Animal sex dvds. Free animal sex. Animal sex stories. Free animal sex pictures free. Free animal sex pics. Animal sex….

You exhibit a poor understanding of history, Christianity and the history of Christianity. BTW, If my religion is a choice, isn’t yours also? How could you possibly have been “born an Episcopalian”?

SKYFOX on February 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM

I born into a family that was Episcopalian. Since then I have lost one sister to the Baptists and another to the Methodists. In addition I have an undergraduate degree in History.

SC.Charlie

You exhibit a poor understanding of history, Christianity and the history of Christianity. BTW, If my religion is a choice, isn’t yours also? How could you possibly have been “born an Episcopalian”?

But if you believe this FACT (and would like to see your nation address this FACT in a way that will assist your health and your childrens’ health), you are a homophobe.

but the Supreme Court views marriage as a fundamental right

this is FASCINATING! I didn’t know that simply by being single my rights were being violated. Who do I get to sue because I’m not married (which is obviously a right)?

You do realize that the number one killer for African American aged 18-30 in this country is HIV-AIDS. Are they all lesbians or IV drug users? Dude…HIV-AIDS can be spread among straight people.

. . . and the gay community wonders why the black community doesn’t support them. You gleefully report the statistic about the ‘number one killer of African Americans’.

Are you sure it isn’t smoking? Because we all know that the act of smoking is a choice, and it is dangerous to your health. Have you ever considered why we have laws against smoking? Is it ‘proven’ to cause a higher percentage of lung cancer?

The FACT is that homosexuality has a higher percentage of AIDS than smokers do lung cancer. . . yet for some reason, the fact that EVERYONE with AIDS isn’t gay, and that EVERYONE who is gay doesn’t have AIDS is an important point.

What would you think if the tobacco company trotted out a whole group of lung cancer patients who didn’t smoke. . . Would that change your opinion that smoking was linked to cancer? Well that’s what YOU and the entire gay community are trying to do.

Hey, not just gay people have AIDS. . . guess what, not just smokers get lung cancer. I can’t WAIT until they start forcing lifestyle choices on people on government insurance. They will NOT be able to turn a blind eye to homosexuality as a contributor to ill health. Everyone who smokes automatically pays 30% more if they are healthy or not. . .

AIDS treatment is longer and more costly than cancer. . . yet the insurance companies are not allowed to underwrite for high risk behavior of homosexuality the way they are with auto racing, sky diving, and even smoking.

The discrimination is actually reverse discrimination from the propaganda that the gay community wants us to swallow. The FACT is that they need to teach that being gay is hazardous to your health the way that every single cigarette pack has a surgeon generals warning.

Eventually gays will figure that out and do better at policing their behavior as a community. But if that sort of thing really offends you, and introducing marriage into gay culture would discourage it, why would you oppose gay marriage?

I don’t think introducing marriage into homosexual culture would discourage it. I think it will have no effect. There’s no reason to think it will.

The legal arguments related to non-discrimination particularly in the case of Christian churches, which have been covered briefly in this thread and in far greater detail on previous threads (no need to rehash them all now) are my main concern re homosexual marriage.

aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Some of them, but I think most of them are reasonable people, and good people, and they’d rather not confront the fact that they’re opposed to something that can only help.

As it happens I’d be in favour of homosexuals voluntarily ending their parades even in the knowledge that it might be favourable for legalising homosexual marriage by ballot.

Eventually gays will figure that out and do better at policing their behavior as a community. But if that sort of thing really offends you, and introducing marriage into gay culture would discourage it, why would you oppose gay marriage?

Many people don’t want to be identified by the parades held by the groups they belong to. If you met an Irish or Puerto Rican person and based your impression of them on the behavior at the NYC Saint Patrick’s Day or Puerto Rican Day parade many would regard it as unfortunate.

dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Yeah I know. I don’t think St. Patrick would be too happy about it either.

As it happens I’d be in favour of homosexuals voluntarily ending their parades even in the knowledge that it might be favourable for legalising homosexual marriage by ballot. I’m not holding my breath though.

aengus on February 21, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Many people don’t want to be identified by the parades held by the groups they belong to. If you met an Irish or Puerto Rican person and based your impression of them on the behavior at the NYC Saint Patrick’s Day or Puerto Rican Day parade many would regard it as unfortunate.

I think what really terrifies the people against gay marriage is that gays might turn out not to be all that different. They might turn up in public, happier and healthier, and then how do you argue that homosexuality is the end of western civilization or whatever? The absolute worst thing that can happen, for these people, is that the gay pride parades will stop, gays will settle into the same stable relationships as straights, and there won’t be anything left that a reasonable person can hate.

RightOFLeft on February 21, 2009 at 12:38 PM

So you’re saying that current opponents of homosexual marriage are unreasonable people who would be shattered if they felt they didn’t have a solid excuse for hating homosexuals? As it happens I’d be in favour of homosexuals voluntarily ending their parades even in the knowledge that it might be favourable for legalising homosexual marriage by ballot. I’m not holding my breath though.

gays will settle into the same stable relationships as straights

Very rare in the militant arena. The decent gays don’t parade their sexual activities on the front page of the NY Times.

There aren’t enough sheepf*ckers or NAMBLA members to finance a sheepf*cker or NAMBLA pride parade.

In New York and San Francisco NAMBLA march in the gay pride parade. They evidently don’t feel that they need their own separate parade.

I guess it sjust proof again about bad pennies…

by attempting to claim marriage as a right, those homosexuals are seeking moral approval for their lifestyle from the remainiing 96 % of the country.

A common leftist problem:

1. I want to do [behavior].

2. AND I DEMAND YOU ACCEPT IT.

Most people ignore 1., but will fight 2.

Get over yourselves.

I have certainly sinned throughout my life, but I don’t demand that it be “okay.”

Do the gay thing if you want to but be secure in yourself that’s it’s the “right thing.” Why do you need others’ to agree and accept? Answer: you don’t, unless you have second thoughts.

p3ned

No government entity has ever prevented anyone marrying from the same pool.

anuts on February 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM

You marry an individual, not a demographic. If you were to divide straight people into equal numbers of classifications, by wealth, race, fitness, etc. and then said in order to not have the classes genetically mix we restrict marriage equally, it wouldn’t be considered fair or pass a SCOTUS challenge.

DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM

Nice try.

You define yourselves by the sex you have. Gay=Homo=butt sex just as hetro=hetro sex. This we all know, but you parade it because you are tired of being ashamed of it. But exorcising your shame on society is classless. As it has been manifestly clear in this thread, and every other thread on HA, those of us who are sickened and disgusted by the thought of gay sex are dealing with it by accepting the fact that you have a right to be gay. This is a positive change in society and you should be thankful for it. But the militants aren’t satisfied. They see the power in PC politics and now want more than equality. They want super equality. The type of equality that forces those whose choices are less risky pay for the choices that you make which are way more risky. This is classless on their part. And to top it off, they parade their same sex activities. This behavior is no better than cows f**king in a field next to a busy highway. In that context, the cows have more class than the militants because they are doing what is natural and the militants sacrifice class and privacy to manipulate people and wield political power.

The gay rights movement has gone the way of the March of Dimes. The original mission is completed, but now that there is all this power, they just can’t put it down.

This is why the militant gays are intimidating, threatening,and classless when dealing with those who have legitimate disagreements.

My advice to the militants are that if there aren’t careful, they will get what they ask for, but the unintended consequences will make the struggle not worth it.

IE: When/if gays hijack the word “marriage”, hetros/churches/insurance companies will stop using the word and come up with a different one so that the distinction between same sex and hetro sex will be established again.

So, go f**k yourselves and your ignorant militant naziesque mentality.

And this is why I just find so much of this religion to be utterly ridiculous.

DeathToMediaHacks on February 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM

The etymology of the word and concept of marriage has religion in its origins. It’s true that most religions find homosexuality wrong. Now what is it about the word ‘marriage’ that is so crucial to the same sex advocates?

Now the ‘rights’ argument is specious. It would be nice to move on from this argument and try another angle. The amount of single women in this country is represented by ‘x’. As a heterosexual single man, x is the amount of which it is lawful for me to marry. That number does not change for any homosexual man. Conversely, ‘y’ represents the amount of single men in this country. I can marry zero of y. The number does not change for homosexual men. No government entity has ever prevented anyone marrying from the same pool.

Now I understand the usual counter to that is along the lines of, “but it does prevent us from marrying with whom we choose, etc.” Again, the number is still the same for both orientations. Eventually, the logical end has to come down to who we choose to have sex with and mandating that union should be recognized. At this point marriage has just been reduced to sex.

It’s unquestionably more than just that. Pick a new word.

homosexuality is a CHOICE…like pedophilia!! deal with it…its just another perversion…

right4life on February 21, 2009 at 10:38 AM

when did you choose to be straight?

Still not buying it. It’s apples and oranges. You speculate about a lone feminist. Maybe she exists. My guess is that she simply moves to another denomination–Episcopalian, maybe.

BuckeyeSam on February 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM

In 2004 a lawyer named Susan Rockwell sued the Archdiocese of Boston for its refusal to admit her to the seminary. She lost.

There are many men and women who have challenged the Vatican over the past couple of decades on the issue of female ordination. They haven’t found success in U.S. Courts.

Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful comments. Having had gay friends and co-workers in my life, you remind me of them a great deal. As you have said, it is the radical left that is ticking everybody off.

dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Still not buying it. It’s apples and oranges. You speculate about a lone feminist. Maybe she exists. My guess is that she simply moves to another denomination–Episcopalian, maybe.

In contrast, gays live for litigation. Liberals love slippery-slope arguments. This is the one I will allow myself because I see it as a very short slope. Gay marriage nationwide means gay demands for religious wedding ceremonies nationwide.

As I’ve said, Obama has already subjected faith-based organizations seeking grants to employment discrimination scrutiny. I can easily see the logical leap between gay marriage and suits against churches that don’t perform ceremonies and ultimately loss of tax exempt status.