SOCIAL LOUNGE POLL: DO YOU SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE
Options
Comments
-
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGEWe can debate the science of it. I mean homosexuality happens in nature, proven fact, its also rare in animals, also fact...but dude...its rare among humans as well.
That's what I would prefer to do.........
Again.....
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Levay, Simon (1996). ? Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.
What two adults choose to do has no effect on me whatsoever.
Well say you fall in love with a chick that used to see "down low" ? .......
Or....
Your old lady steps out on you with a ? fresh outta the pen with the bug...............
Preference?
That is pretty much what it is........
Some people go throughout life without having sex..........
It is clearly a choice / preference..........
There is no evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause................
? are obsessed with ? and they are still a small part of society, they are small but loud (politically) that's it.
Nah......
Just think this is a non-issue...........
Why expect "rights" for a preference or the choice of a lifestyle............
My main problems with this is when it it compared to the civil rights movement.............
1- unless you only date virgins you have to deal with disease period.
2- a "biological cause" and nature are two different things. I said it occurs in nature and it does. You can't prove it isn't natural either, all this talk of a "? gene" is nonsense. You even posted, and continue to post over and over again, that HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS IN NATURE. Point proven, just stop it. Lol
3- what are you talking about? At the moment there's an extra step being taken to PREVENT them from doing what everyone else can do. Its a right because everyone except them can do it. So there's nothing special about it. There's special laws stopping them. -
Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urgeKai is like an atheist Muslim.
7:81
Sahih International
Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
In the name of ? , the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
-
Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urgeWe can debate the science of it. I mean homosexuality happens in nature, proven fact, its also rare in animals, also fact...but dude...its rare among humans as well.
That's what I would prefer to do.........
Again.....
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Levay, Simon (1996). ? Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.
What two adults choose to do has no effect on me whatsoever.
Well say you fall in love with a chick that used to see "down low" ? .......
Or....
Your old lady steps out on you with a ? fresh outta the pen with the bug...............
Preference?
That is pretty much what it is........
Some people go throughout life without having sex..........
It is clearly a choice / preference..........
There is no evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause................
? are obsessed with ? and they are still a small part of society, they are small but loud (politically) that's it.
Nah......
Just think this is a non-issue...........
Why expect "rights" for a preference or the choice of a lifestyle............
My main problems with this is when it it compared to the civil rights movement.............
1- unless you only date virgins you have to deal with disease period.
2- a "biological cause" and nature are two different things. I said it occurs in nature and it does. You can't prove it isn't natural either, all this talk of a "? gene" is nonsense. You even posted, and continue to post over and over again, that HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS IN NATURE. Point proven, just stop it. Lol
3- what are you talking about? At the moment there's an extra step being taken to PREVENT them from doing what everyone else can do. Its a right because everyone except them can do it. So there's nothing special about it. There's special laws stopping them.
1. More-so due to homosexuality.....
2. Alas......"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
3. What extra steps?.?.?.?
The homos are attempting to change the definition of marriage......
marriage (n.) Look up marriage at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from ? Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The ? Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje. Meaning "a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c.; that of "wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married" is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.
-
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGEWe can debate the science of it. I mean homosexuality happens in nature, proven fact, its also rare in animals, also fact...but dude...its rare among humans as well.
That's what I would prefer to do.........
Again.....
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Levay, Simon (1996). ? Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.
What two adults choose to do has no effect on me whatsoever.
Well say you fall in love with a chick that used to see "down low" ? .......
Or....
Your old lady steps out on you with a ? fresh outta the pen with the bug...............
Preference?
That is pretty much what it is........
Some people go throughout life without having sex..........
It is clearly a choice / preference..........
There is no evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause................
? are obsessed with ? and they are still a small part of society, they are small but loud (politically) that's it.
Nah......
Just think this is a non-issue...........
Why expect "rights" for a preference or the choice of a lifestyle............
My main problems with this is when it it compared to the civil rights movement.............
1- unless you only date virgins you have to deal with disease period.
2- a "biological cause" and nature are two different things. I said it occurs in nature and it does. You can't prove it isn't natural either, all this talk of a "? gene" is nonsense. You even posted, and continue to post over and over again, that HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS IN NATURE. Point proven, just stop it. Lol
3- what are you talking about? At the moment there's an extra step being taken to PREVENT them from doing what everyone else can do. Its a right because everyone except them can do it. So there's nothing special about it. There's special laws stopping them.
1. More-so due to homosexuality.....
2. Alas......"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
3. What extra steps?.?.?.?
The homos are attempting to change the definition of marriage......
marriage (n.) Look up marriage at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from ? Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The ? Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje. Meaning "a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c.; that of "wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married" is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.
Extra steps: "Defense of Marriage Act", any law "banning" ? marriage etc.
I'm glad you bolded that definition because notice it doesn't say who's husband or who's wife. Is a woman who marries a woman not a wife? -
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGEThis is why I'm atheist.
This thread alone.
Man -
Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urgeWe can debate the science of it. I mean homosexuality happens in nature, proven fact, its also rare in animals, also fact...but dude...its rare among humans as well.
That's what I would prefer to do.........
Again.....
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Levay, Simon (1996). ? Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.
What two adults choose to do has no effect on me whatsoever.
Well say you fall in love with a chick that used to see "down low" ? .......
Or....
Your old lady steps out on you with a ? fresh outta the pen with the bug...............
Preference?
That is pretty much what it is........
Some people go throughout life without having sex..........
It is clearly a choice / preference..........
There is no evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause................
? are obsessed with ? and they are still a small part of society, they are small but loud (politically) that's it.
Nah......
Just think this is a non-issue...........
Why expect "rights" for a preference or the choice of a lifestyle............
My main problems with this is when it it compared to the civil rights movement.............
1- unless you only date virgins you have to deal with disease period.
2- a "biological cause" and nature are two different things. I said it occurs in nature and it does. You can't prove it isn't natural either, all this talk of a "? gene" is nonsense. You even posted, and continue to post over and over again, that HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS IN NATURE. Point proven, just stop it. Lol
3- what are you talking about? At the moment there's an extra step being taken to PREVENT them from doing what everyone else can do. Its a right because everyone except them can do it. So there's nothing special about it. There's special laws stopping them.
1. More-so due to homosexuality.....
2. Alas......"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
3. What extra steps?.?.?.?
The homos are attempting to change the definition of marriage......
marriage (n.) Look up marriage at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from ? Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The ? Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje. Meaning "a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c.; that of "wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married" is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.
Extra steps: "Defense of Marriage Act", any law "banning" ? marriage etc.
I'm glad you bolded that definition because notice it doesn't say who's husband or who's wife. Is a woman who marries a woman not a wife?
I will play along.....
husband (n.) Look up husband at Dictionary.com
Old English husbonda "male head of a household," probably from Old Norse husbondi "master of the house," from hus "house" (see house (n.)) + bondi "householder, dweller, freeholder, peasant," from buandi, prp. of bua "to dwell" (see bower). Beginning late 13c., replaced Old English wer as "married man," companion of wif, a sad loss for English poetry. Slang shortening hubby first attested 1680s.
wife (n.) Look up wife at Dictionary.com
Old English wif "woman," from Proto-Germanic *wiban (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian wif, Old Norse vif, Danish and Swedish viv, Middle Dutch, Dutch wijf, Old High German wib, German Weib), of uncertain origin. Dutch wijf now means, in slang, "girl, babe," having softened somewhat from earlier sense of "? ."
-
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGEWe can debate the science of it. I mean homosexuality happens in nature, proven fact, its also rare in animals, also fact...but dude...its rare among humans as well.
That's what I would prefer to do.........
Again.....
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Levay, Simon (1996). ? Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.
What two adults choose to do has no effect on me whatsoever.
Well say you fall in love with a chick that used to see "down low" ? .......
Or....
Your old lady steps out on you with a ? fresh outta the pen with the bug...............
Preference?
That is pretty much what it is........
Some people go throughout life without having sex..........
It is clearly a choice / preference..........
There is no evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause................
? are obsessed with ? and they are still a small part of society, they are small but loud (politically) that's it.
Nah......
Just think this is a non-issue...........
Why expect "rights" for a preference or the choice of a lifestyle............
My main problems with this is when it it compared to the civil rights movement.............
1- unless you only date virgins you have to deal with disease period.
2- a "biological cause" and nature are two different things. I said it occurs in nature and it does. You can't prove it isn't natural either, all this talk of a "? gene" is nonsense. You even posted, and continue to post over and over again, that HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS IN NATURE. Point proven, just stop it. Lol
3- what are you talking about? At the moment there's an extra step being taken to PREVENT them from doing what everyone else can do. Its a right because everyone except them can do it. So there's nothing special about it. There's special laws stopping them.
1. More-so due to homosexuality.....
2. Alas......"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
3. What extra steps?.?.?.?
The homos are attempting to change the definition of marriage......
marriage (n.) Look up marriage at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from ? Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The ? Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje. Meaning "a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c.; that of "wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married" is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.
Extra steps: "Defense of Marriage Act", any law "banning" ? marriage etc.
I'm glad you bolded that definition because notice it doesn't say who's husband or who's wife. Is a woman who marries a woman not a wife?
I will play along.....
husband (n.) Look up husband at Dictionary.com
Old English husbonda "male head of a household," probably from Old Norse husbondi "master of the house," from hus "house" (see house (n.)) + bondi "householder, dweller, freeholder, peasant," from buandi, prp. of bua "to dwell" (see bower). Beginning late 13c., replaced Old English wer as "married man," companion of wif, a sad loss for English poetry. Slang shortening hubby first attested 1680s.
wife (n.) Look up wife at Dictionary.com
Old English wif "woman," from Proto-Germanic *wiban (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian wif, Old Norse vif, Danish and Swedish viv, Middle Dutch, Dutch wijf, Old High German wib, German Weib), of uncertain origin. Dutch wijf now means, in slang, "girl, babe," having softened somewhat from earlier sense of "? ."
Doesn't answer my question. A man can still be the "male head of household" if he's married to another man.
And "wife" still means a married woman...even if she's married to another woman. -
Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urgeRighteous Indignation is coming
-
Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urgeWe can debate the science of it. I mean homosexuality happens in nature, proven fact, its also rare in animals, also fact...but dude...its rare among humans as well.
That's what I would prefer to do.........
Again.....
"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
Levay, Simon (1996). ? Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 207.
What two adults choose to do has no effect on me whatsoever.
Well say you fall in love with a chick that used to see "down low" ? .......
Or....
Your old lady steps out on you with a ? fresh outta the pen with the bug...............
Preference?
That is pretty much what it is........
Some people go throughout life without having sex..........
It is clearly a choice / preference..........
There is no evidence that homosexuality has a biological cause................
? are obsessed with ? and they are still a small part of society, they are small but loud (politically) that's it.
Nah......
Just think this is a non-issue...........
Why expect "rights" for a preference or the choice of a lifestyle............
My main problems with this is when it it compared to the civil rights movement.............
1- unless you only date virgins you have to deal with disease period.
2- a "biological cause" and nature are two different things. I said it occurs in nature and it does. You can't prove it isn't natural either, all this talk of a "? gene" is nonsense. You even posted, and continue to post over and over again, that HOMOSEXUALITY OCCURS IN NATURE. Point proven, just stop it. Lol
3- what are you talking about? At the moment there's an extra step being taken to PREVENT them from doing what everyone else can do. Its a right because everyone except them can do it. So there's nothing special about it. There's special laws stopping them.
1. More-so due to homosexuality.....
2. Alas......"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."
3. What extra steps?.?.?.?
The homos are attempting to change the definition of marriage......
marriage (n.) Look up marriage at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "act of marrying, entry into wedlock;" also "state or condition of being husband and wife;" from Old French mariage "marriage; dowry" (12c.), from ? Latin *maritaticum (11c.), from Latin maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry (v.)). The ? Latin word also is the source of Italian maritaggio, Spanish maridaje. Meaning "a union by marriage, a particular matrimonial union" is early 14c.; that of "wedding; the marriage ceremony; condition of being married" is from late 14c. Figurative use (non-theological) from early 15c.
Extra steps: "Defense of Marriage Act", any law "banning" ? marriage etc.
I'm glad you bolded that definition because notice it doesn't say who's husband or who's wife. Is a woman who marries a woman not a wife?
I will play along.....
husband (n.) Look up husband at Dictionary.com
Old English husbonda "male head of a household," probably from Old Norse husbondi "master of the house," from hus "house" (see house (n.)) + bondi "householder, dweller, freeholder, peasant," from buandi, prp. of bua "to dwell" (see bower). Beginning late 13c., replaced Old English wer as "married man," companion of wif, a sad loss for English poetry. Slang shortening hubby first attested 1680s.
wife (n.) Look up wife at Dictionary.com
Old English wif "woman," from Proto-Germanic *wiban (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian wif, Old Norse vif, Danish and Swedish viv, Middle Dutch, Dutch wijf, Old High German wib, German Weib), of uncertain origin. Dutch wijf now means, in slang, "girl, babe," having softened somewhat from earlier sense of "? ."
Doesn't answer my question. A man can still be the "male head of household" if he's married to another man.
And "wife" still means a married woman...even if she's married to another woman.
This is where I refuse to play along...........
The definitions are clear.......
The fact that philosophers and "boy lovers" want to ignore them, is not of my concern.............
-
NO I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGEThis is why I'm atheist.
This thread alone.
Man
So you finally admitted it
you became an atheist so you could indulge in being a ? and not have to feel bad about it. -
NO I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGEif you don't stand against something you are for it
anyone who knows their ? is against homosexuality and still supports it is a hypocrite you cannot have it both ways. right is right and wrong is wrong. -
I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
That's some serious ? -
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGEI couldn't care less whether ? ppl marry or not. its none of my bizness. to each his own imo.
but if it comes to a vote, who am i to stand in the way of some one elses choices. *shrugs* -
NO I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGEMarriage is not a right and ? their happines.
What about the future -
Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urgeUPDATE
By Robert Barnes and Carol Morello, Updated: Tuesday, March 26, 12:46 PM
"A cautious and conflicted Supreme Court on Tuesday took up for the first time a detailed examination of same-sex marriage, and justices wondered openly about whether it was time for the court to render a judgment.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, considered to be the pivotal vote on the issue, said the court was in “uncharted waters.” He questioned whether it should have accepted the case, which concerns California’s constitutional amendment, approved by voters, that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples.
After President Obama declared that his own “evolution” on the issue led him to believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, the government weighed in on the side of overturning Prop 8.
It does not go as far as Olson advocates. Instead, it says that states such as California, which offers ? couples full rights, must also extend the right of marriage. Such a position, if accepted by the justices, would probably allow same-sex marriage in an additional eight states."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-historic-moment-for-same-sex-marriage-arrives-before-supreme-court/2013/03/25/c8d85442-95ad-11e2-b6f0-a5150a247b6a_story.html
-
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
No, you idiot.
Stop strawmanning my post.
People think being ? is wrong because they're religious and their indoctrination tells them so.
Me being a naturalist and a skeptic disagree with that.
And knows it's natural to be ? or straight.
This isn't a create a character where you can choose your sexual orientation.
It is nature running its ? . -
NO I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE
No, you idiot.
Stop strawmanning my post.
People think being ? is wrong because they're religious and their indoctrination tells them so.
Me being a naturalist and a skeptic disagree with that.
And knows it's natural to be ? or straight.
This isn't a create a character where you can choose your sexual orientation.
It is nature running its ? .
Listen i have a hard time believing you're not a ?
? nature, just because something is natural does not mean that it is good. People reject the acceptance of your way of life on more than just religious grounds
the ? much like atheism corrodes a society weakens it's family structure and turns it's men into ? . example sweden has a high percentage of both atheist and ? and there men are a bunch of ? .
There is a connection between atheist and homosexuals they both support each other. -
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
I don't give a ? what consenting adults do as long as it does not physically harm others. I don't give a ? about what your religious books say. Half of those religious ? are ? and in denial. -
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGE
No, you idiot.
Stop strawmanning my post.
People think being ? is wrong because they're religious and their indoctrination tells them so.
Me being a naturalist and a skeptic disagree with that.
And knows it's natural to be ? or straight.
This isn't a create a character where you can choose your sexual orientation.
It is nature running its ? .
Listen i have a hard time believing you're not a ?
? nature, just because something is natural does not mean that it is good. People reject the acceptance of your way of life on more than just religious grounds
the ? much like atheism corrodes a society weakens it's family structure and turns it's men into ? . example sweden has a high percentage of both atheist and ? and there men are a bunch of ? .
There is a connection between atheist and homosexuals they both support each other.
If I was ? I would have said so already.
I ? after females, not guys.
? are humans too they just like ? and I love ? .
What is the big deal of them getting married? -
I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNIONI do not support ? Marriage but I also have no problem with it this ? is a distraction Topic played on the populace that has 0 impact on my day to day. If the government wants to make a law calling all Canines now Felines because Dogs are being discriminated against by not being given the same rights of freedom most Cats receive I would give no ? either. Dogs will still be Canines in my mind and reality and Cats still felines regardless of what someone else wants to call it...
-
Men marrying Men ewwww they got the urgeproof that it weakens society
ummmm.....i should be able to do wtf i want with my sexual organs as long as it isn't hurting anyone. should i be able to tell you which girls you can have sex with?
You can.........
However.....
You should not seek my approval or my vote.........
-
NO I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGESoloman the Wise wrote: »I do not support ? Marriage but I also have no problem with it this ? is a distraction Topic played on the populace that has 0 impact on my day to day. If the government wants to make a law calling all Canines now Felines because Dogs are being discriminated against by not being given the same rights of freedom most Cats receive I would give no ? either. Dogs will still be Canines in my mind and reality and Cats still felines regardless of what someone else wants to call it...
yeah but when you have children they are going to grow up calling dogs felines, the changing of words is the changing of everything. READ 1984. -
NO I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE
No, you idiot.
Stop strawmanning my post.
People think being ? is wrong because they're religious and their indoctrination tells them so.
Me being a naturalist and a skeptic disagree with that.
And knows it's natural to be ? or straight.
This isn't a create a character where you can choose your sexual orientation.
It is nature running its ? .
Listen i have a hard time believing you're not a ?
? nature, just because something is natural does not mean that it is good. People reject the acceptance of your way of life on more than just religious grounds
the ? much like atheism corrodes a society weakens it's family structure and turns it's men into ? . example sweden has a high percentage of both atheist and ? and there men are a bunch of ? .
There is a connection between atheist and homosexuals they both support each other.
If I was ? I would have said so already.
I ? after females, not guys.
? are humans too they just like ? and I love ? .
What is the big deal of them getting married?
? cannot get ? married marriage is a union between man and woman nothing else ? and ? lovers like yourself are going to turn the entire nation into ? san fransciso denmark or sweden. -
I DO NOT SUPPORT ? MARRIAGE BUT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CIVIL UNION
I do not disagree with what you are saying, but I take responsibility for teaching my children and would make sure they know that everything told to them is not always true no matter how hard some people would like to make it so. The would know also that ? like this is a distraction to keep the moves that more dramatically affect my immediate hidden or neglected. That said most hetero-sexual marriage is not real anymore it is done by kats as a right of passage and that is a large part of the problem. People do not respect what marriage is and because of that broken homes, livelihoods, spirits and communities. If we as a culture had a perspective on the difference between marriage and contracts of living together and where the government should stay the ? out of things this would be a non issue. If people were more mindful of how they were living there lives and treating others marriage would not be a act to fulfill sexual desires, seen as a business move or the next grown up thing to do they would see it as a natural union where a man and woman decide to build a family and let people do what they do...Soloman the Wise wrote: »I do not support ? Marriage but I also have no problem with it this ? is a distraction Topic played on the populace that has 0 impact on my day to day. If the government wants to make a law calling all Canines now Felines because Dogs are being discriminated against by not being given the same rights of freedom most Cats receive I would give no ? either. Dogs will still be Canines in my mind and reality and Cats still felines regardless of what someone else wants to call it...
yeah but when you have children they are going to grow up calling dogs felines, the changing of words is the changing of everything. READ 1984.
-
YES I SUPPORT ( HOMOSEXUALS, TRANSGENDER, BISEXUALS, LESBIANS) ? MARRIAGEZombie think on your own bruh.
Stop using old relic desert books to tell what is right or wrong
? yardie
