This is the best speech on gay marriage

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am sorry. I assumed that people who were in sexual marriages were not having sexual intercourse with people of the opposite sex. Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

single people have babies. is having a baby exclusive to being married?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It is disturbing how these open minded people are willing to brand us for not following them lock-step. I see the brown shirt mentality from their side, not us.

you're an idiot.

[AussieFanKurt]

Just because I disapprove of them and think they are confused, perverted human beings

you're an idiot

[Blake]

THere is nothing absolute with that post. It stands alone. I stand by it. If I do anything for internet cred, I would hope my family to take me out of my misery. Living my life in the hopes that you believe me is not a goal. Reading some of your nonsensical crap makes me feel that you need to focus more inwardly. Take your own advice.

my advice is to source your statement and I do take my own advice as often as possible.

you saying

Also the studies that a large percent of molested children growing up and choosing to have sexual relationships...

is implying that there are studies that close out the theory you have that a large percent of molested children grow up and choose to have sexual relationships.

I'm simply asking for your source.

If you are wasting time on a message board posting crap off as the truth, the maybe you should take your own advice and have your family take you out of your misery.

[Blake]

care to explain.

Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

just trying to figure out how someone in this day and age doesn't understand the process of artificial insemination.

[Supergirl]

I would never persecute, harm, or discriminate against sexuals. Never.

I won't support anything that does that.

Just because I disapprove of them and think they are confused, perverted human beings, doesn't mean I don't care for them as human beings and would see them harm. I would help them, and if I saw a sexual being hurt, I would be on the sexual's side.



But my views don't change. and I don't want marriage re-defined and muddied up with sexuals.


Give them their own ins ution. Gay couples are a new and strange thing to be recognized now to the USA, so accordingly, give them a new union name, with all of the same rights.


I'd be happy with that, the end.

If they aren't happy, too ing bad. My happiness matters too. and they should only be worried about being with their couple and afforded all of the financial/legal incentives.

If they are worried about what I think of them, then this isn't about marriage now is it. This is a trojan horse for acceptance, which will never happen.

The most virulent anti-gay sentiments usually come from self-loathing s...have you looked in the mirror lately? I'm just saying.

The law has nothing to do with whether you're "happy" or "accepted" or whether I am "happy" or "accepted." The law in this country is set up to protect the rights of the minority. And as long as we have 1200 or so rights granted by the federal government to couples based on the gender on their driver's licenses, then those rights cannot be denied to other couples based on their genders. To do so is UNCONS UTIONAL.

You just don't get it. You are so wrapped up in your own fear that you can't see what's right and what's wrong.

[ElNono]

You mean heterosexual couples that cannot procreate are somehow unhealthy marriages? You don't think that the people in those unions cannot help advance society?

sexual lifestyle is a health hazard, discouraged by the medical profession.

They have the highest rates of STD's, and internal injuries, and all sorts of other problems.

They create an disgusting union that is not a traditional family. Man, woman, and child. Not man man, or woman woman.

I would say you are the ignorant one.

[ElNono]

There it is.

Don't dodge the questions, bigot.
Are you going to answer or go back to your soapbox?

[ElNono]

I would never persecute, harm, or discriminate against sexuals. Never.

I won't support anything that does that.

[ElNono]

You are wrong and you are young.

LOL @ pulling the young card. I'm probably older than you, but what does it matter?

[BacktoBasics]

This thread is full of disgusting ignorant bigots.

[rjv]

I am sorry. I assumed that people who were in sexual marriages were not having sexual intercourse with people of the opposite sex. Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

okay so let us assume that every "couple" has a fertile relationship on top of all the births we already have out of wedlock. so there are no gay couples at all. how much exponentially greater would the population of this already overpopulated planet be?

do you really think the human species is in danger of being short of conceptions?

have you ever considered that nature finds a way to balance itself?

[rjv]

What argument do I need. The fact is our society has advanced from Judeo-Christian values. You on the other hand are trying to remove all these values, even the basic family structure ones. Without any evidence that this has ever worked in the history of this world, you are assuming that it will. Make as much variables as you want to blame for the decaying of our society. It could all be traced to the breakdown of our beliefs in what is acceptable and what is a family.
Do you have any empirical data?

you said marriage. now you are extending this argument to "family". and what values am i trying to endorse the removal of? all i have ever been getting at is one simple question? what numbers do you have to demonstrate that the "healthy marriage" as defined by your generalizations is the one single factor that is keeping this society from decay.

you never mentioned the "family unit" before. you specifically stated "healthy marriages".

and no one here is talking about judeo-christian values so stick to that one simple aspect.

[ElNono]

you said marriage. now you are extending this argument to "family". and what values am i trying to endorse the removal of? all i have ever been getting at is one simple question? what numbers do you have to demonstrate that the "healthy marriage" as defined by your generalizations is the one single factor that is keeping this society from decay.

you never mentioned the "family unit" before. you specifically stated "healthy marriages".

and no one here is talking about judeo-christian values so stick to that one simple aspect.

You don't understand... gayness is evil... god would never approve... so we must outlaw it...

/sarcasm

[coyotes_geek]

You don't understand... gayness is evil... god would never approve... so we must outlaw it...

/sarcasm

Apparently God is a lot more understanding when it comes to aetheists getting married and couples getting divorced. Forming a covenant outside of a relationship with God and calling that a marriage = okay. Breaking up a marriage that God said should stand forever = okay. But when it comes to the gays, by goodness, that's the one line that must be held.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Apparently God is a lot more understanding when it comes to aetheists getting married and couples getting divorced. Forming a covenant outside of a relationship with God and calling that a marriage = okay. Breaking up a marriage that God said should stand forever = okay. But when it comes to the gays, by goodness, that's the one line that must be held.

you know what God said?

[spursncowboys]

okay so let us assume that every "couple" has a fertile relationship on top of all the births we already have out of wedlock. so there are no gay couples at all. how much exponentially greater would the population of this already overpopulated planet be?

do you really think the human species is in danger of being short of conceptions?

have you ever considered that nature finds a way to balance itself?

The children out of wedlock are a problem too. Europe, Asia, US and Canada have huge population problems. There are not enough young people to take the jobs in the next 10-30 years. America isn't in as much of trouble because of immigration. If you have empirical data to show I am misguided idea, then I would love to see it.

[coyotes_geek]

you know what God said?

Yes, I do. God said to ask you when you planned on getting around to refuting those cost estimates on the healthcare bill like you said you would.

Cue the not so witty GGA non-response, probably involving a personal insult.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, I do. God said to ask you when you planned on getting around to refuting those cost estimates on the healthcare bill like you said you would.

so you don't know what God said.

[coyotes_geek]

so you don't know what God said.

Incorrect. I do know. And it would be intellectually dishonest of you to say otherwise. You're not a mindreader afterall.

[spursncowboys]

So Miami is a gay bigot, and I am a bigot for questioning the religion of sexuality. You guys are the biggest bunch of closed minded hypocrites.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Incorrect. I do know. And it would be intellectually dishonest of you to say otherwise. You're not a mindreader afterall.

You're right. You are the mindreader..It's nice of you to finally admit that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So Miami is a gay bigot, and I am a bigot for questioning the religion of sexuality. You guys are the biggest bunch of closed minded hypocrites.

You're not a bigot. You're an idiot.

[spursncowboys]

This thread is full of disgusting ignorant bigots.

You

[coyotes_geek]

So Miami is a gay bigot, and I am a bigot for questioning the religion of sexuality. You guys are the biggest bunch of closed minded hypocrites.

You're free to question the religion of sexuality all you want. I think what most people have a problem with is that if you want to use the God's definition of marriage arguement when it comes to gays then you need to defend why that standard isn't applied equitably. Why is it only the gays who society needs to prevent from altering God's definition to their own purposes?