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.
what did you say to me one time? Get an education? Maybe you should because its a well known fact that in Nature, the act of "gay" happens.
Thats besides the point of us being animals as well and practicing it And its besides the point that if we are all god's creatures then god did indeed create gay people. OR you saying you know better than God and all of gods Wisdom?
Because thats exactly how you are coming off.
Animals will eat their young also. Are you suggesting because animals do, then people should too??????
BTW, in the animal world, a sex act on the same sex is purely dominance, are you saying that is happening in homosexual relationships?
The Lord created cleptos too. Do you think we should encourage them to steal because they were 'born that way'?
and certain animals once they mate, mate for life. Are you suggesting because animals do, then people should as well?
Wrong, Its been shown Dolphins have sex purely for fun.
Are you saying god was wrong?
Promoting Monogamy? Common Sense. It's hard to catch an STD when you are in a monogamous relationship.
Parents? Recognizing parents as parents would not make things simpler?
Tax Code? Are you implying that adding a whole new level to tax codes for States and maybe eventually to the Federal Code for Civil Unions wouldn't be more complicated?
Economic Benefit:
"From June 17 to Nov. 4, 2008, when such weddings were allowed before California voters banned them, the San Francisco county clerk issued 5,152 marriage licenses to same-sex couples, said Ted Egan, an economist with the city controller's office. Fewer than half, 45 percent, were city residents, he said in court testimony in 2009. Egan projected that the ban would cost the city about $35 million in annual economic activity."
"The NYC I Do campaign will create millions of dollars in additional economic impact to the citys $31 billion tourism industry, Kimberly Spell, a spokeswoman for NYC & Company, the citys marketing office, said yesterday in an e-mail. Bloomberg will unveil more details in coming days, she said."
"An analysis by the New York City comptroller in 2009, the last time gay marriage was debated in New York, found that the practice would push $210 million into the state's economy over three years. <P> The city's tourism agency is developing a campaign called NYC I Do to make it "the gay weddings destination," which it said could create "hundreds of millions of dollars in additional economic impact."
Seeing an economic boost from same-sex marriages | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/03/2011
New York City Plans Campaign to Woo Gay Weddings - Businessweek
Wanna cash in on gay marriage? New Yorkers say 'I do' - USATODAY.com
>>>>
So... basically what you listed were 'Las Vegas' type benefits (why not use the same terminology: sin taxes)?
Marriage is a "sin" tax now?
Many heterosexuals are going to be upset with that.
Do you have the statistics for how STDs were reduced in these areas?
Not at the tip of my fingers, but maybe you could explain how promotion of long term monogamy would increase STD rates?
Do you have the stats for how children are improving and child abuse and neglect are less because of homosexual unions in the area?
I never made that claim.
>>>>
Coupla things..
WOMEN are gonna wake up a few years after "gay marraige" carries the day and recognize that all of their advantages in divorce --- child custody, alimony preference, and all of their preference in domestic disputes and restraining order --- HAVE DISAPPEARED.. Why?
Because by redefining genders in "marraige", the law will have to start making these decisions truly blind to Sex. Those "benefit protections" for women will no longer exist.
AFA my opposition to gay marraige --- it exist only in the terminology. Get those creative gay communities to come up "domestic partnerships" or preferably something more romantic -- and I'm on board. All the legal protections and equal under the law.. It's just not "marraige".
Keep the CONGRESS and the FEDS out of it. Create a name for the bond. Create the local govt paperwork to realize it. Sign the bill at the state level. It'll have MUCH more popular support..
BTW --- I suggest "Pairaige" .
Then you support removing the term "marriage" from all legal documentation, laws, statutes, etc., right?
Another reason: HEALTH, we all need to make sacrifices to bring down the health costs for the nation and since homosexual behavior (in men) can increase the chances they will get AIDS or HIV, why encourage that type of behavior by legallizing (endorsing) that behavior that will lead to increased health costs for all of us? (They did it for 'smoking', they are doing it for transfats, they are doing it to children's menus in schools) Do youu believe the Czar over the health care plan will not throw you over a cliff (or give you "the" pill) once your health care costs become 'greater than average'?
So...eliminate marriage for all people who could get diseases....using your logic.
To equate gay marriage to the plight of the inhumane treatment blacks recieved is not only obsurd but an insult to those that died fighting that fight and those that died for no good reason. You sir are an idiot....You don't agree with me. Good, that's the American way. We do accomplish much through dialogue. What accomplished here is that those who don't like marriages in the same sex are flailing aimlessly. Universal marriage is inevitable, just as was the results of the civil rights campaigns.
Civil rights are civil rights whether we are talking about race, age, gender, religion, or sexual preference. Sorry, your thought patterns are unable to grasp that.
If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.
If they are in a faux marriage, they should get faux benefits.
If homosexuals want to have tax supported 'unions', the people or their representatives will have a say. If they want to keep us out of their bedroom, please tell them to quit bringing their bedroom into the public square. This behavior should not be encouraged, tolerated, okay, but not encouraged.
It's not a faux marriage, it's a real marriage.
And how are we bringing our bedrooms into the public square any more than any straight couple talking about getting married?
If civil marriage has financial benefits, then homosexuals are entitled to them, whether or not you think the benefits are 'fair'.
So if the government gives benefits to people who have children, then people who don't have children are entitled to those benefits as well?
Your argument is idiotic.
Ask all the married childless couples today if that isn't already the case.
Another reason: HEALTH, we all need to make sacrifices to bring down the health costs for the nation and since homosexual behavior (in men) can increase the chances they will get AIDS or HIV, why encourage that type of behavior by legallizing (endorsing) that behavior that will lead to increased health costs for all of us? (They did it for 'smoking', they are doing it for transfats, they are doing it to children's menus in schools) Do youu believe the Czar over the health care plan will not throw you over a cliff (or give you "the" pill) once your health care costs become 'greater than average'?
So...eliminate marriage for all people who could get diseases....using your logic.
I am pointing out that people that engage in homosexual activity (males) have a higher rate of getting diseases than people that don't (heterosexuals). BTW this study did not include those that had multiple opposite sex partners.
You are mistaken. Obesity is a terrible problem and I seriously doubt that HIV/AIDs comes close to the $100B we have to spend each year on Obesity.
First, obesity is a condition that is treatable. HIV/AIDS, while treatable, is terminal and contagious.
Obesity is none of those.
Second, we spend more fighting the common cold than we do treating obesity, and that is for temporary symptoms.
Third, facts show that transmission of AIDS is highest among homosexual males than any other category.
Fourth, no one has ever died from being fat.
I have no problem at all with the extension of the rights and financial advantages of Marriage enjoyed by mixed gendre couples to gay couples.
However, the word "marriage" is a religious word based on religious beliefs and as such is potentially an offense when used in this sense. So, with an eye toward being sensitive, there needs to be a word or phrase that both avoids the offense to the religious and bestows dignity on the gay union along with the legal rights.
As with most things, there is a legal and a personal aspect to this that people of good will should take into account.
So the premise of the OP is that if you don't support gay marriage you're intolerant and a bigot, typical far left argument of those who feign support for homosexuals to be seen as good people who care about gays.
There are some (not saying you) that want to deflect away from religious observance as a factor and would prefer to play the race card and advocate (or admonish as the case may be) that it was the blacks that passed Prop 8. The fact is that mathematically their impact was relatively small.
>>>>>
Can any person here who is "opposed to gay marriage" come forward and justify their position on the basis of anything other than intolerance and bigotry? Seriously.
Where is it written that marriage is a "right"? It is not a "right" (otherwise people could be forced into marriage to fullfill another's "right"). Marriage is the partnership between one man and at least one woman. The definition has stood for centuries. There is no reason to twist, mock, confuse that word. Do those that want a homosexual partner legally reject the ability for themselves to have a 'raditional' marriage? If not, his is special treatment (an additional privilege for people of a sexual preference is not equality).
From the conversations that I have had about this topic, the main reason "homosexuals" want to be defined as "married" is to have access to gov't monies that belong to their partner. If this is true, this country is broke and cannot afford that "drain" on the taxpayer dime. The reason the gov't started giving money to widows was because the husband 'was' the sole money maker, and the wife was left with no form of income. Homosexuals have no reason to not to be 'productive members of society', they cannot procreate without 'influences from outside the partnership'. If they choose to have children, they must rely on persons of the opposite sex to assist them in this matter.
Homosexuals should not be able to "marry" for those reasons. If they want to make a new category of legal definition, possibly, common law partner or bound partner, I have no objections. If they want to make a "special" legal joiner that all taxpayers will be forced to support thru the gov't, then it should be put on a ballot.
Guess what, because the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman. Lev.20:13 "if man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own hands." You see, it is because the Bible says it that it is wrong. It is not shoving religion down anyones throat, it is the truth spoken in God's word, period.
I guess the concept of supporting equal rights for all Americans is now "far left" in a staunchly conservative's brain
If we were intended to mate with the same sex we would have evolved that way. It is unnatural to say the least. Apparently mother nature, god, or just plain ole evolution is the biggest bigot of all.
It isn't genetic or environmental. The only thing that leaves is choice.
Explain why the gay % of our population is around 2-10%, but among identical twins (even if separated at birth), it's about 40-50%?
If it was genetic you would see a 100% correlation in monozygotic twins, it actually runs around 50% depending on which study you look at. (One study pegged it at 100%, but I think that was selection bias.) I have not seen any statistics on the correlation between genetic twins separated at birth, but the fact that you peg it at 50% is indicative that my numbers agree with yours. Dizygotic twins have about a 20% correlation rate for homosexuality. Those numbers are indicative that, although genetics may play a part, it is not the deciding factor. Neither is environment.
That leaves choice, unless you can think of something else that makes a difference.
