No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that two good parents are two good parents. Neither one is useless. Just because they are of the same sex doesn't make one parent useless in either a heterosexual or homosexual family.
Why would a child no longer wish to be raised by good loving parents? I know there are cases of children who have tried to get divorces from their heterosexual families. I think those kinds of things are very rare. We aren't talking about total sexual permissiveness. We are talking about two adults joining in a committed loving relationship. Wrong. Red state AZ voted down a ban on gay marriage. They sided with justice. http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/related/95931 Like I said they don't have to teach you that. You should be able to know who you are attracted to on your own. Children don't need to be taught to be heterosexual, or homosexual.
That link gave me the following message. Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. This is from the article that I linked earlier. So your statement that every time it has been brought before the people it has failed, was indeed false. I don't understand what disagreement you could find with that. It's simple fact. It did happen.
how convient that the link doesnt work for you. or that you don't know how to look up arizona prop 102. The people of Arizona have spoken, they banned gay marriage. it's simple fact, it did happen. America doesn't want this.
Not much you can do about the pain except hope you have some good meds. As for doing better that was 20 years ago so am totally recovered but it took about 4 years total before I got back to where I was physically before.
Well to be fair, you were the one who provided the link, and it was the wrong link (don't worry, it was only a missing close bracket). But, as an outsider to the USA, shouldn't there be a balance between the foundation your country stands on (equality of all people) and democracy? I understand that democracy is extremely important the Americans, but surely you can't put everything to a vote, because inevitably, when you have a huge country, you'll have people who vote with their hearts than with their minds (which was why when the ancient Athenians voted to execute almost all of their generals after a particularly painful loss, which guaranteed they lost the ensuing war to Sparta).
This has already been touched on but when you talk about birthrights consider that Gay couples either have to adopt a child in which case the biological parents have already given up on the child's birthright or else the child is artificially inseminated in which case a donor, egg or sperm, have also given up on their birthright. Your argument that the birthrights have been stolen make no sense when the one or both biological parents have voluntarily given them up already.
I don't think that if the society became universally tolerant of gays and bisexuals that there will necessarily be more kids gay and bisexual. Consider that in societies where homosexuality and bisexuality is not tolerated there are still homosexuals and bisexuals. While upbringing probably plays a role in sexual orientation but given that there still were homosexuals in societies that were very much against homosexuality shows that there is much more to it than upbringing.
I would like to see more supporting evidence to this but I find this to be an incredibly simplistic and misdirected view in regard to fall of civilizations. Considering that a couple of state legislatures have now voted in laws allowing for gay marriage that isn't quite the case. Whether they do or not it is doubtful whether you will become gay or bi. As I noted in societies where homosexuality is frowned upon, or even criminalized, there are still homosexuals. I doubt that more acceptance of homosexuals will lead to more homosexuals.
Yes prop 102 banned gay marriage. That doesn't mean it has happened every time. I posted evidence of that.
Here's the rub, though. Nobody will ever force you to marry someone that is the same sex as you. You have free choice to decide that you are more comfortable marrying the person of your choice. Homosexuals do not have the same choice as you and, as such, are being discriminated against. If you support the status quo, you are being indirectly discriminatory against homosexuals. Religious reasons or not, this is discrimination pure and simple.
Perhaps slavery would be a bad example, but it isn't too much of a stretch to compare the discrimination african-Americans went through in the '60s and '70s to that which many homosexuals face today.
A 60% divorce rate is an affront to marriage...gay's marrying not so much. The Anti-Gay faction likes to have their cake and eat it too. One of the big allegations they make is that gays are promiscuous. So they attack them if they want to "play the field" and they attack them if they want to settle down with one person. Catch-22 if you ask me.
Other than high-school bashing and not being able to marry "how" exactly are they being discriminated against?
I just wanted to point out how illogical and absurd this statement is, and how it reflects directly on the rest of the illogical and absurd arguments being made by Landlord Landry in this thread. A general comparison to slavery is probably not very good, but there are plenty of good comparisons between racial discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both major issues in politics today, marriage and the military, can be directly compared to similar issues that blacks and minorities have dealt with in the past. The arguments made on both sides are strikingly similar.
There is a lot more than "high school bashing" with homosexuals, but the biggest thing now is marriage. They are not allowed to do something that heterosexuals in our society are free to engage in. The comparison was not to indicate or talk about severity, just the fact that homosexuals are discriminated against now just as blacks were discriminated against 30 years ago.
