|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Every time a gay marriage proposal hits the votes, Christian groups spend so much money on ads and campaigning against it spreading fear and their "moral" arguments.
Yesterday, Maine voters repealed the gay marriage law that was passed by Maine legislators.
Yet, Christians let new laws for marijuana use and casinos to get approved yesterday.
It's funny how "sins" don't seem to be equal to these Christian groups. They allow all these other ones go without a fight but not gay rights.
Christians were the same ones trying to suppress women and keep slavery.
They will lose the gay marriage fight in a few years. Then they'll clamor to try to suppress another group of people while other "sins" seem to be off their radar. Watch out Muslims, you're next on their list. No rights for you in the U.S.
Oh, I'm sure there are Christian groups that'll be focusing on the marijuana issue; dontcha worry now. ha
And indeed on the Muslim issue. Especially since so many (not all, but many) Muslims want to replace the Bible with their specific form of anti-Biblical philosophy.
Sometimes a person, including a Christian, has to pick their battles, because we cannot focus on every issue at once. Our politicians should be handling most of this, but lo and behold, many of them are liberal like you Tim.
By the way, I don't think your statement about Christians promoting slavery is quite true.
..Unless...oh my....you mean our Founding Fathers were ....(gulp) CHRISTIANS after all????
There seems to be plenty of documentation to support the notion that Christians, as a group, have always promoted slavery.
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
There ya go with the NLT.
The KJV says "Servants".
Big difference there.
Ooo fun! another passage taken out of context!
Read chapters 5-6. It basically tells husbands and wives, children and parents, and masters and slaves to respect one another. It also says "masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with Him there is no partiality." [Ephesians 6:9]
Anyway, I think this might be a bit off topic.
Sir someone wants to have own lifestyle it his responsibility. But to redefine marriage is other. Don't we have enough troubles can you see that?
Tell that to the people who *added* extra laws and amendments to prevent gay people from having the same right to get married to the person they love as straight people.
I guess we both agree there are more important things to worry about than writing inequality into law.
Still can't figure it, ok, one more time.
1. gayman can't marry gayman
2. straightman can't marry straightman
3. gayman can't marry straightman
4. straightman can't marry gayman
5. gayman can marry women of any variety
6. straightman can marry women of any variety
See! It's all equal! Nobody gets special treatment and no ones better than the other. Go figure.
Yeah, what were black people complaining about, right? They could use any seat on the bus as they liked provided it was in the back, and any water fountain they liked provided it wasn't whites-only. All equal!!! Go figure.
Jim Crow never really died in the South, did it? Lives on as a state of mind...
As usual the topic changed to fit the liberal viewpoint, Blacks can ride anywhere on a bus, they can drink from the same water fountain that a white person can, they can marry a white person if they choose. The topic is not about Jim Crow no matter how many times you try to change it for the emotional response you seek!
Who could argue with that kind of common sense?
One state passed a law, yesterday, allowing you to carry a small amount of marijuana on you being legal.
Where were the Christian and "family" groups in that state? LOL
Anything regarding homosexuality and abortion are very popular lightning rods among the religious right.
Why? Straight men (who wield the money & power in evangelical movements) will never be guilty of either. Easy to feel self-righteous when you cherry pick these 2 particular metrics of morality.
They might *talk* about other sins, but they will never, ever move to curtail their own freedoms.
Gays have the exact same rights everyone else has, why is that so hard for liberals and gays to understand?
Yeah sneakorocksolid's post seems rather straight forward to me.
Pardon the pun.
Good on the Maine voters.
Tim I guess you didn't hear about the shoot out at the Detroit mosque.
Radical mosque leader killed in FBI shootout
Feds say goal was Islamic nation in U.S.
I think we need to point out a huge difference in opinions here:
There's a difference between a Christian, and a Churchgoer.
A Christian is a person who can say, "Let he without sin cast the first stone." A Churchgoer says, "Let he who is not one of us be cast out of our light." A Christian says, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." A Churchgoer says, "Do unto others that which you feel they deserve for not being like you." A Christian says, "We are brothers." A Churchgoer says, "We could never be brothers."
See the difference yet?
A true Christian is a person who is able to turn the other cheek, love others as they love themselves (and truly love themselves), and understand that there is one God, he just has different faces and names for different people. God is loving, God is kind, and God is here for everybody. Not just for those who think bible-thumping is a Halloween pass-time.
And what of Christians who go to church? You might want to think your definitions through a little more.
Of all the responses I find, this is the one that makes the most sense. There is a tremendous difference between a Christian and one who exploits his standing in the Christian "society" to promote his own aggrandizement. For many years I lived close to a Mennonite Community, and it was the most hypocritical hotbed of ridiculousness and misery you ever saw. These so called leaders of Christianity spent all their time thumping their chests saying "I am the true Christian" at the same time ordering shunning of those who didn't buckle under to their rule.
In the same town were true Christians -- the ones who did not judge, who accepted those with different beliefs and looked for the soul in each individual they met.
We see this same pattern on a national scale. Those who say "This is what I believe and therefore you must believe the same -- or else" are not true Christians. Those that say, I may not share your beliefs but love you as a child of God all the same are.
And to all gay people out there, I may not share your beliefs but love you as a child of God. And God made you as you are, and you are wondrous as his creation.
Come on... have your cake and eat it too? Marriage is a religious right of passage or otherwise granted by the state, yeah ok but who really cares? Obviously some people ok I get that. I don't have a problem with homosexuality, it is not my preference but each to their own. However, gay marriage still just doesn't make sense to me. In all seriousness, I would like to know what the point is. If it is to announce your partnering of souls or something of that sort well great, have a party, tell all your friends and slap it on hubpages, facebook or whatever else but marriage is a bit passe now isn't it? A greater number of marriages fail than succeed. Draw up a pre-nup if it is a business decision, stay de-facto. What is the point? Please.
Would you mind if I ask where you're from that marriage is "passe"?
Passe. Over. Done. Had its time. Lost its meaning. Old news.
The question was where are you from that you think this is a generally held view of marriage?
Think of it like this tksensei, an be aware I know of your propensity to vigorously despise my superiority; I am not that far from you or any other folk who speak good enough english and have access to internet technology and the time to afford the pleasures of hubpages.
If my precognitive abilities are still working at this time of the morning I believe my reply to your not yet exist reply to my reply is this: tksensei, the proof is in the pudding. The facts in the figures. Done. Dusted.
No need to be coy. Where are you from? (just the name of the country will do)
I do not rule my life by need and I quite enjoy being coy. I love loaded questions tk, keep them coming, I've got all day.
As a single heterosexual, why don't I have as much right to marriage benefits as homosexual couples do?
The whole point of getting married is to create a secure institution that is ideal for starting a family.
Married heterosexuals need tax breaks because they always have the contingency of children. Homosexual couples and single heteros do not share this contingency and thus do not share this tax bracket.
Why can't I use sick leave to care for a friend or relative? Homosexuals are not the only group lacking the right to use sick leave to care for loved ones.
Why can't I recieve unpaid wages of a dead friend or family member? Again, we're in the same boat.
Why can't I have the same rights and responsibilities related to adoption, child custody, and child support?
Why do homosexuals need all of these things more than anyone else?
My point is that the percieved unfairness is not exclusive to homosexual couples, and changing the definition of marriage to solely accomodate this select group of people is unfair.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The point of a marriage is to strengthen a mutually-dependent relationship between two people who love each other. There is no societal expectation that married couples must reproduce; there is no stigma when two seniors marry, for instance.
For many married heterosexuals, there is NO contingency of childrearing, either because of biology or choice. And there are plenty of gay couples who DO have children. I am unaware of any rights afforded to married couples that would be relevant to single parenting, but maybe you could enlighten me.
You do realize that a homosexual spouse is not a "friend" or "relative" and that married straight couples are likewise denied the ability to use sick leave to care for friends and relatives, right? It only pertains to their life partner/spouse.
You are oddly acting as if married gay couples are no different from two good friends, as if the bond were no deeper than friendship.
If your point is that many rights reserved for married couples should be extended to single people, too, then it's odd to go after gay couples who have very few of those rights to begin with under our current system.
You are talking about an entirely different issue. You might want to examine the difference between romantic love and friendship, because it seems as if your issue is with marriage itself (something enjoyed by all interested straight couples, but denied to most gay ones), not that gay couples want to have access to the same institution.
I think you just made an argurment that marriage is NOT needed for Gay couples to have equal rights.
" not that gay couples want to have access to the same institution."
Its the "institution" that homosexuals have been legislated out of.
1. Tell me, is it the mutual commitment between the members of the relationship, or the Government's acknowledgement of that commitment that strengthens the relationship? The Government doesn't hand out marriage certificates because it wants its people in stronger relationships. It hands them out because it is dependent on the resultant offspring for future taxes. After all, if people stopped reproducing, from where would the Government obtain its taxes?
2. Anyone who has sex and believes they can't become pregnant is in serious denial. My point is that vaginal intercourse results in children and that married heterosexuals engage in vaginal intercourse quite regularly, and that it is therefore reasonable to assume that a heterosexual marriage is quite likely to result in a child. Perhaps if somebody has a prescription for birth control, that would be grounds for denying them this tax bracket--but that is something to discuss another time.
If somebody has custody of a child then, yes they should receive the appropriate tax write off. That just makes sense. I never said homosexuals with custody should not receive that.
3. If the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to use sick leave to care for their partner is tragic because their partner is in need of help, why are the scenarios I pointed out not equally tragic? Don’t all of these scenarios involve human relationships where people care about each other? Why must such a commitment only be available for ‘life partners’?
4/5. You are confusing a romantic relationship with a Government institution that has a purpose in society. Homosexual couples cannot reproduce; therefore I see no reason for Homosexual relationships to become institutionalized.
It's not reproduction. Who enjoys the over 1000 rights given to married couples: single mothers or married, childless couples?
We are in absolutely no danger whatsoever of stopping reproducing!
It seems like marriage is about child-rearing to you. In that case, then all the 1000+ rights should be assigned to couples (or maybe singles), irrespective of sexual orientation, that have children only. But, as I said before, you are changing the definition of marriage in this case, and that will affect mostly straight couples, and virtually no gay couples (except those in MA, IA, etc.)
Again, you're arguing a different issue entirely. If you believe that someone should have sick leave to take care of a dependent, then you shouldn't be using that argument to exclude gay people from marriage laws. They're two different things.
And you seem to ignore the fact that when two straight people get married, no one asks, expects or demands them to have children. You also similarly ignore the fact that there are millions of families headed by gay parents (either their own biological children, or adopted).
Infertile people can not reproduce - should they be banned from getting married?
1. My point is that we should be giving heterosexual couples a tax break so that they can have the ability to support children should they come along. Homosexual couples have the luxury of choosing the precise moment when they are financially prepared to adopt children. Also, homosexual couples will only ever have children if they choose to. Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have a harder time planning for these things. They’ve also been misled into thinking that contraceptives are foolproof.
What matters though, is that the Government is encouraging Married couples to start families. Society NEEDS the children that families raise. If mothers can’t afford children, they are more likely to abort them. That is why we need to give families tax breaks. Please keep in mind that taxpayer money is not infinite. We can’t go dishing it out to every person who claims to be ‘married’ when clearly they are not.
The fact that sterile and childless heterosexual couples exist does not legitimize tax breaks for homosexual couples. Besides, testing every couple to determine their fertility will probably waste more money than it saves. It’s pretty obvious when a dude is trying to marry a dude. It should also be obvious that those two dudes won’t be making any children of their own and if they adopt it’s probably because they are financially prepared for it. Also, that mother who gave up the child probably couldn’t afford it. Do you now see how increased taxes have different effects on heterosexual and homosexual couples? Homosexuals can weather the higher tax bracket better than heterosexuals. Homosexual couples are already in a better financial situation any way by virtue of their sharing of bills and pooling of money and absence of children.
What I’m getting at is that the Government needs Heterosexual couples to raise children, not Homosexual couples buying Lamborghinis. Their improved tax bracket is simply unjustified.
2. First of all, having dependents already is a tax write-off. Second, the Government needs to encourage MARRIED couples to have children. Children need a stable environment within which they can grow and learn how to function within society. And how exactly am I changing the definition of marriage?
3. I’m saying that giving homosexuals marriage rights isn’t the proper way to approach the situation. It will be easier to secure these rights for people if changing the definition of marriage isn’t involved. And if you are securing these rights for homosexual couples, perhaps there are other people who deserve them.
4. You can’t demand them to start right away. We should encourage them to have children when they are financially ready. But we want them to be prepared for it to happen right away. And, like I said, should the Government really examine each couple to determine how fertile they are. I’m pretty sure that gender is public information, while medical records are not.
And there are Homosexual parents? That’s fine. Give them the write off they already have for having dependents.
Very good argument. I agree with you down the line. You support your position with proper premises and infallilable logic.
"And you seem to ignore the fact that when two straight people get married, no one asks, expects or demands them to have children. You also similarly ignore the fact that there are millions of families headed by gay parents (either their own biological children, or adopted).
Infertile people can not reproduce - should they be banned from getting married?"
Correct, straight people are not requested to reproduce and yes, abortion is an option but very traumatic and should be a last resort for special cases, second, as noted by thetfin, there is no perfect birth control, heterosexual couples do not have full control of pregnancy and many if not most will want children, I have no checked but I am almost certain most will reproduce if possible (a minor point in the big scheme of this issue). Yes, there are some families headed by gay families, you say many but many is an overstatement. On the point of gay headed families and including biological children, for these family units, clearly the gay parent has chosen to nullify the relationship with the co-parent, a behaviour that should not be encouraged or lauded based on the relative strain this places on children. Marriage, although not always successful and regularly failing, is at least an institution with purpose. A family with two biological parents, although with risk of one or both parents suffering other faults, these possible faults, such as and often used in arguing the case for gay adoption, are not restricted or biased to heterosexual parents, thus a further argument for gay marraige null and void. Infertile people banned from marriage? This point hardly warrants a response, the noting of the fact, is mine.
First of all, since when is marriage sacred. Not too long ago in this country (and to this day in other parts of the world) a woman was considered the property of her father before her 'title' was signed off to her husband (her new owner). Secondly, anyone who says they reject homosexuals because they are 'christian', well then consult a dictionary. If you're really a christian, the word reject shouldn't even be in your vocabulary.
Lastly, someone brought up the marijuana issue, and since when is that an issue of morality? because it's illegal? Well, it was legal until the 30's when the timber companies, plastics manufacturers and tobacco barons banded together to outlaw it.
If we made it legal today, it would be the biggest growth industry in the country in about five minutes. Plus, you can use it to make paper, textiles, clothing, etc. BTW, guess what the original U.S. flag was made out of . . .
I like this post. Of course, you are talking about hemp not sativa but point taken and sound argument. I haven't read all the comments if any1 replied about the mental illness garbage regarding pot, its a sure sight better than booze and tobacco. Then you have gambling and prostitution... the list goes on. The law is just opinion. If you do not like the law, you are not obliged to obey them all but you take a risk. Simple.
Do Christian men still make their wives stay off of the furniture when they are "unclean" as Leviticus commands?
What I find most interesting about the gay marriage debate is the simplicity of its senselessness. I am all for gay rights and I agree that the church on its record is no great champion of human rights or moral high ground. That is my confusion. I am very open minded but I see sexual orientation as an issue that need not be confused with talk of love and life long partnerships. Married or not, relationships are not built on a legal arrangement. Maybe I am ill informed but I think rights for same-sex couples are about the same as heterosexual couples? Perhaps not, but there has been a lot done, there has been progress. I say go further and give the same rights to any de-facto couple and make those synonymous with the rights of married couples. If we could have that, then leave marriage to the church and their tradition of hypocrisy. All the same, like another reply suggested, why should we limit partnerships on sexual orientation in any sense. Alas, all this talk of rights is bringing the issue down to its core, the 'business' of marriage. If you wanted to get really brave, how about rights for people of bisexual orientation? If I wanted to have a partnership with a woman but I have a natural desire for men, could we draw up a contract in that way? I don't mean to sound sarcastic and I am not. Just my opinion.
Yes, there has been a lot of progress. It's hard to imagine even 10 years ago that so many people - almost a majority in the country's more progressive states - would even consider allowing gay people to have equal marriage rights.
Re: the rights of married couples. The CBO counts over 1000 rights afforded to married couples. If you're gay and lucky to live in a state that allows gay marriage, you can get a few hundred of those rights, but since they are not recognized at the federal level, most of those rights are still outside a gay couple's reach.
Re: bisexuals. It entirely depends on what gender a bisexual person chooses to marry. If a bisexual woman ends up falling in love with a man and wants to marry him - no problem. If she ends up falling in love with a woman and wants to marry her - problems. It really isn't a matter of the sexual orientation of the person, but rather the gender of the person that person is marrying. And with the way laws are set up now, you have people like Ted Haggard and Larry Craig marrying women and causing a lot of problems in their spouses' and families' lives.
Are you suggesting marriage should be the union of two people based on love? Sorry, but that argument does not suit me. I respect your opinion but I don't think that sort of thinking will afford any more gay rights. I fall in love all the time, that has not all much do to with marriage. From what you say I deduce a fairly simple argument, correct me if I am wrong.
'If a man loves a man or a woman a woman, based on love, those two people should be granted rights the same as any other loving couple.' Please clarify. I have more questions for you and I believe your argument is probably quite representative of the official debate.
On one hand you speak of equivelant rights. You want to play 'their' game (the religious game). You want to marry and afford yourself all the rights of being on the team. You are not on 'their' team. It does not make sense. Is it a rights issue or an issue of insitutional manipulation. If gay people want rights, go for it. Don't keep rubbing up against the Christian-Liberals, it is futile.
On the point of bi-sexuals? To assume an defintion of homosexuality as a not a choice but of natural tendency, are you to suggest that a bi-sexual person does not have the right to love both men and women. Is it that far a stretch to allow marriages for 2-1 relationships or even 2-2. I think the whole debate is doomed to go nowhere unless someone within the community cares enough to see the flaws.
One more thing, you say it is not a matter of sexual orientation but gender. That is a little nugget there. What if I am bi-gender? yes,no? I am not heterosexual by nature. I have sex with women predominatly and I may or may not have had sex with men. Get this straight, man-man, homosexual, woman-woman, homosexual, man-woman, heterosexual, you get the gist. I am a man who loves women and men. I love my friends, my family, ok. Its not above love.
I believe strongly in equal rights, please do not see me as an adversary. Regarding marriage, I think the gay community needs to shift a little on this issue. We should all have the right of sexual preference and yes, to love and commit ourselves to whoever we so choose. Do you not think it fair that others with their beliefs should get equal respect. Fight for your rights but don't play the church card, you will lose.
You can do whatever you want your a cow.
Bovine: why on earth are you bringing religion and church into this? Where did I bring that up in my response to you, or are you responding to someone else?
My initial quote was a response to someone else whom had brought religion into it, you then went on to comment on my response. The hub interestingly enough is titled 'christian (hypocrites) in politics...so funny. Hope that clears it up.
I see your point of confusion now, reading over again. Whether explicitly or implicitly, arguing the point for gay marriage is a religious issue. Marriage is an institution of the church.
Marriage is a public contract. Are you incapable of considering marriage without linking it to (some) church?
Quite the contrary. Do you really think it necessary to ask such a question? I take very careful consideration. I still subscribe to the truth.
What do you mean by "quite the contrary"? Are you unaware that marriage is a public contract? I realize you may be struggling with a language barrier, but you're not making much sense.
Blossom honey, I am not struggling with any language barrier. Unless of course you are referring to the fact I am not a trained teacher in logic for beginners.
Shouldnt take all day? Well damn the roses tk, I didn't realise you had me on a timer. What business is it of yours where I live? I have answered your questions, if you cannot read my use of language, do not bother.
Is it an offensive question? Is it a secret? You said that marriage is "passe." I was wondering where on earth that is a widely held belief. That's all, nothing to get nervous about unless you want to reconsider the comment.
I'll try again: marriage is passe. I am not stating it is passe by matter of opinion or view but by reality proven in statistics, reality for what it is tk. The contract side of marriage is passe seeing as how more marriages never fulfill the contract anyhow. The contract is effectively not just passe but a joke.
Great, now we're getting somewhere. What is the 'scientific' definition of "passe" and where are the statistics that prove the equation?
I see. Is that what "passe" means in your mind? Hmm.
Every other kind of contract is frequently broken as well, does that mean that all contracts are "passe"?
So...where are you from?
You are boring me tk. Perhaps you could come up with some original thought instead of scratching around with your less than appealling snide remarks.
I suppose my intelligence and education has hindered my capabilities of relating to the bliss humour and sweet nothings you so glady revel in.
Your attempts to mock my point of view are irritating but hardly much more, by cutting out this and that sentence out of my replies, you only cement my view more so, time and time again.
Clearly you are not. Are you aware that many, many couples who subscribe to no religion get married everyday with absolutely no connection to a church or a religion?
I am aware of how you come to that understanding, in essence yes would be the simple answer but to be frank, you are wrong and trying to prove it seems pointless with you.
What is the 'scientific' definition of "passe" and where are the statistics that prove the equation?
Every other kind of contract is frequently broken as well, does that mean that all contracts are "passe"?
Thanks for addressing these questions.
You are joking right?
You cannot possibly expect me to cut n paste information for you when it is clear we will never agree anyhow. This is my last reply to you on this hub.
So, according to the statistics over half of all adults are married and the divorce rate in the US is at its lowest since 1970. That doesn't seem "passe," does it?
that's one way of looking at it.
I like this way,
8.1% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners, according to The State of Our Unions 2005, a report issued by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. The same study said that only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents -- the lowest figure in the Western world.
So, according to the statistics over half of all adults are married and the divorce rate in the US is at its lowest since 1970. That doesn't seem "passe," does it?
Quote from msnbc "The number of couples who live together without marrying has increased tenfold since 1960; the marriage rate has dropped by nearly 30 percent in past 25 years; and Americans are waiting about five years longer to marry than they did in 1970."
And nowhere is there any mention of the statistics you put forth.
Quote from pewresearch: "On the national level, the Census Bureau survey showed that a shrinking share of Americans are married2 -- 52% of males ages 15 and older and 48% of females ages 15 and older. The proportion of Americans who are currently married has been diminishing for decades and is lower than it has been in at least half a century."
I know the whole 'reading' thing can be tough, especially in a second language, but:
"Despite the common notion that America remains plagued by a divorce epidemic, the national per capita divorce rate has declined steadily since its peak in 1981 and is now at its lowest level since 1970."
Sorry, beat you to it... again.
the proportion of Americans who are currently married has been diminishing for decades and is lower than it has been in at least half a century."
Could I be more clear, this is off your own link.
Is it possible that the divorce rate has declined because fewer couples are getting married?
I would think that the divorce rate measures how many marriages fail and it has little bearing on how many couples choose not get married at all.
Am I missing something?
You might want to take a look at what religion is still promoting and practicing slavery today.
"52% of males ages 15 and older and 48% of females ages 15 and older" is passe? Keep stretching, you ain't there yet.
Now, where on earth are you from?
You crack me up. Really.
Thank you. You have been wonderful.
It seems tk is pointing to lower divorce rates in the US to counter the idea that marriage is passe. Bovine is saying that Americans are, in increasing numbers, opting out of marriage altogether (i.e. obviating the possibility of divorce).
I suspect Bovine's point is more relevant here, and "protectors of marriage" might want to ask themselves why fewer people are choosing to get married (hint: it's not because gays/lesbians want to).
I've never met one pot head that the law was able to influence. Sure we prioritize our fights. I don't think that weed is good for much outside of the medical world. In fact I consider it a crutch- just like you consider my bible one.
do what you are gonna do Timmy, nobody is stopping you. Just stop being such a college age punk.
by Texasbeta6 years ago
Yesterday, the celebrations began...NY has approved gay marriage. The latest polls tend to show the most Americans support the right...what about on here?
by mio cid6 years ago
I have a solution to the gay marriage debate.If you are a heterosexual, don't marry somebody of your same gender,trust me the gays won't come to your house and force you.At least they haven't in my case ,when me and my...
by Brian5 years ago
Ok straight people. I hear a lot of you complaining that Gay people have far too many rights these days, and are asking for too much when it comes to their rights. Yet, I wonder, have you ever asked yourself what rights...
by Elizabeth23 months ago
How does legalized gay marriage "ruin" or affect a heterosexual one?One of the most common arguments against gay marriage is that legalizing gay marriage will somehow minimize or ruin heterosexual...
by Evan Hutchinson7 years ago
Should gay people be allowed to marry? Why? Why not?
by Elizabeth4 years ago
Exodus International, the notoriously vocal organization committed to the idea that gay people can change their sexual orientation is closing its doors and changing it's message. Along with the press release...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.