I second the banning of Queer Eye. Seriously, they went out of their way to make sure the gay dudes were standard stereotypes. It is like the blaxploitation of the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Printable View
I second the banning of Queer Eye. Seriously, they went out of their way to make sure the gay dudes were standard stereotypes. It is like the blaxploitation of the 21st century.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Marriage is already secularized.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
What I'm against is the exclusive, religious-izing of marriage.
And fuck you both, Queer Eye is a great show.
Gay Marriage/SI Swimsuit Cross-post:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." - Karl Marx
And thus all your opinions are deemed worthless.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Queer as Folk is great. Sometimes. :lol:
cross forum trolling since they took down cka's 2 strikes ruleQuote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
"Canada sucks"-just about everyone who isnt a canadian in denial.
Straight guys have no style.
Gay guys do.
Gay guys show straight guys some style.
I dont see what the problem is here.
So if you take away the religious definition of marriage, then what is it? What more is it in a secularized society then two people pooling thier resources, whether it be to raise children, because they like each other, to increase resources, or even to gain political power.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Of course the ease of divource has greatly weaken what marriage is truely meant to be anyway.
Still, tell me why two college roommates (could be either sex) couldn't have a marrige of convenience during their time in school and then separate and then go through the same thing with someone else. (Once again in the gov. eyes).
All, in all, marriage should likely be dropped by government and replaced by a civil union system for anyone who wan't to pool their resources. The vows or love or anything would be needed. Just fill out some forms then you'd be good to go.
Then there's still the question of whether it should be limited to two people or not.
I know it's already secularized. I just don't see what good secularization does society.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
And yeah, it's good if you need five gays to tell you how to match your socks, I guess.
I don't know. If they have all the style, why do we get all the pussy?Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
because theyre gay.
They don't want fish or chicken. They want sausage.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
The reforms of today's liberals are the standards of tommorow's conservatives.
Unfortunate fact #1: Women love gay guys.Quote:
I don't know. If they have all the style, why do we get all the pussy?
As for the whole style thing, I figure its because we actually wanna do them. But taking some style hints from Queer Eye isn't a bad idea at all.
Fortunate fact #1: Gays don't "love" women.
I'm sure there are plenty of women who are tired of the metrosexual emasculation of men.
On another note, it looks Bush is alienating a lot of Republicans with his stance on an amendment. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=544&ncid=716
I'll answer it: Some of them will raise children worse than some hetero people, some of them will raise children better than some hetero people, some of them will be awful parents, some of them will be average parents, some of them will be great parents, some of them will give their children nothing, some of them will give their children the world. Why? Because they're all differnent people with different parenting abilities. How the hell can a study say how all of them will do as parents? What's next? A study of how well Catholics perform as football players? Can't be done since everybody is and performs differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
There's an alienated republican right here. *points to self*Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I dont think they really love gays guys, they love guys that take the time to clean their ears, shave, and dress well. Three things I have problems doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
As far as Queer Eye, I find it entertaining. Better than most reality shoes in the same vein (Changing Places, etc).
Eh, as long as some gay guy doesn't tell me what to do about my hair, my beard, my clothes, or how I smell, I'm okay.
It's not so much that strait white men can't dress well, it is that no one shows them how anymore. Dads used to teach their sons how to dress. Show them what goes with what, what are the best brands, along with other tricks of the trade. You still see that in some european nations as they have quite a few white strait males who dress pretty snazzy.
While I'm commenting I think I will go off on a tangent about people who say white men can't dance. White men can dance, we can dance very well. The thing is, white men are not suppose to dance like we are screwing someone up the ass, or like we ourselves are taking it up the ass. White men are suppose to dance in a laid out way. Like a waltz or Irish jig, or all crazy like we are drunk, or maybe all of the above. The current media can go to hell for making the world think damn booty dancing is the only way.
I'll tell you, man, you sort of just set yourself up. There's no effort involved for your critics.
Eh, I got better things to do than make sure my post are pwned proof. Hell I encourage it. I don't think so highly of myself that I won't laugh at a good pwnage if done right. If I've helped everyone get a good laugh, who cares if it was about me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Opiates are the mass of my religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenshin
A summary of the issue:
http://img.coxnewsweb.com/C/04/67/83/image_483674.gif
sleeve, that's a bunch of bull crap. Nice try, though.
Care to explain, Veggie?
No, I don't. I already said I didn't care to get involved on page one, or was it two (?). I simply cannot stand sleeveboy's rediculously one-sided extremist view on nearly everything, and as such was provoked to comment.
It won't happen again, I assure you.
If sleeve didnt convince you about his "open mindedness" in the movie thread, you arent learning. when one of these threads pops up its best to stay in gaming discussion till the people who make it their life's work to be outraged cease being outraged, it reduces the stress remarkably. whatever will happen will happen, and nobody who posts here has the power to affect it at all, so its all just partisian monday-morning quarterbacking, i hope we dont muck about with the constitution for this matter, but really nothing to do about it till some sort of vote comes about, otherwise its just bitching in the wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Pot: "Kettle?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
Kettle: "Yes, Pot?"
Pot: "You're fucking black. Goodbye."
Black hole:hey pot and kettle, you are both black. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
How does supporting the Constitution make me a "one-sided extremist on nearly everything"?
And I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable to discuss the enshrinement of discrimination within the Constitution. I happen to think it's a significant fucking problem.
If you agree that this shit doesn't belong in the Constitution regardless of your stance on the issue then you shouldn't be offended by what sleeve posted.
I was almost shocked when I saw G.W.'s pompous announcement on TV. Sure he's the President, but that shouldn't give him the right to basically cast judgement on homosexual couples. In my opinion, the ideal marriage is one based on the love between two people, whether or not that love is between two people of the same or different sex makes no difference to me. Right now, straight people have done plenty to ruin the sanctity of marriage, so what the hell, let homosexuals get legally-binding marriages, maybe they'll be able to restore some importance to it. Getting rid of the Mickey D's wedding chapels couldn't hurt either.
I'll tell you what, it was worth reading through three pages of this just to get to that quote. I'd sig it but I don't know if that would be against the rules, since it might not be very PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by BURN007
Roufuss, I was gonna sig it then I realized my sig is perfect as is. But yours could stand to get better.
DO IT.
Oh yeah, it's rockin now.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Um, it's mostly wanting what you can't have. It is the same for gay men with straight guys. Straight guys with lesbians. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOVESKI
I just think gay guys sum up everything that women they think they want in men.
Doesn't hurt that they can't have them either, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I don't think it makes much difference. Most women think they want a sensitive guy who exfoliates and listens to their needs, but then they all wind up with cavemen who smack them around and give them brainshattering orgasms.
brainshattering? is that why mothers are typically stupid people?Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I think it's just because women make no fucking sense sometimes.
They don't have to if they don't feel like it.
Cool. Sleeveboy is against gun control. At least he's right on one issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
You know he is just going to pull something out his ass that states the right to bare arms doesn't mean the right to bare arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
People hate guns man. They fly around and shoot people, just like Megatron and ShockWave.
After taking all of this into consideration, I think I might have misspoken.
I took sleeve's post a way it wasn't meant. Sorry about that.
I really see this as an obscene abuse of the amendment process. To consider this situation so dire that it requires a consistutional amendment is to have an extremely distorted view of reality.
I can understand being against gay marriage. I disagree with it, I think it's childish, but I can wrap my head around it. But to say that it will threaten to unravel the fabric of our society, as Bush did on Tuesday... That's just downright delusional. This is not what the constitution is for, and if they pass this amendment, I will have very little faith in the constitution's ability to protect me in ways that are even slightly controversial anymore.
As for the issue in general, I can say without hesitation that I very much support gay marriage. Anything that encourages monogamy and gives those who practice it their well deserved rights is a very good thing.
:lol: OMFG! Soundwave does too! We need boombox control! At least he's straight though. He knows that casettes go in casette decks, not some other part of his anatomy.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
I'd just like to say that the court's interpretation of the extent of the protection granted by the second amendment is decidedly different from the NRA's. It actually wouldn't be difficult to ban hand guns in the US and have it hold up in the supreme court, it would just be an extremely unpopular decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
That sounds very similar to banning gay marriage based on a (correct) interpretation of the definition of the word. Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Sounds alot like it in what way? That they both at some point involve the word "constitution?" The issue at hand is not what the constitution protects, but rather that it currently leaves this issue up to the interpretation of the states by virtue of saying nothing on the matter at all. If you can somehow connect that to the gun control argument, you need to start hanging out with Parcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'm just saying that lobbyist money and popular opinion do far more to protect gun rights than the constitution. Under current cosntitutional interpretation, the people do not have rights to possess any weapon. They can't own AK-47s, sawed off shotguns, etc, effectively rendering it impotent as a means of defending againsts the government. They could just as easily draw the line at handguns, but it would be political suicide to do so.
I'm not even taking sides on the issue (though you're probably correct in any conclusions you jump to), I'm just saying, it's possible to be a constitutionalist and support many forms of gun control.
However the constitution doesn't say jack shit about gay marriage, and if it did we wouldn't be having this discussion, so I don't see where your comment is coming from.
I'd also like to point out how ironic it is to suddenly see the republicans rallying against state's rights.
Gays should be allowed to marry. Religion shouldn't care. A law isn't going to change Gods mind, so you don't have anything personal to worry about.
This isn't going to happen when you die
"Hey gods, whats the shizzie?" "Nothing much, we let gays in today." "What?" "yeah, the US made some crazy law about letting gays get married, so I thought Id change my mind about them. Isnt that great?" "@_@"
People should be allowed to owns guns, any gun they want for that matter. Hell let them have a tank. Why? Because last time I checked, killing people and destroying property was still against the law.
I am against gun control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I have said in previous posts that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a constitutional right to bear arms, which is true from the standpoint of existing constitutional law and precedent. But that does not change my stance on the issue.
Is that what you meant?
Look this move is a political move and that's it. There is no way in the hell amenment will pass. Stop having a hissy fit.
Its a move that is trying to attack the centrist approach of the Democratic Party. The majority of America is against gay marriage(Massachusets - a liberal state, has a majority of people against it at the moment). Now if the Democratic supports this policy or the moderate policy of favoring civil union(which is the rational thing to do), they may alienate the radical left. Seriously, all Bush is doing is capitalizing on the uproar caused by what they are doing in California.
And if Bush pushes hard for this amendment, he'll alienate a nonsignificant number of gay Republicans, moderates, and young people. Support for the amendment is only in the 30% range for the under-30 crowd.
Andrew Sullivan, the prominent gay conservative pundit, is furious over this issue, and he's always been one of the most vociferous Bush supporters out there. If Bush loses the support of gays and Jews over this, it will cost him the election.
First off, there is no way the amendment will be passed, even if he actually tries to push it. At least five Republican Senators came out against the amendment. There is not enough support in his party to pass it, and it would be foolish to pursue the agenda. Its just an appeal to the mass media and the moderates in the swing states.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
And support for amendent != support against gay marriage, I doubt the Republicans were counting on the gay community and Jewish to suddenly brake ranks and join the Republicans, the few Gay Republicans and Jewish Republicans there would hardly be a loss, if it could divide the Democratic Party(which I don't think will happen, its just a potential landmine).
Edit: Spelling
Massachustets is about 6% behind the national average on the issue, actually. You overestimate how liberal they are compared to other states on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigana
Also the majority of americans do NOT support a constitutional amendment to this effect.
Except most democrats already do. The Defense of Marriage Act was supprted by Clinton, Gephardt, etc. Kerry supports civil unions, too. Hell, Bush said he supports civil unions in his speech too.Quote:
Now if the Democratic supports this policy or the moderate policy of favoring civil union(which is the rational thing to do), they may alienate the radical left.
And Massechusetts, which by the way is still going into effect, and has NOT been overturned (I checked).Quote:
Seriously, all Bush is doing is capitalizing on the uproar caused by what they are doing in California.
On the civil union matter, I think it's an utterly stupid compromise, and I can't beleive that changing the word actually solves the problem for anyone. It's a semantics issue. If there's no legal distinction beyond name, then what's the point? And if there is a legal distinction that's a problem.
I just don't understand the logic. "I think gays are disgusting and shouldn't be able to get married." "Well, what if we called it getting narried?" "Narried, you say? Well that solves my problem..." How fucking petty. Who cares?
This is also a token appeal to the religous right who don't think he is hard enough on those gays(as scary as that it is).
Edit: Post Fubared
The FMA would not only outlaw gay marriage, but it would permanently alter the Constitution in such a way that gays would be unable to claim the rights incident to marriage, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigana
Gays and Jews have money, and they vote. In a close election you need as much of both as you can muster.Quote:
I doubt the Republicans were counting on the gay community and Jewish to suddenly brake ranks and join the Republicans, the few Gay Republicans and Jewish Republicans there would hardly be a loss, if it could divide the Democratic Party(which I don't think will happen, its just a potential landmine).
Obviously, my whole point is that the Republicans trying to make civil unions an unacceptable choice for the gay community. Trying to create a divide in the Democratic party, while before civil unions might have been acceptable, but with the progess in San Francisco, they might side with a different candidate that supports marriage licenses instead of gay issues. In addition, it is an appeal to the religous right, which are getting on Bush for not being harder on social issues. Of course this action is quite risky and might blow up in his face. All I'm saying is that there is no chance that the amendment is going to happen, so stop acting like its the end of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
And on the civil union thingie, it justs a compromise that provides basic rights to gay couple, but is totally secular. Unlike marriage, which still has religous overtones to the majority of the country.
Then it's time to remove state sanctioned marriage. I'm a firm believer in the seperation of church and state, so if gays can't be married because it's religious, but can have civil unions, then EVERYONE should be required to have civil unions, and marriages can be their own seperate religious thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigana
Yeah, I don't see why this is so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Some churches marry gay couples already.
It really isn't an issue. Religious people are making it one.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Yes, and my penis is capable of firing .45 caliber bullets into the asses of unsuspecting Christian males.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Which is dumb because it shouldn't bother them unless the government starts to force churches to do services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
It is not like they cared about the government being morally wrong before. They don't complain when we go to war to kill people over financial gain. Where is your turn the other cheek and moral code then?
The mental image of that is beyond hilarious (when imagined in a MontyPython sort of way, not a gay porno way).Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Got this today.
Just to clarify, I am EXTREMELY suspecting. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Stolen from a stealer, so credit goes to someone who made this.
Top 12 reasons why Gay Marriage should not be allowed:
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms like we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
President Bush: After gay marriage licenses, what's next? Gay driving licenses? Or maybe fishing licenses?
Conan: Excuse me Mr. President, what exactly is gay fishing?
President Bush: It's when you go fishing... and you dig dudes.
It isn't simply a matter of semantics. Without turning this into a TNL Religious Bitch Fight™®, Marriage is (or is supposed to be) a holy institution supported, sanctioned, and blessed by God and His church. Civil unions are institutions supported and sanctioned by law and the government. And therin is the problem most people, including Bush have with gay marriage. That people are trying to use God's name as license for sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
The difference is more than just in name alone. If the government wants to sponsor and support civil unions, by all means. I'm willing to bet that most people, including the religious right, would be all for it. Just keep God's name out of it and everybody is happy.
Then are all non-christians forbiden to be married as well?
What about the churches that let gay couple's marry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
This further backs my desire to get rid of state sponsored marriage. Keep your God's name out of my government. You take your God's name out of this and I'll be quite happy, but as long as the state is sponsoring it then I don't see any religious arguement against Gay Marriage and yet for Civil Unions as valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Our Deistic fore fathers made it a point to keep religious references out of the constitution and I'd prefer to keep it that way.
No, only the heathens aren't to be married!Quote:
Originally Posted by GameCynic
HEATHENS!!Quote:
What about the churches that let gay couple's marry?
Though seriously, from a biblical stand point homosexuality(ie the act) is stated to be "an abomination" to God. People can twist anything in the bible by selectively using single sentences, like that German bishop(I forgot his name) justified killing of the Jews during Hitler's reign using John's Gospel.
I think the real issue is the use ofa Christian ritual for something un-Christian.
And any Christian who condemn's anyone else doesn't understand core Christianity. The core of Christianity is to forgive everyone, and let God sort them out.
I'm a Christian, but that has nothing to do with my viewpoint on this issue, which is mainly that anyone should be able to marry anyone they want to. Matthew Good summed it up pretty well on his site (www.matthewgood.org) the other day by posting a "Marriage is love" entry.
The "core" of Christianity is to Love Jesus Christ, do as He would do, and worship God (Jesus) in all things that you do and say. To bring glory to Him by preaching His gospel and following His laws, to allow Him controll over your life that you might be given the ability to do so, and to love Him like none other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damian79
The core of Humanism is "to forgive everyone, and not to condemn them."
There's a HUGE difference.
There are several branches of Humanism, but I think the one we're talking about here is Modern Humanism which is best defined as; "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion."Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable
I don't think it's fair to lump human compassion with lackadaisical sense of morality.
I suppose you're right, g0zen, but I'm sure you can see where my illustration is going. My goal was not to defame Humanism, but to define Christianity correctly.
My apologies if I offended you with my words.
Man, don't get all lovey-dovey on me now. That freaks me out more than you hating me. I wasn't trying to one-up you there, just make both sides of the coin clearer..
But . . . but I thought we had something. You know, something.
And for the record, I've never hated you, man. I just get a kick out of rubbing you the wrong way. :p
Some people are fun to tick off. :)
Take, for instance, me. All you have to do is say, "CENSORSHIP!" and then I turn into a rabid attack dog.
CENSORSHIP!
I agree with Matthew Good's "Sick of Myself," because I am also sick of him.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
you would probably enjoy Straight Plan For the Gay Man then. Comedy Central, Mondays at 10pm.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
i didn't see it mentioned, hoping it might've (in the slightest) since i plan on using it for a class, but there was a judge or mayor that said something along the lines of "those who would prevent same-sex marriages, would also put Rosa Parks at the back of the bus." i'm wondering if anyone knows the exact quote and who said it because i can't find it anywhere. it might've just been a local news thing though.
I am in total agreement with you on this matter. The way I see it EVERYBODY should have to have a civil union first to deal with the legalities THEN go to the church to deal with the spiritual aspect of the union. Those who don't give a damn what God thinks wouldn't have to go through all the bother of a ceremony and would still retain all the legal benifits of marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
If Dubya does this, all it will give is a reason to "break" the foundations of the government when humans progress/degenerate in a hundred or so years time. Don't you need a referendum when you make amendments to the constitution anyway?
Honest to God I am getting just a little more than pissed off that people keep using the civil rights struggle as a basis of comparison for this bullshit. IT IS NOT THE SAME!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashen Victor
I do NOT appreciate having my grandparents' pain to made a mockery!!
You're discriminating about different forms of discrimination? That's classic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
What is the historical basis of marriage? I know it's a Catholic sacrament but I also assume marriage (at least in concept) existed before and outside of Judeo-Christianity.
Were marriages ever presided over by states, or were they handled exclusively by religious bodies? I guess the question is irrelevant since the separation of church and state is relatively new.
My problem with any argument that opposes gay marriage (not just the amendment) is that they all reference religion, and religion needs to stay out of government.
How are your grandparent being mocked? Because they're being compared to sinful, dirty faggots?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Marriage isn't the only way homosexuals are discriminated against. You don't need to be a crybaby liberal to see that there is a long history of violence and prejudice against gays and lesbians.
I think that's a rather apt comparison there, in some ways. It was a comparison of discrimination, which fits both the Rosa Parks mention, and the same-sex marriage mention.
What if Rosa Parks was a lesbian who wanted to get married to another lesbian on a bus? Think about it.. not too hard though.
Marriage exists because the state wants people to produce babies. Population growth is good, and marriage is promoted and encouraged in order to promote and encouage population growth.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
A family with a mother and a father is, on average, by far the best environment for a child to grow up in. An average mother-father family will do a better job of raising a child than an average single parent, or average gay or lesbian couple. The states want children to be as healthy as possible.
Marriage has always existed because the state benefits by the promotion traditional child-producing families. That's all.
I find it hard to believe that this is the entire reason. I could see this as ONE of the reasons but not the the only one. You got some proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
"We like marriage because it makes healthy babies."
-Mr. Western Civilization, c. 1865
For one thing, population growth is only good in families who can support their children and will create good little productive consumers. In poverty, children are a burden to the economy since they will take more than they give through reliance on welfare. Now, who are more likely to have babies, people living in poverty, or urban professionals... ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Marriage exists because it is a cultural thing that has been in place ever since the ice age began to defrost, and humans began started to settle for agriculture. It then become important to bind your daughter to a male who cultivated the most land, to ensure she would have grandchildren. It's basically just a co-op between a provider (male) and a mother (female).
Any straight person can easily make a baby; all we have to do is fuck and there it is. You don't need to want to have a baby to have sex, all you have to be is a heterosexual human over 13-16 y/o with red blood and a penis or vagina. Gay people on the other hand, there is no way they can get a baby on accident, they can't accidentally go up to the adoption counter and accidentally complete a mountain of paperwork, and accidentally pay a large sum of money. The most important thing a child needs is parents that WANT them and LOVE them, with gays that is a sure thing. So I'd go as far to say that on average gays would make better parents, since it's a sure thing they wanted to be parents.
"The most important thing a child needs is parents that WANT them and LOVE them, with gays that is a sure thing"
No it's not.
Who's more likely to love a child, a gay that wants them, or a straight that doesn't want them?
I don't want anyone to get defensive because they think I'm devaluing straight marriages. I'm straight and eventually want to have kids, why would I devalue my own future life? I'm just saying I think stupid irresponsible people having babies is more of a social problem then gays having babies.
Damn straitQuote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Vote AstroBlue for the ban on stupid assholes breeding
Marriage exists to protect and support the acquisition of property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
Marriage was established when God created Adam and Eve...first married couple. ;)
where is seperation of church and state in the constitution anyway?
The First 10 Amendents form the Bill of Rights, the first of which starts like so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nic0
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If you read the first sentence you can clearly see how GW trying to make marriage be defined as between a man and a woman is a religious distinction (by the assertion you yourself made that the first marriage was made by "God" between "Adam" and "Eve"), and is thus clearly unconstitutional because the Congress is forbidden to make such a law or amendment.