I think you people should be happy that this new generation of conservatives aren't radically against gay marriage. It means "our" cause is getting somewhere at least.

I personally support it, but at least these guys aren't going to go out and boycott any support for gay marriage. Unlike the last few generations of right-wingers.

People should be allowed to not like things without being pestered about it. Life is about compromise, and finding middle ground.

Who cares? Just answer the questions and stop stonewalling.

the gay groups screwed up when they started this whole mess. they should have never used the term "marrage" it seems alot of people have a problem with the wording of it. Alot would not object to a legal union but when you call it marrage they get thier panties in a wad.

I. personally, dont give a hoot who you sleep with or what you do in your bedroom but I do know the govt shouldnt have any say in it (within reason of course ie rape, child molestation ect)

1. Not nearly as old as most people think
2. No, I don't beleive in macroevolution, micro, yes, but not macro.

this means alot to me, coming from you, because you are one of the ones here that i do respect.

I chose to be bisexual, because I felt that I can find love in not just females. I believe that true love doesn't have to come from where you are told it has to come from (i.e. Men must sleep with women), and that i can find my soulmate in another male. I do have strong feelings for another male friend of mine, and he feels the same way (he is a full homosexual though), but since it is highly unaccepted where I come from, it will remain a closet thing.

You're too gay.

don't derail this plz.

but in response, so?

guys who only take it half-way up are ok, but when they let you
put it all the way in...that's when they are just filthy poofs imho.. annoy:

[quote="Eight Ace":794df]guys who only take it half-way up are ok, but when they let you
put it all the way in...that's when they are just filthy poofs imho.. annoy:[/quote:794df]

LOL. My thoughts exactly.

wrong, you may as well say being an Eskimo is a choice.

[quote="TGB!":ddd66]

[quote:ddd66]within reason of course ie rape, child molestation ect[/quote:ddd66]

When you concede one level of governmental influence in what is socially acceptable, then you concede government has a right to get involved. You cant have your cake and eat it too.[/quote:ddd66]



you are so wrong, we need laws to prevent these things from happening, we dont need the ammend the Constitution for them. trying to say having gays marry and child molestation is the same is a very strange view and very wrong, if you spin it enough it may start to make sense

[quote:f680a]you are so wrong, we need laws to prevent these things from happening, we dont need the ammend the Constitution for them. trying to say having gays marry and child molestation is the same is a very strange view and very wrong, if you spin it enough it may start to make sense[/quote:f680a]

Who said it was the same? I didnt. However, you are asking government to intervene and make a decision defining social behavior. In THIS COUNTRY, a person must be permanently registered as a sex offender because at 18 he slept with his 16/17 year old girlfriend (or genders vice-versa). Is that right? In other countries, and hell even in communities here in the US, its not a fair law. According to the government it is. However, we accept its application because it maintains the social fabric.

Recognition of homosexuals marrying is the same thing. We legislate morality EVERY DAY - including moral behavior with no immediate damaging effect on those involved our the societies around them. Saying we should do one but not the other is just silly