[quote]Mick28 wrote:
The Dutch study demonstrated that even with marriage rights gay men chose to have sex with multiple partners.
[/quote]
The Dutch study didn’t look at married gay couples, genius. It looked at people in unmarried gay relationships. Don’t you think in order to draw conclusions about gay marriage that you should actually study gay married couples?
And in case you missed this from jsbrook:
That study population was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, purposely EXCLUDED monogamous participants (it was a REQUIREMENT that participants had at least two sexual partners in the last 6 months), was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty.
But you don’t care about the facts, do you? It is easier to misrepresent the research to promote your preconceptions.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…your humor is awesomeness…makes my muscle lump hard.
How many times have I told you to keep your gay fantasies to yourself? Well…at least you’re in the right thread this time.
If you had followed your own advice…you wouldn’t even be posting in this thread…You’re arguing about something you know nothing about…OR DO YOU?? LOL. Don’t get mad cause you have a liking for a strong black man.
So you’re claiming that in order to debate the gay agenda you have to be gay.
This is what the public schools produce. A better argument for funding private schools with the voucher system does not exist.
I posted cause I hate you.
I don’t really care why you posted, or who you happen to hate. But when you write incoherent sentences which have nothing to do with the subject matter you make yourself look even dumber than we all know you to be.
Now post something worthwhile if you can. Jumping on a thread because you hate someone is sophomoric…oh sorry…that means immature and poorly informed. Now off you go junior step to your right…
this is not quantum physics.
I imagine just about everything seems like quantum physics to trash like you.
[/quote]
You read into things more than you should…No,you don’t have to be gay to debate gay topics…BUT there comes a point were you start talking about things you don’t have experience with…UNLESS you’re gay. Which you are…so debate on and educate the masses,Mickey…YEAAHH! Sorry if my “incoherent” sentences don’t make sense…you should get out more.
I do apologize for posting just because I hate you…its much more intelligent to follow YOUR example and just make an ENTIRE thread about it.
Men in domestic partnerships had a statistically significantly lower prevalence of multiple partnerships, “one-night stands,” and unprotected anal intercourse with a non-primary partner than either men with steady partners not identified as domestic partners or men without a steady partner.
These findings were independent of age. Men in domestic partnerships had decreased risk behaviors for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection, suggesting but not proving, that conferring legal status to same-sex unions might decrease sexual risk behavior. [/quote]
This is a no-brainer. Of course “domestic partners” are less likely to be getting or spreading HIV. The relevant question is, “Will allowing gays to marry PROMOTE monogamy?” Why couldn’t the government PROMOTE monogamy for homosexuals through some other means, possibly more effectively? I think we already know the answer, if anyone’s bothered to look. Did legalizing gay “marriage” in Canda and Europe lead to a stampede of homosexuals to the “altar”? Did it lead to a drastic reduction in homosexual promiscuity? Have these questions already been answered on this thread and I missed it?
That said, I agree with you that correlations can suggest the
possibility of a causal relationship. Again, that doesn’t justify drawing any conclusions about causality until proper research has been done. [/quote]
Predictable.
As I figured, now you are trying to wriggle your way out of your nonsense. Agreeing with me that correlations can suggest the “possibility of a causation” is not what you said above when presented with correlations you didn’t care for. I’ll post it again, and notice how you uncategorically refused that correlations have any meaning toward causation at all:
I’m happy to ignore the correlations entirely, because I know they say nothing about causation.
You think you get to use the “Get Out of Jail Free” card by claiming you can freely ignore correlations on the basis, and I quote with passion, correlations "say nothing about causation." Not something. Not “the possibility”…“nothing”, nothing at all.
Now, with your leg caught in the bear trap of inconsistency,
hypocrisy, and generally not knowing what the hell you are talking about, you change course and are suddenly cognizant of the fact that correlations matter.
Of course, you qualify it by saying other positive correlations mustbe considered as well, but no one has suggested anything to the contrary - straw man on your point. The essential point remains - when shown correlations that hurt your cause, you made outlandish claims that beggared belief. . .and impaired your credibility to be taken seriously, particularly in a context where science is being used as a proxy for understanding the issue.
You aren’t objective - and you try and weasel your way out of your previous HS. Not going to work. And it has hurt your credibility, which is why folks are becoming less and less interested in having a discussion with you - not because you have “won the day!!”, per your childish egotism.
I concur these are correlations that should be considered, and no one has suggested that shouldn’t be - but wait: “correlations say nothing about causation”? Don’t I get the same privilege of “ignoring them entirely” as you do?
Or is that only reserved for you?
I’d love an answer.
Here is another of your list of personal problems - your high sense of entitlement. No one owes you a response, particularly if they feel it is a waste of time (arguing with zealots often is). When I don’t respond, it is no concession - you should interpret it as a clear signal that I won’t have my time wasted.
I skipped all those questions because I wanted to address a threshold problem first - your credibility and honesty. In other words, till I got a straight answer out of you on your patently dishonest numbskullery on “correlations”, why would I go forward with any other questions?
You have children - when your kids throw an irrational tantrum, it’s usually best to ignore them. There is a lesson in there for you, dad.
But since the armless and legless Black Knight never seems to stop attacking, I’ll address the surrogacy issue, which, to note, has already been explained.
I’ll start from scratch, since it is clear you are coming to these issues for the first time, having already started with a conclusion you like and worked backward.
I don’t like surrogacy. I think it unnatural and problematic. I think, on the whole, it is a bad idea.
That said, from a “negative rights” point of view (go look it up, sparky), I don’t think the government should outlaw it. I don’t think a government is well-suited to poke around in that aspect of someone’s life. So, while I don’t like surrogacy, I don’t think there is a good reason to “outlaw” it. And, you’ll note: that goes for both straight and gay couples - if they want to go surrogate, I don’t think the government should stand in their way.
Now - and try and keep up - I believe we should not incentivize having children outside of the biological coupling of a man and woman. Having children outide of that context may happen - in fact, it will happen, as we see with surrogacy - but that doesn’t mean that we, as a society creating public policy, should encourage that behavior, even if we refuse to outlaw it.
Allowing artificial, alternative marriage relationships encourages creating family units outside of the biological coupling - expressly the opposite goal of what marriage is trying to accomplish. Traditional marriage has always, always, always had the goal of incentivizing the two people responsible for the creation of a child to join into a binding union. Other forms of marriage encourage the opposite - and we simply don’t want that. We have no interest in saying “yes, bringing children and raising them in a non-traditional marriage is ok and the equal to bringing children and raising them in
a traditional marriage” - for the simple fact that it isn’t so.
Now, I can smell your half-educated response a mile away: “but you let straights who go surrogate still get married, thus that is illogical!!”
But, incorrect - (1) the law has to be overinclusive as a practical matter, and (2) marriage, as an institution, is still benefitted from the coupling of parents who don’t produce children of their own.
(1) Since you are wholly ignorant of the “overinclusiveness” concept and I can be assured you won’t spend any time educating yourself on it: as a matter of policy, we don’t want to be so strict as to give yearly fertility tests to couples to ensure they are worthy of marriage, even as marriage’s primary goal is to serve the interests of children. The law is built to default to a general rule - that straight couples are going to produce children in marriage - and this is true of most laws. Just as the law assumes that after 18 you are
qualified to vote, knowing full well some idiots well over 18 aren’t, and some kids under 18 are more than qualified to cast a vote, the law is built on a general rule of overlinclusiveness.
Marriage is no different - and from a cost-benefit analysis, there is little downside to allowing straight couples to marry that will never have biological children compared to monitoring fertile couples to make sure they “qualify” for their marriage from year to year. The principle is preserved, at a minimum of the fuss and intrusiveness.
(2) Even if straight married couples who have no biological children of their own remain married, whichever partner is fertile is still in a marriage, thus circumscribing that partner’s ability to go be a part of children out of wedlock. Marriage serves not only to encourage a coupling of the biological parents of a child, but also to order society’s child-raising, so that even if a marriage produces no
children of its own, the marriage helps prevent those partners from going out and producing children out of wedlock somewhere else.
I have written about this concept a thousand times, and I am repeating myself, yet again.
[quote]Furthermore, that child is not being raised by its two
biological parents, contrary to your mantra that it is paramount that a child be raised by both biological parents. [/quote]
Read above - it is paramount that kids be raised by their biological parents. But just because we can’t guarantee it doesn’t mean that we can’t do everything we can to encourage it. This the mistake you make over and over: making the perfect the enemy of the good.
See above. I don’t think the government should outlaw surrogacy in the same sense that I don’t think government should outlaw homosexual activity. These are “negative rights” I think worth protecting. That is a far cry from “positive rights”, which grant a public privilege or benefit and naturally encourage or discourage certain behaviors - we want our public policy to constantly push for the binding coupling of biological parents at the expense of all other relationships, because that is the absolute best scenario we can have.
You don’t have a point - you have amateurish triumphalism. You’re a grown man - act like one. This repeated desire to proclaim “victory in logic!” over every person you argue with speaks more to your sense of desperation and mania to be taken seriously than it does your “superior intellect”. It has become embarrassing to witness - so grow up.
I’ve been too patient up to this point, as I am mostly repeating detailed arguments I wrote in the other thread - which you can’t be bothered to read, apparently. It isn’t my problem to fix, so if I find myself unwilling to type the same stuff yet again, I’ll decline - and set aside your self-applying therapy for your self-esteem that I have “conceded” because I choose not to reply - you’re only kidding yourself.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
The Dutch study demonstrated that even with marriage rights gay men chose to have sex with multiple partners.
The Dutch study didn’t look at married gay couples, genius. It looked at people in unmarried gay relationships. Don’t you think in order to draw conclusions about gay marriage that you should actually study gay married couples?
And in case you missed this from jsbrook:
That study population was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, purposely EXCLUDED monogamous participants (it was a REQUIREMENT that participants had at least two sexual partners in the last 6 months), was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty.
Do you realize how difficult it is to find a large group of homosexuals with the majority NOT HIV positive?
But you don’t care about the facts, do you? It is easier to misrepresent the research to promote your preconceptions.
Now who is lying?
They were committed homosexual relationships…Hold on that’s an oxymoron…
I love this one:
The average length of a ‘committed’ homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.)
How long have you and your partner been together? Is it one year? Look out forlife he’s probably checking out the box boy at the local Food Mart by now…
Here’s some interesting stats that you might not want to see:
Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
I guess if you and your partner make it to 8 or 9 years that would be just about equivalent to a heterosexual couple celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary.
Ha ha…keep posting forlife, while it will never erase the pain inside at least it passes the time.[/quote]
So is this the homosexually agenda; helping mainstream society understand and deal with the facts about homosexuals? Oh no, this is stuff they are trying to hide. Oh, sorry, my bad!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
The Dutch study demonstrated that even with marriage rights gay men chose to have sex with multiple partners.
The Dutch study didn’t look at married gay couples, genius. It looked at people in unmarried gay relationships. Don’t you think in order to draw conclusions about gay marriage that you should actually study gay married couples?
And in case you missed this from jsbrook:
That study population was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, purposely EXCLUDED monogamous participants (it was a REQUIREMENT that participants had at least two sexual partners in the last 6 months), was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty.
Do you realize how difficult it is to find a large group of homosexuals with the majority NOT HIV positive?
But you don’t care about the facts, do you? It is easier to misrepresent the research to promote your preconceptions.
Now who is lying?
They were committed homosexual relationships…Hold on that’s an oxymoron…
I love this one:
The average length of a ‘committed’ homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.)
How long have you and your partner been together? Is it one year? Look out forlife he’s probably checking out the box boy at the local Food Mart by now…
Here’s some interesting stats that you might not want to see:
Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
I guess if you and your partner make it to 8 or 9 years that would be just about equivalent to a heterosexual couple celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary.
Ha ha…keep posting forlife, while it will never erase the pain inside at least it passes the time.
So is this the homosexually agenda; helping mainstream society understand and deal with the facts about homosexuals? Oh no, this is stuff they are trying to hide. Oh, sorry, my bad!
[/quote]
How did I manage to overlook these data before? What a hoot! This sort of promiscuity will just be magically waved away by creating the institution of gay marriage, huh? That’s quite a trip!
Your post make things very clear. No doubt are you intelligent. You reason well.
In all reasoning there is a base from which everything you derive stems. Your basic belief that heterosexual marriage produce the best environment for raising kids is just a belief. Its subjective because the goal of raising a kid is not logically determined. That goal is subjective. Just consider how the cultural and evolutionary goals differ.
Where your belief comes from isn’t that hard to see. The one logical fallacy I can sense is that you assume that kids raised in what you consider unfit unions will somehow have a negative impact on your life.
The only negative impact is that your christian beliefs are challenged. If you want to tie your success and happiness to how well the static beliefs you hold as truths fair, then that is your problem. In fact all you want in these matters could go wrong, and you end up living next to a gay couple with surrogate children. But I can still phantom very credible scenarios to how that happens that will land you a happier and more successful man.
The solution to all this is to remove government involvement in marriage all together.
People marry in the church of their choice, if the church accepts them.
Then you can have a partnership contract which connect the partners legally.
And if the government find it necessary to socially intervene to increase child births they will sponsor people willing to raise children. Thats socialism right there.
Sweden have it, you get extra cash if you have kids here.
I think the whole problem comes from when people of belief wants to force everyone around them into that belief.
Now you can argue that I am no different. Thats true. But my beliefs are very different, and that matters. Its not the same things to ask someone to hate themselves for being homosexual, as it is to ask someone to stop telling people to hate themselves for being homosexuals.
The level of hostility differs so much.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
forlife wrote:
That said, I agree with you that correlations can suggest the
possibility of a causal relationship. Again, that doesn’t justify drawing any conclusions about causality until proper research has been done.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Did legalizing gay “marriage” in Canda and Europe lead to a stampede of homosexuals to the “altar”? Did it lead to a drastic reduction in homosexual promiscuity? [/quote]
A significant number of gay couples have taken advantage of gay marriage when it is made available to them, both here in the U.S. and abroad. Those that get married are more likely to stay together longer and have lower disease rates. Their children are better off as well.
Given that, why would you not want gays to get married?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
They were committed homosexual relationships…Hold on that’s an oxymoron…[/quote]
Did you miss the part where monogamous relationships were specifically excluded from the Dutch study? Gays were required to have had at least two sexual partners in the last 6 months in order to participate in the study.
Given that, how can you possibly justify drawing conclusions about the effects of gay marriage? Monogamous married couples were not allowed to participate in the study.
You are being blatantly dishonest here. And given how fond you are of accusing others of dishonesty, that makes you a hypocrite to boot.
We have been together one year. We have several friends who have been together in monogamous relationships for numerous years. My friends Ian and Ambrose have been a committed couple for more than 50 years. Again, sorry to burst your shallow stereotype but that is reality from someone actually living as a gay man, rather than tossing insults from a church pew.
Your “statistics” are irrelevant, because they are based on populations that don’t have gay marriage available to them.
If you want to keep gay couples together longer, encourage them to get married. Marriage isn’t a guarantee in the straight or gay world, but it increases the likelihood of the couple staying together.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t I get the same privilege of “ignoring them entirely” as you do? Or is that only reserved for you?[/quote]
I agree with you that my “ignoring them entirely” comment was off base. I stand corrected on that. Correlations shouldn’t be ignored entirely, because they do suggest the possibility of a causal relationship. I thought the Wiki quote you provided on “Correlation doesn’t imply causation” was excellent, and after reflecting I agree with it 100%.
So far so good. Do you agree that the children of surrogate gay couples would be better off if their parents were married than if they were not married?
Given that you wouldn’t prohibit gay couples from having surrogate children, why wouldn’t this same purpose be served for them?
Gay couples are going to have children regardless of whether or not they get married. For these couples, why wouldn’t you want to incentivize them to join into a binding union? Is it not better for them and their children to be in a binding union than not to be in a binding union?
Your logic for the value of marriage to straight couples is solid. You don’t want straight couples having children outside of marriage. That is not in the best interest of the couple, or of their children.
All I’m asking is for you to consider applying that same logic to gay couples. Doesn’t it similarly make sense for gay couples not to have children outside of marriage?
Why not? If fertility is so crucial to the value of marriage, why wouldn’t you give couples a one time fertility test before granting them a marriage license? From a cost perspective, the loss of tax revenues, social security revenues, etc. from allowing an infertile couple to marry would be more than compensated by the cost of a one time fertility test.
Good point. Why would this not apply to gay couples as well, given their ability to adopt children and to have surrogate children outside of marriage? Wouldn’t it make sense to encourage these couples to marry as well, providing more order and stability to society’s child-raising?
I know you’ve made the above points before, but you haven’t answered my questions on why the same logic doesn’t apply to gay couples. I’m not asking for another round of repetition, I’m asking for a substantive response to my points raised above which you have yet to provide. Let’s drill past the surface and have a real discussion.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
This sort of promiscuity will just be magically waved away by creating the institution of gay marriage, huh? That’s quite a trip!
[/quote]
No more than promiscuity among heterosexuals is magically waved away by having marriage available to them.
However, the research clearly shows that promiscuity and the spread of disease are decreased when gay couples are allowed to marry. That is a good thing for them, and it is good for society.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
The Dutch study demonstrated that even with marriage rights gay men chose to have sex with multiple partners.
The Dutch study didn’t look at married gay couples, genius. It looked at people in unmarried gay relationships. Don’t you think in order to draw conclusions about gay marriage that you should actually study gay married couples?
And in case you missed this from jsbrook:
That study population was heavily weighted with HIV/AIDS patients, purposely EXCLUDED monogamous participants (it was a REQUIREMENT that participants had at least two sexual partners in the last 6 months), was predominantly urban, and under the age of thirty.
Do you realize how difficult it is to find a large group of homosexuals with the majority NOT HIV positive?
But you don’t care about the facts, do you? It is easier to misrepresent the research to promote your preconceptions.
Now who is lying?
They were committed homosexual relationships…Hold on that’s an oxymoron…
I love this one:
The average length of a ‘committed’ homosexual partnership was only 1.5 years. (Xiridou M, et al. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003; 17: 1029-38.)
How long have you and your partner been together? Is it one year? Look out forlife he’s probably checking out the box boy at the local Food Mart by now…
Here’s some interesting stats that you might not want to see:
Gay men have sex with someone other than their primary partner in 66% of relationships within the first year, rising to 90% of relationships after five years. (Harry J. Gay Couples. New York. 1984)
In an online survey among nearly 8,000 homosexuals, 71% of same-sex relationships lasted less than eight years. Only 9% of all same-sex relationships lasted longer than 16 years. (2003-2004 Gay & Lesbian Consumer Online Census; www.glcensus.org)
A study of homosexual men shows that more than 75% of homosexual men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: approximately 15% claimed to have had 100-249 sex partners, 17% claimed 250-499, 15% claimed 500-999 and 28% claimed more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. (Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities. New York 1978).
I guess if you and your partner make it to 8 or 9 years that would be just about equivalent to a heterosexual couple celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary.
Ha ha…keep posting forlife, while it will never erase the pain inside at least it passes the time.[/quote]
Congratulations. You actually presented (potentially) REAL studies. Instead of fabricating conclusions that were logically impossible as you did with the Dutch study. Why not do that from the beginning?
Don’t you find it strange that there is not a Religious Organization on this planet that does not recognize that marriage was first an institution given to us by God? Second, marriage was recognized by governments to be a beneficial way to do business. Now since marriage was first given to us by God, and it was Adam and Eve, and the family is the preferred unit given to us by God. Why don’t you go and ask God if he would change the definition of marriage to be between man and, well just about anything?
It’s not going to happen. With all your arguements defending Gays, why don’t you just admit, that this is not about Gay rights, because they already have the same rights through the domestic partnership laws. This is about Gays forceing their lifestyle upon everyone else, and ruining the family.
You said it already, Gays are going to adopt with or without Gay Marriage, so, there you can have your family, you have all the rights of married couples through domestic partnerships, ok, what is left? Why can’t you just leave marriage alone? Let us have one thing that we hold dear. My only question is that, WHY?
The answer, to force your lifestyle on me and my family. With Gay Marrage comes, now it will be taught in schools that this lifestyle is ok. Then comes that you will now want to be married in my churches, and if a chruch does not do it, then you will sue the church, making it impossible for me to have freedom of religion, unless I conform to you and your Gay Lifestyle. I don’t have a problem with you, do what you want in your own home, just don’t force your life or views on me and my family. If you don’t think this will happen, look in Canada where it already is happening.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
Don’t you find it strange that there is not a Religious Organization on this planet that does not recognize that marriage was first an institution given to us by God? [/quote]
Why would that be strange, since by definition these are organizations who believe “god” is the creator of all things?
Hold on there, partner. Just because religious organizations believe marriage is ordained of “god” doesn’t mean they are right. Religious organizations claim a lot of things that are nothing but fairy tales.
Especially when you consider that one person’s idea of “god” is very different from another person’s idea of “god”, and that even religious people differ significantly in how their god actually defines marriage.
That’s simply incorrect. Gays are denied 1,000 of the rights given to straight couples in the U.S., including federal tax benefits, social security benefits, citizenship for partners from other countries, etc.
I have no interest in forcing other people to be gay, nor could I do so since sexual orientation isn’t a choice.
I also have no interest in ruining the family. My children would be better off if my partner and I were married than if we were simply living together.
It’s not about just having a family. It’s about having the same responsibilities/benefits that straight couples enjoy, and the stability and health provided through those responsibilities/benefits.
Not even close, see above.
I couldn’t care less what churches believe about gay marriage. Some support it, and some don’t. What people want to believe in the confines of their church/temple/synagogue is their own business.
It’s not going to happen. With all your arguements defending Gays, why don’t you just admit, that this is not about Gay rights, because they already have the same rights through the domestic partnership laws. [/quote]
I don’t think this is true by any strech. Link? Personally, I don’t give a shit what it’s called. I think gay couples should have all the LEGAL rights of straight, married couples. No need to attach the label marriage to it. Many others are only pro-civil union. But I do not think this is the actual state of things at all. Gay couples in most states do no have the same legal rights as married couples and there’s no recognition by other states under full faith and credit in many cases.
Ok, we can agree to disagree on the religious aspects, because, you are not going to convince me that my religion is not good, and I’m not going to convince you that your lifestyle is a choice you have made. However, you can not claim, that not necessarily you, but the Gay Agenda is to ruin the family, and force the lifestyle on me.
You all left out the fact that you will now be sueing me and my churches, which negates my freedom of religion, unless I believe the way you want me too.
I’ll just have to admit that you all may be right on the gay rights when it comes to taxes, citizenship, and other issues, as I’ve never filed taxes as a gay couple before. And I have never heard of the citizenship issue, but have had friends who married foreign nationals, and even they found it next to impossible to get their spouse citizenship, they had to actually apply for citizenship. Imagine that, but I guess that is another topic for another post.
Again, I’m not talking about you as an individual. So, stop negating arguements against the Gay Community by telling everyone that you would never do that…because the Gay Community in Canada is sueing religious organizations because they have refused to perform Gay Marriages, based on Religious preferences. So, My freedom of Religion, is being denied, and will be in the sue happy U.S. Especially here is the Republic of Kalifornia where it’s not if you will be sued it’s when.
