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.
Since the bible, God's word clearly speaks out against homosexuality, Jesus was indeed concerned about it. However that is merely my religious belief.
And yet Jesus never, ONCE, made mention of it. The only NT character that did was Paul...and that guy HAD to be the most sexually repressed man on the planet.
And you are right, it is your religious belief...which should not be used to make the LAWS of our country. Legal civil marriage is what is being discussed, not religious marriage. Gays and lesbians already have equal access to religious marriage.
From a practical standpoint homosexuality is a life-shortening lifestyle. The average homosexual man lives around 43 years, about 30 years below average. Even three packs of cigarettes and a dozen donuts a day will not do that. Therefore it is in the best interests of society to discourage such a poor choice of a lifestyle. We can do that by not allowing homosexual marriage or any homosexual education taught to impressionable children. We want our citizens to lead long productive lives so they can contribute to society, pay taxes and procreate.
Nothing like pulling statistics directly out of your hindquarters. Pure, unadulterated BS.
As far as education goes, what is this new California law about? Homosexual history? When I was taught history I was more concerned about what an individual did, not their sexual exploits. Benjamin Franklin''s exploits are a mere footnote, but his contributions to our fledgling nation are enormous. What is it with homosexuals and their desire to push their orientation upon young people in places where it has no business?
California law already requires that the contributions of minorities be recognized...all California did was add the contributions of gays and lesbians. The laws were already there...but the fundies only complain when "the gheys" are added to them.
And one more thing, who is to say whether Da Vinci was gay or not? And who really cares, other than homosexuals who are interested in dragging 800 year old cadavers out of the closet.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue""]Gay kids care...[/COLOR]
Why should they not get the same benefits as hetro couples? They pay taxes, right?
Those benefits were created to protect mothers and children. That is the only social purpose they serve: making sure children grow up with a decent home and that homemakers are not left destitute if they get divorced. Take that purpose away, and they have no justification whatsoever. That's why granting them to a couple of fuck buddies shaking up together serves no social purpose.
Those benefits were created to protect mothers and children. That is the only social purpose they serve: making sure children grow up with a decent home and that homemakers are not left destitute if they get divorced. Take that purpose away, and they have no justification whatsoever. That's why granting them to a couple of fuck buddies shaking up together serves no social purpose.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
There are gay couples who have children, should the children of gay parents be left destitute?
Those benefits were created to protect mothers and children. That is the only social purpose they serve: making sure children grow up with a decent home and that homemakers are not left destitute if they get divorced. Take that purpose away, and they have no justification whatsoever. That's why granting them to a couple of fuck buddies shaking up together serves no social purpose.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
There are gay couples who have children, should the children of gay parents be left destitute?
Yes, when the institution of "marriage" was given "benefits" by the government. The only "acceptable" way to produce children was thru "marriage". It is one of those "handouts" that was started when women did not work outside the home (except for those "scandalous" women). It was designed to keep the caregiver (woman) at home to be the available parent. It was for "the children".
Those benefits were created to protect mothers and children. That is the only social purpose they serve: making sure children grow up with a decent home and that homemakers are not left destitute if they get divorced. Take that purpose away, and they have no justification whatsoever. That's why granting them to a couple of fuck buddies shaking up together serves no social purpose.
This makes no sense whatsoever.
There are gay couples who have children, should the children of gay parents be left destitute?
If they are the biological parents, they aren't gay. If they aren't the biological parents, they shouldn't have been allowed to adopt.
Since the bible, God's word clearly speaks out against homosexuality, Jesus was indeed concerned about it. However that is merely my religious belief.
And yet Jesus never, ONCE, made mention of it. The only NT character that did was Paul...and that guy HAD to be the most sexually repressed man on the planet.
And you are right, it is your religious belief...which should not be used to make the LAWS of our country. Legal civil marriage is what is being discussed, not religious marriage. Gays and lesbians already have equal access to religious marriage.
Nothing like pulling statistics directly out of your hindquarters. Pure, unadulterated BS.
California law already requires that the contributions of minorities be recognized...all California did was add the contributions of gays and lesbians. The laws were already there...but the fundies only complain when "the gheys" are added to them.
And one more thing, who is to say whether Da Vinci was gay or not? And who really cares, other than homosexuals who are interested in dragging 800 year old cadavers out of the closet.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue""]Gay kids care...[/COLOR]
Since when is a "sexual choice" a "minority"? Now you are going to re-define "minority"?
Are we going to re-write history to show the contributions of those people that were half American Indian and half European (a minority)? Are we going to credit Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, .... This is another example of how ridiculous homosexuals can be once they are "accepted" in society.
Ya know, I can't think of a single monument donated by a married gay couple to any community. Of course, that must have nothing to do with the fact that few gay married couples exist because gay marriage is illegal.
Exactly how is homosexual marriage or childless marriage an economic burden? (I presume by support you are referring to economic support).
Please, try to stay with the discussion. A few of the homosexual extremists have admitted the "main" reason for homo marriage is "gov't benefits (other people's money), that "other people's children" will be forced to pay. That is commonly known as a tax burden.
I didn't say "a married gay couple". I said "homosexuals". Funny, when it comes to "great" heteosexuals. It is not hard to name them. When it comes to "great" homosexuals, Rosie ODonnel and Elton John are put forth. What altruistic statements have they made? Both of them look and act like angry, little, people.
Name names.
Since when is a "sexual choice" a "minority"? Now you are going to re-define "minority"?
Are we going to re-write history to show the contributions of those people that were half American Indian and half European (a minority)? Are we going to credit Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, .... This is another example of how ridiculous homosexuals can be once they are "accepted" in society.
The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorados constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by orientation, conduct, practices or relationships, id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was born of animosity toward the class of persons affected and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
This makes no sense whatsoever.
There are gay couples who have children, should the children of gay parents be left destitute?
If they are the biological parents, they aren't gay. If they aren't the biological parents, they shouldn't have been allowed to adopt.
Let's say a couple has a child, and both parents pass away. The child if then sent to live with a gay relative (written in the wills of each parent)-and is now that child's legal guardian.
What would you say then?
-Should they be "left destitute"?
-Should the couple that passed away not have the right to name a homosexual as the person to raise their child in case a situation as such should arise?
And yet Jesus never, ONCE, made mention of it. The only NT character that did was Paul...and that guy HAD to be the most sexually repressed man on the planet.
And you are right, it is your religious belief...which should not be used to make the LAWS of our country. Legal civil marriage is what is being discussed, not religious marriage. Gays and lesbians already have equal access to religious marriage.
Nothing like pulling statistics directly out of your hindquarters. Pure, unadulterated BS.
California law already requires that the contributions of minorities be recognized...all California did was add the contributions of gays and lesbians. The laws were already there...but the fundies only complain when "the gheys" are added to them.
[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue""]Gay kids care...[/COLOR]
Since when is a "sexual choice" a "minority"? Now you are going to re-define "minority"?
Are we going to re-write history to show the contributions of those people that were half American Indian and half European (a minority)? Are we going to credit Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, .... This is another example of how ridiculous homosexuals can be once they are "accepted" in society.
Folks said the same about Catholics (damn Irish), then the Jews (damn Jews), about Native Americans, about African Americans, and so forth.
Your logic is not based on any sense of reality. You don't like it. So what?
Since when is a "sexual choice" a "minority"? Now you are going to re-define "minority"?
Are we going to re-write history to show the contributions of those people that were half American Indian and half European (a minority)? Are we going to credit Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, .... This is another example of how ridiculous homosexuals can be once they are "accepted" in society.
The issue has nothing to do with a minority or acceptance, it has to do with a class of persons denied equal access to the laws:
The second post-Bowers case of principal relevance is Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). There the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorados constitution which named as a solitary class persons who were homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by orientation, conduct, practices or relationships, id., at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted), and deprived them of protection under state antidiscrimination laws. We concluded that the provision was born of animosity toward the class of persons affected and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose. Id., at 634.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Consequently whether one decides to be gay or not is legally immaterial; just as one might decide to follow a given faith, he is entitled to practice that faith without interference from the state, that its a choice doesnt mitigate ones right.
Since when is a "sexual choice" a "minority"? Now you are going to re-define "minority"?
Are we going to re-write history to show the contributions of those people that were half American Indian and half European (a minority)? Are we going to credit Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Polish Americans, .... This is another example of how ridiculous homosexuals can be once they are "accepted" in society.
Folks said the same about Catholics (damn Irish), then the Jews (damn Jews), about Native Americans, about African Americans, and so forth.
Your logic is not based on any sense of reality. You don't like it. So what?
The "Catholics (damn Irish), then the Jews (damn Jews), about Native Americans, about African Americans" [emphesis mine to note there were a few exceptions here] are not given "special" emphesis in history books.
Repeat:
This is another example of how ridiculous homosexuals can be once they are "accepted" in society.
Please, try to stay with the discussion. A few of the homosexual extremists have admitted the "main" reason for homo marriage is "gov't benefits (other people's money), that "other people's children" will be forced to pay. That is commonly known as a tax burden.
I didn't say "a married gay couple". I said "homosexuals". Funny, when it comes to "great" heteosexuals. It is not hard to name them. When it comes to "great" homosexuals, Rosie ODonnel and Elton John are put forth. What altruistic statements have they made? Both of them look and act like angry, little, people.
Name names.
you
Folks said the same about Catholics (damn Irish), then the Jews (damn Jews), about Native Americans, about African Americans, and so forth.
Your logic is not based on any sense of reality. You don't like it. So what?
The "Catholics (damn Irish), then the Jews (damn Jews), about Native Americans, about African Americans" [emphesis mine to note there were a few exceptions here] are not given "special" emphesis in history books.
Repeat:
This is another example of how ridiculous homosexuals can be once they are "accepted" in society.
Absolutely false and a poor attempt at righty revisions. You better believe the Catholic Irish immigration, the Jewish immigrant experience from the 1870s on, the African Americans, and the Native Americans are indeed given "special" emphasis in history books.
Here is a thought. Get a history primer (either high school or higher education), turn to the Index, and look these terms up.
Come on, you are better than this.
Ya know, I can't think of a single monument donated by a married gay couple to any community. Of course, that must have nothing to do with the fact that few gay married couples exist because gay marriage is illegal.Have you ever been to Hershey, PA? It was a community built by a "traditional" couple that could not have children. They worked to make it a place where people would want to move to and work for Hershey. There are quite a few of those places: where a "traditional" couple that could not have children made the world a better place for those that could have children. There are even more that volunteer for community building and donate large amounts of monies to churches, communities, and charities.
Where are the monuments (built and paid for by homosexuals) that homosexuals donated to communities? Where do they (homosexuals) give back to the community that they so willingly feed?
Exactly how is homosexual marriage or childless marriage an economic burden? (I presume by support you are referring to economic support).That is a whole lot of support for very little return (even if you do consider adoption and veternarian type fertilization). I know that burns your butt, but, those are conclusions that are obvious, if you really "care about the children" (of the future).
Please, try to stay with the discussion. A few of the homosexual extremists have admitted the "main" reason for homo marriage is "gov't benefits (other people's money), that "other people's children" will be forced to pay. That is commonly known as a tax burden.
I didn't say "a married gay couple". I said "homosexuals". Funny, when it comes to "great" heteosexuals. It is not hard to name them. When it comes to "great" homosexuals, Rosie ODonnel and Elton John are put forth. What altruistic statements have they made? Both of them look and act like angry, little, people.
