hangtennow wrote:
Quote:
I thought it was the job of the family and community to teach right and wrong. At least that's what conservatives have been ranting about.
and child says, "but Clinton did it".
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The problem with "domestic partnership"
The problem with "domestic partnership"Follow
and child says, "but Clinton did it".
I was doing ok reading through this until Bill & Monica and oval office head was mentioned. Now I'm totally lost...what were you all talking about again?
Ryneguy wrote:
I was doing ok reading through this until Bill & Monica and oval office head was mentioned. Now I'm totally lost...what were you all talking about again?
Nix wrote:
Straight people think about gay sex an awful lot.
Right, right...I remember now. That's why Varrus is posting so much. Thanks!
hangtennow wrote:
Nix,
Actually I'm trying to help you.
Actually I'm trying to help you.
Oh, this gonna be interesting.
NixNot wrote:
Straight people think about gay sex an awful lot.
hangtennow wrote:
You realize you can't just lock your child up to keep them from being exposed to questionable acts don't you?
Edited, May 8th 2009 2:20pm by NixNot
NixNot wrote:
Ryneguy wrote:
I was doing ok reading through this until Bill & Monica and oval office head was mentioned. Now I'm totally lost...what were you all talking about again?
"Straight" people, yeah.
The link tag on SFGate was "The elephant in the closet".
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Mindel wrote:
NixNot wrote:
Straight people think about gay sex an awful lot.
Doesn't quite have the same zip though.
Just because something turns you on doesn't mean it's wrong, either.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Just because something turns you on doesn't mean it's wrong, either.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Samira wrote:
Just because something turns you on doesn't mean it's wrong, either.
"Puritanism is the haunting fear that somewhere, someone may be happy."
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Just because something turns you on doesn't mean it's wrong, either.
Jophiel wrote:
It's actually been more entertaining than listening to "We need marriage benefits for the naturally produced children!" over and over again.
Varrus, you still haven't addressed the fact that gay marriage will reduce the spread of STD's.
1) Married couples are more likely to be monogamous.
2) a monogamous relationship will not spread std's. At worst case they will contain the std's within the relationship, best case is as nix said, if both partners have no std's no std's will be spread at all.
Given that your stated goal is to reduce harm to society, then encouraging gay marriage should be the obvious path. note that point 1 isn't saying that all married people are monogamous, but I would think it's reasonable to say that given societal norms at the moment, it does encourage that.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Mindel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Just because something turns you on doesn't mean it's wrong, either.
No, that's just the House of Lords.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Given that your stated goal is to reduce harm to society, then encouraging gay marriage should be the obvious path. note that point 1 isn't saying that all married people are monogamous, but I would think it's reasonable to say that given societal norms at the moment, it does encourage that.
He's already established by providing definitive proof that if we legalize gay marriage all our children will turn gay because we can't shield them from everything.
You don't think married people tend to be more monogamous than unmarried people?
Well, that's counterintuitive.
Well, that's counterintuitive.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
hangtennow wrote:
Cody,
His source is a clearly biased homosexual website. My source was the CDC. Which do you think is more credible?
His source is a clearly biased homosexual website. My source was the CDC. Which do you think is more credible?
hangtennow wrote:
According the strict definition of this incestual marriage as well as polygamy should be allowed yet we as a nation recognize these behaviours to be harmful to society. Homoexuality is no different. In fact it can be argued that homosexuals are more harmful than polygamists because their acts lead to aids. And yes they do. That 1-3% of the population accounts for 71% of the aids cases should throw up all kinds of red flags to a logical thinking citizen. But you aren't acting on logic are you.
Either way: Monogamous relationships are more likely to stay monogamous, whether you "buy" that or not. Allowing gay marriage will only reduce the number of new cases of AIDS being spread around and therefore positively influence society as a whole. Your pseudo-logic and wannabe morals can not deny it. I'm sorry, but simply saying "I don't buy it" or once more stating that it's a health risk (which it has clearly been proven to NOT be, time and time again in as many ways as one could possibly hope for) is NOT an argument.
hangtennow wrote:
Quote:
1) Married couples are more likely to be monogamous
I don't buy that. And once pandoras box, metaphorically speaking, is opened it can't be shut.
Also it's a very simple medical argument. The fact that you're ignoring the actual facts and instead creating false connections doesn't affect what's actually going on. The homosexual community, in large part due to being rejected by society in turn rejected societal norms at the time. They had a tendency to have multiple partners and sleep around more then was normal at the time, and so due to that and of course the increased risk of **** sex std's and specifically aids spread through the community very quickly. This has nothing to do with being gay however, it has to do with the gay culture at the time. If homosexuals are trying to have the option to change that culture by committing to official intended permanent relationships, this will be overall a good thing for society.
Going back to the quote above, I would say that it would be very hard to argue that people entering into a committed relationship are less likely to be monogamous. Given this, at worst we have given equality to this group, and there will be no effect, and at best we have set in place a system that has the potential to change the gay community for the better in terms of health etc.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#626gbaji,
Posted: May 08 2009 at 5:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Reading it and quoting it are nice. But where in there does it say that gay couples must be allowed to qualify for a set of government funded or mandated benefits if they agree to marry?
Recent Visitors: 304
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (304)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The problem with "domestic partnership"
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC