The Homosexual Agenda Infiltrates the White House!

[mattskramer]

Just because YOU want homosexuals to ruin the institute of marraige doesn't mean your right either,AND in a democracy where the majority rules, guess what?

I do not want marriage to be ruined. Homosexuals do not want marriage to be ruined. Allowing for homosexual marriage will not ruin marriage any more than allowing people to eat chocolate ice cream ruins ice cream. I am happily married. Allowing for gay marriage will not cause me to divorce my wife to get married to a man. How absurd can you be? In addition, I know that we live in a democracy where, to a strong extent, majority rules. I also prefer our political system. At the same time, just because something is not popular does not make it wrong. Something is not right just because most people think that it is right. Clinton won popular vote twice. Was he better than Bush Sr.?

The only places that have allowed it are by court decrees from activist Judges removing the right of the legislature to well legislate. And your all for denying the majority the right to decide.

No. Elected officials are allowing for civil unions – essentially granting homosexual couples the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples enjoy.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070426/REPOSITORY/70426002/1030

A bill authorizing civil unions for gays cleared its last hurdle today in New Hampshire, the first state to embrace same-sex unions without a court order or the threat of one.

http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section...EMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, issued the following statement regarding New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s signing of a civil unions bill into law today.

http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section...EMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

Connecticut was the first state to establish civil unions voluntarily, without having been ordered to do so by a court.

Once again, Homosexuals have the ability to duplicate all but a few of the "perks" of a "marriage" and some people claim those perks aren't even perks.

No. There is a long list of benefits that government provides for married couples. Gay couples should not have to jump through extra hoops to receive these perks.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm

According to a report given to the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. General Accounting Office, here are a few of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to legally married couples:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:

Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

More importantly this thread and that article claim Homosexuals have no legal recourse in a slew of issues, which is simply NOT true.

Homosexual couples have legal recourse. Yet they should not have to put up with such trouble. It is true that without granting, at least, civil unions for gay couples, homosexual couples will have to continue jumping through extra hoops that married heterosexuals need not jump through. Consider Intestacy. In marriage, when a partner dies intestate, the other partner receives a large sum of the deceased partner’s estate. When a homosexual partner dies without a will, the other partner might receive nothing.

Homosexuals don't want "equal" they want "special privaleges" as can be seen by the attempts to give them special status for years now.

That is a typical generalization. Some members within any group will want more than will other members within the group. From what I have seen, I think that most gays merely want marriage or at least civil union status, so that they can get benefits as easily as to heterosexual couples.

Whats next? The right to marry your dog?

First of all, just like a child can’t give informed consent to get married and understand/receive the benefits of marriage as I listed above, a dog can’t give informed consent either.

Secondly, Do you think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes? What next – marijuana or cocaine? There is moderation in so many things. It comes down to where to draw the line. The domino effect does not always occur. It did not happen in Vietnam (Not all Asian countries are Communist.) and it is unlikely to happen with respect to gay marriage. I doubt that allowing civil unions for gay couples will culminate in people wanting to get married to cockroaches.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Any Homosexual in the military is removed if caught. So all your "vetran" and "military" privaleges don't exsist even if one could be legally married.

Further no one is fighting "civil Unions' EXCEPT gay activists. I suggest you learn to comprehend what you read.

 

[mattskramer]

Any Homosexual in the military is removed if caught. So all your "vetran" and "military" privaleges don't exsist even if one could be legally married.

That still leaves at least 15 benefits that marriage provides - a far cry from a few of the "perks" of a "marriage" and some people claim those perks aren't even perks.

Further no one is fighting "civil Unions' EXCEPT gay activists. I suggest you learn to comprehend what you read.

I have outstanding and excellent comprehension skills. I comprehend what I read provided that the statement posted is clear. Now, please clarify your statement. Are you saying that no one is fighting in support of civil unions except gay activists or are you saying that no one is fighting against civil unions except gay activists?

I am not a gay activists. I am a happily married heterosexual. Yet, I think that civil unions should be allowed. I doubt that Jon Corzine is a gay activist. Yet, he signed a civil unions bill into law. Therefore, if your claim is that no one is fighting in support of civil unions except gay activists then you are incorrect again.

http://region.princeton.edu/issue_110.html

According to a poll of 804 registered voters conducted by Garden State Equality/Zogby International in May 2005, 55 percent of New Jersey residents supported same-sex marriage, while 40 percent were opposed.

Wow. Therefore, in order for your claim to be logically consistent with this finding, 55 percent of New Jersey residents must be gay activists. Let us look at another poll that might lean more in your favor.

A Quinnipiac poll of 1,181 NJ voters taken in the fall of 2006 found more resistance, with 50 percent opposing same-sex marriage as compared to 41 percent supporting it.

Okay. So according to you, 41 percent of New Jersey residents must be gay activists.

The GSE/Zogby study revealed that 61 percent of those questioned disagreed with the idea of a constitutional amendment banning gay couples from marrying.

Keep in mind that these polls are talking about gay marriage and not civil unions.

When 658 New York State voters gave their views on the subject earlier in 2006, just over half (53 percent) favored same-sex marriage, while 38 percent opposed the idea. Support for civil unions was stronger at 72 percent, with 22 percent opposed.

When the issue is civil unions, A whopping 72 percent of New York State voters must be gay activists. Over half of the people in New York must be gay.

Questioned about their views on amending the state constitution to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, 43 percent of New York residents voiced support, as against 50 percent who opposed it.

Give up. You keep making erroneous and fallacious statements that are easily refuted. Your anti-gay-marriage bias has clouded you from truth and statistical facts. You are way out of your league in this debate.

 

[William Joyce]

Homosexual "marriage" sanctions the larger practice/existence of homosexuality, period. A healthy society does not promote homosexuality because it breeds diseases instead of children. A healthy society does promote marriage and children because that makes for the continued existence of the society, happier and healthier citizens who are cared for instead of abandoned, etc.

Homosexuality has always been around, and I do not advocate measures AGAINST homosexuals, with some exceptions, like the military. But the trick is to gently MARGINALIZE homosexuality so that everyone knows what's good and what's not. Measures ENCOURAGING homosexuality are what's bad, and homosexual "marriage" is a key example. The push for it has NOTHING to do with any sort of rational necessity for it --- gays aren't starving to death without it --- it's PURELY about asserting a political agenda and using the state to give your deviancy the stamp of approval. I say NO.

Mary Cheney and Heather Poe did not create a new human life together. One apparently did create one, someotherhow, who will now be used as a political football. That's SICK.

 

[mattskramer]

Homosexual "marriage" sanctions the larger practice/existence of homosexuality, period. A healthy society does not promote homosexuality because it breeds diseases instead of children. A healthy society does promote marriage and children because that makes for the continued existence of the society, happier and healthier citizens who are cared for instead of abandoned, etc.

Where are the sources to back up your claims? Homosexual behavior itself does not breed diseases to any greater extent than does heterosexual behavior.

As I said, allowing for homosexual marriage does not negate heterosexual marriage. Even if homosexual marriage is allowed, children will continue to be made (inside of and outside of heterosexual marriage). Heterosexual marriages will continue to occur. How does homosexual marriage result in citizens being abandoned?

Homosexual couples, recognized in civil unions or marriages, will probably be better suited to care for the children that have been created and abandoned by heterosexual couples.

Measures ENCOURAGING homosexuality are what's bad, and homosexual "marriage" is a key example. The push for it has NOTHING to do with any sort of rational necessity for it --- gays aren't starving to death without it --- it's PURELY about asserting a political agenda and using the state to give your deviancy the stamp of approval. I say NO.

As I said, at the very least there should be civil unions for gay couples so that they have equal access to the benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. It is simply about fairness.

Mary Cheney and Heather Poe did not create a new human life together. One apparently did create one, someotherhow, who will now be used as a political football. That's SICK.

Couples (heterosexual or homosexual) do not take responsibility of children for the sole purpose of making a political statement. Have Mary and Heather yet paraded their child as a political football? I have yet to see such an incident. Has Melissa Etheridge made a big deal about the fact that she has a child? No. Yet, it is not hard to find articles from people opposed to gay unions trying to create this straw man.

 

[wiggles]

I suggest you recheck your facts, you will find that it isn't JUST republicans that don't want same sex marriages. But do continue to claim otherwise.

You have made a claim that Homosexuals don't have the same rights and protections as others, THAT is a LIE. You have claimed that Republicans have arranged for this to happen, ANOTHER LIE.

Republicans are the ones who want to amend the Constitution over it.

And no, gay couples don't have the same rights as married couples, even if they're together monogamously sharing mortgages and childcare duties, just like hetero couples. "Civil unions" aren't the same.

 

[wiggles]

Those are the laws of the land....

So in one post, you say gays have the same rights and protections as straights, then when someone points out that they don't, you say it's okay because those are the laws of the land.
Flip-flopper.
Segregation and denying anyone who wasn't a white male landlowner the right to vote was once the "law of the land" too.

 

[wiggles]

Saying one thing:

Homosexuals have the EXACT same rights and protections as every other citizen and resident of the United States.

Saying the very opposite thing:

The LAW doesn't recognize same sex marriages. They have other options.

 

[wiggles]

Good for the Cheney's. I hope the baby and mothers live long, healthy lives.

Little Annakin Skywalker is very cute.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Just look at the evil that homosexuality has wrought:

He may look innocent wrapped in a blanket and wearing a little cap, but we must remember that this is the child of homosexuals. Therefore, he deserves fewer protections and rights than the children of heterosexual parents, and should grow up being taught that his family is deviant, sick and undeserving of legal recognition. Thank goodness Vice President Cheney’s proud party is willing to stand up to these destroyers of traditional marriage. I’m sure he is very proud.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/24/MNG1UQ0FP41.DTL

Let me say it is a pleasure to read the virtuous family values witness of a true believer like you, Brother Wiggles. Instead of the usual tap-dancing-round-the-head-of-a-pin dissembling of Scarlet Pimpernel Proddies

"We seek him here, we seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in Heaven? Is he in Hell?
That demmed elusive Pimpernel!"

...as they self-servingly but ineffectively try to defend their Christian Mein Kampf.

Naturally, as a fellow bigheaded brother in Christ, you would be aware that Mary Chewney is a satanic animalistic Animist, as well as tongue-in-cheeks pillow-biting pudenda gobbler.

As our Proddie God, Paul, said,

For this cause* God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Placing this piece of God-inspired Stricture in its correct “context,” - that I am always accused of not doing by the hydrophobic Fundies here, who, you’ll notice, never supply the correct context - we find:

Book 45: Romans Chapter 1:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, (Oh mah Guard, not Jesus too!) and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

(See, Guard makes faggots like they are! They have no choice in it. Hey, maybe homersecshoeality IS hereditary!)

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

*26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

So we see that, according to Buybull logic (now there’s a contradiction in terms if ever there was one!!) God changes Animists into homerseckshills.

This vile labia-licking lesbian is an abomination unto the Lord and Stricture says that ALL true believers MUST put her to death (All Guard’s chillun screech, AMEN!)

And now Mary the Muff-diver has damned a bugger-to-be baby to hell (remember "the sins of the father") with her whoredom! (All Guard's chillun froth at the mouth. shriek idiotic drivel in "tongues," and fall down shivering like a dog shitting razor blades!!)

Not only is this stomach-churning, nub-nibbling strapadicktome deserving of death, but Lon Cheney and his revolting pornographer wife are also damned to hell for not stoning their filthy whore of a daughter to death!

Please pass de plate and de Rattler on de left hand side....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me say it is a pleasure to read the virtuous family values witness of a true believer like you, Brother Wiggles. Instead of the usual tap-dancing-round-the-head-of-a-pin dissembling of Scarlet Pimpernel Proddies

"We seek him here, we seek him there
Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.
Is he in Heaven? Is he in Hell?
That demmed elusive Pimpernel!"

...as they self-servingly but ineffectively try to defend their Christian Mein Kampf.

Naturally, as a fellow bigheaded brother in Christ, you would be aware that Mary Chewney is a satanic animalistic Animist, as well as tongue-in-cheeks pillow-biting pudenda gobbler.

As our Proddie God, Paul, said,

Placing this piece of God-inspired Stricture in its correct “context,” - that I am always accused of not doing by the hydrophobic Fundies here, who, you’ll notice, never supply the correct context - we find:

Book 45: Romans Chapter 1:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, (Oh mah Guard, not Jesus too!) and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

(See, Guard makes faggots like they are! They have no choice in it. Hey, maybe homersecshoeality IS hereditary!)

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

*26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

So we see that, according to Buybull logic (now there’s a contradiction in terms if ever there was one!!) God changes Animists into homerseckshills.

This vile labia-licking lesbian is an abomination unto the Lord and Stricture says that ALL true believers MUST put her to death (All Guard’s chillun screech, AMEN!)

And now Mary the Muff-diver has damned a bugger-to-be baby to hell (remember "the sins of the father") with her whoredom! (All Guard's chillun froth at the mouth. shriek idiotic drivel in "tongues," and fall down shivering like a dog shitting razor blades!!)

Not only is this stomach-churning, nub-nibbling strapadicktome deserving of death, but Lon Cheney and his revolting pornographer wife are also damned to hell for not stoning their filthy whore of a daughter to death!

Please pass de plate and de Rattler on de left hand side....

Remind us again why you can quote scripture but won't discuss anything with anyone else that does?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Civil Unions have the support of most politicians from both major parties. Civil Unions could be passed quickly in a lot of States and would not then be a problem for the Constitution and its requirement that every State honor all the other State's laws.

I was quite clear on this. The only group actively opposed to civil unions that matters is... Activist Gay groups. Civil Union laws were proposed in several States in the last 4 or 5 years and in every case the Gay agenda opposed it, demanding instead the term " marriage"

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Remind us again why you can quote scripture but won't discuss anything with anyone else that does?

Because Crischuns continually and corruptly take Holey Stricture out of the correct context - that only I can interpret!

And because I refuse to humour psychiatrically disturbed dingbats, whose misogynistic Messiah mendaciously mixed Christinsanity and simulated Masonic mumbo-jumbo together to sucker people of sub-normal intelligence - like you - in, and who are so off-the-fucking-wall they wear skid-marked Magical Mystery Underpants to protect them from imaginary demons!

You do know that, stripped of your “Get-out-of-the-Funny Farm-Free" card that our equally insane society bestows on barking mad religious psychotics, that any psychiatrist worth his salt would put you in a rubber room for you bizarre God-bothering behaviour, don’t you, Gummy?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because Crischuns continually and corruptly take Holey Stricture out of the correct context - that only I can interpret!

And because I refuse to humour psychiatrically disturbed dingbats, whose misogynistic Messiah mendaciously mixed Christinsanity and simulated Masonic mumbo-jumbo together to sucker people of sub-normal intelligence - like you - in, and who are so off-the-fucking-wall they wear skid-marked Magical Mystery Underpants to protect them from imaginary demons!

You do know that, stripped of your “Get-out-of-the-Funny Farm-Free" card that our equally insane society bestows on barking mad religious psychotics, that any psychiatrist worth his salt would put you in a rubber room for you bizarre God-bothering behaviour, don’t you, Gummy?

You are an Ignorant Moron. Clueless and delusional. I tell ya what... YOU pay for ANY shrink in my area and I will go and see if they would , in fact , put me in the Hospital for my personal belief in God.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

You are an Ignorant Moron. Clueless and delusional. I tell ya what... YOU pay for ANY shrink in my area and I will go and see if they would , in fact , put me in the Hospital for my personal belief in God.

In Salt Lake City?... of course they wouldn't! They'd be all incestuouly related to you!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In Salt Lake City?... of course they wouldn't! They'd be all incestuouly related to you!

Your incapable of reading I assume. I have NEVER lived in Utah. Let me be clear just for you, I live in North Carolina.

I will even stipulate the city, since anyone with any knowledge of the Marine Corps would already know. I Live in Jacksonville NC.

Now if your going to find me a shrink, I can easily travel to New Bern and Wilmington. I guess I could get to Morehead City also And ECU has a huge medical school , they are about the same distance.

Pay for my gas and I will even drive to Raleigh or Durham.

Since you will be paying I am sure you can arrange for the shrink to report his findings to you. On the particular issue of insanity because of religion I will gladly sign a waiver for that purpose.

 

[William Joyce]

Where are the sources to back up your claims? Homosexual behavior itself does not breed diseases to any greater extent than does heterosexual behavior.

It does. Anal sex is far more destructive of cell linings than vaginal sex, making it easier for infections to spread. AIDS was spread by homosexual anal sex. As David Horowitz has said, the failure to acknowledge this is putting ideology over physiology.

As I said, allowing for homosexual marriage does not negate heterosexual marriage.

By definition, it knocks it down a few pegs, which is exactly what the subverters want. Understand: they want to make a MOCKERY of what they consider to be an outdated, fascist practice, and since they can't ban it outright, they'll work to make it look silly. They are winning this battle. Just watch "Married With Children".

As I said, at the very least there should be civil unions for gay couples so that they have equal access to the benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. It is simply about fairness.

"Equal access" is best justified by actualy equality. Homosexual couples are not the "equal" of a normal couple. Saying "it is simply about fairness" is typical liberal circular reasoning. Oh, it is? Well then, who can be against it? Other things that are "simply about fairness": high taxes, overregulation, letting criminals go, etc.

Have Mary and Heather yet paraded their child as a political football? I have yet to see such an incident. Has Melissa Etheridge made a big deal about the fact that she has a child?

LOOK AT THE DAMN PICTURE AT THE START OF THIS THREAD! This child as football is self-evident. "Mary and Heather" know exactly what happens when they pull him out: someone starts a thread on a chatboard to "prove" that homosexuality is a family value! As for Melissa Etheridge, how do you know about this in the first place? If she weren't making a deal of it, you wouldn't know about it to begin with.

 

[mattskramer]

Civil Unions have the support of most politicians from both major parties. Civil Unions could be passed quickly in a lot of States and would not then be a problem for the Constitution and its requirement that every State honor all the other State's laws.

Okay. I agree but just because something is popular does not make it right. Do you support “civil unions” for homosexual couples?

I was quite clear on this. The only group actively opposed to civil unions that matters is... Activist Gay groups. Civil Union laws were proposed in several States in the last 4 or 5 years and in every case the Gay agenda opposed it, demanding instead the term " marriage"

No. You said that gay activist fight civil unions. You were not clear on if they fight for it or against it.

Do you have a link to an official web site hosted by a gay group that states that it opposes civil unions? Just as some anti-gay-relationship people and groups won’t budge but oppose civil unions. Some gay people and, perhaps, some a very few intolerant and uncompromising gay groups oppose civil unions. Naturally gay groups want gay “marriage” but some will settle for gay unions. Yet, I did a brief search and found sites that state that gay groups support civil unions.

Anyway, it looks like you are wrong again.

See: http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=374

From as long ago as 2001, Members of the California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE) said they will do everything they can to see that a newly introduced bill providing for civil unions between same-sex couples passes.

There are many more examples in which “gay groups” support “civil unions” but I do not have time today to piece together the examples that I have found.

 

[mattskramer]

It does. Anal sex is far more destructive of cell linings than vaginal sex, making it easier for infections to spread. AIDS was spread by homosexual anal sex. As David Horowitz has said, the failure to acknowledge this is putting ideology over physiology.

AIDS comes from promiscuity. Heterosexual anal sex can spread AIDS just as can Homosexual anal sex. In addition, contaminated needles spread AIDS. Civil unions will likely reduce promiscuity. We allow smoking even though it is an unhealthy practice. Let’s totally outlaw smoking everywhere and in every house. As I said, there is moderation in just about everything. We set limits. All things considered, even the risk for diseases, I think that we should allow civil unions.

By definition, it knocks it down a few pegs, which is exactly what the subverters want. Understand: they want to make a MOCKERY of what they consider to be an outdated, fascist practice, and since they can't ban it outright, they'll work to make it look silly. They are winning this battle. Just watch "Married With Children".

By what definition does it knock down a few pegs – what are these pegs? The “Defense Of Marriage Act” should have been named “The Continued Restriction Of Marriage Act”. You are not defending it against anything. That was a nice piece of mind reading. No one wants to make a mockery of marriage. Gay marriage does not make a mockery of marriage. It simply allows for gay couples to have equal access to the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. That is all that there is to it. The “Simpsons” and “Married With Children” make fun of heterosexual Marriage. So, what is your point? Were these run by gays? There are probably shows that make fun of gay couples. Lighten up.

"Equal access" is best justified by actualy equality. Homosexual couples are not the "equal" of a normal couple. Saying "it is simply about fairness" is typical liberal circular reasoning. Oh, it is? Well then, who can be against it? Other things that are "simply about fairness": high taxes, overregulation, letting criminals go, etc.

Gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples. The only difference (and it is an insignificant difference) is that they can’t reproduce. So? Some heterosexual couples can’t reproduce. Surrogate mothers and sperm banks are available. Children that are discarded by heterosexuals are plentiful for adoption by loving homosexual couples.

Don’t change the subject with the irrelevant point that other things are not fair. I’m also against the unfairness of high taxes, over-regulation, and the ease with which criminals are released. That still does not mean that we should not help homosexual couples get equal access to things that heterosexual couples receive. The best way to ensure that gay couples get equal access is through “civil unions”.

LOOK AT THE DAMN PICTURE AT THE START OF THIS THREAD! This child as football is self-evident. "Mary and Heather" know exactly what happens when they pull him out: someone starts a thread on a chatboard to "prove" that homosexuality is a family value! As for Melissa Etheridge, how do you know about this in the first place? If she weren't making a deal of it, you wouldn't know about it to begin with.

Oh my God! Someone named David Bohrer took a picture of Cheney with a grandchild. The baby will be traumatized for life! LOL. Why isn't the gay couple in the picture? The child is a football in your imagination. Yeah. As far as I can tell, Mary and Heather wanted to share a family photo and that was the extent of it. Have they dragged the baby to GLAAD meetings at all hours of the day? Have they put it in front of TV cameras every day? I’m no doctor, but from what I believe, the baby will be just fine. It was probably not a big deal to them. The only people who are really using it as a football are you and people who have the same bias as you.

As for Melissa Ethridge, I read about her in a magazine somewhere. I also learned that she had cancer. She was not making a big deal about either story. Mentioning something and making a big deal about something are two different activities.

Hey everyone! I have dark hair!!! I better post images of myself personally on every web site directly and get the word out to every radio and television station in the world. I better go to every “dark hair” club and make my presence known! I better make speeches day and night! Did Melissa or Mary or Heather do anything like this? No. Probably the only thing that they did was to make a statement present a picture. A scant few “rabid” gays (the type of people one finds in any class) and the anti-gay crowd are making this molehill into a mountain. Get over it.

See http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6dacb809-9929-4379-bb9f-9431e7d5c44d&k=69136 and just think of all of those tiny damaged footballs.

Here is some more information about your footballs:

http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm

There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.

People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)...

Daughters of lesbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)

On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)

Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

 

[Bern80]

AIDS comes from promiscuity. Heterosexual anal sex can spread AIDS just as can Homosexual anal sex. In addition, contaminated needles spread AIDS. Civil unions will likely reduce promiscuity. We allow smoking even though it is an unhealthy practice. Let’s totally outlaw smoking everywhere and in every house. As I said, there is moderation in just about everything. We set limits. All things considered, even the risk for diseases, I think that we should allow civil unions.



By what definition does it knock down a few pegs – what are these pegs? The “Defense Of Marriage Act” should have been named “The Continued Restriction Of Marriage Act”. You are not defending it against anything. That was a nice piece of mind reading. No one wants to make a mockery of marriage. Gay marriage does not make a mockery of marriage. It simply allows for gay couples to have equal access to the benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy. That is all that there is to it. The “Simpsons” and “Married With Children” make fun of heterosexual Marriage. So, what is your point? Were these run by gays? There are probably shows that make fun of gay couples. Lighten up.



Gay couples are equal to heterosexual couples. The only difference (and it is an insignificant difference) is that they can’t reproduce. So? Some heterosexual couples can’t reproduce. Surrogate mothers and sperm banks are available. Children that are discarded by heterosexuals are plentiful for adoption by loving homosexual couples.

Don’t change the subject with the irrelevant point that other things are not fair. I’m also against the unfairness of high taxes, over-regulation, and the ease with which criminals are released. That still does not mean that we should not help homosexual couples get equal access to things that heterosexual couples receive. The best way to ensure that gay couples get equal access is through “civil unions”.



Oh my God! Someone named David Bohrer took a picture of Cheney with a grandchild. The baby will be traumatized for life! LOL. Why isn't the gay couple in the picture? The child is a football in your imagination. Yeah. As far as I can tell, Mary and Heather wanted to share a family photo and that was the extent of it. Have they dragged the baby to GLAAD meetings at all hours of the day? Have they put it in front of TV cameras every day? I’m no doctor, but from what I believe, the baby will be just fine. It was probably not a big deal to them. The only people who are really using it as a football are you and people who have the same bias as you.

As for Melissa Ethridge, I read about her in a magazine somewhere. I also learned that she had cancer. She was not making a big deal about either story. Mentioning something and making a big deal about something are two different activities.

Hey everyone! I have dark hair!!! I better post images of myself personally on every web site directly and get the word out to every radio and television station in the world. I better go to every “dark hair” club and make my presence known! I better make speeches day and night! Did Melissa or Mary or Heather do anything like this? No. Probably the only thing that they did was to make a statement present a picture. A scant few “rabid” gays (the type of people one finds in any class) and the anti-gay crowd are making this molehill into a mountain. Get over it.

See http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6dacb809-9929-4379-bb9f-9431e7d5c44d&k=69136 and just think of all of those tiny damaged footballs.

Here is some more information about your footballs:

http://www.colage.org/resources/facts.htm

There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.

People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)...

Daughters of lesbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)

On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)

Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

I would simply encourage you to not converse with William. He is a racist and biggot and of the minds you can actually get through to a racists/biggots are pretty tough.