Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.
I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.
You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.
>>>>
The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms.
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.
Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.
You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.
>>>>
The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms.
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.
Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.
Acknowledging that homosexuals exist is not "celebrating and embracing" sexual orientation and the filp side is that homosexuals should also not be demonized (opposite of celebrate) and shunned (opposite of embraced). Homosexual have existed throughout human history, so ya some people being homosexual is probably normal. If you mean "normal" in the statistical sense, then they of course will never be "normal" as they will not be be the majority in any population.
>>>>
Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage. I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business. I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.
I agree that a smaller government is better. I disagree with all of the benefits that the federal government bestows on marriage. This is just costly and bloated government. However, the family unit is the foundation of our society. Our society is crumbling as this foundation has been cracking over the past 50 years. We need to encourage marriage and intact families not dilute the meaning if it.
Two spouses are not a family. When a couple says that they want to start a family, that means that they want to have children. A family restaurant is "children friendly". A family movie is made for children. A family vacation spot is designed around children. The definition of family includes children. Activists are also trying to redefine the meaning of the word family
I agree that a smaller government is better. I disagree with all of the benefits that the federal government bestows on marriage. This is just costly and bloated government. However, the family unit is the foundation of our society. Our society is crumbling as this foundation has been cracking over the past 50 years. We need to encourage marriage and intact families not dilute the meaning if it.
Two spouses are not a family. When a couple says that they want to start a family, that means that they want to have children. A family restaurant is "children friendly". A family movie is made for children. A family vacation spot is designed around children. The definition of family includes children. Activists are also trying to redefine the meaning of the word family
And two gay men, in a committed relationship, with adopted children is a family. And two lesbians in a committed relationship, with children from a previous relationship, is a family.
Our society is not crumbling because there are too few families. And it is not crumbling because of gay couples.
You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.
>>>>
The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms.
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.
Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.
So it is not a choice to be gay or straight, but it is a choice to be bisexual? Or is it that a bisexual isn't making the choice you want them to make?
There is simply no place in marriage for this sort of discrimination.
Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage. I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business. I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.
And two gay men, in a committed relationship, with adopted children is a family. And two lesbians in a committed relationship, with children from a previous relationship, is a family.
Our society is not crumbling because there are too few families. And it is not crumbling because of gay couples.
Winterborn, I agree that adopted children are part of families.
I disagree with your second statement, our society IS crumbling because many children are born to single mothers. There is a direct relationship between out-of-wedlock children and crime, poverty and lack of education. Surely there are exceptions, but the hardest obstacle for a child to overcome in life is being born to a single mother. Being born out of wedlock is a bigger obstacle to overcome than being born into poverty or born as a minority.
Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage. I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business. I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.
Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage. I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business. I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.
Hallelujah! Amen brother! Marriage is the declaration of a union before God (whatever God those involved chooses to recognize) among those of faith and a declaration of a union to each other by those who are not people of faith. The government has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms.
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.
Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.
So it is not a choice to be gay or straight, but it is a choice to be bisexual? Or is it that a bisexual isn't making the choice you want them to make?
There is simply no place in marriage for this sort of discrimination.
Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage. I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business. I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.
Winterborn, I agree that adopted children are part of families.
I disagree with your second statement, our society IS crumbling because many children are born to single mothers. There is a direct relationship between out-of-wedlock children and crime, poverty and lack of education. Surely there are exceptions, but the hardest obstacle for a child to overcome in life is being born to a single mother. Being born out of wedlock is a bigger obstacle to overcome than being born into poverty or born as a minority.
And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals.
Now, let me throw out the true conservative position on marriage. I don't think the gov't has any place in the marriage business. I do not agree with the gov't being involved in recognizing any marriage.
Hallelujah! Amen brother! Marriage is the declaration of a union before God (whatever God those involved chooses to recognize) among those of faith and a declaration of a union to each other by those who are not people of faith. The government has absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is a legitimate function of local governments to keep records of vital statistics. Birth, marriage and death are recorded by local governments. Local governments issue birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates.
The federal government has WAY too many regulations and should have nothing to do with marriage what-so-ever. Marriage is not mentioned in the US constitution.
Two spouses are not a family. When a couple says that they want to start a family, that means that they want to have children. A family restaurant is "children friendly". A family movie is made for children. A family vacation spot is designed around children. The definition of family includes children. Activists are also trying to redefine the meaning of the word family
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals.
Nonsense. The human animal is built to eat both vegetation and meat. Our bodies are designed to require both, consume both, and digest both (meat far more easily than vegetation I might add). We are omnivorous by design. Some people choose to be strictly carnivorous and some people choose to be vegetarians. But the vast majority consumes both plants and animals and those who don't frequently have to take artificial supplements to compensate for the nutrients they are not receiving in their diet.
Now your argument will be "AHHHHH....but we are designed that way by nature. Two men are not designed to have intercourse" to which I will respond quite simply...our bodies are not well designed to eat plants although we require it. Our teeth are sharp and designed for cutting and tearing not for grinding down tough fibrous materials like a cows tooth. Eat a stalk of celery and you'll see what I mean...the strings get between our teeth, we are not able to effectively mash and crush the material, etc. Our stomach can handle plants but it's really designed to break down meat far more effectively. We don't have a four compartment stomach, chew cud, etc. So even though it's far more difficult for us to eat plants...we eat them because our nutritional needs require us to do so and we enjoy the flavors. It is not as easy for homosexuals to have intercourse but that doesn't mean that they are not designed genetically to require that kind of a relationship very much like our need to consume plants and our lousy design for doing it. And like our diet, simply because we are designed to process meat more effectively, it doesn't mean that we only require meat. How is bisexuality different?
Our society is crumbling as this foundation has been cracking over the past 50 years. We need to encourage marriage and intact families not dilute the meaning if it.
Two spouses are not a family. When a couple says that they want to start a family, that means that they want to have children. A family restaurant is "children friendly". A family movie is made for children. A family vacation spot is designed around children. The definition of family includes children. Activists are also trying to redefine the meaning of the word family
Restaurants? Movies? Vacation spots?
Can not a family of two spouses go to a "family" restaurant? Can not two spouses not go to "family" movies? (My wife loves animated movies and will drag me along, the flip side is she then has to go to superhero movies). Vacation spots don't take two spouses?
I'll submit instead the United States Code establishing the Family Medical Leave Act providing for job protected leave for members of the employees immediate family - which includes the spouse. How about United States law that establishes the poverty level for a family consisting of two persons (in this case two spouses) at $14,710.
>>>>
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals.
Nonsense. The human animal is built to eat both vegetation and meat. Our bodies are designed to require both, consume both, and digest both (meat far more easily than vegetation I might add). We are omnivorous by design. Some people choose to be strictly carnivorous and some people choose to be vegetarians. But the vast majority consumes both plants and animals and those who don't frequently have to take artificial supplements to compensate for the nutrients they are not receiving in their diet.
Now your argument will be "AHHHHH....but we are designed that way by nature. Two men are not designed to have intercourse" to which I will respond quite simply...our bodies are not well designed to eat plants although we require it. Our teeth are sharp and designed for cutting and tearing not for grinding down tough fibrous materials like a cows tooth. Eat a stalk of celery and you'll see what I mean...the strings get between our teeth, we are not able to effectively mash and crush the material, etc. Our stomach can handle plants but it's really designed to break down meat far more effectively. We don't have a four compartment stomach, chew cud, etc. So even though it's far more difficult for us to eat plants...we eat them because our nutritional needs require us to do so and we enjoy the flavors. It is not as easy for homosexuals to have intercourse but that doesn't mean that they are not designed genetically to require that kind of a relationship very much like our need to consume plants and our lousy design for doing it. And like our diet, simply because we are designed to process meat more effectively, it doesn't mean that we only require meat. How is bisexuality different?
Your argument is very far fetched.
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals.
Nonsense. The human animal is built to eat both vegetation and meat. Our bodies are designed to require both, consume both, and digest both (meat far more easily than vegetation I might add). We are omnivorous by design. Some people choose to be strictly carnivorous and some people choose to be vegetarians. But the vast majority consumes both plants and animals and those who don't frequently have to take artificial supplements to compensate for the nutrients they are not receiving in their diet.
Now your argument will be "AHHHHH....but we are designed that way by nature. Two men are not designed to have intercourse" to which I will respond quite simply...our bodies are not well designed to eat plants although we require it. Our teeth are sharp and designed for cutting and tearing not for grinding down tough fibrous materials like a cows tooth. Eat a stalk of celery and you'll see what I mean...the strings get between our teeth, we are not able to effectively mash and crush the material, etc. Our stomach can handle plants but it's really designed to break down meat far more effectively. We don't have a four compartment stomach, chew cud, etc. So even though it's far more difficult for us to eat plants...we eat them because our nutritional needs require us to do so and we enjoy the flavors. It is not as easy for homosexuals to have intercourse but that doesn't mean that they are not designed genetically to require that kind of a relationship very much like our need to consume plants and our lousy design for doing it. And like our diet, simply because we are designed to process meat more effectively, it doesn't mean that we only require meat. How is bisexuality different?
Your argument is very far fetched.
Two spouses are not a family. When a couple says that they want to start a family, that means that they want to have children. A family restaurant is "children friendly". A family movie is made for children. A family vacation spot is designed around children. The definition of family includes children. Activists are also trying to redefine the meaning of the word family
Restaurants? Movies? Vacation spots?
Can not a family of two spouses go to a "family" restaurant? Can not two spouses not go to "family" movies? (My wife loves animated movies and will drag me along, the flip side is she then has to go to superhero movies). Vacation spots don't take two spouses?
I'll submit instead the United States Code establishing the Family Medical Leave Act providing for job protected leave for members of the employees immediate family - which includes the spouse. How about United States law that establishes the poverty level for a family consisting of two persons (in this case two spouses) at $14,710.
>>>>
I think that the federal government has no business establishing a "family medical leave act" or a "poverty level". The purpose of the federal government is to maintain order. This requires military, courts, special police agents, diplomatic staffs, international treaties and printing our money. There are very few other things that the federal government should be involved with. According to our constitution, only the powers specifically enumerated should be handled by the federal government. Everything else should be handled by the states, localities and individuals.
And so you think not allowing gays to marry will help this?
The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion.
...
In a 50-page, 43 ruling on November 18, 2003,[3] the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry."
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2003, Marshall authored the court's majority decision that for the first time in Western legal circles, found that same-sex marriages were a lawful extension of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the state's Constitution.
"The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals," Marshall wrote for the 4-3 majority. "It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
Margaret Marshall, author of Mass. gay marriage decision, to retire - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe
contrary to your delusions...
If the "gay gene" is ever discovered and if doctors can determine if a child will be gay during his mother's pregnancy, it is likely that many mothers will abort potentially gay fetuses just as many mothers abort fetuses with downs syndrome.
I believe that all human life is precious, even children that are born with imperfections. It is wrong to abort children for any reason what-so-ever. It is just as wrong to abort downs syndrome fetuses as it would be to abort gay fetuses.
You realize that if the "gay gene" is ever discovered the whole "IT'S A CHOICE" crowed will have their justification for discrimination because "it's different" than race rug pulled out from under them.
>>>>
The discussion about the "gay gene" is a totally different subject. I just used it to illustrate a point as you did with testicular cancer. If I thought of the testicular cancer argument, I would have used it instead of the gay gene just so I wouldn't open up a can of worms.
However, you must admit that homosexual behavior certainly IS A CHOICE for bisexuals. This is the reason why it is so wrong to celebrate, embrace and normalize homosexual behavior, especially in public schools, the media, the entertainment industry and the popular culture.
Teenagers should NOT be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality because there are twice as many self described bisexuals as there are self described homosexuals. It is clear from our previous comments that parents would be disappointed by encouraging their children to practice homosexual behavior.
