|Gay RightsPage 7 of 18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)|
|Actually, from what I have read on many polls, the majority are NOT against legalizing a UNION between gays, just they get stuck on the WORD "marriage" because, for them, it connotates a specific thing, which is (usually religious) between one man and one woman. This whole thing is just semantics!|
I think a lot of people see the legitimization of homosexual unions as "condoning homosexuality". I wish they could get past that idea and just see it for what it is: a legal contract that gives legal rights to gays for purposes of taxation, power of attorney, buying homes, etc.
Posted: 12/23/2009 9:06:36 AM
Like they do in Iran? Or in Afghanistan? Or in Syria. Or in Egypt. Lets just let these wonderful bastions of morality continue to burn, stone and hang them? Lets not interfere with hardline fundamentalist Christians and Muslims! Lets not interfere with ultra orthodox Rabbis who protest pride marches in Israel! Lets give free reign to all religious ideologues who want to hold us back in the 5th century!
You get my point. Sometimes we have to force our issues on the ignorant. Hey, if reform Judaism can embrace gay marriage then I figure any faith has the resources to be open minded.
^^^ Every faith does not have the resources to be "open-minded" in this way. You're living in a dream world if you think that. Either that or you've never really studied Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Christian conservatism (read Passionate Gent's earlier posts), and so forth. There may be some individuals , I stress may be, within those faiths that have the personal resources. But I don't believe the faiths themselves have the resources. It's written plainly in their holy books; it is , say the books, "abominable, detestable, unnatural" , etc etc. And offenders are to be dealt with (technically at least -- in many Islamic countries excepting Iran for instance it's not truly applied) with death, yes. (As for Orthodox Jews they of course do not do this & likely have not for centuries if not millenia, but it is part of their sacred writ nonetheless, and they certainly don't accept the lifestyle at all...likewise with strict conservative Christians).
The Muslims believe this is the literal word of God, come down from Heaven (where they believe there is an eternal uncreated slab of sacred stone with the very same Quran inscribed upon it -- in Arabic no less, the "celestial language" they believe), directly to the Prophet Muhammad, via the angel Gabriel. In other words, there's no amount of interference on Earth (especially from the already generally disliked Western secular countries) which is going to cause a majority of average Muslims in the "Muslim street" (so to speak), in these countries, to alter these very basic bedrock beliefs. In fact, as experience has shown, a Western presence there, trying to "change" them, only inflames them and makes them hold on to their beliefs tighter.
As I said, the death penalty for gays is not actually enacted everywhere in the Muslim world (though Iran has done it, Nigeria may now -- the parts under strict Shari'a law at least, Saudi Arabia I suppose may as well). But no one who is gay anywhere in the Muslim world (and there are plenty, naturally) is crazy enough to do so openly or flamboyantly like here in the West. So many times no one usually really gets "caught". A lot of the more "liberal" Muslim countries (I'm thinking Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, even Egypt) seem to almost act on a "don't ask but definitely don't tell" kind of policy with this. In other words, stay "closeted" and be discreet.....and you'll be alright. So if anything , you could take comfort in the fact that gays are only actually usually risking a fine or imprisonment if caught, or perhaps a "lashing" in the worst cases, in a lot of Islamic countries.
Or you could simply take comfort in the fact that you're not a homosexual living there. What you cannot do, what we cannot do (literally, we cannot afford it, nor do I believe it is our right or our mission as a nation) is force our own secular belief systems and .... "post-Enlightenment" European values.... upon these people. Neo-conservatism thinks that, to a point. And look where that's gotten us; Iraq. Sorry, I'd not send my son or daughter to risk death in a foreign land like that solely for the goal of liberating women or homosexuals or creating some kind of flimsy puppet quasi-democratic gov't that will collapse anyway once we're gone. There's only so much one country can do, or is even IMO within its rights to do.
Posted: 12/23/2009 9:15:40 AM
Although this thread really has moved past your nonsense, I cannot help but ask if you are familiar with what the "majority" wanted at the time of Brown v. Board of Education?
Are you familiar with the patterns of social change at all?
I must ask, do you consider yourself 3/5 of a person? Or are you ok with that social change?
Saharam, you can't make any racial reference to a gay bigot. . . their stock reply is "black is from birth and this Evil, Deviant, Satanic gays CHOOSE to be gay"
Of course you could also include Loving vs. Virginia (1967) because at that time only 30 years a VAST majority of Americans thought Interracial Marriage was UnChristian, Sick, and just wrong...
Apparently some here do not understand that in the USA we protect the MINORITIES... We protect Women, Asians, Nazis, Skinheads, Mormons, Buddhists, Witches, Hindi, gay men &women -- Heck, we even protect bigots like Fred-Phelps-Christians.
James, Seattle, Washington, USA
Posted: 12/23/2009 9:17:50 AM
It's written plainly in their holy books; it is , say the books, "abominable, detestable, unnatural" , etc etc. And offenders are to be dealt with (technically at least -- in many Islamic countries excepting Iran for instance it's not truly applied) with death, yes
Yes, and the bible also says those who work on the Sabbath day are to be executed, parents can stone their disobedient children, it's a sin to wear clothing made of more than1 type of material ( no mixing cotton & wool for exmple) and you can sell your daughter into slavery... (there's something in there about not planting different crops beside each other, so careful you religious backyard gardeners, you're sinning if you have your peas carrots & tomatoes in the same small patch). If these people want to use the Bible as their justification for calling homosexuality an abomination ( as in Leviticus) then if they don't follow the rest of the "laws" set forth in Leviticus they are at best ignorant of what the book actually says or hypocrites who say the teachings of the book are sacred/the word of god BUT then figure it's OK to cherrypick which portions of the book are OK & which aren't.
Posted: 12/23/2009 9:43:20 AM
They are wrong because “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms
You mean, like it's an oxymoron?
Been divorced--yup--it wasn't a very 'gay' marriage, at that!
Otherwise, it isn't a contradiction, at all.
All it takes is a simple factual observation as to what is and is not of natural order and/or what is mandated by natural law.
Quick--Google 'homosexual behavior in animals', and see what crops up.
Amazing--all the varieties of animals having same-sex sex.
Penguins, giraffes, dolphins...there's quite a list.
Unfortunately no amount of common sense will deter these groups from seeking the right to marry, even when common sense dictates that homosexual relationships are “unnatural” as they cannot lead to the creation of children, which is a “natural” consequence of such intimate relationships, especially marriage.
Are you serious?
'Common sense' tells me that when a couple in their 80s marry, as did my grandfather and his second wife, that no children will be the result of that marriage.
Or, when a couple marry knowing that one of them will be unable to have a child through no fault of their own. Using your 'common sense', should they not marry?
Fruit loops walking down the street wearing a Dress, while sporting a beard, talking like a man, voice inflection like a man, strength like a man, all the physical,emotional, psychological elements of a man, but somehow or other beyond a Science Fiction movie, we are to believe he is really a woman? LOL ..What confusion this breeds in the minds of children.
Judge not, lest ye be judged. It's in the Bible. Something about Christ-like behavior.
Confusion is easily cleared up when questions are asked and answered honestly.
'Is that a man or a woman?'
'I think he's a man dressed like a woman.'
'Because he likes it, I guess.'
Not rocket science--at least for the open-minded.
Another farce with these groups is there seeking to teach, and force on others, that any NATURAL aversion to the thought of having sex with the same gender, is now somehow unnatural!
Just another sick twist in how far these people are willing to go in order to change the minds of America.
1. YOU are not America. Share your opinion as such, not as fact.
2. I am an American. It is my opinion that same-sex marriage is no big deal.
3. What I've noticed is that two women having sex is something men pay to watch--on television's 'naughty' channel, or in Playboy Magazine.
Something that really gets me is Homosexuals adopting children. The kid will either have no Mother or no Father. The child will either have 2 dads or 2 moms. If the kid is missing one of these parent figures the kid is missing out on the love of the full specter of human emotions from parents as a child. Not only that but this will most likely confuse the child as to which sex he should marry and have sex with.
Others will likely come along and counter this bit of crap with something more eloquent than I, however, my response is: desperation. Simple desperation to pull out the adoption card.
I'm not the only one on this site who can tell you that having a male father and female mother in the home is NO guarantee of the child having the 'love of the full specter of human emotions from parents'. And, frankly, anyone who passes themselves off as intellectual should know that.
The counter-argument is this: same-sex marriage is not a Biblical issue.
For those who claim that it is, then make posts clearly showing the anti-side of Christian behavior while claiming that they are Christian, does more harm for their cause, than good.
Posted: 12/23/2009 10:06:18 AM
|Regarding the instances of homosexuality in animals....What outwardly appears to be "homosexual" behavior is often times just misdirected sexual instinct or displays of dominance. For instance, my dad's male dog used to hump the other male dog. But his female dog used to hump one of the the male dogs too. The fact that a dog humps the same sex is not because it was "born gay". It's because it is trying to be dominant or is just horny and literally humps anything that it can mount.|
The idea that animals would be gay is absurd. Homosexuality from an evolutionary/biological perspective is a self-eliminating adaptation. Animals could not come into existence nor stay in existence if they can't reproduce. That is why when we do observe what looks like homosexual animal behavior, it is generally just a combination of other behaviors and is not a strictly same sex preference.
I also am against homosexuals raising children. The only acceptable instance I can think of would be like what happened with a childhood friend. His mom had him with a man and then later divorced and married a woman. So the two women raised him. But I don't agree with homosexuals adopting or using surrogate parents to obtain children.
Posted: 12/23/2009 10:55:25 AM
...but SODOMY is, and always has been an UNNATURAL act...
Given that sodomy is defined as 'anal or oral copulation', I'm going to presume that none of the men who have posted as being opposed to same-sex sex, have ever been given a...trying to be delicate...'blow job'.
Because if you have, and you are against same-sex sex because it's unnatural, then you must also be opposed to oral sex for the same reason.
Otherwise, you would be a hypocrite.
Have cake...wanna eat it...can't...'cuz you can't have your cake and eat it, too...
Posted: 12/23/2009 11:05:39 AM
Homosexuality from an evolutionary/biological perspective is a self-eliminating adaptation.
^^ To a point true. Which is possibly part of why they are always such a small minority, really, thus (obviously) not negatively impacting the overall human population. But as far as from an evolutionary/bio perspective and, say, the question of the homosexual not meeting his impulse (or supposed impulse) to pass on his genes, if he has any siblings and the siblings have children then something of him is being passed on nonetheless every time a sibling reproduces. The only true 'loss', let's say, of an immediate family's immediate gene pool would I suppose be in the case of an only child who turns out to be gay, particularly if the parents themselves only had one (or no) siblings each of their own. In that case, the 'family's genes', so to speak, are really not being passed on anymore due to the (likely ) 'dead end' of the non-reproductive only child.
Posted: 12/23/2009 11:24:44 AM
If these people want to use the Bible as their justification for calling homosexuality an abomination ( as in Leviticus) then if they don't follow the rest of the "laws" set forth in Leviticus they are at best ignorant of what the book actually says or hypocrites who say the teachings of the book are sacred/the word of god BUT then figure it's OK to cherrypick which portions of the book are OK & which aren't.
^^ I agree, and have said this many times before elsewhere on this forum. For Christians who "cherry-pick" parts of ancient Jewish law (and usually they only pick , "eye for an eye", and "homosexuality is an abomination") it is IMO deeply confused and hypocritical on their part. They don't wish to , or feel themselves bound to (due to Jesus and the Apostolic Decree and so on and so forth) to follow the vast majority of Mosaic law, the 613 mitzvot. They eat pork and shellfish and other sea food lacking proper "fins & scales", the sexes mingle freely (to say the least) in public, they do not have beards or sidelocks, they get tattoos, they do not lay tefillin and pray three times a day while in a state of ritual cleanliness, they do not wear "fringes" from their clothing, most importantly for men they need not worry about whether they are circumsised or not .
Yet when it comes to this issue of the Levitical prohibition (originally intended only for ancient Hebrew tribesmen in any case) against homosexual behavior, the letter of the Levitical law must suddenly be followed to a tee. Strange....
Or they have a few (IMO rather weak) references from the NT which anti-gay Christians sometimes refer to: Romans 1, I Corinthians 6:8-10, and Jude 1:7 (I think). (And in all actuality those were the words of Paul however, and Jude, not Jesus himself; Jesus said nothing directly about homosexuality -- granted, perhaps this was simply because "gay lifestyles" were virtually unknown in the Israel of his day. Everyone knew and understood the culturally acceptable standards. Sexual immorality in any form was shameful and not for open public discussion. In fact, even the suggestion of heterosexual activity before marriage was scandalous...as evidenced by his own birth...).
Now some also claim to be only following Noahide law as far as forbidding "fornication"; but then that too is IMO ambiguous and poorly-defined. What is the fornication exactly, and who (today, in this day & age) is fit to be the judge of that?? Is it "fornication" , if two people of the same sex live together and are in a monogamous loving relationship? I myself certainly think not, and I know I'm hardly alone on that opinion in this country either.
Posted: 12/23/2009 11:29:33 AM
|Dino, the point you make about homosexuality and genetics is worth noting, but perhaps not worth fully analyzing at this point. It's unclear as to the extent that genetics play in homosexuals. It could be that it is some sort of odd recessive trait that can lay dormant in heteros until it manifests itself in their offspring. This would explain how it was able to survive over time.|
Posted: 12/23/2009 11:40:13 AM
|I think the reason some have brought up the behavior of apparently "gay" animals here is because of some claims of "unnatural". |
To those who say same-sex LOVE is "unnatural", what is your definition of the word 'unnatural'? If you don't mean what humans do and you don't mean what animals do (even if we humans really are animals ourselves even if some don't like to admit it), how do you DEFINE "unnatural"??
By the way, we really are talking about LOVE here... not sex. MANY divorced men & women will attest to the fact that SEX had very little to do with their marriage. :-)
I suspect YOUR definition is, "If I don't want to do it, it's unnatural."
And I repeat:
If you are using a Biblical Argument against same-sex marriage, you have lost before you begun because we do not live in a Theocracy.
If you are using "procreation" as your argument, you have lost again because we allow older people and sterile people to marry (not to mention those who do not want to breed).
If you are using the argument that the "majority" don't agree, you are WRONG in your assessment of what the majority believe (most don't care) and even if you were correct, the USA is not a nation of MOB RULE, but one of a Constitutional Republic.
Of course... this is where "gent" will repeat that none of these are valid arguments and dare anyone to come up with a valid argument....
Posted: 12/23/2009 12:23:02 PM
|Dino said: |
...perhaps this was simply because "gay lifestyles" were virtually unknown in the Israel of his day.Everyone knew and understood the culturally acceptable standards. Sexual immorality in any form was shameful and not for open public discussion. In fact, even the suggestion of heterosexual activity before marriage was scandalous...as evidenced by his own birth...)
While at the same time stating there were no gay lifestyles in said period...
Go back and read what Dino said--he didn't state that there were no gay lifestyles--he made a valid and educated observation that, by those cultural standards, such a lifestyle was not open for public scrutiny. It was hidden--hence, 'coming out of the closet'.
AND--what about those blow jobs?
Posted: 12/23/2009 12:54:21 PM
|Nothing in this world is unnatural as everything comes from nature. That word could be replaced with something like abnormal or unusual. If homosexuality is a genetic condition or a psychological condition then it is still natural.|
Sort of like albinism. Albinism is an abnormal condition which can negatively effect the life of the animal or person. It is not common nor desireable, but it is naturally occurring.
While I wouldn't fully equate homosexuality with disease, I do think that it is a condition that has few, if any, positive aspects to it. Yes, a gay person may feel better living a gay lifestyle. Just like a junky will feel better when using drugs. But all things being equal, they'd both be better off without it.
Posted: 12/23/2009 12:54:26 PM
|Right. Thanks Geeleebee. That is what was meant; that gay lifestyles, as we know them today, were most certainly not openly lived by the vast majority (if not all) of the Jewish people in the Middle East at that time. It was simply something that went so much against their cultural mores and had already for a millennium or more. Whoever really lived in Sodom & Gomorrah (if there were literally two such cities and if homosexuality was really rampant there as legend says), then they were certainly the exception not the rule -- especially if they were Hebrews. It's worth noting however that some Biblical analysts (even many types of Christians) currently believe that the moral of the story was actually one having to do with the city's general brutishness and lack of hospitality to traveling strangers, rather than the sexual conduct of the men of the city.|
Posted: 12/23/2009 1:01:21 PM
Not that there's a need to justify or debunk homosexuality here (or in the USA), since biblical arguments don't matter in a non-theocratic society, but just to help clarify:
Ezekiel 16:49 -- "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters [Gomorrah]were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. [other translations say that she was unwilling to help strangers]
This "sin" of Sodom sound MUCH more like the Republican party than about gays if you ask me (but maybe that should be a subject of a new thread: "Are Republicans the modern day Sodom" :-)
Posted: 12/23/2009 1:07:57 PM
|^^ Good thread idea. Start it. I'll be there. |
Yes, there is a decent body of links and other material one can easily find which support this theory that the true moral of the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah had much more to do with hospitality and general unkindness to strangers, than sexual conduct.
Posted: 12/23/2009 1:10:11 PM
It could be that it is some sort of odd recessive trait that can lay dormant in heteros until it manifests itself in their offspring. This would explain how it was able to survive over time.
^^ Could be. I most certainly look forward to studying in the future whatever science has yet to discover about it yet, that's for sure.
Posted: 12/23/2009 1:15:16 PM
The above quote made by a previous poster, is more evidence on what an immoral perspective does to people.
It's readily apparent some people's mind are so corrupted they assume everyone is living a trifling life like they are. If you desire a blow-job I suggest you look for one of those in the lifestyle you support.
There are some pretty sick individuals on POF, if you desire to practice SODOMY- don't try and influence the rest of us.
Oh, dear...someone hasn't read their Funk and Wagnells...
'Sodomy' is oral and/or anal copulation.
Whatever 'trifling life' you're practicing, I do hope for your sake that it doesn't include oral sex.
I'm not attempting to 'influence' other adults. I'm simply stating another perspective.
(does this mean that you don't engage in oral sex?)
(or masturbation, which is sometimes included in the 'unnatural acts' category)
Posted: 12/23/2009 1:29:20 PM
|This all gets into the nature vs. nurture thing, but it's clear that humans are very sensitive to psychological trauma. I mean, it doesn't take much to turn someone into a serial killer or rapist. Perhaps there could be some unknown gene that doesn't necessarily make people gay, or murderers---but it makes them more susceptible to those behaviors especially in conjunction with certain environmental stimuli.|
Sounds confusing, I know. It's a complicated issue thats for sure. I'm not saying humans can't be born gay. I think it's certainly possible. What I am saying is that it is doubtful that all gay people possess a specific "gay gene". It far more likely that they are influenced in part, or in total, by their upbringing and surroundings.
This condition of homosexuality should not be looked at as a sin per se, just like a leper shouldn't be shunned as an infected sinner just because he has a medical condition. But homosexuality should certainly not be encouraged. I don't think it can be treated really, because once you are gay, it is almost impossible to turn you back to hetero. And it should be regarded as an unfortunate condition that some people are effected by and as a society we should try to be fair to these people while at the same time seeking to mitigate the harmful effects of homosexuality.
Posted: 12/23/2009 1:41:42 PM
NORMAL folk do not wish to follow such filth. Though quite frankly I was not surprised, since they've already exhibited a great degree of ignorance, and a immoral conscience on marriage, the Bible, the raising of children, and any issues that require decency, and character.
You of course being the one who decides what is 'normal'.
Families come in all shapes and sizes around the world, as do relationships. The mean-spirited and vicious brand of Christianity you espouse is not something I want to go anywhere near.
I'm quite happy to live my life without dogma and I encourage my sons to be free-thinkers and make up their own minds. They will have decency and character and they will do it without setting foot inside a church.
And please don't bother emailing me again, anything you have to say you can post it on the thread.
Posted: 12/23/2009 2:22:26 PM
I'm sure people of your ilk would love for Christians to keep their mouth shut, and their opinions to themselves, but whether you like it or not..God shall have the last WORD.
Pfft, Whatever mate. For all we know this is all there is and you don't know that any more than I do.
Real MEN, know the Truth, and follow it, so it will be a cold day in hell if I ever let some pony boy try and censor my comments.
Strike a nerve did I? I', not a real man because I take issue with your rants? And 'pony boy'?
Don't worry, we could care less what you think,
All evidence to the contrary given the amount of effort you've put into slagging me off.
Posted: 12/23/2009 3:04:20 PM
|It was getting interesting, but then it starts flaming up with all the religo agenda and name calling. But before the pisssing match started it was cool.|
Posted: 12/23/2009 8:28:38 PM
|Saharam, right. He's not sure yet I guess. Again, he wants to have it both ways. Please continue to think progressively and in a modern sense when it comes to something unchangeable (my skin color). But please listen to me when I tell you that the word of God states that these people are not ever born gay but are only deviants who willingly choose "filthy unnatural" sex acts, and feel free to be as bigoted as you wish against them. |
Furthermore a majority of the country still thinks it's wrong.
And as always with this poster, this is stated flatly with no links or even *IMO* to temper such statements.
As someone else alluded to I believe before, perhaps even yourself Saharam, if it had been left up to a "majority" of this country at one time, all good practicing Christians no doubt, people who look like Passionate Gent could have still been up on some auction block in the Deep South with some cross-eyed whip-cracker bartering for them like so many horses up until more recently than we might all care to realize.
And if you'd asked that cretin with the whip how he could do that and still call himself a Christian, he'd likely have quoted some kind of Scripture to you about how the Bible clearly states, "Genesis 9:25-27: 'Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave'." The old-school Christians back then traditionally believed that Canaan had settled in Africa. The dark skin of Africans thus became associated with this "curse of Ham." And so slavery of Africans became religiously justifiable.
Furthermore, in the New Testament, though he denounced sin as "moral slavery" Jesus himself is reported as having said not a word about actual physical slavery. That's likely because slavery was traditionally present throughout the ancient world which Jesus lived in as a simple fact of life, amongst the Israelites and amongst almost all other peoples as well. It was apparently not something he even felt it necessary to comment on, or else one would think such statements would have been recorded by someone. St.Peter and St.Paul both even said that slaves should be obedient to their masters (Eph 6: 5-8, and Colossians 3: 22-25), and the Epistle of Philemon (wherein St.Paul returns a runaway slave to his master) was used by both Christian pro-slavery advocates and by abolitionists.. Though St.Paul "advises" Philemon to treat the slave as a "brother in Christ", he notably does not tell him outright that he is morally obliged as a Christian to free the slave, or any of his other slaves either..
It took progressives to lead the charge in favor of black peoples' freedom (for which a war was even fought -- part of the reason at least) and for their civil rights later. But now it's actually (IMO at least) a rather ironic and disturbing trend that a group that has been so historically mistreated in this country (black males for instance) seem to have a rather high rate of dislike and intolerance towards another group that are still being mistreated (albeit not as badly) today. And most of the time it's grounded in religion (whether black non-denominational Christian, or black Muslim , or just non-religious, homosexuality is usually deeply frowned upon in much of the black male community, it seems like , even though they also are known to have that little ongoing problem with black men who are on the "down low"...).
Yes, the crimes are nowhere near the same between the gays' mistreatment and the blacks' former mistreatment; it can't be called a true parallel, naturally, but it is at least an example in principle. And actually gays have been killed by anti-gay bigots, just the way blacks have certainly been killed by bigots (who likely hate gays just the same ironically....all the more, nice ideological company for any black person to want to keep...). Rhetoric like PG's, whether it's supposedly Christian or not, IMO just encourages that or at least leads to an atmosphere conducive to it. Just like racialist rhetoric (some of which is indeed also religiously based) leads to an atmosphere conducive to physical violence against blacks. Overall , bigotry is bigotry at the end of the day.
Posted: 12/23/2009 9:52:58 PM
The proponents for perverted behavior, and any arbitrarily concocted 'rights' will continue their onslaught on every institution, the Constitution, and every rational element of society that stands in their way. EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO FORCE IT UPON YOU!
Now please tell me, when a group tries to FORCE people to accept something, what does it imply about their motives?
Like the fundamentalists trying to force schools to teach "intelligent design" even though having that taught in the schools is an onslaught on the Constitution ? I guess you think it's OK for the bible thumpers to force their agenda on people, because it's "for their own good" .
Posted: 12/23/2009 9:58:14 PM
homosexual relationships are “unnatural” as they cannot lead to the creation of children
Using this logic any marriages between a man & woman they should then have to sign a guarantee that they are going to produce children & have their marriage automatically annulled in a set period of time ( 2 years maybe?) if the yhaven't produced any offspring.
18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)