he has GOT to be the dumbest sheep i've ever seen
CLICK
BAA BAA!
EWE! EWE!
Printable View
he has GOT to be the dumbest sheep i've ever seen
CLICK
BAA BAA!
EWE! EWE!
Do you have any words he would understand?
Your country is doomed [img]frown.gif[/img]
WTF?!
<font size="4" face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Man... this makes me feel like going over to the white house and kissing a man in plain view of the president.Quote:
Still, he urged Americans not to ostracize gays.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew.
argumentum ad populum?
circulus in demonstrando?
ignoratio elenchi?
slippery slope?
you decide [img]tongue.gif[/img]
LOL....
i've known that for a while now [img]frown.gif[/img]
I wish Ross Perot would run again.
you would.
I thought us conservatives were supposed to be the hate mongers,but it says right in your post you,shatzy,are the one with the hateful heart.Care to drop a label on yourself like liberal,independent,communist or are you a hateful freethinker?
BTW, I see nothing wrong with leaving the definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman.
All of the above.
<font size="4" face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Well, i think the freedom of marriage for persons , not genders is the right way to go. Basically it's a form of discrimination on the ground of sexual preference and gender applied to marriage, which, if i may add, is no 'magic' thing that has to be protected above all but simply is a custom that was introduced some time ago (a few hundred years) which is clung to with the ferocity of someone afraid to let go of the past.Quote:
Originally posted by Trampis:
I thought us conservatives were supposed to be the hate mongers,but it says right in your post you,shatzy,are the one with the hateful heart.Care to drop a label on yourself like liberal,independent,communist or are you a hateful freethinker?
BTW, I see nothing wrong with leaving the definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman.
In our culture Marriage is viewed as stability.This stability is best applied to the raising of children.Thus the institution of marriage as an important part of our culture,though hundreds of years old as you point out,is still much needed today.
<font size="4" face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Living in a western country i have a culture that's similar, but we also have a culture of openness. The only reason marriage has become an institution is because everyone just did it. But i won't post what i think about marriage here, that's something for another thread. What it boils down to is that you cannot claim that a same-sex relationship is unstable for the children if you will not allow those to have children.Quote:
Originally posted by Trampis:
In our culture Marriage is viewed as stability.This stability is best applied to the raising of children.Thus the institution of marriage as an important part of our culture,though hundreds of years old as you point out,is still much needed today.
Give em a chance, and later decide. But remember that they're all human, just like you and me. They just like other people. I like people with a vagina, they prefer people with a penis. why would you withhold them the chance to build a relationship or to adopt children because of that?
Oh, and on a side note, the girlfriend of a good friend of mine has two gay men as parents. And she's a cool girl [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] .
they are instituted here [img]redface.gif[/img]
And allthough you'll probably have a hard time if you're openly gay at high school, or any 'younger' age, it's fairly accepted once you get out of that age bracket.
<font color="#663300" size="1">[ August 04, 2003 01:27 PM: Message edited by: zelazny ]</font>
i'd like to think.... in some optimistic way...
that once homosexual marriages/adoptions are
instituted... it would open a whole new level
to diversity and tolerance toward that group.
<font size="4" face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Well, the problem of kids being mean to other kids isn't to blame on the parents, but on the kids that are so mean themselves. It just requires a whole switch in thinking in what is normal.Quote:
Originally posted by *IsToLeBiLLySgUiTaR*:
I can't help but admit that im really weirded out by gay relationships that are all open and out in the public....And i also think that if two gay parents married and adopted, the child would be raised fine and dandy, but one they reached school and people started to realize they had parents of the same sex they would be treated horribly and i think its wrong that people would do that to a child.
But I was never much for gay relationships..not against it..just not for it
I can't help but admit that im really weirded out by gay relationships that are all open and out in the public....And i also think that if two gay parents married and adopted, the child would be raised fine and dandy, but one they reached school and people started to realize they had parents of the same sex they would be treated horribly and i think its wrong that people would do that to a child.
But I was never much for gay relationships..not against it..just not for it
the problem lies in the social 'eye' of the situation.
similarly to what zela was saying... your weirdness
is very much like the hostility of the children
(or whomever) to the child of gay parents. its
not the same... but merely a tributary from the
same hostile river.
i'm not saying you are hostile, in fact, you are
seemingly indifferent. however, preventing the
marriages/adoptions seems to be on hold due to
the very same thinking: that the child will suffer
condemnations from the public.
this is neither due to the parents or the child,
but rather how society determines the merit/value
of such.
tsk tsk...
bad society
*slaps hand*
And with society consisting out of people, it's bad people!
Ehm.. but the slap has to wait untill i can lend the chain-mail reinforced glove of a friend.