It revolves around the basic nature of mammal biology that parings are always between a male and female of the species. Whether they're fertile or not isn't the defining criteria.
So if the LGBT community doesn't get all they want by the election of 2014 as in 2010, will they sit out this election as both they and the Blacks did in 2010, throwing the House to the GOP? Real smooth move there. Get registered to vote and then vote .
I see we are now in fantasy land. Race is a different issue than sex. The attack on the Constitution continues. It will eventually be allowed in all states, but that doesn't mean that the federal government has ever been granted any power by the Constitution to force states to do it.
The problem here is what you believe is the purpose of marriage. You seem to believe it's procreation. It isn't.
The distinction is that there is not a need to change marriage to include interracial opposite sex couples, there is with same sex couples. Most States have decided not to do that.
Actually, I believe the purpose of marriage is to provide legal framework for support of the natural pairing of a man and a woman into a bonded couple. Merely being one of each sex meets the criteria of being the natural form for bonded couples to take. Successfully procreating isn't the defining characteristic.
Wrong. You only need consent to have sex with human beings. Bestiality, incest and other similar perversions are illegal because they are unnatural and unacceptable behaviors.
I dont care what gay people do, just as long as they do it in the privacy of their own home. Make no mistake, i believe something in their upbringing made them the way they are. It goes against human instinct to mate with the same sex.
But i dont think the gov should b telling people what to do if they arent hurting anyone
let me roll a molotov cocktail into this thread.
allowing gays to marry is like letting someone into a golf club who doesn't play golf.
2/3rds of gay people who marry admit they are not monogamous to one another FROM THE START of the marriage.
3/4ths have no plans to adopt/have children.
in short, they aren't in any way trying to live the lives of a standard "married couple". they just want the right. so let's give it to them. They only want it for the "title", not the idea or meaning of the thing. Just let them have it already. enjoy
I will agree that television today is filled with sex. I really have to research supposed family programming if i dont want my 10 year old watching the discussion ir simulation of a sex act.
But come on. Gays throw it out there more. Like they want the world to know they are gay and want to prove it. Take michael sam for instance. It couldnt be a gay man and his whatever celebrate his draft day with dignity, they had to start tonguing eachother. Its terrible. Fair, probably not but its the way it is.
Hmmmmmm there are 100 vets in my Fleet Reserve Lodge that might disagree with you my left wing friend.
Your right it does serve a purpose and that purpose is to cheapen traditional marriage.
CC I can'tt do that because people like me are in the silent majority and we never get polled............
A large part of the silent majority don't support SSM unfortunately they or people like me never get questioned on polls.
Hmmmmmm there are 100 vets in my Fleet Reserve Lodge that might disagree with you my left wing friend.
How about LSD in kids' cereals?
Yeah, the point is a no limits libertarian view of the world. There should be no limits on anything. And btw, whiskey cheerios for kids.would be illegal today.
We can now conclude that YOU just hijacked this thread definitively showing YOUR bias towards people who do not agree with YOUR opinion.
Is that one of your functions?
Hitting it multiple times in a roll is rather excessive or should I say obsessive..
I am against legalizing gay marriage. It violates natural law. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother. It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
Well, they still bring up children. And this is a problem. Education of person by same sex parents, surrounded by same-sex couples, can lead (and probably will) to the non-recognition of his gender identity in principle. That is, children will grow as an asexual being. The precedent was when 11-year-old boy who was adopted by two lesbians, said that he denies his gender identity and wants to be like a "two mothers." In this regard, moms started to feed him by hormonal drugs, which have detrimental effect on physical health in this age. Also, because of this education, the psyche of a boy suffered so much that he can not perceive himself as he is
CC I can'tt do that because people like me are in the silent majority and we never get polled............
There is a silent majority on every issue....I belong to the Fleet Reserve Association and we have over 100 members and none have ever been polled on SSM.
Many other religions see it as either a sin, abnormality or unnatural. It's far from being just a personal decision.
Homosexuality Comparison Chart - ReligionFacts
Guess the founders never envisioned the patent sinfulness of the 21 century.
Let's put it to a vote.
As usual that is pure crap....Me and many of my fellow Vets would love to be polled.
I am against legalizing gay marriage. It violates natural law. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother. It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.
I see we are now in fantasy land. Race is a different issue than sex. The attack on the Constitution continues. It will eventually be allowed in all states, but that doesn't mean that the federal government has ever been granted any power by the Constitution to force states to do it.
I don't believe in it, but if a state okay's it, so be it. If a federal judge subverts the will of the people in a state, and forces it on them, I've got a problem with that. Everyone should have a problem with that. But I know the left, and it's quite alright, if they get there way, the Constitution be damned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?