NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Rabs said:
Yeh your right, hell with the first amendment. I hope you accept that its perfectly acceptable to teach that being homosexual or bisexual is perfectly healthy right, and there is nothing directly un-healthy about it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I prefer the age old (and sexist) views that men are supposed to act like men and women are supposed to act like women. It's directly un-healthy to me when I can't find a guy who doesn't cry harder than I do during The Notebook.

P.S. And the whole AIDS thing, but we all know that doesn't really effect mostly the gay community. (Shhhhhh).



Rabs said:
Also abstinence only education does not encourage the use of condoms so you kinda contradicted yourself. I am more along the lines of

"It's better not to have sex, if you do use a condom, and there are other means of "interaction" besides vaginal intercourse which can cause STDs. Abstinence is the only surefire way to avoid STDs."
Click to expand...
Actually my H.S. had an abstinence based program and there were many comments about if one is going to have sex (even if they aren't ready) that condoms are a must. Just because an abstinence based program says it's better to wait doesn't mean the people are total idiots. :roll:
 
pixiedustboo said:
Sorry, I prefer the age old (and sexist) views that men are supposed to act like men and women are supposed to act like women. It's directly un-healthy to me when I can't find a guy who doesn't cry harder than I do during The Notebook.
Click to expand...
Yeah, very macho. I agree, but I don't want it to be taught at school.

P.S. And the whole AIDS thing, but we all know that doesn't really effect mostly the gay community. (Shhhhhh).
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what magic johnson thought too.

Regards,
Il
 
I don't recall an election being won because of two or three issues. I want to see a person with wide, indepth experience in political savvy, not someone who has never led a parade much less a Nation. I want a strong foreign relations background (years) and willingness to lead and support the military to the hilt. Guts, experience in Government (years) and the ability to make the hard decisions and the willingness to accept the consequences for those actions.

As far as those qualifications are concerned, the Democrats dropped the ball passing up Governor Bill Richardson. He and Senator Joe Biden were the only two people who fit those qualifications. But, that's what happens when people vote for the person who makes them feel good rather than someone who will be good for the Country considering dangers of the modern days.
 
Missileer said:
I don't recall an election being won because of two or three issues. I want to see a person with wide, indepth experience in political savvy, not someone who has never led a parade much less a Nation. I want a strong foreign relations background (years) and willingness to lead and support the military to the hilt. Guts, experience in Government (years) and the ability to make the hard decisions and the willingness to accept the consequences for those actions.
Click to expand...
I could swear Bush got into office the first time because of his opposition to gay rights.

Regards,
Il
 
!LH@N said:
I could swear Bush got into office the first time because of his opposition to gay rights.

Regards,
Il
Click to expand...

You could swear to a lot of things but that doesn't make it true. Where did you come across that information and how many more candidates were on the same side of the gay rights issue as Bush?
I think you are confusing his stand against gay marriage with gay rights. No politician will take a stand for gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, none will, because evangelicals and fundamentalist christians unfortunately do have too much power in the States.

Regards,
Il
 
justin1552 said:
Now that's just being single-minded.
Click to expand...
No it's not. They should be allowed to have 'civil unions' equally as it is called. Gay "marriage" is just playing with fire, under the term "marriage."

Marriage is one man, one woman, in the eyes of God and church.
 
I doubt that marriage has anything to do with neither God nor Church (especially not church).

Regards,
Il
 
Mod Warning: Interesting discussions here but we need to get this thread back on topic. Feel free to start other threads concerning issues other than the primary/caucus results.
 
pixiedustboo said:
No it's not. They should be allowed to have 'civil unions' equally as it is called. Gay "marriage" is just playing with fire, under the term "marriage."

Marriage is one man, one woman, in the eyes of God and church.
Click to expand...

not often i agree with pixie, but she's bang on the money here.


the word "marriage" is often thrown into the mix to muddy the waters some.


civil unions are great, a legally recognised and binding recognition of a partnership between two PEOPLE. me and my FEMALE partner plan on getting one here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top