|
As far as i can see this thread explains why it is okay to disallow gay marriage provided you are a fundamentalist and take whichever book you happen to read entirely literally.
So tell me how many of you accept that the world is ~ 5000 years old?
We need to re-address the importance of marriage, it does of course stem from religion and is a religious ceremony, but in todays society marriage is clearly not an expression of faith, it is an expression of love in a social society, plenty of athiests get married and of course that strikes nobody here with surprise.
Thus we come to the conclusion that yes, if churches really do take to their text so blindly they are perfectly within their rights to abhor gay marriage, and it comes of the cost of disengaging with the progressive world, as more and more the church fails to adapt to the times more and more the people will fail to adapt to the church, and it is possible we may come to know a world where regular 'straight' couples just get civil partnerships instead of marriages due to the church's lack of understanding, after all, from the veiwpoint of an unreligious (and even many religious) person(s) marriage and civil partnerships really are the same things just different gender specification
|
On August 08 2010 05:42 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 05:39 Bibdy wrote:
Fact: A child cannot grow up to be a contributing member of society without both a male and female parent.
Fact: All attempts to raise children otherwise result in complete failure.
Recommendation: All single parents, and widowed parents, should have their children taken away and the remaining parent launched towards the sun in a catapult. I'm Basil Marceaux dot Com and I approve this message.
I'm Gary Robert Harris.
A single father.
I will not only raise a child beyond good expectations I will redefine the idea of what a good parent is.
My son already lives better then you will but I don't have a wife who I cheat on and fight with. No misguided animal-is-tic social norms to robotize his perception of man and women. He will grow up without the programmed bullshit you swallowed readily. The future does not require every person to continue breeding. We can now enjoy life.
The Taliban can stick to traditional values.
My world is evolving.
|
On August 08 2010 06:07 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 05:42 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 05:39 Bibdy wrote:
Fact: A child cannot grow up to be a contributing member of society without both a male and female parent.
Fact: All attempts to raise children otherwise result in complete failure.
Recommendation: All single parents, and widowed parents, should have their children taken away and the remaining parent launched towards the sun in a catapult. I'm Basil Marceaux dot Com and I approve this message. I'm Gary Robert Harris. A single father. I will not only raise a child beyond good expectations I will redefine the idea of what a good parent is. My son already lives better then you will but I don't have a wife who I cheat on and fight with. No misguided animal-is-tic social norms to robotize his perception of man and women. He will grow up without the programmed bullshit you swallowed readily. The future does not require every person to continue breeding. We can now enjoy life. The Taliban can stick to traditional values. My world is evolving.
Either you didn't get the sarcasm present in both my post and the one I quoted, and didn't read my previous post which was a whopping three higher than the one you're responding to, or you've just beaten me.
Here, let me help. This is Basil Marceaux:
Basil Marceaux on gun control
|
On August 08 2010 06:11 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 06:07 AttackZerg wrote:On August 08 2010 05:42 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 05:39 Bibdy wrote:
Fact: A child cannot grow up to be a contributing member of society without both a male and female parent.
Fact: All attempts to raise children otherwise result in complete failure.
Recommendation: All single parents, and widowed parents, should have their children taken away and the remaining parent launched towards the sun in a catapult. I'm Basil Marceaux dot Com and I approve this message. I'm Gary Robert Harris. A single father. I will not only raise a child beyond good expectations I will redefine the idea of what a good parent is. My son already lives better then you will but I don't have a wife who I cheat on and fight with. No misguided animal-is-tic social norms to robotize his perception of man and women. He will grow up without the programmed bullshit you swallowed readily. The future does not require every person to continue breeding. We can now enjoy life. The Taliban can stick to traditional values. My world is evolving. Either you didn't get the sarcasm present in both my post and the one I quoted, and didn't read my previous post which was a whopping three higher than the one you're responding to, or you've just beaten me. Here, let me help. This is Basil Marceaux: Basil Marceaux on gun control
I did not.
|
On August 08 2010 06:21 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 06:11 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 06:07 AttackZerg wrote:On August 08 2010 05:42 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 05:39 Bibdy wrote:
Fact: A child cannot grow up to be a contributing member of society without both a male and female parent.
Fact: All attempts to raise children otherwise result in complete failure.
Recommendation: All single parents, and widowed parents, should have their children taken away and the remaining parent launched towards the sun in a catapult. I'm Basil Marceaux dot Com and I approve this message. I'm Gary Robert Harris. A single father. I will not only raise a child beyond good expectations I will redefine the idea of what a good parent is. My son already lives better then you will but I don't have a wife who I cheat on and fight with. No misguided animal-is-tic social norms to robotize his perception of man and women. He will grow up without the programmed bullshit you swallowed readily. The future does not require every person to continue breeding. We can now enjoy life. The Taliban can stick to traditional values. My world is evolving. Either you didn't get the sarcasm present in both my post and the one I quoted, and didn't read my previous post which was a whopping three higher than the one you're responding to, or you've just beaten me. Here, let me help. This is Basil Marceaux: Basil Marceaux on gun control I did not.
Someone needs to invent a font-face that relays sarcasm with the same efficacy as speech. It does not translate well through text. Except for the whole catapult thing.
Still, someone ought to get right on that.
|
On August 08 2010 04:09 Ploppytheman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 03:11 Psychopomp wrote:The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge. The tyranny of the many. I want you, right now, to tell me that I should not be allowed to marry my boyfriend, because you and your conservative friends think its bad. Go ahead, tell me I shouldn't have the same privileges as you, and be able to marry someone I love. Its not your right, homosexual marriage doesn't exist its just something made up. Marriage is to raise kids not to save money, thats why heterosexual marriage exists to protect society. You do have the same privilege to marry a person of the opposite sex, I can't get marry whoever I want. And wow I didn't know the judge was a homosexual... this is such a joke.
A great deal of social functions are "made up". There have been such a slew of arguments against the "function of marriage is to raise children," so I'm not going to waste my time reiterating what anyone should have read a countless number of times.
Your second argument doesn't seem to have any coherency as there is a great difference between marrying a person of the same sex to "marrying whoever I want." See - mutual agreement.
Also, there are written historical documents that show the existence of same-sex marriage in a large number of societies. No less made up than the Christian ideal of the sanctity of marriage in the form of the monogamous union of a man and a woman.
|
16957 Posts
On August 08 2010 03:23 Pape wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 03:11 Psychopomp wrote:The will of seven million people to ban same-sex marriage in California has been turned down by one federal judge (who is a homosexual, by the way) who has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever. Shame on this leftist judge. The tyranny of the many. I want you, right now, to tell me that I should not be allowed to marry my boyfriend, because you and your conservative friends think its bad. Go ahead, tell me I shouldn't have the same privileges as you, and be able to marry someone I love. You should not have a boyfriend, and you should not even consider marrying a man. I'm not a conservative, I'm just realistic, unfortunately you are probably protected here so you can insult my beliefs all you want but if I told you what I think of homos I would get banned. User was warned for this post
It's ok to have different opinions on homosexuals. If you can back up your position with cogent arguments, then please feel free to add them to the thread. Debate is always welcome. Just remember to be civil :D
|
On August 06 2010 17:37 Kwidowmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 15:17 StarMasterX wrote:On August 05 2010 15:47 Teogamer wrote:On August 05 2010 15:22 StarMasterX wrote:
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue. Why shouldn't it affect our culture? Isn't it a positive thing for a culture to teach its people to be accepting of others' lifestyles and to avoid discriminating? Isn't that one of the founding principles of this country? It is a positive thing, but it is arguable when there are moral issues involved. There are people who live a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol, and that type of lifestyle I would want my kids to discriminate for example. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, but this is a moral issue for many who think marriage should stay defined as man+woman. What happens when my theoretical kid sees 2 married guys and asks me if that is ok and if he can marry a guy? What happens when my kids hear about it in school? I'm just responding to the point somebody made that this wouldn't affect me so we should just let it be. That isn't true...a ruling like this affects everybody. Sixty years ago someone asked "What happens when my theoretical kid sees a black man married to a white woman and asks me if she can marry the black man down the street? What happens when my kids hear about black men marrying white women in school? ... A ruling like this affects everybody" How absurd does this sound? How wrong does it sound? Don't you think in another sixty years what you wrote will sound just as wrong as what I wrote? I for one cannot wait till the day my six year old boy wants to marry his best friend or my daughter has a doll family with her best friend and we all find it as cute as the little couple in their 3 foot suit and 2 foot five dress at a wedding
Regardless of your opinion on this subject, one of the things I'm tired of hearing is the comparison between gay marriage and black+white marriages. Completely different.
Why? First, that was still a man and a woman, and one of the main arguments against gay marriage is that people don't want marriage to be redefined and changed. Second, if we allow marriage to be redifined in this way, why can't a man marry a horse? Why can't underage marry? Why not just change EVERYTHING?
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 08 2010 11:43 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 17:37 Kwidowmaker wrote:On August 06 2010 15:17 StarMasterX wrote:On August 05 2010 15:47 Teogamer wrote:On August 05 2010 15:22 StarMasterX wrote:
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue. Why shouldn't it affect our culture? Isn't it a positive thing for a culture to teach its people to be accepting of others' lifestyles and to avoid discriminating? Isn't that one of the founding principles of this country? It is a positive thing, but it is arguable when there are moral issues involved. There are people who live a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol, and that type of lifestyle I would want my kids to discriminate for example. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, but this is a moral issue for many who think marriage should stay defined as man+woman. What happens when my theoretical kid sees 2 married guys and asks me if that is ok and if he can marry a guy? What happens when my kids hear about it in school? I'm just responding to the point somebody made that this wouldn't affect me so we should just let it be. That isn't true...a ruling like this affects everybody. Sixty years ago someone asked "What happens when my theoretical kid sees a black man married to a white woman and asks me if she can marry the black man down the street? What happens when my kids hear about black men marrying white women in school? ... A ruling like this affects everybody" How absurd does this sound? How wrong does it sound? Don't you think in another sixty years what you wrote will sound just as wrong as what I wrote? I for one cannot wait till the day my six year old boy wants to marry his best friend or my daughter has a doll family with her best friend and we all find it as cute as the little couple in their 3 foot suit and 2 foot five dress at a wedding Regardless of your opinion on this subject, one of the things I'm tired of hearing is the comparison between gay marriage and black+white marriages. Completely different. Why? First, that was still a man and a woman, and one of the main arguments against gay marriage is that people don't want marriage to be redefined and changed. Second, if we allow marriage to be redifined in this way, why can't a man marry a horse? Why can't underage marry? Why not just change EVERYTHING?
How about marriage is between two people who are above the age of consent? Is that really that hard?
The slippery slope argument holds no water.
|
On August 08 2010 11:43 StarMasterX wrote:
Why? First, that was still a man and a woman, and one of the main arguments against gay marriage is that people don't want marriage to be redefined and changed. Second, if we allow marriage to be redifined in this way, why can't a man marry a horse? Why can't underage marry? Why not just change EVERYTHING?
First of all: SLIPPERY SLOPE. Same arguments were presented when interracial marriage was on its way to being decriminalized. You forget that other 'races' were actually considered 'lesser species' than white Europeans. They went something like this: "If we allow marriage between a white person and a being of a lesser species of human, then why not allow it between a white and ANY species?"
But to indulge you--
Off the top of my head:
A horse cannot give consent to be wed, nor can it process the concept of "marriage" or "partnership".
The underage are not competent enough to determine whether or not they'll be able to stay married happily for the rest of their lives. It's the same concept that rules them out of voting, serving in the military, and indulging in tobacco and alcohol. If such couples are going to be able to, they'll last until their 18th birthdays. It sounds insensitive, but it's true, ne?
|
On August 08 2010 11:43 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 17:37 Kwidowmaker wrote:On August 06 2010 15:17 StarMasterX wrote:On August 05 2010 15:47 Teogamer wrote:On August 05 2010 15:22 StarMasterX wrote:
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue. Why shouldn't it affect our culture? Isn't it a positive thing for a culture to teach its people to be accepting of others' lifestyles and to avoid discriminating? Isn't that one of the founding principles of this country? It is a positive thing, but it is arguable when there are moral issues involved. There are people who live a lifestyle of drugs and alcohol, and that type of lifestyle I would want my kids to discriminate for example. As far as gay marriage is concerned, I don't personally have a problem with it, but this is a moral issue for many who think marriage should stay defined as man+woman. What happens when my theoretical kid sees 2 married guys and asks me if that is ok and if he can marry a guy? What happens when my kids hear about it in school? I'm just responding to the point somebody made that this wouldn't affect me so we should just let it be. That isn't true...a ruling like this affects everybody. Sixty years ago someone asked "What happens when my theoretical kid sees a black man married to a white woman and asks me if she can marry the black man down the street? What happens when my kids hear about black men marrying white women in school? ... A ruling like this affects everybody" How absurd does this sound? How wrong does it sound? Don't you think in another sixty years what you wrote will sound just as wrong as what I wrote? I for one cannot wait till the day my six year old boy wants to marry his best friend or my daughter has a doll family with her best friend and we all find it as cute as the little couple in their 3 foot suit and 2 foot five dress at a wedding Regardless of your opinion on this subject, one of the things I'm tired of hearing is the comparison between gay marriage and black+white marriages. Completely different. Why? First, that was still a man and a woman, and one of the main arguments against gay marriage is that people don't want marriage to be redefined and changed. Second, if we allow marriage to be redifined in this way, why can't a man marry a horse? Why can't underage marry? Why not just change EVERYTHING?
That point is extremely hollow considering marriage have been constantly changing throughout history as much as you want to believe otherwise.
|
You know, I used to wonder how well homosexual parents would be able to raise their children, considering how freudian psychology is pretty much based entirely on one's relationships with one's parents and how it's unnatural in the animal kingdom for children to be raised by homosexual couples.
However I have found this site saying that
More than 100 studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England, testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parents
Then later in the article I see the
In cross-examination, Protect Marriage lawyer David Thompson labeled Lamb a "committed liberal," citing his membership in such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women, and his financial contributions to the Public Broadcasting System.
Thompson also said scientific research is not immune from political influence and that "history is littered with scientific theories universally accepted and proven to be wrong."
I could care less for whether or not prop 8 is passed and I probably won't follow it, however I would like to hear people's arguments on why or why not, homosexual parents would raise more psychologically fit children.
I would also like to know why there are so many more documented cases of gay humans than there are gay animals. Is it a social thing? That humans care more about pleasure than breeding? Or is it completely genetic? Probably a combination of both I suppose.
My personal beliefs are unimportant but I thought that I would like to point out that I think that people should have the right to marry whomever they want, as long as doing so doesn't horrendously increase the risk of birthing children with medical conditions and less genetic variation (incest).
|
@Myles Why do they have to be the age of consent? We are changing the rules. My argument still holds.
@neohero Why do we need consent to wed? Why do we have to be competent to wed? We are changing the rules.
@nihlon Why not instead of waiting just change all the rules now and get it out of the way? Hell why not just remove all of the rules? Why not get out of our history and move on to the future?
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 08 2010 12:10 StarMasterX wrote:
@Myles Why do they have to be the age of consent? We are changing the rules. My argument still holds.
@neohero Why do we need consent to wed? Why do we have to be competent to wed? We are changing the rules.
@nihlon Why not instead of waiting just change all the rules now and get it out of the way? Hell why not just remove all of the rules? Why not get out of our history and move on to the future?
Wow, you're entire life must be one huge logical fallacy.
You change the rules because there's logical reasons to do so. There's no logical reason to keep marriage exclusively between a man and a women. And there's plenty of logical reasons to ensure consent and competence before marriage. That's a seriously trolly post you wrote there.
|
On August 08 2010 12:10 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero Why do we need consent to wed? Why do we have to be competent to wed? We are changing the rules.
...you always need consent and the ability to exhibit some level of competency to enter into a binding contract between two entities. That's what marriage is-- a contract.
What's wrong with changing the rules? We changed them all the time-- it's called improvement. This is an ethical improvement.
If we never changed the rules, only white land-owning males would be able to vote in the US. Or we'd all be serfs to a few elite Lords. Or we'd all still be living in tribal hunter-gatherer societies, scrounging for things to eat.
|
On August 08 2010 12:07 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:You know, I used to wonder how well homosexual parents would be able to raise their children, considering how freudian psychology is pretty much based entirely on one's relationships with one's parents and how it's unnatural in the animal kingdom for children to be raised by homosexual couples. However I have found this site saying that Show nested quote +More than 100 studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England, testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parentsThen later in the article I see the Show nested quote +In cross-examination, Protect Marriage lawyer David Thompson labeled Lamb a "committed liberal," citing his membership in such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women, and his financial contributions to the Public Broadcasting System.
Thompson also said scientific research is not immune from political influence and that "history is littered with scientific theories universally accepted and proven to be wrong." I could care less for whether or not prop 8 is passed and I probably won't follow it, however I would like to hear people's arguments on why or why not, homosexual parents would raise more psychologically fit children. I would also like to know why there are so many more documented cases of gay humans than there are gay animals. Is it a social thing? That humans care more about pleasure than breeding? Or is it completely genetic? Probably a combination of both I suppose. My personal beliefs are unimportant but I thought that I would like to point out that I think that people should have the right to marry whomever they want, as long as doing so doesn't horrendously increase the risk of birthing children with medical conditions and less genetic variation (incest).
I'm incredibly skeptical of that study, just because all the "problem kids" I have had to deal with as a camp counselor had single parents, split up parents, or homosexual parents. I don't think gay marriage/adoption is any worse for the traditional family than divorce, I think they're equally bad for kids. That's just from my own experience though. Also, you can look at history and see that all this worrying about kids and diagnosing them with everything from ADHD to Aspergers' only began at around the time that family structures began to break up with the legitimacy of divorce, gay relationships, multiple partners, etc. in the 60's and 70's.
|
On August 08 2010 12:17 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 12:07 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:You know, I used to wonder how well homosexual parents would be able to raise their children, considering how freudian psychology is pretty much based entirely on one's relationships with one's parents and how it's unnatural in the animal kingdom for children to be raised by homosexual couples. However I have found this site saying that More than 100 studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England, testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parentsThen later in the article I see the In cross-examination, Protect Marriage lawyer David Thompson labeled Lamb a "committed liberal," citing his membership in such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women, and his financial contributions to the Public Broadcasting System.
Thompson also said scientific research is not immune from political influence and that "history is littered with scientific theories universally accepted and proven to be wrong." I could care less for whether or not prop 8 is passed and I probably won't follow it, however I would like to hear people's arguments on why or why not, homosexual parents would raise more psychologically fit children. I would also like to know why there are so many more documented cases of gay humans than there are gay animals. Is it a social thing? That humans care more about pleasure than breeding? Or is it completely genetic? Probably a combination of both I suppose. My personal beliefs are unimportant but I thought that I would like to point out that I think that people should have the right to marry whomever they want, as long as doing so doesn't horrendously increase the risk of birthing children with medical conditions and less genetic variation (incest). I'm incredibly skeptical of that study, just because all the "problem kids" I have had to deal with as a camp counselor had single parents, split up parents, or homosexual parents. I don't think gay marriage/adoption is any worse for the traditional family than divorce, I think they're equally bad for kids. That's just from my own experience though. Also, you can look at history and see that all this worrying about kids and diagnosing them with everything from ADHD to Aspergers' only began at around the time that family structures began to break up with the legitimacy of divorce, gay relationships, multiple partners, etc. in the 60's and 70's.
Your skepticism is warranted, but don't draw causation from the data at the end of your post. A lot of things happened in that period that may have had effects on the diagnoses.
|
On August 08 2010 12:24 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 12:17 jalstar wrote:On August 08 2010 12:07 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:You know, I used to wonder how well homosexual parents would be able to raise their children, considering how freudian psychology is pretty much based entirely on one's relationships with one's parents and how it's unnatural in the animal kingdom for children to be raised by homosexual couples. However I have found this site saying that More than 100 studies have found that "children who are raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted," Michael Lamb, chairman of the department of social and developmental psychology at Cambridge University in England, testified at the San Francisco trial of a lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-16/news/17828578_1_same-sex-marriage-heterosexual-parents-lesbian-parentsThen later in the article I see the In cross-examination, Protect Marriage lawyer David Thompson labeled Lamb a "committed liberal," citing his membership in such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women, and his financial contributions to the Public Broadcasting System.
Thompson also said scientific research is not immune from political influence and that "history is littered with scientific theories universally accepted and proven to be wrong." I could care less for whether or not prop 8 is passed and I probably won't follow it, however I would like to hear people's arguments on why or why not, homosexual parents would raise more psychologically fit children. I would also like to know why there are so many more documented cases of gay humans than there are gay animals. Is it a social thing? That humans care more about pleasure than breeding? Or is it completely genetic? Probably a combination of both I suppose. My personal beliefs are unimportant but I thought that I would like to point out that I think that people should have the right to marry whomever they want, as long as doing so doesn't horrendously increase the risk of birthing children with medical conditions and less genetic variation (incest). I'm incredibly skeptical of that study, just because all the "problem kids" I have had to deal with as a camp counselor had single parents, split up parents, or homosexual parents. I don't think gay marriage/adoption is any worse for the traditional family than divorce, I think they're equally bad for kids. That's just from my own experience though. Also, you can look at history and see that all this worrying about kids and diagnosing them with everything from ADHD to Aspergers' only began at around the time that family structures began to break up with the legitimacy of divorce, gay relationships, multiple partners, etc. in the 60's and 70's. Your skepticism is warranted, but don't draw causation from the data at the end of your post. A lot of things happened in that period that may have had effects on the diagnoses.
I think society's changed for the worse since the 50's, but you're right in that there are a lot of other reasons. I'm not drawing conclusions, just speculating. I'm also fine with gay marriage (it's just a word, really) but not gay adoption.
Also, social science tends to skew towards political correctness, just look at the reception of The Bell Curve
|
As Tychus would say...
Hell, it's about time.
|
A triumph for homosexuals in the least likely of places! Times are finally changing, and we are one step closer to creating communities free of the hate and prejudice our world mercilessly targets gays with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
