Teaching Gay History in California

Teaching Gay History in California

There are 12512 comments on the EDGE story from Jul 9, 2011, titled Teaching Gay History in California. In it, EDGE reports that:

California lawmakers on Tuesday sent the governor a bill that would make the state the first requiring public schools to include the contributions of gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12907 Jan 15, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course we should allow civil marriage for same-sex couples. It's in the best interest of the couples, any children they may have, and society as a whole.
But the anti-gay aren't interested in the best interest of society.
They are only interested in protecting and maintaining their own privilege.
I believe it is about maintaining more than privilege. It is about maintaining prejudice. Enshrining prejudice in the law gives it unjustified official support. Not long ago, anti-gay people could say being gay is wrong because it is illegal. Once laws that accommodate prejudice are removed, there is no longer any official support for the irrational prejudice.

Because there is no scientific basis for it, that leaves those who promote it with nothing more than a few questionable religious texts which are contradicted by other more important texts, and not agreed upon by all religious scholars, leaders, and believers. They need that official government recognition to support it.

The tragedy is, as you know, the resulting dehumanization and stigmatization results in needless suffering and death in a wide variety of ways. Laws like DOMA perpetuate the deadly prejudice they were designed to indulge.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#12909 Jan 15, 2013
Brenda Lee Johnson wrote:
It's self explanatory!
<quoted text>
A pretty package doesn't change the fact this is religious based belief trying to present itself as science.

Every mainstream medical and mental health organization in the US agrees: Being gay is not a disorder.

She neglects to mention that before 1952, at the height of the McCarthy gay witch hunts, being gay was not considered a disorder, and even Freud recognized that it was a natural variation of human sexuality. He also realized anti-gay prejudice causes harm. It was added based on religious beliefs and removed 20 years later based on science. During those 20 years, gay people were imprisoned and tortured with castration, electric shock, emetics, and lobotomies, all in an attempt to "cure" them. It did not work.

The idea the Islamic countries still consider it a disorder should tell you it is religious belief rather than science, being used to stigmatize a minority of the population in order to deny treating them equal under the law. To justify harming others, it is necessary to dehumanize them first.

And that is the point of this religious based propaganda. Dehumanize them so we can continue to punish and harm them.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12910 Jan 15, 2013
Many gays want to keep marriage male/female:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...

Protecting marriage isn't anti-gay, it's pro-family.
Cool Hand Luke

Bangkok, Thailand

#12912 Jan 15, 2013
Gay ‘marriage’ in high demand? Not according to the U.S. census

Wed Oct 05, 2012 14:39 EST
Comments (2)

October 5, 2012 - The pressure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples keeps increasing. The impression is given that thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians are unable to do the one thing they want to do more than anything else: That is, have a wedding.

As if to prove the point, the US Census Bureau announced that it would be counting same-sex households in the 2010 Census. In August the Bureau announced that there are nearly a million. I was surprised by the small number.

But this past week, they reduced their estimate of same sex couple households by nearly thirty percent. In fact, it turns out that there are fewer than 650,000. That’s about six tenths of one percent of total US households.

But an even greater shocker for me was the number of same-sex married households. Gay marriage is legal in six jurisdictions. In Massachusetts, it’s been the law since 2004. Same-sex couples can get married, for example, in Massachusetts and Washington, DC, and live anywhere because nobody’s enforcing DOMA anymore in view of litigation. And yet there are only 131,729 households headed by married same-sex couples. That’s two-tenths of one percent of married households. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

This census data exposes the two biggest myths created about gay marriage.

The first is that there’s a huge demand for it. No way! In fact, there’s hardly any demand at all. Gay couples are not lined up at city halls hoping for a marriage license.

The second myth is the so-called “marriage equity” argument: That this is just another civil rights movement. Are you going to tell me that it was possible to fuel the civil rights movement with 646,000 couples, when only 131,000 had a real stake in it? It’s laughable.

I have never believed that gays wanted to marry. Their behavior by its very nature is too promiscuous. Gay relationships are for the most part sexually open rather than exclusive.

For us to redefine marriage, thereby altering thousands of years of human history, ignoring all of the benefits marriage offers to individuals, cultures, civilizations and — above all — children, for the sake of 646,000 same-sex households, only 131,000 of which are married, is madness.

Gays and lesbians don’t want marriage; they want their sexual choices affirmed as normal and moral. And that’s what’s behind the blacklisting, boycotting, and suing anybody who even questions homosexuality. They don’t want anyone telling them that how they live is morally problematic. Gays are actively trying to destroy marriage and will take away our freedom of speech and religion in order to do it.

Does this take the church off the hook? No. For years we have helped deconstruct marriage, winking at cohabitation and allowing easy divorce. We’ve allowed politicians to pass bad divorce laws and to loosen the moral standards surrounding marriage. Now it’s all coming back to haunt us. But our job is to rebuild marriage as a sacred institution and to stand our ground and defend it, come what may, from what appears to be a tiny minority.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12913 Jan 15, 2013
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
But our job is to rebuild marriage as a sacred institution and to stand our ground and defend it, come what may, from what appears to be a tiny minority.
A minority that gets smaller every day, thanks to AIDS and Hep B.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12915 Jan 15, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Many gays want to keep marriage male/female:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/0...
How many gay people actually constitute "many gays"? What percentage of the gay population opposes gay rights?
Brian_G wrote:
Protecting marriage isn't anti-gay, it's pro-family.
"Protecting" marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation, since gay people can marry in every state.

Allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage doesn't prevent civil marriage for opposite-sex couples. They can still get married. Recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples is "pro-family" because it protects their families, too.
The Lone Gunmen

United States

#12914 Jan 15, 2013
Homosexual men twice as likely to have cancer: study





CALIFORNIA, May 9, 2012 - Homosexual men are twice as likely to have had cancer than men who are not homosexual, with the difference likely being explained by the high prevalence of anal cancer and HIV/AIDS among homosexual men, according to a study issued in California today.

The study, published in the journal Cancer, examined the cancer prevalence in men and women in categories of “sexual orientation” and subsequently compared the health of male and female cancer survivors.

The study was based on data from a self-reporting survey conducted by the California Health Interview of over 120,000 people in the state of California over 2001, 2003, and 2005. It is the largest state survey of its kind in the United States.

Of those interviewed, 1,493 men described themselves as homosexuals and 3,690 men reported a cancer diagnosis. Homosexual men were 1.9 times more likely than other men to have had cancer and, on average, were diagnosed with cancer ten years earlier than other men.

“The greater cancer prevalence among gay men may be caused by a higher rate of anal cancer, as suggested by earlier studies that point to an excess risk of anal cancer,” said the study.

Ulrike Boehmer, the study’s lead author from the Boston University School of Public Health, said proven higher rates of HIV in homosexual men may be related to their increased risk of cancer, but the study did not address that question specifically.

HIV and AIDS have been linked to a series of cancers including Kaposi sarcoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma as well as anal, lung, testicular cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma. These types of cancer appear more common among those who engage in homosexual sex.

The survey found no significant difference between female cancer patients who described themselves as “gay” or “bisexual” and those who did not. However,“gay” and “bisexual” females were twice as likely to report experiencing poor health after a cancer diagnosis than other females.

The survey did note, however, that by interviewing the “survivors” the survey did not give a true representation of cancer cases since some patients would have died or been too ill to report.

“Because more gay men report as cancer survivors, we need foremost programs for gay men that focus on primary cancer prevention and early cancer detection,” study author Boehmer reported.

“Because more lesbian and bisexual women than heterosexual women with cancer report that they are in poor health, we need foremost programs and services that improve the well-being of lesbian and bisexual cancer survivors,” she added.
ATTENTION

United States

#12916 Jan 15, 2013
Hello im ah 28 y o chicano male from ca who is looking for a discreet guy around my age who is either gay,bi,or a cross dresser if this sounds interesting to u then plz msg me at tbagger1984@yahoo.com

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12917 Jan 16, 2013
Jerald wrote:
How many gay people actually constitute "many gays"?
I commend them all; they are wise and look at the general welfare while same sex marriage supporters base their arguments on ersatz equality.

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

.
Jerald wrote:
What percentage of the gay population opposes gay rights?
Same sex marriage isn't gay rights; it's a special right to redefine marriage for everyone. Not everyone marriages for sexual attraction; same sex marriage harms heterosexuals too.

.
Jerald wrote:
"Protecting" marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation, since gay people can marry in every state.
Exactly; every gay was born of male/female union so there's something good about male/female marriage.

.
Jerald wrote:
Allowing same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage doesn't prevent civil marriage for opposite-sex couples.
Allowing same sex couples to obtain a civil union is the perfect compromise. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts but marriage is more.

.
Jerald wrote:
They can still get married. Recognizing civil marriage for same-sex couples is "pro-family" because it protects their families, too.
Changing the law to license same sex marriage would change marriage for everyone.
Flocko

Phoenix, AZ

#12918 Jan 16, 2013
Gay ‘marriage’ in high demand? Not according to the U.S. census

Wed Oct 05, 2012 14:39 EST
Comments (2)

October 5, 2012 - The pressure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples keeps increasing. The impression is given that thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians are unable to do the one thing they want to do more than anything else: That is, have a wedding.

As if to prove the point, the US Census Bureau announced that it would be counting same-sex households in the 2010 Census. In August the Bureau announced that there are nearly a million. I was surprised by the small number.

But this past week, they reduced their estimate of same sex couple households by nearly thirty percent. In fact, it turns out that there are fewer than 650,000. That’s about six tenths of one percent of total US households.

But an even greater shocker for me was the number of same-sex married households. Gay marriage is legal in six jurisdictions. In Massachusetts, it’s been the law since 2004. Same-sex couples can get married, for example, in Massachusetts and Washington, DC, and live anywhere because nobody’s enforcing DOMA anymore in view of litigation. And yet there are only 131,729 households headed by married same-sex couples. That’s two-tenths of one percent of married households. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

This census data exposes the two biggest myths created about gay marriage.

The first is that there’s a huge demand for it. No way! In fact, there’s hardly any demand at all. Gay couples are not lined up at city halls hoping for a marriage license.

The second myth is the so-called “marriage equity” argument: That this is just another civil rights movement. Are you going to tell me that it was possible to fuel the civil rights movement with 646,000 couples, when only 131,000 had a real stake in it? It’s laughable.

I have never believed that gays wanted to marry. Their behavior by its very nature is too promiscuous. Gay relationships are for the most part sexually open rather than exclusive.

For us to redefine marriage, thereby altering thousands of years of human history, ignoring all of the benefits marriage offers to individuals, cultures, civilizations and — above all — children, for the sake of 646,000 same-sex households, only 131,000 of which are married, is madness.

Gays and lesbians don’t want marriage; they want their sexual choices affirmed as normal and moral. And that’s what’s behind the blacklisting, boycotting, and suing anybody who even questions homosexuality. They don’t want anyone telling them that how they live is morally problematic. Gays are actively trying to destroy marriage and will take away our freedom of speech and religion in order to do it.

Does this take the church off the hook? No. For years we have helped deconstruct marriage, winking at cohabitation and allowing easy divorce. We’ve allowed politicians to pass bad divorce laws and to loosen the moral standards surrounding marriage. Now it’s all coming back to haunt us. But our job is to rebuild marriage as a sacred institution and to stand our ground and defend it, come what may, from what appears to be a tiny minority.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12919 Jan 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I commend them all; they are wise and look at the general welfare while same sex marriage supporters base their arguments on ersatz equality.
You really don't know how many "all" is, do you? In other words, you have no clue how many gay people are opposed to the right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage.

We based our support of civil marriage for same-sex couples on the equal protections of the law. That's a constitutional principle, not "ersatz" anything.
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.
Discrimination on the basis of sex is still illegal in a host of ways, and that is still the law of the land. It's in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Title VII.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cf...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title29...
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage isn't gay rights; it's a special right to redefine marriage for everyone.


Feel free to explain exactly what "special right" same-sex couples specifically or gay people generally would receive that opposite-sex couples or straight people would be denied.
Brian_G wrote:
Not everyone marriages for sexual attraction; same sex marriage harms heterosexuals too.
Feel free to explain exactly how someone else's marriage "harms" yours.
Brian_G wrote:
Exactly; every gay was born of male/female union so there's something good about male/female marriage.
Non sequitur. I never claimed that marriage between males and females was "something bad". No one is advocating abolishing opposite-sex marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
Allowing same sex couples to obtain a civil union is the perfect compromise. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts but marriage is more.
Thank you for acknowledging that civil unions are not "separate but equal"; they are separate and unequal.

There is no legitimate governmental basis for creating a separate and unequal institution for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage.
Brian_G wrote:
Changing the law to license same sex marriage would change marriage for everyone.
How? How would your marriage be diminished by allowing other couples to marry?

Is your marriage already so tenuous or weak that allowing other couples to marry would change yours?

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#12920 Jan 16, 2013
Sorry honey, but in case you haven't noticed same sex marriage is legal in every state of this nation. Some states may not accept or acknowledge it but its most certainly not illegal nor against any law of any state. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I commend them all; they are wise and look at the general welfare while same sex marriage supporters base their arguments on ersatz equality.
There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.
.
<quoted text>Same sex marriage isn't gay rights; it's a special right to redefine marriage for everyone. Not everyone marriages for sexual attraction; same sex marriage harms heterosexuals too.
.
<quoted text>Exactly; every gay was born of male/female union so there's something good about male/female marriage.
.
<quoted text>Allowing same sex couples to obtain a civil union is the perfect compromise. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are contracts but marriage is more.
.
<quoted text>Changing the law to license same sex marriage would change marriage for everyone.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12923 Jan 16, 2013
Cool Hand Luke wrote:
I beg to differ, I guess if there is no science you could claim it is in the best interest of society. Then again if you can read you know better and your just trying to sway someone who is not informed.
Would you like to have a conversation about the effects on society?
I betting you don't, because you already know.
<quoted text>
Civil marriage isn't in the best interest of society?

Feel free to provide evidence to support your claim.
The Lone Gunmen

United States

#12924 Jan 16, 2013
10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed
By TFP Student Action
Share
1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man.(Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.
The Lone Gunmen

United States

#12925 Jan 16, 2013
This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#12926 Jan 18, 2013
The Lone Gunmen wrote:
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.
6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union
Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.
On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.
7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.
Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
Wow all these authoritative statements! So dude you think you know how it is. Well I just moved to Holland and you know what; sexuality doesn't matter, your character and keeping true to your word are much more valuable. Your Christian morality Bullshit is your own. The thing I find so amazing is how anyone like you would feel superior just because you fu(_)k a c(_)nt? Oh well, maybe you'll learn how manipulated you are. Anyway...F(_)ck you and have a wonderful Calvinist, Consumerist life. PS Hi NoQ I Did It!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#12927 Jan 18, 2013
Same sex marriage supporters use so much profanity because their arguments are driven by emotion instead of reason. That's why they hate their political opponents; they have no rational arguments to defend their position.

Joe Balls

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#12928 Jan 18, 2013
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow all these authoritative statements! So dude you think you know how it is. Well I just moved to Holland and you know what; sexuality doesn't matter, your character and keeping true to your word are much more valuable. Your Christian morality Bullshit is your own. The thing I find so amazing is how anyone like you would feel superior just because you fu(_)k a c(_)nt? Oh well, maybe you'll learn how manipulated you are. Anyway...F(_)ck you and have a wonderful Calvinist, Consumerist life. PS Hi NoQ I Did It!
LOL, that's pretty much the same way I feel about it. Who cares what they do?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#12929 Jan 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage supporters use so much profanity because their arguments are driven by emotion instead of reason. That's why they hate their political opponents; they have no rational arguments to defend their position.
Feel free to show any of my posts where I used profanity.

There remains no rational basis to deny civil marriage solely based on the sex of the partners. All arguments in opposition are irrational, illogical or based on ignorance, animus, fear or religious superstition or myth.

There is no rational basis for creating a "separate but equal" institution for establishing kinship between unrelated adults when a perfectly suitable one already exists: civil marriage.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#12930 Jan 18, 2013
fr the lone gunmen:

>... It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union...<

Wrong. When I married my WIFE, we created a FAMILY. Get a clue, get educated, and grow UP.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Berkshire Trans Group aims for support, empower... 3 min The Worlds Bigges... 13
News Roger Hines: Clarity and controversy from the B... 2 hr facts 92
News Harvard withdraws fellowship invitation to Chel... 3 hr fingers mcgurke 28
News Brazil ruling that homosexuality is disease to ... 3 hr Johnny 8
News Trump Adds to Rollback of Obama Legacy With Ant... 17 hr TomInElPaso 106
News Transgender Employee Fired by VA Hospital Conte... 20 hr Hunter 2
News Talking to Your Children about Transgender Tue TerriB1 1
More from around the web