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.
Okay, so you don't have any actual proof. Got it.
I saw it with my own eyes. enough for me.
Get outside more and you may see it for yourself too
TV holding you hostage.
I do get out plenty, I tend not to judge a group by one case. If I did, I guess I would say they didn't make their children gay. The two friends I have that were raised by a same sex couple turned out straight. So by using your logic I could say gay couples don't make their children gay.
And a tv holding me hostage?
I saw it with my own eyes. enough for me.
Get outside more and you may see it for yourself too
TV holding you hostage.
I do get out plenty, I tend not to judge a group by one case. If I did, I guess I would say they didn't make their children gay. The two friends I have that were raised by a same sex couple turned out straight. So by using your logic I could say gay couples don't make their children gay.
And a tv holding me hostage?
There's this little thing we learned in Jr. High School called body language? Have you ever heard of it? It's when you can tell a lot about a person by the way they carry themselves.
And I doubt if your "friends" turned out straight. probably got gay tendencies for sure if they are....and how would you even know that?...unless you were hit on by one of them...please say you were so I can call BS right quick.
Marriage began in about 3500 BCE. The people who initiated marriages were the Sumarians. They lived in a land called Sumer (soo-mer). They invented the written language, libraries, schools, the wheel, dams and canals. Their written language was called Cuneiform (coo nay if orm) and is believed to have been invented by women to keep track of the sale of goods and properties. At the time it was a matricentric society, that is to say that women owned all durable goods and they were passed from mother to eldest daughter. The reason for that practice was that one could rarely be sure of who the father was but it was positive who the mother was.
After the written language was in use men used it to record what they bought and then who they bought and then which woman they kept. Women lost all the power they had and the society changed into a matriarchal society. This was 2500 years before Judaism.
For millenia same gender marriages were commonplace - the Roman Catholic church even had a special ceremony specifically for this occasion. Some cultures allowed the brother of a dead husband to bring the widow into his current marriage so he could "care" for her. Sometimes it was more than that.
People have always decided who they would marry, or their parents decided for them, but governments never got involved in this until "the moral revolution". Governments became the guardians of those indigents they ruled - and they kept them ignorant and subserviant.
That is not the government that we are SUPPOSED to have today! We tout ourselves as "free" and turn around and ask the government to take care of us. You can't have it both ways - pick one!
Civil marriage is a statutory contract whose only legitimate purpose is the protection and welfare of children. (The government has no legitimate interest in relations between consenting adults.) As such, civil marriage should not be:
a. a civil rights issue;
b. a religious issue; or
c. a tradition issue.
The biggest social problem in our country is the breakdown of the nuclear family, as evidenced by increasing divorce and illegitimacy rates. Any changes to marriage and/or family laws should be considered in this context. I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. However, I am concerned that it will further undermine the concept of civil marriage in this country unless it is accompanied by other changes to our laws which promote marriage.
Therefore, I propose that we expand the definition of civil marriage to include gay couples, but limit the tax benefits to married couples (or widows/widowers) with children under 18. Despite the politically correct defense of Murphy Brown, children growing up in single parent/fractured homes are statistically much more likely to have personal problems and become a drag on society.
Despite good intentions, or current policy of supporting/rewarding this situation only makes the problem worse. Our policy should be that, if you want children, get married first and stay married (at least until they turn 18). Furthermore, No Fault divorce should not be available to people with children under 18, and those who do divorce should not get further tax preferences for future children.
This may sound judgmental, but what other solutions exist?
Therefore, I propose that we expand the definition of civil marriage to include gay couples, but limit the tax benefits to married couples (or widows/widowers) with children under 18.
Despite the politically correct defense of Murphy Brown, children growing up in single parent/fractured homes are statistically much more likely to have personal problems and become a drag on society.
This may sound judgmental, but what other solutions exist?
Gay people come from heterosexual sex, and most gay people are raised by heterosexual parents. The reasons why should not be difficult to understand if you know the basic characteristics of the human reproductive system.If marriage hadn't already been damaged by a skyrocketing divorce rate, we might not be discussing gay marriage today at all. First the destruction of marriage had to happen.
Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.
1. Even historically, marriage was a legal device to establish paternity. Modernly, why should the government care whether two people without children are married?
2. "No fault" divorce allows the parents to decide to end the marriage without any consideration for the interests of the children. Traditional divorce requires some justification beyond "we just don't love each other any more." In the absence of actual abuse, the children of unhappy marriages are statistically better off than those of divorces.
3. So not being married improves this condition?
4. So should the children be removed from that environment?
1. People were having babies long before the instrument of marriage. and since the inception of the idea of marriage, it was based on a sacred bond between a male and female in the eyes of God. So basically, Gays shouldn't want to even have the tag of "marriage" since most of the ones I talk to don't even believe in God.
So I say just stick to "Civil Unions" it works and doesn't gray the lines between what is marriage and what is a
romp-sack relationship.
2. Ok...and? your point?
3. Having kids worsens this condition.
4. They should never be allowed to live in such an environment. period.
the sick idea of "Gay Parents" only began to get a foothold in the marriage debate after the Father figure had been totally demonized and belittled as a deadbeat dad who lusts after infidelity. Otherwise, Gays trying to become parents would have no traction whatsoever.
It's all the empty nest feminist gay women that are lonely who trailblazed this bullshit concept. nothing more.
Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.
You have proof of this?
Yes. the neighbors 2 houses down. 2 gay dudes with an adopted son. and he's a real flamer at only 9 years old. Life will be hard for him.
1. Even historically, marriage was a legal device to establish paternity. Modernly, why should the government care whether two people without children are married?
2. "No fault" divorce allows the parents to decide to end the marriage without any consideration for the interests of the children. Traditional divorce requires some justification beyond "we just don't love each other any more." In the absence of actual abuse, the children of unhappy marriages are statistically better off than those of divorces.
3. So not being married improves this condition?
4. So should the children be removed from that environment?
1. People were having babies long before the instrument of marriage. and since the inception of the idea of marriage, it was based on a sacred bond between a male and female in the eyes of God. So basically, Gays shouldn't want to even have the tag of "marriage" since most of the ones I talk to don't even believe in God.
So I say just stick to "Civil Unions" it works and doesn't gray the lines between what is marriage and what is a
romp-sack relationship.
2. Ok...and? your point?
3. Having kids worsens this condition.
4. They should never be allowed to live in such an environment. period.
the sick idea of "Gay Parents" only began to get a foothold in the marriage debate after the Father figure had been totally demonized and belittled as a deadbeat dad who lusts after infidelity. Otherwise, Gays trying to become parents would have no traction whatsoever.
It's all the empty nest feminist gay women that are lonely who trailblazed this bullshit concept. nothing more.
1. Why does it matter what gay people call their relationships? You don't have to accept their definition. Catholics and protestants have different views of concepts such as saints or communion, that does not mean one group gets to ban the other from using the same language.
As for the idea of gay parents, why not? If you can have a single mother, or if you can be raised by a sibling, why not be raised by two loving people of the same sex? Why not let people decide for themselves rather than big government? Would you rather the children be aborted or left without parents?
I would rather have two loving mothers or two loving fathers than none at all. What a child needs is a loving family. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of providing that.
And no homosexual married couple has the right to demand that the Catholic Church accept their marriage as valid. This isn't about forcing people believe gay marriage is marriage. This is about allowing people to do so. Nobody should force a Catholic priest to marry a gay couple.1. People were having babies long before the instrument of marriage. and since the inception of the idea of marriage, it was based on a sacred bond between a male and female in the eyes of God. So basically, Gays shouldn't want to even have the tag of "marriage" since most of the ones I talk to don't even believe in God.
So I say just stick to "Civil Unions" it works and doesn't gray the lines between what is marriage and what is a
romp-sack relationship.
2. Ok...and? your point?
3. Having kids worsens this condition.
4. They should never be allowed to live in such an environment. period.
the sick idea of "Gay Parents" only began to get a foothold in the marriage debate after the Father figure had been totally demonized and belittled as a deadbeat dad who lusts after infidelity. Otherwise, Gays trying to become parents would have no traction whatsoever.
It's all the empty nest feminist gay women that are lonely who trailblazed this bullshit concept. nothing more.
1. Why does it matter what gay people call their relationships? You don't have to accept their definition. Catholics and protestants have different views of concepts such as saints or communion, that does not mean one group gets to ban the other from using the same language.
As for the idea of gay parents, why not? If you can have a single mother, or if you can be raised by a sibling, why not be raised by two loving people of the same sex? Why not let people decide for themselves rather than big government? Would you rather the children be aborted or left without parents?
I would rather have two loving mothers or two loving fathers than none at all. What a child needs is a loving family. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of providing that.
The difference is no Catholic has the right to demand that everyone else acknowledge their saints.
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle anymore than blonde hair is a lifestyle.If Gay people only understood that it was something inherently and immorally wrong about same sex marriage, they would understand why so many people are against it's destructive and detrimental aspects. .
The problem is, Gay people are just hard headed assholes(pun intended) that could give a rat's ass about the opposing debate against Gay marriage. that's not important to them. Fuck fact finding. That debate flies over their heads.
What Gays want is a total unwavering acknowledgement of their lifestyle and they want it written into the Law so as they continue down this road their consciences will be cleared and their guilt heaped upon the Law of the land and not their own idea of morality.
Because once they get it into Law, THAT will be the crux of their argument from that point on, "It's the Law", not "I do it because I like my asshole ripped apart every Saturday night by John and Tom"
Their whole agenda is to eleviate the guilt. Not just get "married".
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle anymore than blonde hair is a lifestyle.If Gay people only understood that it was something inherently and immorally wrong about same sex marriage, they would understand why so many people are against it's destructive and detrimental aspects. .
The problem is, Gay people are just hard headed assholes(pun intended) that could give a rat's ass about the opposing debate against Gay marriage. that's not important to them. Fuck fact finding. That debate flies over their heads.
What Gays want is a total unwavering acknowledgement of their lifestyle and they want it written into the Law so as they continue down this road their consciences will be cleared and their guilt heaped upon the Law of the land and not their own idea of morality.
Because once they get it into Law, THAT will be the crux of their argument from that point on, "It's the Law", not "I do it because I like my asshole ripped apart every Saturday night by John and Tom"
Their whole agenda is to eleviate the guilt. Not just get "married".
Homosexuality is not a lifestyle anymore than blonde hair is a lifestyle.If Gay people only understood that it was something inherently and immorally wrong about same sex marriage, they would understand why so many people are against it's destructive and detrimental aspects. .
The problem is, Gay people are just hard headed assholes(pun intended) that could give a rat's ass about the opposing debate against Gay marriage. that's not important to them. Fuck fact finding. That debate flies over their heads.
What Gays want is a total unwavering acknowledgement of their lifestyle and they want it written into the Law so as they continue down this road their consciences will be cleared and their guilt heaped upon the Law of the land and not their own idea of morality.
Because once they get it into Law, THAT will be the crux of their argument from that point on, "It's the Law", not "I do it because I like my asshole ripped apart every Saturday night by John and Tom"
Their whole agenda is to eleviate the guilt. Not just get "married".
^This is the ignorance I'm talking about.
Homosexuality is just as much of a lifestyle and running, swimming, parasailing. you CHOOSE to do it.
It's not genetic since there is no such thing as a gay gene. So it must be a personal choice lifestyle. Becuase if it was genetic, we would all be gay.
Gay people that say "I came out the closet" made a choice. or why would they need to say that?
When did you choose to be heterosexual? The answer is never. Homosexuals cannot control their same sex attraction anymore than heterosexuals can control their opposite sex attraction.Homosexuality is not a lifestyle anymore than blonde hair is a lifestyle.If Gay people only understood that it was something inherently and immorally wrong about same sex marriage, they would understand why so many people are against it's destructive and detrimental aspects. .
The problem is, Gay people are just hard headed assholes(pun intended) that could give a rat's ass about the opposing debate against Gay marriage. that's not important to them. Fuck fact finding. That debate flies over their heads.
What Gays want is a total unwavering acknowledgement of their lifestyle and they want it written into the Law so as they continue down this road their consciences will be cleared and their guilt heaped upon the Law of the land and not their own idea of morality.
Because once they get it into Law, THAT will be the crux of their argument from that point on, "It's the Law", not "I do it because I like my asshole ripped apart every Saturday night by John and Tom"
Their whole agenda is to eleviate the guilt. Not just get "married".
^This is the ignorance I'm talking about.
Homosexuality is just as much of a lifestyle and running, swimming, parasailing. you CHOOSE to do it.
It's not genetic since there is no such thing as a gay gene. So it must be a personal choice lifestyle. Because if it was genetic, we would all be gay.
Gay people that say "I came out the closet" made a choice. or why would they need to say that?
Civil marriage is a statutory contract whose only legitimate purpose is the protection and welfare of children. (The government has no legitimate interest in relations between consenting adults.) As such, civil marriage should not be:
a. a civil rights issue;
b. a religious issue; or
c. a tradition issue.
The biggest social problem in our country is the breakdown of the nuclear family, as evidenced by increasing divorce and illegitimacy rates. Any changes to marriage and/or family laws should be considered in this context. I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. However, I am concerned that it will further undermine the concept of civil marriage in this country unless it is accompanied by other changes to our laws which promote marriage.
Therefore, I propose that we expand the definition of civil marriage to include gay couples, but limit the tax benefits to married couples (or widows/widowers) with children under 18. Despite the politically correct defense of Murphy Brown, children growing up in single parent/fractured homes are statistically much more likely to have personal problems and become a drag on society.
Despite good intentions, or current policy of supporting/rewarding this situation only makes the problem worse. Our policy should be that, if you want children, get married first and stay married (at least until they turn 18). Furthermore, No Fault divorce should not be available to people with children under 18, and those who do divorce should not get further tax preferences for future children.
This may sound judgmental, but what other solutions exist?
