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.
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.
Talk about "revisionists". "Immigration" flows are not the same as pointing out the sexual orientation of every person in history. I am sure if we had an "immigration" of a few million homosexuals that would be included in the history books. Do you know the sexual preference and ethnic background of: Edison, Bell, Grant, Harding, Nixon, Roosevelt, Taft, Hoover, Ford, Jobs, Gates, Rice, West, Blondel, etc, etc, etc. The ones that you might know are probably of personal interest. I am sure you could find that information in historical biographies on those people, but for the most part, it is not included in history, unless they were a personal favorite of the author (and then, they are an inset, not part of the actual history part). You are still a sad little, man.
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.
Who were these people saying that the "main" reason for same sex marriage is for "gov't benefits"? The actual "main" reason for marriage equality is...(wait for it)...E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that because of our sexual orientation, gays and lesbians should not be able to own guns? Should be denied housing or employment? Be imprisoned for being gay?
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.
There are plenty of "great" gay and lesbian contributions to American society in art, music, literature and politics. If a school talks about Martin Luther King during Black History Month, why should they not also talk about Harvey Milk? Both made significant contributions to American History.
I forgot, in today's PC world, religious people are to condemn all sinful behavior listed in the Bible except for homosexuality because the media, Hollywood, and a bunch of lying psychiatrists are more accepting of homosexuality and say its ok and all of the above are more objective than our religion.
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.
Who were these people saying that the "main" reason for same sex marriage is for "gov't benefits"? The actual "main" reason for marriage equality is...(wait for it)...E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that because of our sexual orientation, gays and lesbians should not be able to own guns? Should be denied housing or employment? Be imprisoned for being gay?
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.
There are plenty of "great" gay and lesbian contributions to American society in art, music, literature and politics. If a school talks about Martin Luther King during Black History Month, why should they not also talk about Harvey Milk? Both made significant contributions to American History.
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.
Talk about "revisionists". "Immigration" flows are not the same as pointing out the sexual orientation of every person in history. I am sure if we had an "immigration" of a few million homosexuals that would be included in the history books. Do you know the sexual preference and ethnic background of: Edison, Bell, Grant, Harding, Nixon, Roosevelt, Taft, Hoover, Ford, Jobs, Gates, Rice, West, Blondel, etc, etc, etc. The ones that you might know are probably of personal interest. I am sure you could find that information in historical biographies on those people, but for the most part, it is not included in history, unless they were a personal favorite of the author (and then, they are an inset, not part of the actual history part). You are still a sad little, man.
Kiddo, you brought this nonsense up. Get the primers, please, and if you don't think the analogies fit, then don't set up a straw man and knock them down.
I am a happy chap, with a happy family, with no fear of homosexuals, like you.
Yeah, I will very much take my life over yours.
I forgot, in today's PC world, religious people are to condemn all sinful behavior listed in the Bible except for homosexuality because the media, Hollywood, and a bunch of lying psychiatrists are more accepting of homosexuality and say its ok and all of the above are more objective than our religion.
You get the gist of what I'm saying, the OP is an ad-hominem that basically says if you don't accept homosexual behavior and whatever the hell they like and want you're bigoted and intolerant but if the writer of the OP cannot accept the religious beliefs of others what does that make him?.................LMAO!
And what are you going to do about it? Why are you so concerned whether or not society is ‘accepting’ of homosexuality?I forgot, in today's PC world, religious people are to condemn all sinful behavior listed in the Bible except for homosexuality because the media, Hollywood, and a bunch of lying psychiatrists are more accepting of homosexuality and say its ok and all of the above are more objective than our religion.
Who?
Can you first walk me through the difference between marriage and civil union?
I forgot, in today's PC world, religious people are to condemn all sinful behavior listed in the Bible except for homosexuality because the media, Hollywood, and a bunch of lying psychiatrists are more accepting of homosexuality and say its ok and all of the above are more objective than our religion.
I forgot, in today's PC world, religious people are to condemn all sinful behavior listed in the Bible except for homosexuality because the media, Hollywood, and a bunch of lying psychiatrists are more accepting of homosexuality and say its ok and all of the above are more objective than our religion.
I married my wife NOT for equality...NOT for tax advantages...I married my wife as it gave me the feeling of a true union..
Marriage is a symbol. ALl should enjoy the benefit of the feeling associated with it.
Hmm, basically the media shapes religious belief, and has you females mascared up, scarfless, eating meat on fridays, shaving yourself all over, wearing sexy clothes, etc. so seems you don't mind taking it in the ass, your just worried about two guys doing the same.
And lying psychiatrists?? LMAO! What do you know about that? Obviously there has been years of scientific sudy on the subject, and because you don't like the conclusions, you try to use your god and your lack of sense to say its all a lie??
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?
I have talked straight to you haters. Everyone of you are entitled to your opinion, and if you have the numbers and the law you can dictate what others have to do. But you don't anymore, and that is simply the way it is. You have a right to your interpretation of the Bible, but what you have trouble with is that others do as well.
Oh, who ever set up the false analogy of murder and homosexuality, do yourself a favor and go take a course in logic.
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.
Who were these people saying that the "main" reason for same sex marriage is for "gov't benefits"? The actual "main" reason for marriage equality is...(wait for it)...E-Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that because of our sexual orientation, gays and lesbians should not be able to own guns? Should be denied housing or employment? Be imprisoned for being gay?
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.
There are plenty of "great" gay and lesbian contributions to American society in art, music, literature and politics. If a school talks about Martin Luther King during Black History Month, why should they not also talk about Harvey Milk? Both made significant contributions to American History.
I married my wife NOT for equality...NOT for tax advantages...I married my wife as it gave me the feeling of a true union..
Marriage is a symbol. ALl should enjoy the benefit of the feeling associated with it.
