Plus go to any bar or pub on a Saturday night and stay through to closing time...Even ugly chicks are getting action which pretty much negates the 1-3% when it comes to propogation
People are people are people...I would argue there are just as many dysfunctional straight parents as there are gay (percentage wise). Maybe kids get teased cause their folks are gay, but then again kids get teased for a lot of crap (having a fat mom for one thing, or being fat yourself, or being of colored decent, or having a parent with a not so great job or no job at all, etc, etc, etc). I actually know someone who was raised by a lesbian couple. She's incredibly down to earth and totally NOT gay, is married herself (to a guy) and has two kids. She's not embarassed about it, and is still close to both her parents even though they've separated. There was also a post in this thread about non-married couples having access to special privilges in most states. I believe the person was complaining because this wasn't available to hetero couples....which is untrue. Many states offer 'domestic partner' rights, and they are available to all couples willing to file the paperwork. While these are good, they are NOT as broad as federal rights afforded to married couples. In most cases it simply allows you to share health insurance. You also have to be working for a company that recognizes domestic partner rights...there are many loopholes, so many companies don't. It also still doesn't provide broad protection for inheritance, children, health issues, etc.
Actually...I kind of agree with this. Not that there should a 'ban' per se, but that it shouldn't be governed by the state/federal government. I think marriage should be something between two people, not between two people and their government. You could still choose to have a ceremony, and there could still be legal steps people take to setup protections for their family.
So is this a leagle marriage or a 'civil union'? I would have to say that in a modern society everyone should start out with the same rights. I belive that this should include: - being able to marry the one you love - adopt / raise children - vote - get around the country - in out of buildings - use public transport - be yourself - worship a god / follow a religion of your own choosing
Yeah I agree. People in WI that fall down and break their foot shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. If they get drunk and knock some chick up, sure that's ok.
I know a guy who has a gay father. He is totally straight, has a hot girlfriend, great dress sense and can hold a conversation in virtually any group of people and has a good education.
Nope not at all, gays by common biology can not have children = in my eyes not a right to have then. IMO they gave up the right to have children be choosing, being born, whatever you want to call it to be gay.
laws protect society: bullshit - laws protect who they want to protect. Homosexuality is a perversion - bullshit - some people are perverted and some are not. My little brother is gay - I feel sorry that he has a closed minded brother like you to help him growing up in a homophobic society. but in my mind it is a disgusting perversion. - no comment
So straight married couples, who for some reason are unable to have children shouldn't be allowed to adopt?
hmmm well that's not much of an argument at all, one is a health defect the other is not possible and NOT a health defect. Next try?
Gay, Straight, Bi, Tri, shit as long as they leave me alone they can do what they like. My older brother is gay, I think he should be able to marry who he loves, again, so long as there is no sweaty man sex in my living room, I am all good.
Here's the text of my op-ed to the local paper in response to the passing of the Marriage Protection Amendment that passed in Kentucky last year - it sums up my thoughts ... Fear Factor 2004! Many of the clichés we dread hearing will soon be sounding again: Be careful what you wish for. Read the fine print. Do unto others … I’ve been married for over twelve years. In that time, my union has never been threatened nor needed protection from anyone, regardless of sex, ethnicity, religion, orientation et al. For political spin doctors to mislead citizens into a “Marriage Protection†amendment is hypocrisy at its worst. It is a distraction from more pressing issues, feeding the fears instead of tackling real troubles, and simply put, it is an abomination of the very ideology to wit this great republic was founded. This is not my Democratic or Republican viewpoint. This is not driven from a liberal, conservative, or religious stance. This is my stance as a belief in the equality and inalienable rights our forefathers spoke of in the Declaration of Independence and the citizenry rights and protections of liberty and the pursuits of happiness outlined in our Constitution. When these great documents were written, their original formats did not contain specifications of race, age or sex on some topics. As our union aged, progressed and evolved, we’ve add some degrees of specificity to ensure inclusions of persons into the folds and protections of the Constitution, never exclusions. Ours is the greatest nation on earth; it is because of our diversity, not in spite of it. You may not be comfortable around people different from you or outside your “comfort zone†but that does not make them wrong, less human, or un-entitled to the same protections of liberty, due processes and considerations as you or I. Are their civil rights to be sacrificed to accommodate others’ uneasiness and fears? Or will our great lady liberty in the harbor soon read, “Bring Me Your Tired, Huddled, and Homophobic Heterosexuals� Passing such laws or attempts to permanently amend the Constitution is not in keeping with the principal ideologies that was the catalyst taking us from concept to colonies to country. I challenge everyone to read the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution (and amendments) and explain how this would be a righteous act. Basing it on religious grounds would be as futile as advocating animal sacrifices, suppression of women, servitude and other once-sanctioned religious beliefs. Basing it on precedence would meet the same fate. When has discrimination, exclusion, suppression, and fear served us well? How is defining marriage going to protect it? Will it stop single-parent homes? Will it stop adultery? Will it stop divorce? Will it stop violent relationships and battered spouses? Defining marriage with the sole purpose of excluding persons we do not understand or fear, is not a definition, it is discrimination. Bob Dole’s ‘little blue pill†has probably done more damage to marriage in the last decade than unmarried consenting adults. Where’s the protection?