Certainly more than the chick who once rejected your ugly sister at a gay bar.Ravager69 said:Does your two friends apply for the whole lesbian population?
Certainly more than the chick who once rejected your ugly sister at a gay bar.Ravager69 said:Does your two friends apply for the whole lesbian population?
Buxbaum666 said:Certainly more than the chick who once rejected your ugly sister at a gay bar.Ravager69 said:Does your two friends apply for the whole lesbian population?
By accusing me of generalization? After just judging "the whole lesbian population" on account of something your sister told you?Ravager69 said:I was just making a point.
HEY. My lovely town of Bakersfield isn't... it's not... that is to say...Moving Target said:Sad but true, once you get beyond some of the bigger cities, CA is pretty much redneckville. Ever been to Bakersfield *shudder*?
it's not an oversimplification, it's a factual error. gay brains are physically different from straight ones, and homosexuality is dependent on genes and possibly on hormone exposure in the womb.Mikael Grizzly said:Mixed. People can inherently lean toward a certain orientation but it's social conditioning that will shape their orientation finally.
Of course this is a gross simplification.
evolution would say "sounds great, gimme the lot!", since the gene sequences that makes women produce gay sons are the same sequences that increase their general fertility.Slaughter Manslaught said:I wonder what evolution would have to say about homosexualism...
Thrawn said:*ignorance*
What is the difference between a man marring a man and a man marrying his sister? Or his mother? Or to the more extremes, his dog or a child? Why is it okay to be disgusted by incest but you shouldn't be disgusted by homosexuality?
Consentual adults is the difference for most of these cases except incest, where the main argument against marriage is the consequences for their children (which have a big chance of ending up handicapped). Animals and children are not and cannot be consenting adults and hence thoseThrawn said:I almost never read 4 pages of posts but I did, just for you guys.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals HAVE EQUAL MARRIAGE RIGHTS RIGHT NOW.
A gay man can marry the exact same people I can. This is equal protection. It is not equal rights to say homosexuals should be able to marry, it is new rights.
What is the difference between a man marring a man and a man marrying his sister? Or his mother? Or to the more extremes, his dog or a child? Why is it okay to be disgusted by incest but you shouldn't be disgusted by homosexuality?
So your argument is 'It was always like this it should always be like this'.Thrawn said:Now all that being said, let me make one thing clear. I am all for homosexual couples having all the same hospital visitation rights, tax rights, inheritance rights and all that other junk. But we shouldn't have to change our definition of marriage to meet the desires of a segment of the population.