "marriage", what real harm would come to heterosexual marriages? Would that redefinition render all other marriages void? Would a same sex couple present a genuine threat to the institution of marriage?
What does more harm to the institution of marriage: marriage equality or no fault divorce?
If indeed marriage is a stabilizing institution in society, wouldn't the benefits of that stabilization also work for same sex couples? Doesn't marriage make those in that contract more responsible?
If there is a good argument against marriage equality, I've yet to hear it.
That's a fallacy that "ability to procreate=ability to marry". It is either a deliberate distortion to reduce the argument ad absurdam or it is the product of abject stupidity. In your case possibly both.
The state sanctions marriage because marriage tends to produce stable families with children and is the best vehicle to do so. The fact that some of those marriages will not produce the desired outcome is irrelevant.
Right..that's why the AMA, APA and AAP all support gay parenting AND gay marriage, because there have been no studies.
You are going to be so bitter in a few years...
I never said there were no studies. Man, this has really unhinged you, hasn't it? It's like someone is questioning your whole right to exist. Of course it is no such thing. It's the 21st Century. No one cares if you like to munch carpets. Of course we don't need to hear about it, or pay for it, either.
I never said there were no studies. Man, this has really unhinged you, hasn't it? It's like someone is questioning your whole right to exist. Of course it is no such thing. It's the 21st Century. No one cares if you like to munch carpets. Of course we don't need to hear about it, or pay for it, either.
Translation: You are right and I am losing this argument.
Right..that's why the AMA, APA and AAP all support gay parenting AND gay marriage, because there have been no studies.
You are going to be so bitter in a few years...
I never said there were no studies. Man, this has really unhinged you, hasn't it? It's like someone is questioning your whole right to exist. Of course it is no such thing. It's the 21st Century. No one cares if you like to munch carpets. Of course we don't need to hear about it, or pay for it, either.
I never said there were no studies. Man, this has really unhinged you, hasn't it? It's like someone is questioning your whole right to exist. Of course it is no such thing. It's the 21st Century. No one cares if you like to munch carpets. Of course we don't need to hear about it, or pay for it, either.
Um, actually you are on the wrong side of history....
"But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that" - Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation
Video: Heritage?s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman | myHeritage
I never said there were no studies. Man, this has really unhinged you, hasn't it? It's like someone is questioning your whole right to exist. Of course it is no such thing. It's the 21st Century. No one cares if you like to munch carpets. Of course we don't need to hear about it, or pay for it, either.
Um, actually you are on the wrong side of history....
"But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that" - Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation
Video: Heritage?s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman | myHeritage
Translation: You are right and I am losing this argument.
Awfully good of you to admit you're wrong!
. How does that make any sense?
Um, actually you are on the wrong side of history....
"But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that" - Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation
Video: Heritage?s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman | myHeritage
Welcome to the 21st century
I never said there were no studies. Man, this has really unhinged you, hasn't it? It's like someone is questioning your whole right to exist. Of course it is no such thing. It's the 21st Century. No one cares if you like to munch carpets. Of course we don't need to hear about it, or pay for it, either.
Um, actually you are on the wrong side of history....
"But up until the year 2000, no political community on the face of earth had ever defined marriage as anything other than a male-female relationship. I think there are good reasons for that" - Ryan Anderson, Heritage Foundation
Video: Heritage?s Ryan Anderson Debates Marriage with Piers Morgan and Suze Orman | myHeritage
