To allow, or not to allow.....the question about gay rights.

[Dekar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... rientation

Additionally, Mustanski et al. (2005) performed a full-genome scan (instead of just an X chromosome scan) on individuals and families previously reported on in Hamer et al. (1993) and Hu et al. (1995), as well as additional new subjects.[19] With the larger sample set and complete genome scan, the study found much weaker link for Xq28 than reported by Hamer et al. However, they did find other markers with significant likelihood scores at 8p12, 7q36 and 10q26, the latter two having approximately equivalent maternal and paternal contributions.

Before continuing, I want to stress to any future posts......PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, be considerate of other opinions

Great way to fail once again.

[Discombobulator]

Churches are free to deny anyone the service of being married there.

It's a contract, right? Contracts are completely volontary. Nobody can force you to enter a contract, not even if they are a faggot.


Oh yeah, and DarkNemesis got owned again.

[Luftwaffles]

Yea, I'm sure they'll have nothing to say when all 5 of their local churches tell them to get lost.

I never said they wouldn't. However, the gay marriage debate focuses mostly on the government recognizing marriages, not necessarily churches performing them.

If churches refuse to perform religious ceremonies for certain individuals they are certainly within their rights to be bigots. However, they are other ways people can access marriage and not all religious institutions oppose marriage. The important thing is that gay people get recognized fully as people and be given the same rights that straight people have to legally fuck themselves over with another person.

It'll probably eventually happen, and your southern states will all rebel and everyone will be pissed at gays for being the catalyst for American Civil War Part 2.

[Discombobulator]

We're all happy for doing our part in destroying America.

[Tehw00tz]

EVERYDAY I'M HUSTLIN'
EVERYDAY I'M HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'

[jamn455]

EVERYDAY I'M HUSTLIN'
EVERYDAY I'M HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'
HUSTLIN'

]

It's ok, I returned for an hour, and this was the best post to quote. I will be back in a few days children, keep it clean until then.

[DarkNemesis]

Why the hell are we talking so much about religion and the bible on this topic? I realize it is a big issue for some, but I honestly don't see how you have to be religious/christian whatever to not support gay special priviledges.

And for those of you that are saying they can't force this/that blaha......are you really that brainwashed?

They want government to mandate a law that would make it illegal for employers to deny them a job, even if it ment they have zero work experience. Plus they want to make it illegal for chruches to deny them a marriage ceromony, in fact, they are having this (similar) issue in England currently. And this is the good tolerance we were told about?

[Setokaiva]

If we start passing laws that force people to do certain things, America isn't the free world anymore. Employers have every right to deny someone a job if they have bad experience or whatever, but they shouldn't turn someone down just because they're gay. That just isn't being fair. Of course, that's my opinion.

I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Its in the very first amendment. Congress can't pass a law that prohibits religious groups from doing what they believe is right, as long as it falls within the boundaries of religion. And some churches do believe that homosexual relationships are forbidden, because they hold that marriage is a 'sacred bond between a man and a woman'. So the Government is very unlikely to pass a law denying a church the option to deny someone marriage, no matter their orientation. Bigotry of that sort shouldn't even be biasing such an important institution as marriage anyway; people should just keep their preferences and opinions to themselves, and swallow their pride to keep their job because its not worth losing because of someone's personal sensibilities.

Not like anyone WOULD lose their job, mind you, but you get my point...

[CryptLord1234]

. . .I'd like to put something in here:

. . .are you really that brainwashed?

. . .



Irony, 12 o'clock!

[Setokaiva]

...I didn't really catch the meaning of that.

[CryptLord1234]

Take a look at some of his other posts. You'll get it, I think.

[DarkNemesis]

...I didn't really catch the meaning of that.

That's becuase it's bullshit.

[Luftwaffles]

lulz

should be Eve of the Drama forum instead.

[GeneralFunk]

Tell yourself, who would you rather have marrying and raising kids... Gay people or people who listen to and make this?!

[Tehw00tz]

I'd rather them both over you.

[Waki_Miko]

Apparently, the animal kingdom can't see what the fuss about, and continues to make love instead of war.

Gay deer (except the one below - is she going to break her legs?)

Gay ducks

Lesbo bonobos

Gay giraffes

Gay whales (If the human penis were prehensile, would that be cool or disturbing?)

Gay necrophiliac duck (singular - the other one's dead)

[Cokemonkey11]

you sir, are a faggot.

[Storamin]

you sir, are a faggot.

talk about adding to the discussion.

here's my major sticking point about marriage (other than the whole non equality of rights thing aka treating gays like 7/10's of a citizen):

if marriage is so important that it needs to be protected from gays using and 'abusing' it, then why is the divorce rate so high?

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.

[Cokemonkey11]

you sir, are a faggot.

talk about adding to the discussion.

here's my major sticking point about marriage (other than the whole non equality of rights thing aka treating gays like 7/10's of a citizen):

if marriage is so important that it needs to be protected from gays using and 'abusing' it, then why is the divorce rate so high?

50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.

Because straight people are dumb shits too. Marriage is, in religion, to legalize producing offspring in the eyes of god (gays can't do that.)

[DarkNemesis]

Because straight people are dumb shits too. Marriage is, in religion, to legalize producing offspring in the eyes of god (gays can't do that.)

In terms of sex, it really has two main purposes, the first being what Coke put. The second is basically for enjoyment/pleasure. I'll be willing to bet gay can't compare (in terms of mutual pleasure) with normal sex.

like 7/10's of a citizen):

Nice try, but this isn't the point. It's that they are trying to ram a destructive lifestyle down our throats, without any personal say so.

[GeneralFunk]

The second is basically for enjoyment/pleasure. I'll be willing to bet gay can't compare (in terms of mutual pleasure) with normal sex.

I'm sure they can, topping mutual pleasure in heterosexual intercourse isn't really ground breaking. Don't believe me? An example of how pathetic the level of mutual pleasure is in heterosexual sex is. An example of how hetero-sex is: How To Fake an Orgasm. Though I'd like to adjust the claim of "tell them you want them to orgasm, guys like that," to "tell them where to cum, guys love that."

[Cokemonkey11]

/me *scared to click a youtube movie about mutual pleasure during heterosexual intercourse*

[CryptLord1234]

It's that they are trying to ram a destructive lifestyle down our throats, without any personal say so.

Sorry, what? I'm not forced to be gay, nor am I to be forced to marry someone who is gay. They're not proposing that at all. Care to explain how allowing gay people to marry is "ramming a destructive lifestyle" (which, if you look at it, may be less destructive than heterosexual marriages) down our throats. . .

and without "personal say so?" By all means, were gay people to ask me if they should be allowed to marry, my response is along the lines of, "Hell, yes, so long as you don't ask me to marry you." Sounds like plenty of personal say so to me..

[Discombobulator]

DarkNemesis, it's not the homos that are destroying your society, it's the Jews. I'm like super serial.






Also, proof that Serbia >>> America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXIT_(fest ... al_by_year

[DarkNemesis]

I never said gays are destroying our society, I said their lifestyles have a propensity to be much more destructive.

And stop misqouting me.