It feels real to the religious gays too but apparently you can tell them they are wrong.
Advertisement
by Gaelic Celtia » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:34 pm
Sibirsky wrote:You are offensive to me.
by Liriena » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:35 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Alyakia » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:35 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
If they are differentiating a term for which all the legal benefits are exactly the same, then that is by definition discrimination. It is probably the best example of how separate but equal does not exist.
That's like saying calling one place a town and calling the other a village is discrimination because the descriptive terms are different. If for all secular intents and purposes the new gay civil unions and traditional marriages are equal, then they are equal.
by Phoenixfox » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:36 pm
Meowfoundland wrote:Phoenixfox wrote:Don't delude yourself...there not really such thing as marriage without God. That is why gay partners marrying is so offensive to me...it is literally shoving your sin and defiance in the face of God
Do you support banning atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc. from getting married?
by Regnum Dominae » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:37 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Meowfoundland wrote:Do you support banning atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc. from getting married?
No because even though they do not believe in God, they might one day see the light. As long as it is a man and a woman who love each other God smiles upon the love regardless of current religious belief.
by Gaelic Celtia » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:38 pm
Regnum Dominae wrote:Phoenixfox wrote:No because even though they do not believe in God, they might one day see the light. As long as it is a man and a woman who love each other God smiles upon the love regardless of current religious belief.
Regardless, your religious beliefs have no relevance to marriage, which is a CIVIL institution.
Sibirsky wrote:You are offensive to me.
by Phoenixfox » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Phoenixfox wrote:Gay sex results in high transmission of disease, studies have shown...more than heterosexual. Gays adopting denies the child the right to either a mother or father. Though I am more accepting of adoption than marriage for gays because I have seen the some children CAN be happy without a father or mother.
For the first, there is such a thing as protection. People can use it. That is not inherent in sexuality. Also, lesbian women have the lowest transmission rates. Second, studies show that while having a two parent stable household is important, the sex of those parents does not affect the health or well-being of the child.
by Liriena » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Meowfoundland wrote:Do you support banning atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc. from getting married?
No because even though they do not believe in God, they might one day see the light. As long as it is a man and a woman who love each other God smiles upon the love regardless of current religious belief.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Sibirsky » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Regnum Dominae wrote:Phoenixfox wrote:No because even though they do not believe in God, they might one day see the light. As long as it is a man and a woman who love each other God smiles upon the love regardless of current religious belief.
Regardless, your religious beliefs have no relevance to marriage, which is a CIVIL institution.
And what if it's a man and a man who love each other? Or a woman and a woman? Who are you to tell them that they have no right to love each other in the way that straight couples do?
by Gaelic Celtia » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:40 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
For the first, there is such a thing as protection. People can use it. That is not inherent in sexuality. Also, lesbian women have the lowest transmission rates. Second, studies show that while having a two parent stable household is important, the sex of those parents does not affect the health or well-being of the child.
If you're a young girl, going through early puberty having your first period...two fathers can't really help you with that. The child is at a disadvantage. Many examples like that where a child would benefit more from having one parent from each sex.
Sibirsky wrote:You are offensive to me.
by Othelos » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:40 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Meowfoundland wrote:Do you support banning atheists, Hindus, Buddhists etc. from getting married?
No because even though they do not believe in God, they might one day see the light. As long as it is a man and a woman who love each other God smiles upon the love regardless of current religious belief.
by Alyakia » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:40 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
For the first, there is such a thing as protection. People can use it. That is not inherent in sexuality. Also, lesbian women have the lowest transmission rates. Second, studies show that while having a two parent stable household is important, the sex of those parents does not affect the health or well-being of the child.
If you're a young girl, going through early puberty having your first period...two fathers can't really help you with that. The child is at a disadvantage. Many examples like that where a child would benefit more from having one parent from each sex.
by Utceforp » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:42 pm
Gaelic Celtia wrote:Phoenixfox wrote:If you're a young girl, going through early puberty having your first period...two fathers can't really help you with that. The child is at a disadvantage. Many examples like that where a child would benefit more from having one parent from each sex.
Because as we all know, the internet doesnt exist, and doctors CERTAINLY cannot help with that.
by Sibirsky » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:42 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
For the first, there is such a thing as protection. People can use it. That is not inherent in sexuality. Also, lesbian women have the lowest transmission rates. Second, studies show that while having a two parent stable household is important, the sex of those parents does not affect the health or well-being of the child.
If you're a young girl, going through early puberty having your first period...two fathers can't really help you with that. The child is at a disadvantage. Many examples like that where a child would benefit more from having one parent from each sex.
by Phoenixfox » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:42 pm
Gaelic Celtia wrote:Phoenixfox wrote:What they experience is a temporary surge of pleasure and freedom as a result of abandoning the rules God has in place for our own good. Not true happiness...can never be, even if they convince themselves otherwise.
Don't melt the glue holding your wings together Icarus. Might want to come down lower to earth. Do not insult me and every other person here with your high horse religious snobbery. It is pathetic.
by Gaelic Celtia » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:43 pm
Sibirsky wrote:You are offensive to me.
by Krazakistan » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:43 pm
by Gaelic Celtia » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:43 pm
Sibirsky wrote:You are offensive to me.
by Phoenixfox » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:44 pm
by Liriena » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:44 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
For the first, there is such a thing as protection. People can use it. That is not inherent in sexuality. Also, lesbian women have the lowest transmission rates. Second, studies show that while having a two parent stable household is important, the sex of those parents does not affect the health or well-being of the child.
If you're a young girl, going through early puberty having your first period...two fathers can't really help you with that. The child is at a disadvantage. Many examples like that where a child would benefit more from having one parent from each sex.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Sibirsky » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:45 pm
by Meowfoundland » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:45 pm
Phoenixfox wrote:Neutraligon wrote:
For the first, there is such a thing as protection. People can use it. That is not inherent in sexuality. Also, lesbian women have the lowest transmission rates. Second, studies show that while having a two parent stable household is important, the sex of those parents does not affect the health or well-being of the child.
If you're a young girl, going through early puberty having your first period...two fathers can't really help you with that. The child is at a disadvantage. Many examples like that where a child would benefit more from having one parent from each sex.
by Liriena » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:45 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Regnum Dominae » Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:45 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, Ioudaia, The Lone Alliance, The Notorious Mad Jack
Advertisement