Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

How about homosexuality in the animal world? Nature seems to say it's ok.

Gays are unnatural human beings :doh:

Now you are picking fly shit out of pepper. And no, Im not threatened by it. But I am also not going to sit by, paying my tax dollars and having the government say that Frank and Bill have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, because we don't want to step on their toes.

You know exactly what it means, and you also know that I am right, in the sense that we were made for it to work that way. And yes, producing children is one of the most important things couples do. Procreation is a very important part of human society and marriage. And quit with the liberal spin absurd bullshit, "if a man has a vasectomy or a woman has ovarian cancer, she shouldnt be afforded the same rights as other married couples because she cannot procreate."

First of all, I don't "know" you're right, I think you're dead wrong. Not wanting to step on homosexuals toes? That's the best you can do? That's absurd, I'm of the opinion that everyone should have equal rights and that 100% means extending marriage rights to homosexuals.

I don't believe that you're right because non-humans engage in homosexual acts all the time. Also, I don't believe that humans were "made," so we can skip that convo. Finally, there are tons of reasons that couples may not be able to procreate, it doesn't have to be something devastating like cancer.

I'd love for you to explain to me how that's "liberal spin absurd bullshit." Really, enlighten me. It seemed that you were heading down the path of, "marriage is for procreation" so I wanted to cut you off instead of trying to trap you in that one. Also, I like how your quote seems to project my removal of marital rights, when you're the one who's guilty of that.

I don't understand how it's hypocritical...is your expectation that we lend support to government sanctioned discrimination?

No it was more a play on stereotypes.

How about cannibalism in the natural world? So you're saying we should emulate animals?

We eat meat don't we?

We might not eat each other, but we do kill each other with no problem.

First of all, I don't "know" you're right, I think you're dead wrong. Not wanting to step on homosexuals toes? That's the best you can do? That's absurd, I'm of the opinion that everyone should have equal rights and that 100% means extending marriage rights to homosexuals.

I don't believe that you're right because non-humans engage in homosexual acts all the time. Also, I don't believe that humans were "made," so we can skip that convo. Finally, there are tons of reasons that couples may not be able to procreate, it doesn't have to be something devastating like cancer.

I'd love for you to explain to me how that's "liberal spin absurd bullshit." Really, enlighten me. It seemed that you were heading down the path of, "marriage is for procreation" so I wanted to cut you off instead of trying to trap you in that one. Also, I like how your quote seems to project my removal of marital rights, when you're the one who's guilty of that.

Just a question. Do you think its just a coincidence that homosexuals have 5 times the chance of contracting an STD than a heterosexual? Or do you think that its just a coincidence that the life expectancy of a homosexual individual is almost 20 years SHORTER than that of a heterosexual person? How about, it must be a coincidence that homosexuals have 4 times the chance of being medically diagnosed with a mental disorder than heterosexuals? It must all be Rush Limbaughs fault, right? We conservatives just put too much pressure and spew too much hate for the homosexual to take, right?

I dont know about you, but with those statistics, homosexuality is definitely not a lifestyle that the stats say would enable you to live a long and healthy life, and its not one that I would choose for the ones I love, like my children. And I definitely wouldn't want the government condoning such a self destructive lifestyle like homosexuality by okaying it in the court systems because gays like to twist around our constitution to say it protects them, but in the same breath, say that government should have no say on what constitutes a marriage. I also find it interesting that the suicide rate among homosexuals is staggering when compared to the suicide rate of heterosexuals. Again, its all Fox News' fault, right? Not a lifestyle I would want for anyone............

This isn't about rights. It's about perverts trying to force their twisted way of life down everyone's throat. You think that they'll stop there. HA!

Vicars could be sued for refusing to bless gay weddings, fears Church | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417582/Vicars-sued-refusing-bless-gay-weddings-fears-Church.html)

Just a question. Do you think its just a coincidence that homosexuals have 5 times the chance of contracting an STD than a heterosexual? Or do you think that its just a coincidence that the life expectancy of a homosexual individual is almost 20 years SHORTER than that of a heterosexual person? How about, it must be a coincidence that homosexuals have 4 times the chance of being medically diagnosed with a mental disorder than heterosexuals? It must all be Rush Limbaughs fault, right? We conservatives just put too much pressure and spew too much hate for the homosexual to take, right?

I dont know about you, but with those statistics, homosexuality is definitely not a lifestyle that the stats say would enable you to live a long and healthy life, and its not one that I would choose for the ones I love, like my children. And I definitely wouldn't want the government condoning such a self destructive lifestyle like homosexuality by okaying it in the court systems because gays like to twist around our constitution to say it protects them, but in the same breath, say that government should have no say on what constitutes a marriage. I also find it interesting that the suicide rate among homosexuals is staggering when compared to the suicide rate of heterosexuals. Again, its all Fox News' fault, right? Not a lifestyle I would want for anyone............

WOW...you make some impressive leaps in logic. Really, that seems like some sort of talent.

Okay, first off, I'd love to see some type of statistics which validate everything you just said. Particularly when I've heard some evidence to the contrary, particularly regarding lesbians.

I don't care what lifestyle people choose to live, that's where we differ, my friend. Like I said before, I believe in equal rights, not only rights for the people I support.

It's always amazing how fired up some get over what goes on in someone else's bedroom.

A sick society is just like a sick animal. It doesn't matter if it is a big strong animal like an elephant. The stronger, more aggressive, beasts smell weakness and feed off the dying. I just wish it wasn't my country that was being eaten.

I think we all just want to shape the world in which we live to some extent. Some of us have feelings/beliefs that compel us to say this or that should not be allowed, others extol an "anything but violence goes" philosophy. It's pretty clearly a prejudice, which I'm using in the sense of "a preconceived judgment or opinion," (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice) to say that homosexuality is wrong. That said, all prejudices aren't necessarily incorrect or built upon ignorance. I believe people hold this prejudice because our society has largely taught since it's inception that these alternative lifestyles are wrong. That view point has helped shape our culture to this point in time. Revoking that view likewise changes the culture of our society going forward and not in a way in which the current majority (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx) seems to desire. I don't think it's as simple as "what two people do in their bedroom is their business" because there are collateral effects which impede on the wishes of most Americans, i.e. the inclusion of homosexuality in elementary education (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html).

I think the crux of the debate is does a society have a right to establish social guidelines and thus enforce said guidelines on a dissenting minority? That's a hell of a hard argument to make from a logical standpoint, much easier from an emotional one. In the end, the point is moot, people can object all they want but evidence shows this fight is just about ove (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007144-503544.html)r...

just my :twocents: