Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
TrueBeliever

Gay Marriage

1,007 posts in this topic

The latter study's conclusions were that "The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people."

First of all, the Holmes study DOES NOT have the 98% heterosexual offender claim. It is a reference made to the Jenny C. Roesler research. Now this “in depth” research allegedly claiming that 98% of the pedophiles were heterosexuals was really extensive. It’s methodology is stated as, “Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).”

3.6 times more girls than boys and the research was done in one local clinic, for God’s sake. There was no control group, no extended study into other areas of demographic differences, no mention of income, education, regional crime statistics, single or both parents in the household, NOTHING. And this is a legitimate research conclusion?

Jenny Roesler lists her credential as TA which I can only assume is Transactional Analysis, a far reaching extension of modern psychology. It may have value in personal treatment programs but it is rare, if not exclusive to her, to find a TA submitting credible research.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans do not have intrinsic human rights. They have the rights their communities grant to them. Those rights will be granted based on a reality, or a perception, of what is best for all, not just the individuals effected.

Agreed. Does that make it right though?. As TrueBeliever pointed out above, slavery simply used to be a property issue. Times change.Time will tell, but I think that humankind will eventually side with the liberals on this issue.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the freaking point? staright couples have domestic violence? oh boy STOP all marriage cause there are cases of domestic violence?? whatever! you know courts upheld at one time that slavery of black men and women was perfectly LEGAL and ok....but it was wrong...wasn't it? I dont care what any court says gay people have a right to be married! and they will get that right.....it just takes time to cut down bigotry.

Here we go again. Pouting and whining. Do you know the word “disproportionate?” When a minute minority of people create a high percentage of violence and that violence reaches a higher level than the norm, it can be isolated and identified to that group. It is not important if they are white, black, green or purple, they have a problem disproportionate to their population.

As a matter of fact, we do find some racial comparisons in this field. One study of domestic violence found that, “Finally, gender and race data indicated that while four-fifths (84.6%) of black females were arrested on felony charges, less than one-fifth (19.5%) of white males were arrested on the same charge. These findings demonstrate a need for further research on factors that may affect pro-arrest policy effectiveness."

If we are to ignore disproportionate statistics, we will never identify a disease common to one race of people or a gender that is more vulnerable.

You can talk all you want about your “rights” but you will not have them until a court or legislative body gives them to you. That may happen but with that “right,” will the gay community begin to recognize its problems and address them as do some races or ethnic groups? Will marriage cause them to have longer average relationships than at present?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again. Pouting and whining. Do you know the word “disproportionate?” When a minute minority of people create a high percentage of violence and that violence reaches a higher level than the norm, it can be isolated and identified to that group. It is not important if they are white, black, green or purple, they have a problem disproportionate to their population.

As a matter of fact, we do find some racial comparisons in this field. One study of domestic violence found that, “Finally, gender and race data indicated that while four-fifths (84.6%) of black females were arrested on felony charges, less than one-fifth (19.5%) of white males were arrested on the same charge. These findings demonstrate a need for further research on factors that may affect pro-arrest policy effectiveness."

If we are to ignore disproportionate statistics, we will never identify a disease common to one race of people or a gender that is more vulnerable.

You can talk all you want about your “rights” but you will not have them until a court or legislative body gives them to you. That may happen but with that “right,” will the gay community begin to recognize its problems and address them as do some races or ethnic groups? Will marriage cause them to have longer average relationships than at present?

really? you think they need to address their problems anymore than straight marriages do? I know a thing or two about straight marriage and they are RIDDLED with PROBLEMS...lol....OMG ......you guys...All I am looking for is a positive attitude a graciousness in fighting for someone's rights that may not be what you want/need to have a good life but some one else does...it's like I will fight for your right to free speech..even though I don't like what you have to say.

Why is it so hard to think of someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go again. Pouting and whining. Do you know the word “disproportionate?” When a minute minority of people create a high percentage of violence and that violence reaches a higher level than the norm, it can be isolated and identified to that group.

So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?

What was the point you're trying to make?

Edit to add: I'm a straight bachelour, no kids. So it would appear that I don't 'have a dog in this fight'. Except that I'm a human, and believe in human rights.

Edited by Likely Guy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, the Holmes study DOES NOT have the 98% heterosexual offender claim. It is a reference made to the Jenny C. Roesler research. Now this “in depth” research allegedly claiming that 98% of the pedophiles were heterosexuals was really extensive. It’s methodology is stated as, “Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).”

3.6 times more girls than boys and the research was done in one local clinic, for God’s sake. There was no control group, no extended study into other areas of demographic differences, no mention of income, education, regional crime statistics, single or both parents in the household, NOTHING. And this is a legitimate research conclusion?

Jenny Roesler lists her credential as TA which I can only assume is Transactional Analysis, a far reaching extension of modern psychology. It may have value in personal treatment programs but it is rare, if not exclusive to her, to find a TA submitting credible research.

As I've already said, "one in four college women report surviving rape (15%) or attempted rape (12%) since their fourteenth birthday." And here is another study similar to Roesler, et al:

  • Harry, Joseph. (1992). "Conceptualizing Anti-Gay Violence," in Herek, Gregory and Kevin Berrill, eds. Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

And a wonderful article about this can be found here.

Edited by Taylor Reints
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really? you think they need to address their problems anymore than straight marriages do? I know a thing or two about straight marriage and they are RIDDLED with PROBLEMS...lol....OMG ......you guys...All I am looking for is a positive attitude a graciousness in fighting for someone's rights that may not be what you want/need to have a good life but some one else does...it's like I will fight for your right to free speech..even though I don't like what you have to say.

Why is it so hard to think of someone else?

Having personal knowledge of someone’s domestic life isn’t exactly building a reference to all marriages. You are using that, “My dog is a collie, therefore all dogs are collies” philosophy that has never worked.

Beyond that, you are making an enormous assumption that gays actually have a right to marry. No matter how many gay activists can be rounded up or how many millions they put into their campaign fund, the question remains if their demand for a “right” is truly valid.

Just as you ask me to have a “positive attitude,” I ask you to be logical and objective. The idea of marriage being within the range of a human right to gays is a proposition conceived by gays. It is not a reflection of any traditional concept of marriage and, in fact, is polarized from it. To reach a compromise on this issue, Denmark created the civil union concept that recognizes gay relationships and provides for the legal benefits of both partners. It provides for insurance benefits, health decision power if granted by the patient, inheritance benefits, essentially all the protections a relationship would need. For some reason, this was not sufficient to the gays. Only 3% of them accepted the program and of those, 50% were separated within two years.

Considering that legal recognition of their relationship was not sufficient, one must ask what right would be sought after gay marriage was allowed? Gays having access to women’s restrooms? Membership in the Daughters of the Revolution? Since the blacks have it, would they demand a “Gay History Month?” If it sounds absurd to you, so does the idea of a man marrying a man sound absurd to many others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've already said, "one in four college women report surviving rape (15%) or attempted rape (12%) since their fourteenth birthday." And here is another study similar to Roesler, et al:

  • Harry, Joseph. (1992). "Conceptualizing Anti-Gay Violence," in Herek, Gregory and Kevin Berrill, eds. Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

And a wonderful article about this can be found here.

Interesting, but the claim was that 98% of all pedophiles were heterosexuals. Incidentally, I have already dealt with Gregory Herek in earlier posts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a wonderful article about this can be found here.

Well, I agree, but wouldn't call it 'wonderful'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting, but the claim was that 98% of all pedophiles were heterosexuals. Incidentally, I have already dealt with Gregory Herek in earlier posts.

From the article: "Given the context of coercion, however, such technically homosexual acts seem to imply no homosexuality on the part of the offenders." This is supported by Harry, 1992.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having personal knowledge of someone’s domestic life isn’t exactly building a reference to all marriages. You are using that, “My dog is a collie, therefore all dogs are collies” philosophy that has never worked.

Beyond that, you are making an enormous assumption that gays actually have a right to marry. No matter how many gay activists can be rounded up or how many millions they put into their campaign fund, the question remains if their demand for a “right” is truly valid.

Just as you ask me to have a “positive attitude,” I ask you to be logical and objective. The idea of marriage being within the range of a human right to gays is a proposition conceived by gays. It is not a reflection of any traditional concept of marriage and, in fact, is polarized from it. To reach a compromise on this issue, Denmark created the civil union concept that recognizes gay relationships and provides for the legal benefits of both partners. It provides for insurance benefits, health decision power if granted by the patient, inheritance benefits, essentially all the protections a relationship would need. For some reason, this was not sufficient to the gays. Only 3% of them accepted the program and of those, 50% were separated within two years.

Considering that legal recognition of their relationship was not sufficient, one must ask what right would be sought after gay marriage was allowed? Gays having access to women’s restrooms? Membership in the Daughters of the Revolution? Since the blacks have it, would they demand a “Gay History Month?” If it sounds absurd to you, so does the idea of a man marrying a man sound absurd to many others.

it didnt used to be a traditional concept that the earth revolved around the sun...you could get your ass thrown in prison for thinking otherwise........progress means learning new things. Like homosexuality doesn't make someone inferior or less than and they definitely should not be punished and denied rights for being who and what they ARE just because of backwards ass traditions. it's not really that difficult to comprehend.it's just many people have been programmed to be very suspicious and intolerant to homosexuals. of course it is framed as being 'logical' and 'objective'....but of course isn't bigotry always 'for our own good' ...give me a break.......

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having personal knowledge of someone’s domestic life isn’t exactly building a reference to all marriages. You are using that, “My dog is a collie, therefore all dogs are collies” philosophy that has never worked.

Beyond that, you are making an enormous assumption that gays actually have a right to marry. No matter how many gay activists can be rounded up or how many millions they put into their campaign fund, the question remains if their demand for a “right” is truly valid.

Just as you ask me to have a “positive attitude,” I ask you to be logical and objective. The idea of marriage being within the range of a human right to gays is a proposition conceived by gays. It is not a reflection of any traditional concept of marriage and, in fact, is polarized from it. To reach a compromise on this issue, Denmark created the civil union concept that recognizes gay relationships and provides for the legal benefits of both partners. It provides for insurance benefits, health decision power if granted by the patient, inheritance benefits, essentially all the protections a relationship would need. For some reason, this was not sufficient to the gays. Only 3% of them accepted the program and of those, 50% were separated within two years.

Considering that legal recognition of their relationship was not sufficient, one must ask what right would be sought after gay marriage was allowed? Gays having access to women’s restrooms? Membership in the Daughters of the Revolution? Since the blacks have it, would they demand a “Gay History Month?” If it sounds absurd to you, so does the idea of a man marrying a man sound absurd to many others.

so you think the gays are being unreasonable to not just accept the next best thing of a civil union? what if they are also religious? and want the spiritual aspect of marriage? or this is shocking!! to be treated equal? imagine that! the audacity huh?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of marriage being within the range of a human right to gays is a proposition conceived by gays. It is not a reflection of any traditional concept of marriage and, in fact, is polarized from it.

Yep, exactly. The 'traditional concept of marriage' needs some revamping.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?

What was the point you're trying to make?

Edit to add: I'm a straight bachelour, no kids. So it would appear that I don't 'have a dog in this fight'. Except that I'm a human, and believe in human rights.

Why do you think that sections of Harlem have “neighborhood probation” programs? Because crime rates became disproportionate to the population of the region.

Why do you think police departments create neighborhood watch programs for certain sections of cities? Because of disproportionate problems.

Hundreds of studies are taking place today because of the disproportionate number of blacks in prisons.

Society has always recognized any problem that is disproportionate to the population where it occurs. The Mayo Clinic has a special program dedicated to sickle cell anemia that is found in a disproportionate rate among blacks.

But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families. We are to cure it with a “positive attitude.” But nowhere have I said that domestic violence in straight families should not be addressed. The fact is that it is being addressed. In South Carolina alone, the number of organizations combating the problem is impressive; SCCADVASA, Laurens County Safe Home, Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Cumbee Center to Assist Abused Persons, Hope Haven of the Lowcountry, My Sister's House, Safe Harbor, CASA/Family Systems, Barnwell County Help Line, SAFE Homes, Rape Crisis Coalition, Safe Passage, Inc., Pee Dee Coalition, MEG's House, YWCA of the Upper Lowlands, Inc., Sistercare, Inc., Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Citizens Against Spouse Abuse, Laurens County Safe Home.

Thousands of organizations across the world are dealing with this problem, but the fact remains that domestic abuse in gay relationships is five times greater per capita and the response is much like yours, to ignore it and justify it by comparing it to others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it didnt used to be a traditional concept that the earth revolved around the sun...you could get your ass thrown in prison for thinking otherwise........progress means learning new things. Like homosexuality doesn't make someone inferior or less than and they definitely should not be punished and denied rights for being who and what they ARE just because of backwards ass traditions. it's not really that difficult to comprehend.it's just many people have been programmed to be very suspicious and intolerant to homosexuals. of course it is framed as being 'logical' and 'objective'....but of course isn't bigotry always 'for our own good' ...give me a break.......

Oh, so gay marriage is now a grand discovery of humanity? Like the earth not being the center of the universe.

Who has called gays “inferior?” Or is that just an assumption to be used as an accusation?

I agree that gays should not be denied rights. They aren’t. They cannot be denied the right to rent a dwelling. They have the right to cohabitate with a partner. They have the right to vote. They have the right to work with all the labor protections of any other citizen. They are entitled to every social benefit given to anyone else. They are not denied any government program at any level. But now to even consider if two men marrying each other is an acceptable legal process falls into the realm of bigotry.

We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc.

But with gay marriage, no! It is automatically a right that should be given now by all people across the world. Well, that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with bigotry. It has a lot to do with consideration and exploration of what such a freedom (not a right) would eventually bring.

Call it bigotry if you like, but that’s how things work. Victims of Parkinson were not given the right to use experimental treatments and stem cell research was denied as they pleaded for their right to find a cure.

Blacks were freed in 1865 but not really. They had a voting tax to prevent them from voting. They were excluded from establishments frequented by whites and if permitted, they had separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They could not attend public schools and were excluded from many churches. Their eventual freedom came through a process that was long and agonizing. Why? Because that’s how it’s done. Gays don’t realize that or don’t want to. They live with the illusion that a right is immediate and obvious to all. Well, it’s neither. They will wait their turn and see if they get to the front of the line.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you think the gays are being unreasonable to not just accept the next best thing of a civil union? what if they are also religious? and want the spiritual aspect of marriage? or this is shocking!! to be treated equal? imagine that! the audacity huh?

To be treated equal? That’s an interesting viewpoint. Equal to what? The more feminine of the couple wants to be equal to a woman? How far should that equality go?

And spirituality exists only in a church? Is that the next step? The civil union is not acceptable so neither will be a civil marriage? The next demand will be that churches recognize gay marriage?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be treated equal? That’s an interesting viewpoint. Equal to what? The more feminine of the couple wants to be equal to a woman? How far should that equality go?

And spirituality exists only in a church? Is that the next step? The civil union is not acceptable so neither will be a civil marriage? The next demand will be that churches recognize gay marriage?

maybe we shouldn't allow anything because you know that slippery slope........slide your ass right into hell and all kinds of trouble.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think that sections of Harlem have “neighborhood probation” programs? Because crime rates became disproportionate to the population of the region.

Why do you think police departments create neighborhood watch programs for certain sections of cities? Because of disproportionate problems.

Hundreds of studies are taking place today because of the disproportionate number of blacks in prisons.

Sure, without a doubt violence within white hetreosexual families is being 'proportinately' addressed. Maybe some time, a 'disproportinate' amount of money will be spent. You know what I mean.Society has always recognized any problem that is disproportionate to the population where it occurs. The Mayo Clinic has a special program dedicated to sickle cell anemia that is found in a disproportionate rate among blacks.

But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families. We are to cure it with a “positive attitude.” But nowhere have I said that domestic violence in straight families should not be addressed. The fact is that it is being addressed. In South Carolina alone, the number of organizations combating the problem is impressive; SCCADVASA, Laurens County Safe Home, Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Cumbee Center to Assist Abused Persons, Hope Haven of the Lowcountry, My Sister's House, Safe Harbor, CASA/Family Systems, Barnwell County Help Line, SAFE Homes, Rape Crisis Coalition, Safe Passage, Inc., Pee Dee Coalition, MEG's House, YWCA of the Upper Lowlands, Inc., Sistercare, Inc., Citizens Opposed to Domestic Abuse, Citizens Against Spouse Abuse, Laurens County Safe Home.

Thousands of organizations across the world are dealing with this problem, but the fact remains that domestic abuse in gay relationships is five times greater per capita and the response is much like yours, to ignore it and justify it by comparing it to others.

That's a nice 'blanket post' by the way, baffle them with lists, it doesn't make your point more substantive. You're also confusing some of my points with TrueBeliever's it seems. Maybe you should sort that out.

You did say though, "But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families?" I didn't say that. You did. Maybe you mean that amongst gay couples, there's a disproportinate amount of violence.

That may be true, I don't know, but remember the point of this thread is GAY MARRIAGE (and maybe a family).

Why that distinction is beyond you, I don't know.

/on second thought, maybe we're both right. maybe society should start spending a proportinate amounmt of time and energy to address a disproportinate amount of violence within a 'subset' of humanity. Good Idea!

Edited by Likely Guy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article: "Given the context of coercion, however, such technically homosexual acts seem to imply no homosexuality on the part of the offenders." This is supported by Harry, 1992.

The article, again by the favorite of the gays, the arch-gay Gregory Herek who I dealt with earlier, and deals with gay bashing, not pedophilic acts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be treated equal? That’s an interesting viewpoint. Equal to what? The more feminine of the couple wants to be equal to a woman? How far should that equality go?

And spirituality exists only in a church? Is that the next step? The civil union is not acceptable so neither will be a civil marriage? The next demand will be that churches recognize gay marriage?

marriage is a union of two human beings who love each other, well may be a gold digger situation, but you know what I mean, 'traditionally' speaking lol...anyways.....why deny marriage based on the genders involved? of course it creates different situations, problems, probabilities...as does EVERYTHING...you deal with it...the issue is why deny the marriage based on there being a problem because of gender when there are bucketloads of problems with man/woman marriage? to deny a right of two humans who love each other to have a union equal to any two other humans seems silly and petty to me. problems exist. deal with them but dont deny a right because of it....that is absurd and impractical

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gays are more likely to do bad things. Therefore we should not allow them to have kids?

Is this the point D is trying to make?

Oh, so gay marriage is now a grand discovery of humanity? Like the earth not being the center of the universe.

Who has called gays “inferior?” Or is that just an assumption to be used as an accusation?

I agree that gays should not be denied rights. They aren’t. They cannot be denied the right to rent a dwelling. They have the right to cohabitate with a partner. They have the right to vote. They have the right to work with all the labor protections of any other citizen. They are entitled to every social benefit given to anyone else. They are not denied any government program at any level. But now to even consider if two men marrying each other is an acceptable legal process falls into the realm of bigotry.

We do not permit people to terminate their own lives when afflicted with a terminal illness. We determine as a society that they do not have that right. Imagine, your life is yours. It’s your exclusive possession and yet you do not have the RIGHT to end it. Why? Because decisions of such magnitude require time, analysis, debate, consideration, an evaluation of the consequences, etc.

But with gay marriage, no! It is automatically a right that should be given now by all people across the world. Well, that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with bigotry. It has a lot to do with consideration and exploration of what such a freedom (not a right) would eventually bring.

Call it bigotry if you like, but that’s how things work. Victims of Parkinson were not given the right to use experimental treatments and stem cell research was denied as they pleaded for their right to find a cure.

Blacks were freed in 1865 but not really. They had a voting tax to prevent them from voting. They were excluded from establishments frequented by whites and if permitted, they had separate drinking fountains and restrooms. They could not attend public schools and were excluded from many churches. Their eventual freedom came through a process that was long and agonizing. Why? Because that’s how it’s done. Gays don’t realize that or don’t want to. They live with the illusion that a right is immediate and obvious to all. Well, it’s neither. They will wait their turn and see if they get to the front of the line.

I don't understand. We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people because they are more likely to do bad things?

I see people spewing facts. I don't see any solutions or ideas or opinions.

Edited by Kazoo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice 'blanket post' by the way, baffle them with lists, it doesn't make your point more substantive. You're also confusing some of my points with TrueBeliever's it seems. Maybe you should sort that out.

You did say though, "But the disproportionate violence among gay couples is to be ignored because violence also exists in heterosexual families?" I didn't say that. You did. Maybe you mean that amongst gay couples, there's a disproportinate amount of violence.

That may be true, I don't know, but remember the point of this thread is GAY MARRIAGE (and maybe a family).

Why that distinction is beyond you, I don't know.

/on second thought, maybe we're both right. maybe society should start spending a proportinate amounmt of time and energy to address a disproportinate amount of violence within a 'subset' of humanity. Good Idea!

Sorry, but you did, indeed, say that. Quote: “So, if a minute minority create a disproporniate amount of violence, that should be stamped out, immediately. But 'proportionate' (straight white heterosexual families) violence is okay, or it isn't important enough to deal with right now?”

Certainly the theme is gay marriage. So we should treat the forum just like we do the issue itself and restrict ourselves and not explore the influences and consequences? That’s what I would expect because that’s how gay activists do their research.

Gays are more likely to do bad things. Therefore we should not allow them to have kids?

Is this the point D is trying to make?

I don't understand. We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people because they are more likely to do bad things?

I see people spewing facts. I don't see any solutions or ideas or opinions.

Who has taken a single right from gay people?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has taken a single right from gay people?

I never said anyone took away rights from them. I'm trying to get a stance from you. Your just saying facts that I don't really have a need for without an over arching opinion.

Edited by Kazoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who has taken a single right from gay people?

Why can't they marry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gays are more likely to do bad things. Therefore we should not allow them to have kids?

Is this the point D is trying to make?

I don't understand. We are suppose to take away the rights of gay people because they are more likely to do bad things?

I see people spewing facts. I don't see any solutions or ideas or opinions.

Very astute and to the point! But there are many opinions on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.