Closed a long time ago. Stop spamming my gaia alerts

	100.0%	[ 418 ]
Total Votes:			[ 418 ]

[I am Brendon hear me roar]

-Signs-
GAY's CAN BE IN LOVE TOO! MY FRIEND IS GAY AND I STILL LOVE HER!! scream scream scream scream

[undefined life]

I sign ^^

[Musentango]

Oh, wow. This thread is beyond pathetic. Sneezewort, and anyone who supports this thread, are self-important idiots... seriously.

Have any of you ever heard of the First Amendment? Are you not aware that everyone has the right to freedom of speech? Why should somebody be punished for exercising their rights - their freedom to speech, just because you don't agree with them?

Even when Carrie Prejean expressed her views (after they were clearly asked for), she received a horrible backlash. I'm sure you all have read Perez Hilton's profanity-laced rant on her and her answer, even though he asked her that question. At least Miss Prejean responded to the attacks as a civil human being. Here's a fun read; "It seems that in this age of political correctness and liberalism," etc. "Discrimination is Okay, if You're On the PC Side" - TRoutMac ("But look at the fallout from this, and while you're looking, be thinking about how the gay rights advocates preach "tolerance" of alternate views." )

"Sing it loud and clear that there is no free speech in the lib world. You can say whatever you like (sort of) as long as it coincides with our mantra. If it doesn't, then how dare you have those type of thoughts and beliefs.
Barf." - panther361, from this board.


So, what's inappropriate about the Chapel thread? Is it filled with pornographic images? Is it intentionally attacking others based on race, gender, creed? I've seen far worse on the forums, the Chapel thread is not and should not be offensive at all.

I believe most of the GaiaOnline employees are leftists anyway. Just because they Spotlight a thread, doesn't necessarily mean it reflects their own personal views.


And although nobody wants to believe it, Christianity did bring us the manners and romance we're brought up with today. Christianity brought us the sense between right and wrong, moral and immoral - this is not just about homosexuality.

Christianity civilized the Huns, Goths, Vandals, and Visigoths. Those four groups destroyed Roman civilization. They eventually converted to Christianity, an the Christians civilized them, the former barbarians.

Marriage, traditionally, spiritually, and religiously, has always been between man and woman. It has been the same for 5,000 years - maybe longer. Gay relationships "are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples" -- that is an excerpt from this article -- and one of the contributors to this article is gay. Yes, some gay people do oppose gay marriage.


The OP of the thread expressed her personal beliefs/opinions when she said "All weddings should be between a male and female" - as they should.

Nobody has really dug deep into the definition of marriage, the history of it.

I'm sure nobody will read the link I posted, so here it is:

Quote:

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage - Part 1
Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson
Katherine K. Young is professor of the history of religions, and Paul Nathanson is a researcher, at McGill University. This paper was presented at Emory University, Atlanta, GA on May 14, 2003.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay. We oppose gay marriage, not gay relationships (which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples and should be supported by all).

Most people assume that heterosexuality is a given of nature and thus not vulnerable to cultural change, that nothing will ever discourage straight people from getting together and starting families. But we argue - and this is important - that heterosexual bonding must indeed be deliberately fostered by a distinctive and supportive culture.

Because heterosexual bonding is directly related to both reproduction and survival, and because it involves much more than copulation, all human societies have actively fostered it (although some have also allowed or even encouraged homosexuality in specific circumstances). This is done through culture: rules, customs, laws, symbols, rituals, incentives, rewards, and other public mechanisms. So deeply embedded are these, however, that few people are consciously aware of them.

Much of what is accomplished in animals by nature ("biology," "genetics," or "instinct" ) must be accomplished in humans by culture (all other aspects of human existence, including marriage). If culture were removed, the result wouldn't be a functioning organism whether human or nonhuman. Apart from any other handicap would be the inability to reproduce successfully. Why? Because mating (sexual intercourse), which really is largely governed by a biological drive, isn't synonymous with the complex behaviours required by family life within a larger human society. So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and - something usually forgotten - to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society - fatherhood - especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many - that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination - the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed - and could be under the Charter - in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

Marriage a-la-mode: Continue reading here.

If you need a book to read, to finally get the answers to all atheist arguments, please read "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza. Focus on Chapter Six The Evil That I Would Not: Christianity and Human Fallibility. This gives you the idea of romance, love, and marriage - brought to you by Christianity.

You might also want to focus on Chapter Seven The Origin of Human Dignity. Here is the first paragraph from this chapter:

Quote:

In previous chapters I have discussed how Christianity is responsible for important ideas and institutions that remain central to our lives. Of course, not all these Christian innovations are valued by everyone. Some may object to Christianity precisely because it has given us capitalism or the tradional two-parent family. But here I discuss a Christian legacy that virtually all secular people cherish: the equality of human beings. The Christian idea was the propelling force behind the campaign to end slavery, the movement for democracy and popular self-government, and also the successful attempt to articulate an international doctrine of human rights. My celebration of Christianity's role in shaping these great social changes comes with a sober corollary: if the West gives up Christianity, it will also endanger the egalitarian values that Christianity brought into the world. The end of Christianity also means the systematic erosion of values like equal dignity and equal rights that both religious and secular people cherish.

In his book, D’Souza reveals:

- Why Christianity explains the universe, and our origins, better than atheism does
- Why Christianity and science are not irreconcilable, but science and atheism might be
- Why the alleged sins of Christianity—the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair—are vastly overblown
- Why atheism is a demonstrably dangerous creed—and a cowardly one
- Why evolution does not threaten Christian belief
- Why atheists fear the Big Bang theory
- Why Christianity is the ultimate defense of man’s free will
- Why ultimately you can’t have Western civilization—and all we value from it—without the Christianity that gave it birth

"Provocative, enlightening, a twenty-first-century successor to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity is the perfect book for the seeker, the skeptic, and the believer who wants to defend his faith."


Instead of ignorantly shouting "Love is love" and not backing anything up with reason and logic, please give yourself a challenge and read this book. Even the most notorious atheists won't debate with D'Souza - I believe that says enough, that D'Souza provides an actual argument, and a good one at that. And where else are you going to get answers to these questions, other than this book? Even a non-believer praised his book.


My opinion?
Gay marriage: No.
Gay relationships: Yes.
I do NOT sign this petition.

[Zephyrkitty]

This thread is still around? I thought everyone had forgotten about this by now.

Musentango

Oh, wow. This thread is beyond pathetic. Sneezewort, and anyone who supports this thread, are self-important idiots... seriously.

Have any of you ever heard of the First Amendment? Are you not aware that everyone has the right to freedom of speech? Why should somebody be punished for exercising their rights - their freedom to speech, just because you don't agree with them?

...

So, what's inappropriate about the Chapel thread? Is it filled with pornographic images? Is it intentionally attacking others based on race, gender, creed? I've seen far worse on the forums, the Chapel thread is not and should not be offensive at all.

Sneezewort

TL;DR:

"The point is, we don't have a problem with that chapel not wanting to do same gender marriages. It's that Gaia is promoting it."

The thread owner has every right to say that she won't perform same-sex marriages at her chapel, and others can show disapproval by not using the chapel. The problem - and what this petition is about - is that Gaia spotlighted the chapel and advertised it as being something for all of Gaia, despite the fact that the site has a large homosexual userbase. If the petition had been 'make the chapel owner change her rules to support same-sex couples', I wouldn't have signed.


Regarding free speech, it goes both ways. Person A is well within their rights to say that they disagree with gay marriage, but I'm also within my rights to say that I disagree with them and to not use their service because of their views.

There's also a difference between expressing disapproval of someone's opinions regarding gay rights, and expressing disapproval of someone because of their orientation, but that's going on a tangent.


Everything else posted was getting off-topic, so I'm not going to address it here. PM me if you want me to respond to it.

[xX_karisuma_Xx]

done.

[Sneezewart]

Musentango

Oh, wow. This thread is beyond pathetic. Sneezewort, and anyone who supports this thread, are self-important idiots... seriously.

Have any of you ever heard of the First Amendment? Are you not aware that everyone has the right to freedom of speech? Why should somebody be punished for exercising their rights - their freedom to speech, just because you don't agree with them?

Even when Carrie Prejean expressed her views (after they were clearly asked for), she received a horrible backlash. I'm sure you all have read Perez Hilton's profanity-laced rant on her and her answer, even though he asked her that question. At least Miss Prejean responded to the attacks as a civil human being. Here's a fun read; "It seems that in this age of political correctness and liberalism," etc. "Discrimination is Okay, if You're On the PC Side" - TRoutMac ("But look at the fallout from this, and while you're looking, be thinking about how the gay rights advocates preach "tolerance" of alternate views." )

"Sing it loud and clear that there is no free speech in the lib world. You can say whatever you like (sort of) as long as it coincides with our mantra. If it doesn't, then how dare you have those type of thoughts and beliefs.
Barf." - panther361, from this board.


So, what's inappropriate about the Chapel thread? Is it filled with pornographic images? Is it intentionally attacking others based on race, gender, creed? I've seen far worse on the forums, the Chapel thread is not and should not be offensive at all.

I believe most of the GaiaOnline employees are leftists anyway. Just because they Spotlight a thread, doesn't necessarily mean it reflects their own personal views.


And although nobody wants to believe it, Christianity did bring us the manners and romance we're brought up with today. Christianity brought us the sense between right and wrong, moral and immoral - this is not just about homosexuality.

Christianity civilized the Huns, Goths, Vandals, and Visigoths. Those four groups destroyed Roman civilization. They eventually converted to Christianity, an the Christians civilized them, the former barbarians.

Marriage, traditionally, spiritually, and religiously, has always been between man and woman. It has been the same for 5,000 years - maybe longer. Gay relationships "are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples" -- that is an excerpt from this article -- and one of the contributors to this article is gay. Yes, some gay people do oppose gay marriage.


The OP of the thread expressed her personal beliefs/opinions when she said "All weddings should be between a male and female" - as they should.

Nobody has really dug deep into the definition of marriage, the history of it.

I'm sure nobody will read the link I posted, so here it is:

Quote:

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage - Part 1
Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson
Katherine K. Young is professor of the history of religions, and Paul Nathanson is a researcher, at McGill University. This paper was presented at Emory University, Atlanta, GA on May 14, 2003.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay. We oppose gay marriage, not gay relationships (which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples and should be supported by all).

Most people assume that heterosexuality is a given of nature and thus not vulnerable to cultural change, that nothing will ever discourage straight people from getting together and starting families. But we argue - and this is important - that heterosexual bonding must indeed be deliberately fostered by a distinctive and supportive culture.

Because heterosexual bonding is directly related to both reproduction and survival, and because it involves much more than copulation, all human societies have actively fostered it (although some have also allowed or even encouraged homosexuality in specific circumstances). This is done through culture: rules, customs, laws, symbols, rituals, incentives, rewards, and other public mechanisms. So deeply embedded are these, however, that few people are consciously aware of them.

Much of what is accomplished in animals by nature ("biology," "genetics," or "instinct" ) must be accomplished in humans by culture (all other aspects of human existence, including marriage). If culture were removed, the result wouldn't be a functioning organism whether human or nonhuman. Apart from any other handicap would be the inability to reproduce successfully. Why? Because mating (sexual intercourse), which really is largely governed by a biological drive, isn't synonymous with the complex behaviours required by family life within a larger human society. So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and - something usually forgotten - to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society - fatherhood - especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many - that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination - the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed - and could be under the Charter - in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

Marriage a-la-mode: Continue reading here.

If you need a book to read, to finally get the answers to all atheist arguments, please read "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza. Focus on Chapter Six The Evil That I Would Not: Christianity and Human Fallibility. This gives you the idea of romance, love, and marriage - brought to you by Christianity.

You might also want to focus on Chapter Seven The Origin of Human Dignity. Here is the first paragraph from this chapter:

Quote:

In previous chapters I have discussed how Christianity is responsible for important ideas and institutions that remain central to our lives. Of course, not all these Christian innovations are valued by everyone. Some may object to Christianity precisely because it has given us capitalism or the tradional two-parent family. But here I discuss a Christian legacy that virtually all secular people cherish: the equality of human beings. The Christian idea was the propelling force behind the campaign to end slavery, the movement for democracy and popular self-government, and also the successful attempt to articulate an international doctrine of human rights. My celebration of Christianity's role in shaping these great social changes comes with a sober corollary: if the West gives up Christianity, it will also endanger the egalitarian values that Christianity brought into the world. The end of Christianity also means the systematic erosion of values like equal dignity and equal rights that both religious and secular people cherish.

In his book, D’Souza reveals:

- Why Christianity explains the universe, and our origins, better than atheism does
- Why Christianity and science are not irreconcilable, but science and atheism might be
- Why the alleged sins of Christianity—the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair—are vastly overblown
- Why atheism is a demonstrably dangerous creed—and a cowardly one
- Why evolution does not threaten Christian belief
- Why atheists fear the Big Bang theory
- Why Christianity is the ultimate defense of man’s free will
- Why ultimately you can’t have Western civilization—and all we value from it—without the Christianity that gave it birth

"Provocative, enlightening, a twenty-first-century successor to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity is the perfect book for the seeker, the skeptic, and the believer who wants to defend his faith."


Instead of ignorantly shouting "Love is love" and not backing anything up with reason and logic, please give yourself a challenge and read this book. Even the most notorious atheists won't debate with D'Souza - I believe that says enough, that D'Souza provides an actual argument, and a good one at that. And where else are you going to get answers to these questions, other than this book? Even a non-believer praised his book.


My opinion?
Gay marriage: No.
Gay relationships: Yes.
I do NOT sign this petition.

Way to waste your time writing all that s**t in a dead thread.

[Rectify Your Wrongs]

Musentango

Oh, wow. This thread is beyond pathetic. Sneezewort, and anyone who supports this thread, are self-important idiots... seriously.

Have any of you ever heard of the First Amendment? Are you not aware that everyone has the right to freedom of speech? Why should somebody be punished for exercising their rights - their freedom to speech, just because you don't agree with them?

Even when Carrie Prejean expressed her views (after they were clearly asked for), she received a horrible backlash. I'm sure you all have read Perez Hilton's profanity-laced rant on her and her answer, even though he asked her that question. At least Miss Prejean responded to the attacks as a civil human being. Here's a fun read; "It seems that in this age of political correctness and liberalism," etc. "Discrimination is Okay, if You're On the PC Side" - TRoutMac ("But look at the fallout from this, and while you're looking, be thinking about how the gay rights advocates preach "tolerance" of alternate views." )

"Sing it loud and clear that there is no free speech in the lib world. You can say whatever you like (sort of) as long as it coincides with our mantra. If it doesn't, then how dare you have those type of thoughts and beliefs.
Barf." - panther361, from this board.


So, what's inappropriate about the Chapel thread? Is it filled with pornographic images? Is it intentionally attacking others based on race, gender, creed? I've seen far worse on the forums, the Chapel thread is not and should not be offensive at all.

I believe most of the GaiaOnline employees are leftists anyway. Just because they Spotlight a thread, doesn't necessarily mean it reflects their own personal views.


And although nobody wants to believe it, Christianity did bring us the manners and romance we're brought up with today. Christianity brought us the sense between right and wrong, moral and immoral - this is not just about homosexuality.

Christianity civilized the Huns, Goths, Vandals, and Visigoths. Those four groups destroyed Roman civilization. They eventually converted to Christianity, an the Christians civilized them, the former barbarians.

Marriage, traditionally, spiritually, and religiously, has always been between man and woman. It has been the same for 5,000 years - maybe longer. Gay relationships "are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples" -- that is an excerpt from this article -- and one of the contributors to this article is gay. Yes, some gay people do oppose gay marriage.


The OP of the thread expressed her personal beliefs/opinions when she said "All weddings should be between a male and female" - as they should.

Nobody has really dug deep into the definition of marriage, the history of it.

I'm sure nobody will read the link I posted, so here it is:

Quote:

Answering Advocates of Gay Marriage - Part 1
Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson
Katherine K. Young is professor of the history of religions, and Paul Nathanson is a researcher, at McGill University. This paper was presented at Emory University, Atlanta, GA on May 14, 2003.

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality. One of us, in fact, is gay. We oppose gay marriage, not gay relationships (which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples and should be supported by all).

Most people assume that heterosexuality is a given of nature and thus not vulnerable to cultural change, that nothing will ever discourage straight people from getting together and starting families. But we argue - and this is important - that heterosexual bonding must indeed be deliberately fostered by a distinctive and supportive culture.

Because heterosexual bonding is directly related to both reproduction and survival, and because it involves much more than copulation, all human societies have actively fostered it (although some have also allowed or even encouraged homosexuality in specific circumstances). This is done through culture: rules, customs, laws, symbols, rituals, incentives, rewards, and other public mechanisms. So deeply embedded are these, however, that few people are consciously aware of them.

Much of what is accomplished in animals by nature ("biology," "genetics," or "instinct" ) must be accomplished in humans by culture (all other aspects of human existence, including marriage). If culture were removed, the result wouldn't be a functioning organism whether human or nonhuman. Apart from any other handicap would be the inability to reproduce successfully. Why? Because mating (sexual intercourse), which really is largely governed by a biological drive, isn't synonymous with the complex behaviours required by family life within a larger human society. So how could marriage be harmed by adding a few gay couples? A good question, especially when you consider the deplorable state of marriage right now, which has been caused by hedonistic and irresponsible straight people.

Marriage is a complex institution. It must do several things (and, from an anthropological and historical perspective, fostering the emotional gratification of two adults is the least important). It must foster the bonds between men and women for at least three reasons: to encourage the birth and rearing of children (at least to the extent necessary for preserving and fostering society); to provide an appropriate setting for children growing to maturity; and - something usually forgotten - to ensure the co-operation of men and women for the common good. Moreover, it must foster the bonds between men and children, otherwise men would have little incentive to become active participants in family life. Finally, it helps provide men with a healthy masculine identity based on a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society - fatherhood - especially when no other contribution is considered acceptable.

Without public cultural support for a durable relationship binding men, women, and children, marriage would initially be reduced to nothing more than one "lifestyle choice" among many - that is, it could no longer be encouraged in the public square (which is necessary in a secular society). In fact, doing so would be denounced and even challenged in court as discrimination - the undue "privilege" of a "dominant" class, which is a breach of equality as defined by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But discrimination in this case should be allowed - and could be under the Charter - in view of the fact that marriage, as a universal institution and the essential cultural complement to biology, is prior to all concepts of law.

In short, redefining marriage would amount to a massive human experiment. Some experiments work, it's true, but others don't. Remember that an earlier experiment, changing the divorce laws, set in motion social forces that would not be evident for forty years. This new experiment would be unprecedented in human history, and yet we haven't taken the time to think carefully about possible consequences. Instead, we've allowed emotion to sweep aside all other considerations.

Marriage a-la-mode: Continue reading here.

If you need a book to read, to finally get the answers to all atheist arguments, please read "What's So Great About Christianity?" by Dinesh D'Souza. Focus on Chapter Six The Evil That I Would Not: Christianity and Human Fallibility. This gives you the idea of romance, love, and marriage - brought to you by Christianity.

You might also want to focus on Chapter Seven The Origin of Human Dignity. Here is the first paragraph from this chapter:

Quote:

In previous chapters I have discussed how Christianity is responsible for important ideas and institutions that remain central to our lives. Of course, not all these Christian innovations are valued by everyone. Some may object to Christianity precisely because it has given us capitalism or the tradional two-parent family. But here I discuss a Christian legacy that virtually all secular people cherish: the equality of human beings. The Christian idea was the propelling force behind the campaign to end slavery, the movement for democracy and popular self-government, and also the successful attempt to articulate an international doctrine of human rights. My celebration of Christianity's role in shaping these great social changes comes with a sober corollary: if the West gives up Christianity, it will also endanger the egalitarian values that Christianity brought into the world. The end of Christianity also means the systematic erosion of values like equal dignity and equal rights that both religious and secular people cherish.

In his book, D’Souza reveals:

- Why Christianity explains the universe, and our origins, better than atheism does
- Why Christianity and science are not irreconcilable, but science and atheism might be
- Why the alleged sins of Christianity—the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair—are vastly overblown
- Why atheism is a demonstrably dangerous creed—and a cowardly one
- Why evolution does not threaten Christian belief
- Why atheists fear the Big Bang theory
- Why Christianity is the ultimate defense of man’s free will
- Why ultimately you can’t have Western civilization—and all we value from it—without the Christianity that gave it birth

"Provocative, enlightening, a twenty-first-century successor to C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza’s What’s So Great About Christianity is the perfect book for the seeker, the skeptic, and the believer who wants to defend his faith."


Instead of ignorantly shouting "Love is love" and not backing anything up with reason and logic, please give yourself a challenge and read this book. Even the most notorious atheists won't debate with D'Souza - I believe that says enough, that D'Souza provides an actual argument, and a good one at that. And where else are you going to get answers to these questions, other than this book? Even a non-believer praised his book.


My opinion?
Gay marriage: No.
Gay relationships: Yes.
I do NOT sign this petition.

Do not be ignorant not everyone is American or abides by their beliefs. Further more, if you have read all the messages, forums, etc. on this then you would be full aware that many logica arguements have been made in support of the rather radical emotional ones.

Read some more behind then come back and talk to us. and do not be so rude! You will not get through some of these thick skulls in this forum through mindless bantering and shouting and emotional hoowaba!

[Lonesome Sundown]

Sorry for the mule, but I started to agree with you until I realize a thread can do what it wants if it doesn't break rules. This is kinda silly guys and you are being overly sensitive. Businesses can always refuse people based on any reason since you are not forced to purchase a service or good. If someone wants to make their own chapel that allows gay marriage than go at it. Compete with this one. Don't cry about it. Prove you can be better, guys.

[Cinderella in Chucks]

~i sign~

[valley5]

i sign