BingeAndPurge
Active member
houseman said:
Allow me to get on my knees and bow to mr hollier than thou
Allow me to get on my knees and bow to mr hollier than thou
Cogar
Member
They already have the same civil rights as everyone else. They want to change the law to reward them for their chosen behavior. To paraphrase off what BingeAndPurge stated, what would happen if child molesters claimed that their civil rights were not equal to everyone else's? Do we pass a law making it OK for them to adopt children since the laws will not allow them to do so today?houseman said:
BingeAndPurge
Active member
Just pointing out your hippocricy there, something you are again pointing out. You're being arrogant and it is clouding a good argument.
houseman
Board Supporter
BingeAndPurge said:
Arrogant? How so? I am trying to open up the discussion from a one-sided, hands in the air, kill'em all mentality to one that's a little more even keel.
If you see me as arrogant because I put forth a different opinion then that is your problem, not mine. I am not trying to be arrogant. I am putting forth a differnt opinion on the subject.
A
houseman
Board Supporter
Damn. I was under the impression the people at AM debated topics with class and manners. I guess that only applies to training, nutrition and "supplements".
See you all feel I am being arrogant I will leave you to your continued pseudo discussion of gays and marriage.
Thanks?
A
See you all feel I am being arrogant I will leave you to your continued pseudo discussion of gays and marriage.
Thanks?
A
BingeAndPurge
Active member
houseman said:
This is you being arrogant. I don't think anyone here minds another argument being brought to the table. If you look at some of my earlier posts in this thread I wasn't agreed with 100%, but I didn't go about it as a pompous twit either.
houseman
Board Supporter
NPursuit said:It just looks like some poor choice of words and miscommunication. If you leave the discussion now you will never win. Wait you won't anyway.
Show me poor choice of words? Because I pose a DIFFERENT viewpoint than what's currently been offered?
It could go the other way too.
I'm not looking to win this discussion
I have no stake in it one way or another as it doesn't affect me or my life.A
houseman
Board Supporter
BingeAndPurge said:
Come on. Now we're really getting off topic. What should I do, talk like I'm from da hood, some bad-ass motherfucker like some people around here?
Whatever, bro. You're entitled to your opinion and that's cool. I got no problems with that. You are, however, wrong in that I was being arrogant with my comments on the subject.
I was being completely sinscere.
For what it's worth at least.
Enjoy.
A
size
Well-known member
Marriage is a creation driven union between a man and a woman. Chaning this will damage the intergrity of this union that has already been greatly damaged in this country due to adultry, divorce, etc.
This is not a civil rights issue that people are trying to make it. This is about redefining the institution of marriage. Marriage is a special priviledge to a man and a woman that hopefully leads to procreation. This in turn leads to the future of life. This priviledge is NOT extended to homosexuals, but it is a priviledge, not a right.
One must recognize that judges do NOT make laws. This decision is an example of agendas being used in the judicial system. These actions should cause distaste with every voter whether or not you agree with the decision.
This is not a civil rights issue that people are trying to make it. This is about redefining the institution of marriage. Marriage is a special priviledge to a man and a woman that hopefully leads to procreation. This in turn leads to the future of life. This priviledge is NOT extended to homosexuals, but it is a priviledge, not a right.
One must recognize that judges do NOT make laws. This decision is an example of agendas being used in the judicial system. These actions should cause distaste with every voter whether or not you agree with the decision.
Biggs
Well-known member
VanillaGorilla said:
yes I agree the freedom to be an asshole is an important one, though I feel it is unfortunate that people as a majority use this "freedom" to support or excuse ignorant and intolerant behavior. i'm not saying that's the case here at all, but by and large, that's the deal, especially among people who consider themselves "religious". yes I happen to be pro choice, and my only point in bringing that up is that politicians know it is a much more dangerous topic for them to be involved with. gay marriage is a "safe" hot button topic in today's political landscape. regardless of where I personally stand on the issue of gay marriage (I happen to agree that accepting gay "marriage" signifies it as somehow "equal", which it is not), my point is that people are stupid enough to think that it is somehow an overriding, massively important subject because it's being thrown all over television, when there ARE more important political and social, not to mention economical, issues to debate. also, it is a "religious issue" only insofar as politicians know exactly how to appeal to target religious groups. basically all i was getting at.
PC1
Guest
NPursuit said:PC1 I could have sworn I just heard a rant from you on WAAF about gay marriage lol.
Nope! wasn't me, I swear !
I've spent the day thus far with my youngest daughter mostly, and with my fine bro's here on am.com On the issue of genetics guys..................
If it could be "demonstrated" that there was some equivalent of a "gay" gene, should that matter?
I'll answer that question with another question............
If it could be "demonstrated" that there was some equivalent of a "child molester" gene, should that matter?
It's easier to see of course in the second question these days because the PC crowd has managed to remove the idea that homosexuality equates to immoral behavior. Even if it is somehow genetic, the answer is it makes no difference when it comes to what society holds to be immoral behavior. We expect the child molester to seek or be forced to seek professional help and work to overcome that deviant behavior.
Most of us as men, and even many women, have desires to have sex with people other than our spouse, even though we're married and love our spouses. Just because we have these drives doesn't mean we have a GREEN LIGHT to pursue them. Most generally considerate cheating on our spouses to be a form of immoral behavior. We've made a promise to our spouse, amidst our family, and many to God as well, that we would put these aside, and we all know that's easier said than done.
And I agree that Houseman's analogy about the apes in the cage (no offense there Houseman) has zero relevancy here. We know our history, and the history of religion. We know why homosexuality is immoral and we don't want our government legitimizing it as an equally acceptable alternative.
We hold particular moral values as a society. In the U.S., about 1/3 of the population is what could be called "born again Christians". About 2/3rds are what could be termed "religious" insofar as having at least some affiliation with a religious organization. Somewhere close to 90% have a belief in God. Nearly all organized religions have similar core values about relationships between people and with God. The U.S. was founded as "one nation under God". Most of our founding fathers were either Christians or Deists.
One can't rationably argue that "morality cannot be legislated". Most all laws are exactly about morality! Laws against stealing, raping, murdering, etc.
In the eyes of conservatives, our U.S. government in the last 4-5 decades has consistently passed legislation to weaken the family unit as I've already stated earlier, making divorce easier, etc. Proposed "gay marriage" is just another assault. Why? Because it impugns the values that that have traditionally been held by our society. And what comes afterwards? I know this has been well discussed already but if we can't "discriminate" against gays, well we certainly can't discriminate against a polygamist who wants to marry 2 women, or maybe 4 women and 3 men. The term "marriage" then, has become a joke.
What happens in our public schools, particularly in social studies classes, if "gay" marriage is legalized? Are we parents who hold traditional values supposed to sit back and just be "tolerant" while we watch our children being taught that gay relationships are an EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE alternative?
What does it say about a society who apathetically allows it's government to legally sanction such relationships it holds to be immoral and indecent? Is that tolerance? Or is it a society with no backbone?
We cannot allow a minority element of eliteists in our society continue to enact legislation that erodes our moral fiber that defines who we are, simply because they think they "know better" than the rest of us.
Again, I think most people do have a live and let live attitude now about gay relationships. This is not about tolerance. The issue is VERY important because it's an attack to try to change who we are and redefine what we hold and accept to be sacred.
PC1
Guest
size said:
I was thinking the very same thing! WAY different than so many other forums all around the net.....
A testament to the high calibur of people who visit and participate here at anabolicminds.com
Everyone give yourself a small pat on the back!
PC1
Guest
NPursuit said:.........Group hug anyone?
$#&^ queers, everywhere you turn now.......
LOL !!
Just kidding bro, you rock!
PC1
Guest
houseman said:
Would you apply the same line of reasoning to:
Child molesters
Serial rapists
Murderers
Thieves
Kidnappers
Any criminal
Not to impugn you Houseman, but your espousing the PC way of thinking. Everyone just lives and lets live, everyone just does their own thing, everyone is tolerant, it doesn't affect me, there is no clear right and wrong, black nor white, everything is relative, we shouldn't discriminate, etc.
But as can be seen, this thinking doesn't stand up for very long. We have laws based on standards of behavior. We do discriminate. Some actions are objectionable on their face as being criminal and immoral.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Houseman your analogy of the apes in the cage has serious flaws. It's like comparing apples and oranges and not a very good analogy in this case. What you are basically saying is that the reason people are against gay marriage is because we have been socially conditioned to do so. One problem with this is you are leaving the genetic issue out of it. The gay activist party line (which I don't agree with) is that gays don't have a choice. They are genetically programmed to be gay. As I pointed out before with human reproduction you need a man and a woman to do so. With that concept in mind there is the possibility that we are genetically programmed to be repelled from homosexuality because it would mean the extinction of our species.
What exactly is the wrongs being done to gays? You can not equate homosexuality with racism. You can't tell by looking at someone if they are gay or not. Gay people are not told to sit in the back of the bus or not aloud into stores because of their sexual orientation. For the most part they have all the right most people do. Which brings me back to a point I made in my earlier post. If you offer them all the rights married people have why do they need the title of marriage? The answer has been posted. They want to force people to accept them. The other answer is they want to deconstruct American culture. What you are saying is marriage is what ever you want to define it. If two men can get married why can't three men get married? I love my donkey. I love my donkey the same way a man loves his woman. Why can't I marry my donkey?
PC1
Guest
I have to say that so far, this thread has been even more interesting than I imagined it would. Again, a testament to the calibur of people here.
Some have suggested this issue takes a back seat in significance to other pollitical issues on our horizon.
Interesting isn't it though, that a thread about some of those other issues has yet to surface here?
I know, it's all my fault, right?!
Some have suggested this issue takes a back seat in significance to other pollitical issues on our horizon.
Interesting isn't it though, that a thread about some of those other issues has yet to surface here?
I know, it's all my fault, right?!
PC1
Guest
Biggs said:yes PC1, it is your fault completely...
but it's okay, you're still like, oh my god, totally fabulous
In my mind, I can hear the lisp as those words roll of your tongue.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
I think it is an important issue. The issue is of liberal activist judges trying to force an agenda on the citizens who don't agree with it. It is unconstitutional to legislate from the bench. There is also the issue of a very well organized activist movement that is tiring to covertly get their agenda pushed threw, leaving the general public out of the political process. As I said before the marriage issue is the type of the iceberg of problems that have been going on in this state for some time.
I guess the problem I have with this statement is often times tolerance and ignorance are used as labels to take the attention away from the substance of a persons argument against a political topic. For example an activist reading my post would simply label me as " intolerant and "ignorant" and not respond to any of the substance of what I had to say. So how are people being tolerance and ignorant?
ke0ki
Board Supporter
I'm not a homosexual, but I am physically attracted to dogs. I have been in a very serious relationship with a german shepherd named Emma for quite some time now. We like to go on walks and play frisbee together. We would like to take this relationship further by getting married and starting a family. If a man and another man can do it, who's to say a man and a dog can't either? It's a free country, right?
BingeAndPurge
Active member
PC1 said:
I am starting to see your point, it's just that I think it is completely wrong that this issue has come to the level that one actually has to make a stance on it. The fact that there is a need at all to defend a view on a national and/or federal level I guess is what I'm saying pisses me off. I mean, are we going to start defining party affiliation by this? Death penalty, abortion, gun control, and now gay marriage?
size
Well-known member
Look at what this decision has caused:
"San Francisco officials presided over the marriages of at least eight same-sex couples Thursday and issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The act of civil disobedience was a political and legal challenge to California law. "
This implies that one only has to obey the laws one agrees with. Does this mean that any law can be ignored if a loud enough group disagrees? Does this mean that the members of NAMBLA should no longer obey laws that protect children since they believe sex between men and boys is healthy?
"San Francisco officials presided over the marriages of at least eight same-sex couples Thursday and issued about a dozen more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The act of civil disobedience was a political and legal challenge to California law. "
This implies that one only has to obey the laws one agrees with. Does this mean that any law can be ignored if a loud enough group disagrees? Does this mean that the members of NAMBLA should no longer obey laws that protect children since they believe sex between men and boys is healthy?
BingeAndPurge
Active member
lift4life said:
And this has what to do with whether gays should marry?
PC1
Guest
lift4life said:
Well, it might have something to do with the fact that this country was founded by people who's morality was based on religious principles, and who respected religion. Their values were such that they wanted to prevent discrimination based on the scenario you mention, and which, our courts have upheld for over 200 years now. It's part of who we are.
As it applies to this conversation, recognition of homosexual marriage as an equal alternative was most assuredly not originally contemplated, nor is it something most people (60%+) today approve of.
You guys were just making a big deal between protection of genetic traits over choice. I was pointing out that in our history we have protected classes of people based on their lifestyle choices.
That is all.
Some reading of Thomas Jefferson's personal writings would offer some insight into one of our founding fathers' views on organized religion. It is not the Protestant view that the US has rewritten history to read. Also check out the original drafts of the Constitution that Adams and Jefferson worked on before it was watered down in session. It is available on the US Printing Office Website under the Annals of the Constitution 1789.
That is all.
Some reading of Thomas Jefferson's personal writings would offer some insight into one of our founding fathers' views on organized religion. It is not the Protestant view that the US has rewritten history to read. Also check out the original drafts of the Constitution that Adams and Jefferson worked on before it was watered down in session. It is available on the US Printing Office Website under the Annals of the Constitution 1789.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
This will give you an idea of what's going on here in the peoples republic of massachusetts for anyone who is interested
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
PC1
Guest
lift4life said:
The point is that it doesn't matter if being gay is a choice or is genetic. Our country has a history of respecting people of faith. If you want to call that a "lifestyle choice", so be it. The only concern being the BS of the semantics game that goes along with it. Clearly, neither our history nor society today would accept that a gay "lifestyle choice" is on any equal plane with people who exercise their rights to pursue religious freedom.
houseman
Board Supporter
PC1 said:
Alright... I'll respond
First off... I would LOVE to know how you can draw a comparison between gays and child molesters, murders, etc.
That has to be the weakest argument I have ever heard. That's not a slam on you or your opinion. It just seems like quite a stretch.
Gays are NOT criminal. Not in my country (Canada) they are not. Are they in the USA?
Comparing a criminal act to that of someone whose sexual preference is of the same sex is hardly worthy of comparison.
You are using what the Chruch deems moral and acceptable to define your own morality and what you believe to be right and wrong. The Chruch has some very SERIOUS flaws.
My basis for determing what I believe to be right and wrong comes from what I believe to be decent and right for ALL. Gays are not criminals. They've committed no criminal acts and it is this reasoning why they deserve the same rights and freedoms as those who are straight.
A
houseman
Board Supporter
VanillaGorilla said:
I agree that my little "story" is flawed. I did not write it but the point to take home I figured was that just because the bible, from which most of your laws are founded upon, says that a marriage shall consist two people from the opposite sex doesn't mean it SHOULD remain that way.
Just because it's always been one way does not mean it shouldn't changed.
That's where my thoughts on race and gender come into play. It's not apples and oranges. It plays to the heart of what I think and what I think is this:
Laws existed that said women and blacks were not considered humans. Hell, the family dog was more worthy than blacks or women. Their treatment was intolerable and as such laws were changed. Their civils rights are now equal to that of a white male. Great, right? I tihnk so.
Now... the gays. Laws says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Why? Because that damned bible (no disrespect to those who are religious) tells us so. Well that doesn't fly with me. They are people like women and blacks. Their being disgriminated against because they are gay and wanting to marry the same sex.
Decent and right for ALL is my goal. Two people who love each other should have every right to legally validate (if they so choose) that love via marriage. Men AND women can do it... why CAN'T men AND men or women AND women do it?
WHY can't they? WHY shouldn't they?
*shrugs*
A
NPursuit
Well-known member
You are still comparing gays to blacks and women. You can't compare the two. Just like you can't compare gays to child molestors, which I see being used as an exmple. Gays are not criminals, but I will not accept them for who they are. They would all be better off keeping it to themselves and be fortunate for the rights that they do have. Being black is nothing more than a color. Being black isn't a defect. Being gay is. While I'm sitting here I just glanced over at my wedding picture and the thought of seeing a gay couple being married on the beach of St. Lucia truly disgusts me.
PC1
Guest
houseman said:Alright... I'll respond
First off... I would LOVE to know how you can draw a comparison between gays and child molesters, murders, etc............Comparing a criminal act to that of someone whose sexual preference is of the same sex is hardly worthy of comparison...........You are using what the Chruch deems moral and acceptable to define your own morality and what you believe to be right and wrong. The Chruch has some very SERIOUS flaws. ........My basis for determing what I believe to be right and wrong comes from what I believe to be decent and right for ALL.
A
1. Historically speaking, homosexual sex and relationships have been held to be immoral here in the U.S. and in most of the civilized world. Yes, it's rooted in the major religions, nonetheless is part of who we are.
2. The intent of comparing homosexual relationships with other deviant, immoral behavior was not a deliberate intent to compare it with a "criminal act". While I cannot at the moment think of an immoral act that is not "criminal", that probably serves to defeat the notion that morality cannot be legislated.
3. The "Church", however one cares to define that, is comprised of humans and who can argue that it has not committed some atrocious acts in the name of God. However the church has not been the foundation of our legal system. Principles of religion have been. Religious principles define conduct between and among people (and God). And while we have freedom of choice including the freedom of whether or not to believe in God, the U.S. was founded as one country under God.
4. There is a system of government which, as you say, we all have our own ability to determine what is right and wrong, and how we apply that to situations in our every day lives. It's called anarchy. We don't have that here in the U.S. though, and I'm fairly confident you don't have that in Canada either.
Lastly, the majority of folks here in the U.S. don't care if Bob and Ted or Lisa and Sue want to buy a home jointly and live together as couples. We are live and let live, we have grown in our ability to be tolerant even if historically that has not always been the case.
However, we don't want the small homosexual minority REDEFINING the institution of marriage and family, and imposing their minority view on the rest of society, especially given that most of society still considers their behavior to be immoral and disgraceful. AND we don't want our children to be taught in our public schools with our taxpayer dollars that, along with reading, writing, and arithmetic, that homosexual unions are an equal alternative in any sense of the word. We see homosexual marriage as another attempt to weaken the institution and that can only lead to groups like polygamists also demanding the same legal rights against "discrimination". Both are deconstructionist, and if it comes to that, the entire institution will have been made nothing.
PC1
Guest
houseman said:
The name game. When all else fails, someone's a biggot, or is prejudiced.
Is this justified? Do you understand what these terms REALLY mean? Here are the definitions from Merriam Webster's online reference:
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
So, using the "real" definitions of these words, is NPursuit (or I) guilty of these transgressions?
Biggotry:
We haven't been "obstinate", neither have we been "intolerant" in our thread postings here. Rather, we are decisive in our opinion as to NOT wanting the homosexual minority REDEFINING the accepted definition of marriage.
Prejudice:
"Preconceived" is just the opposite of a formed judgement and opinion. Our basis for our arguments are reasoned, prudent, and fairly clearly spelled out in this thread.
If I were to think about Bob and Ed just being pronounced husband and husband, and seeing a video of the two men french kissing on the beach where I spent my honeymoon with my wife, well that's just about enough gruesome detail to cause me to blow my breakfast. It's enough to cause most guys to gross out. I'd even bet most guys would prefer not to see such a thing in the first place. So I don't fault NPursuit for stating the obvious.
In any event, I'm sorry you chose to go the "name calling" route Houseman. This is just another example of the semantics game. You might as well have brandished us "homophobes", it's a cop out frankly. None of this could be further from the truth. I wouldn't consider you to be "prejudiced" or "biggoted" simply because you hold a different opinion on this matter than me or anyone else?
Last edited:
size
Well-known member
The big problem:
Gay marriage is NOT about how people choose to live their lives or whether it is believed by many to be right or wrong.
Rather it is about (posted this earlier): Redefining the institution of marriage. Marriage is a special priviledge to a man and a woman that hopefully leads to procreation. This in turn leads to the future of life. This priviledge is NOT extended to homosexuals, but it is a priviledge, not a right.
Gay marriage is NOT about how people choose to live their lives or whether it is believed by many to be right or wrong.
Rather it is about (posted this earlier): Redefining the institution of marriage. Marriage is a special priviledge to a man and a woman that hopefully leads to procreation. This in turn leads to the future of life. This priviledge is NOT extended to homosexuals, but it is a priviledge, not a right.
db682
Active member
I have a question for you Houseman and anybody else can feel free to chime in if they like. Im not fingering you out here but you seem to be the only one who is looking at it from both sides (and I commend you for your openmindedness even if it doesnt sit well in the minds of many of us members, you are definitly making this a public debate worth following.). After listening to a talk show on the way to work this morning that was discussing this same issue, a person called in and claimed to be the sister of a man who is currently trying to get married to another man, (gay couple marriage). She made a statement to cause the phones at the radio station to blow up. She stated that her brother and his lover were trying to adopt a child and that there first attempt was a failed one. She said that he actually told her that he felt that if him and his lover were married that the odds of being approved for adoption would increase. She gave the typical "I support my brother in all his decisions" crap, but then made a very valid point as to the fact that she felt that the adoption being the main reason for the marriage was something that "didnt sit well" with her.
I started thinking about this and I as well as many others feel that gay marriage alone is an uncalled for act, but the idea that a marriage certificate may be a determining factor in the adoption of a straight child is something that further adds fuel to the fire. What 2 grown individuals do is one thing but when it involves taking a child out of a "fairly" healthy atmoshpere of a foster home or orphange and placing them into an atmosphere that "may" lead to a poor childhood (from just the fact that Homosexual familys are not the norm, the child WILL have to deal with situations that a straight family wouldnt have caused) and the possibilities of the child learning (through osmosis, to say) things that he shouldnt have to. Thats not to mention the fact that everything a child learns in their life plays a role in there future and a child only knowing homosexual issues from there home may lead that child to swing more towards the other side of the fence once he starts having relationships and feelings towards others of his age bracket.
I guess my question is what is your standpoint on the effects that homosexual marriages may have on child adoption policies. (Its a proven fact that a married couple has a greater chance of being approved for adoption then just a couple, and this can be another big rights outcry from homosexuals if same sex marriages are approved but adoption policies arent doctored to meet there "needs" as well.) As stated before, whats next? First same sex marriage, then increased adoptions by homosexual families, then an increase in the homosexual public due to what is learned in the home, (outragously big step here, but possible)then a decrease in the the birthrates of the world till eventually theres a population decline and extinction becomes a reality. I know the later is a far cry from reality but Im just trying to make a point.
Rights are given rights and Im for whatever makes people happy, but when it has an effect on others who are powerless to the choice then I say time to plant my foot.
db
Might I add that the majority of you have had some excellant posts so far. As most of you know, I love a good debate no matter the topic and this his been one of the best Ive seen in the recent months. And only 4 pages so far. Keep the debate hot people. Great job everyone.
I started thinking about this and I as well as many others feel that gay marriage alone is an uncalled for act, but the idea that a marriage certificate may be a determining factor in the adoption of a straight child is something that further adds fuel to the fire. What 2 grown individuals do is one thing but when it involves taking a child out of a "fairly" healthy atmoshpere of a foster home or orphange and placing them into an atmosphere that "may" lead to a poor childhood (from just the fact that Homosexual familys are not the norm, the child WILL have to deal with situations that a straight family wouldnt have caused) and the possibilities of the child learning (through osmosis, to say) things that he shouldnt have to. Thats not to mention the fact that everything a child learns in their life plays a role in there future and a child only knowing homosexual issues from there home may lead that child to swing more towards the other side of the fence once he starts having relationships and feelings towards others of his age bracket.
I guess my question is what is your standpoint on the effects that homosexual marriages may have on child adoption policies. (Its a proven fact that a married couple has a greater chance of being approved for adoption then just a couple, and this can be another big rights outcry from homosexuals if same sex marriages are approved but adoption policies arent doctored to meet there "needs" as well.) As stated before, whats next? First same sex marriage, then increased adoptions by homosexual families, then an increase in the homosexual public due to what is learned in the home, (outragously big step here, but possible)then a decrease in the the birthrates of the world till eventually theres a population decline and extinction becomes a reality. I know the later is a far cry from reality but Im just trying to make a point.
Rights are given rights and Im for whatever makes people happy, but when it has an effect on others who are powerless to the choice then I say time to plant my foot.
db
Might I add that the majority of you have had some excellant posts so far. As most of you know, I love a good debate no matter the topic and this his been one of the best Ive seen in the recent months. And only 4 pages so far. Keep the debate hot people. Great job everyone.