If being gay isn't a choice and is a part of 'nature', then why can't gays reproduce? Removing religious beliefs entirely and looking at the issue from a purely scientific standpoint, the survival of the human species is based on reproduction, so being gay doesn't have a place in human evolution. So whether you believe in God or science, or a combination of the two acting in unison, the rationale remains the same.
Not only will Proposition 8 pass comfortably, but both Obama and McCain are on record for not supporting for gay marriage. No one wants to see it. It violates the essence of our very existence and threatens the foundation of society.
Not only will Proposition 8 pass comfortably, but both Obama and McCain are on record for not supporting for gay marriage. No one wants to see it. It violates the essence of our very existence and threatens the foundation of society.
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CRHSM%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]-->[FONT="]I would assume that because they dont have eggs or sperm or vise versa? I mean its not that hard to grasp. Humans are complex creatures and just to assume that they are not gay because they cant reproduce is highly moronic. I mean what about mental retardation? And yes, im comparing gays to mental retardation because obviously its a genetic mutation. And if its a choice, do me a favor and take a look at a gay porn site and stare at a big black 10 inch cock for 2 hours and tell me if your the least bit aroused. Or maybe you will and you will have a revelation, i dont know. The point being is that no matter how much your environment can influence you, some things are unchangeable and i would assume sex is one of them. I mean you do realize alcoholics are predisposed to being alcoholic? I thought being a drunk was a choice? Being pre disposed to something is far from a choice. [/FONT]
I am FOR gay marriage and FOR polygamy and FOR anything else consenting adults choose to do unless it hurts someone else. And by "hurt" I don't mean extending the same benefits to these people that society already covers for everyone else.
And, believe me, Barry Goldwater, the father of the Conservative movement, would be alot closer to my position than to yours.
Ok here are my thoughts. The idea that gay marriage would destroy society is absurd. Id like to hear specifically what specific negative events that effect straight people would result from gays being allowed to marry. In fact, I havent seen one iota of evidence that in states gays can marry that society is falling apart any more than anywhere else.
Further I dont think gays would object to being allowed to marry under another name, like "legal partners" or something.
To the idea that marriage was meant specifically for raising children...It very well may have been but I dont see how allowing gays to marry undermines that. Parks were made for people to take there children to play but if some adults go for a walk there so what? Also people past the age of fertility are allowed to marry so how is that any different?
You move on to argue about gays adopting children which really isnt the topic at hand but ill respond to that as well...I dont see why it cant be done on a case by case basis, surely you agree there are many gays in healthy fully commited relationships? why not run background checks and vet the families for which are suitable to adopt children instead of just blanket making it illegal.
Further I dont think gays would object to being allowed to marry under another name, like "legal partners" or something.
To the idea that marriage was meant specifically for raising children...It very well may have been but I dont see how allowing gays to marry undermines that. Parks were made for people to take there children to play but if some adults go for a walk there so what? Also people past the age of fertility are allowed to marry so how is that any different?
You move on to argue about gays adopting children which really isnt the topic at hand but ill respond to that as well...I dont see why it cant be done on a case by case basis, surely you agree there are many gays in healthy fully commited relationships? why not run background checks and vet the families for which are suitable to adopt children instead of just blanket making it illegal.
