the Gay Agenda continued....

Notice how not a word above supports your advocacy of gay marriage. Yes, traditional marriage laws are overinclusive. Does NOTHING for your argument to make them even more overinclusive by including homosexuals.

 

.... Obvious?

 

"overinclusive" translates into unequal application of the law. The "overinclusiveness" of marriage in fulfilling its purpose is a red flag, signaling that the purpose is a smoke screen, or that it is not the only purpose, or that it's supported as a fundamental right without purpose. It's evidence of society supporting these "other purposes" that supports gay marriage and shows unequal application of the law to similarly situated parties.

 

Of course.

It's called a Lifestyle change.

Because their new found lifstyle is not a healthy environment to raise kids in.

Life is hard..they won't suffer more than what they can handle. Same as with any kid born into/grown up into a bad situation. They just have to live it out until a family comes and gets them. a lot of homeless kids turn out to be great contributors to society without even being adopted. They will be ok.

If Gays cared so much about a child/person's well-being and happiness, they should adopt bums off the street to come live with them. prove they really care. Rehab a few bums, but leave the innocent kids alone, please.

I agree. the Bigotry of the Gay community is appalling. They knew what they were getting into when they did it. Now they want justice. for shame.

 

....double post

 

Do you have evidence for this, particularly that it's substantially worse than being raised by the state or non-biological parents? The only "evidence" I've seen of this has been studies on single parent homes, comparing that situation with the uni-sex situation of homosexual couples. Not a particularly fair comparison, and I've yet to see any better studies that showed homosexuals (as a class) as being any less suitable for raising children.

The decision should be on a case-by-case bases that evaluates the individuals for being worthy care-givers. There's no need to automatically disqualify the entire group automatically unless there's good evidence that all homosexuals, as a class, are poor care givers.

 

They wish to have the same rights as everyone else.

.... and the issue is what?

 

look, how one has sex has absolutely no bearing on free speech, the right to bear arms, to vote etc etc ad nauseum

the "agenda" is nothing more than an attempt to legislate thought. It is about trying to become a unique gender or race based upon how a small group engages in sex.

I have yet to hear of a court say to someone that they cannot have a gun because they sleep with people of the same sex

 

this post makes absoultely no sense at all

 

Doesn't account for childless couples, does it? And do we really want government "encouraging" citizens? How far are you willing to go with that?

The government is tasked with one simple obligation to us, the citizens: protect our rights via the Constitution. Enforcing the 14th Amendment does not constitute social engineering. IGNORING it, as we do now does.

How far are you willing to go with your posture that government should make law to "benefit" us?

 

Do you understand the concept of legal parity? The fact that we allow our government to discriminate against certain of our fellow citizens based on arbitrary criteria should be of great concern to all of us.

 

Extending marrriage to only heterosexual couples isnt arbitrary criteria. Only heterosexual couples have the potential to procreate. Extending marriage to homosexuial couples for no reason other than the fact that they are homosexual would be arbitrary.

 

Correct, it's not arbitrary. It's a smoke-screen when you realize that marriage is over-inclusive of these ends.

Giving rights to the over-inclusive section of marriages, while failing to do so for homosexuals for the same reason is what's arbitrary.

 

??? Heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. Cant include homosexuals for the same reason because they do not

 

Then I guess I'm not even smart enough to be a layman, because I can't actually recognise where it does that. Could you be a little more specific? What are some of the 'gay agenda's aims?

 

Strawman, that's not the standard used to allow/disallow heterosexuals in marriage. They can marry regardless of their willingness, ability or suitability to procreate.

 

Thats all dixon has left in her bag of tricks - lots of strawmen that she LOVES to repeat over and over again.
Wait till she starts crying about not being able to marry her brother

 

no its to win fair treatment you won’t respect homo sexuals more for being married i don’t respect you even if you are married

Seems to me the anti gay marriage crowd is a s obsessed with one word as any one

 

How do i not benefit form you being unable to discriminate against people for irrelevant things doesn’t that make safer from you and those who act like you as well as make you safer from those who would discriminate against you?

 

im not hetero sexual because of my parents being married to one another are you?

i don’t know how being gay you dangerous to a child im more worried about murderers pedophiles and alcoholics they actually have things about them that could harm a kid

 

gays don’t seem to generally want to do that

You seem to want them to so you would have a reason to deny gay marriage

the argument is weak in you the fear is strong

 

Indeed. We'd be a lot better off frankly is some of them didn't procreate.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQf0HYLCGwY&feature=related"]I had sex 300 times - YouTube[/ame]

 

yes in the fantasy world you live in there’s no way around that here on earth you don’t want to (*)(*)(*)(*) some one because one or both of your parents would

i thick homosexuals with kids want to have a family as well as a lover who their actually attracted to

maybe you should not have a role in child raising you seem to have very powerful delusions that may warp a child’s views

 

im ok with group marriage im just concerned about people being groomed into marriage when it comes to incest

 

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here. Can you please clarify?