1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality”

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 12:12 PM
they shouldn't marry then.
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality”

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 12:05 PM
Yes they will probably get their rights and then (maybe, who knows) you will see the effects it has on society and you might even live long enough to regret it (unless you die young, one never knows)
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality”

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 12:03 PM
lol, sure they demand the goodies, otherwise they could live peacefully. no one would say anything if they would know their place.
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality”

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 11:55 AM
Good points Anom
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality”

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 11:54 AM
all men are equal, but homosexuality is not a 'type' of men, it is a behaviour. that does not mean it should be equal to other behaviours. a lot of you seem to miss that.
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality” Part 2

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 11:49 AM
let me correct my post. that is not the ORIGINAL definition of marriage. of course they changed it because of the pressure. theyre no saints
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality” Part 2

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 11:47 AM
a marriage is a marriage as long as it is between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. a gay marriage is not a marriage. the same examples (as the ones you mentioned) cannot be used for it is not the same thing. for one thing, a gay marriage does not procreate. and whether you like it or not that is part of a natural marriage. it is not ALL about sex ofc, but that is part of it. so stop saying, oh you think of sex only. no i don;t but that is one of the functions of a marriage that cannot be replaced by your so called 'marriages' of gay people
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality” Part 2

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 11:42 AM
if you are revolted by 14year olds getting married, then why are you surprised people are revolted by gay marriages? it's still not a marriage in the true sense of the wrod
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality” Part 2

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 11:42 AM
yes because it has been recently changed. the original definition included no such thing.
In response to:

The Case Against “Equality” Part 2

Simplicity Wrote: Mar 02, 2013 11:40 AM
telling someone that they are wrong can be an act of love. You want them to be int he right. I don't know what you're babbling on about. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Now gays want to change that so that it can fit their desires. All I'm asking is for them to come up with their own word for their 'marriage' and that way they will be left alone.
1 - 10 Next