Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by pavil

---

pavil video posted on page 3 is the funniest video of the day, I suggest you all watch it.


On topic... you need a good female and male role model in parenting, so as long as one of the guys is more effeminate then I guess it's Ok.

Originally posted by camain
reply to post by xion329alpha

---

a tax excempt church is not the same as public property. This event happened happened on public property, and therefore, the christians had a right to be there. While I do think they went about it the wrong way, there rights were violated. On the turn, if the gays wanted to band together and protest outside on the walkway beside the church, that is there right too. That is public property, the driveway, church and parking lot, are private.

Camain

The law is not about Christians vs. Gays (do you capitalize that?). It is very straightforward. Example: I hold a legal gathering, another group arrives and disrupts that legally arranged gathering. Not legally cool. Public gatherings are not battlegrounds, they are events arranged for a legal gathering. End example.

What the Christians did was predatory and confrontational. Legally - not cool. There is NO other argument. The acceptance or rejection of one side other's' position on the matter has NO legal relevance . . let's not discount the fact that they may well have known what they were doing was illegal, and exercised the option to attract public attention to the issue. In which case they are no better than political opportunists, and if I'm not mistaken, they need to examine their conscience to see if breaking the law is really the way to achieve their goals.

let me see if i get this straight. people come to your door and harass you for being christian because you do not have a cross in your yard warding them off?

that is the key. while i do not condone gays flaunting their sex lives publicly, you have to admit, they never go out of their way to tell any other group that they are not allowed to exist. they do not protest churches so i guess we see who is the better man.

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by camain
reply to post by xion329alpha

---

that is the key. while i do not condone gays flaunting their sex lives publicly, you have to admit, they never go out of their way to tell any other group that they are not allowed to exsist. they do not protest churches so i guess we see who is the better man.

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by pavil

---

i am interested in where you have the data backing this up. since tons of research shows that there are more broken homes with straight famlies than gay by exponential calculations, how can you even pretend to say this is true? based on what? all the single mothers that raise their kids with no deadbeat dad in sight?
what you say sounds right, seems good, just plain ol makes sense. unless you are not a closed minded bigot and take a look at some sociology books, national statitistics, or anything really. it feel good to just say stuff and think it is true doesnt it. too bad i keep saying millions of dollars show up at my door every day but that isnt panning out just yet. guess i dont have your "i said it so its true" magic.

Fewer than 20 empirical studies have been done on homosexual parents. These studies have been small, biased, and generally fail to address many of the traditional concerns regarding homosexual parenting. However, the limited evidence they have generated supports what common sense would expect.

The largest study, and the only one based on a random sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to:

1. report having had sex with a parent,
2. experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter,
3. be sexually molested,
4. become homosexual or bisexual, and
5. report dissatisfaction with their childhood.

The various studies, added together, suggest that the children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than children raised by the traditionally married.

Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue, that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested.

Finally, substantial evidence suggests that children of homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and taunted by their peers.

I like the way you use the word "them" because it implies homosexuals are not citizens of your country and are not entitled to the same rights. How would it be a disaster btw? This is not the 17th Century. We've moved on in the Western World and are extremely liberal - we do not restrict people's rights based on race or sexuality.