however under no circumstances means that they are allowed to adopt children.I actually believe gays should not be allowed under any circumstances to have the chance to raise children.
You both stagger me, with your nonsense.
Originally posted by Adeon
But who defines that age of consent, Concor?
It's different in different states for a very good reason.
America is a huge country. Different people in different states can be
so different as to have different dialects, values, etc etc.
States' rights happens to be something I'm a very large proponent of.
If the age of consent in Wisconsin is 15, then it's because the voting
population there wish it to be. If they didn't, then they would exercise
their right to do otherwise, and change that law. It's the way the
American system was designed to work. Instead of a huge, bloated,
centralized federal government dictating what is good and what isn't,
for the entire country, you have state governments that represent
a more manageable chunk of the country's population. Just so I can go
ahead and get this out of the way, I believe wholeheartedly that the
wrong side won the US Civil War... not.. I repeat NOT because of slavery.
The very first thing the CSA should have done is beat Lincoln to the punch
and set every slave free, because that isn't the reason for the war.
In my eyes, every man on earth is created equal. It's just whether or
not they choose to stay stupid that sets people apart for me. =)
no, i don't see. try explaning it in more than 2 incongruous sentences.
yes, who defines what the age of consent is? who defines what sexuality we should all be?
the real answer is noone, meaning there is no limit to limits: if the gay communit ywants marriage, soon pedophiles will want younger marriage. mormons will want bigamy, etc etc.
My main concern is all this equality shit will lead to a tidal wave, crushing any decency america once had.
but this homofag shit is just a trend, no one cares about that gay bishop and soon noones going to care about gay marriage.
edit: and everyone keeps saying bestiality is 'immoral'. So is homosexuality? I mean jeez, thats what im saying, People will get mored with men cornholing men and start bitching so men can cornhole cows, as well.
sigh. people didnt even think about this stuff back then.
yes, who defines what the age of consent is? who defines what sexuality we should all be?
the real answer is noone, meaning there is no limit to limits: if the gay communit ywants marriage, soon pedophiles will want younger marriage. mormons will want bigamy, etc etc.
My main concern is all this equality shit will lead to a tidal wave, crushing any decency america once had.
but this homofag shit is just a trend, no one cares about that gay bishop and soon noones going to care about gay marriage.
edit: and everyone keeps saying bestiality is 'immoral'. So is homosexuality? I mean jeez, thats what im saying, People will get mored with men cornholing men and start bitching so men can cornhole cows, as well.
sigh. people didnt even think about this stuff back then.
wow, you're a real idiot. try reading once in awhile instead of just listening to what your redneck uncle tells you.
if you give a shit about keeping it so gay people can't get married you're a fucking waste of a human being- grow up, progress you fucking robot. Just let me be president for 15 minutes so we can just cut through this stagnating archaic ignorant nonsense.
wow, you're a real idiot. try reading once in awhile instead of just listening to what your redneck uncle tells you.
that is the product of about 1500 pages of critiques and law reviews from Lexis-Nexis. I'm a debater, tis my job. It's a bit simplified because the little ones are simple as well.
that is the product of about 1500 pages of critiques and law reviews from Lexis-Nexis. I'm a debater, tis my job. It's a bit simplified because the little ones are simple as well.
k
law reviews say that homosexuality is immoral, and that being gay is a trend?
mainly just the tidal wave shit. most advocate banning gay marriage not because its immoral. but because it will lead to tons of bogus BS lawsuits, and more people protesting rights for more groups.
mainly just the tidal wave shit. most advocate banning gay marriage not because its immoral. but because it will lead to tons of bogus BS lawsuits, and more people protesting rights for more groups.
What kind of lawsuits could possibly come from gay people getting married?
And to assume that the next step after gay marriage is the right to marry animals or children is just preposterous. We're talking about two consenting adults who love each other and want to spend their lives together, why woudln't they be allowed the same rights that a married hetero couple has?
Just let me be president for 15 minutes so we can just cut through this stagnating archaic ignorant nonsense.
When you get in, can I be on your 15 minute cabinet? Something really
cool like.. "Secretary of Keepin' it Real" or something. Fix the gay marriage
thing and then like you know.. legalize it.
Jerome read my post for how age of consent is determined.
Your argument holds absolutely no water whatsoever because:
People can protest for lowering marriage age, or being able
to have sex with animals all they want. If they can't carry
a vote, then they can't have it. It's pretty much that simple.
Secondly both those are outlawed for the reasons in my post,
and gay marriage is between two consenting adults.
Adults.. who make their own choices and live with their own
consequences. Banning gay marriage is about the same level
as raising taxes on cigarettes to make people stop smoking.
It's offensive to try to legislate decisions that citizens should
be able to make for themselves.
Comment