I have heard a lot of reports on Judge Walker's decision in regard to Proposition 8 in California. Those on Morning Joe on MSNBC, particularly the Ice Woman, were particularly ecstatic.
I do find it odd that no one found it newsworthy to mention that Judge Walker is one of two known homosexuals on the Federal Bench. It would seem to me to be of some materiality. If this were an anti-immigration decision and Walker a member of the Tea Party, I'm sure that fact would be the lead in.
I was surprised, and disappointed, to see that Walker was nominated by GW Bush.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:I have heard a lot of reports on Judge Walker's decision in regard to Proposition 8 in California. Those on Morning Joe on MSNBC, particularly the Ice Woman, were particularly ecstatic.
I do find it odd that no one found it newsworthy to mention that Judge Walker is one of two known homosexuals on the Federal Bench. It would seem to me to be of some materiality. If this were an anti-immigration decision and Walker a member of the Tea Party, I'm sure that fact would be the lead in.
I was surprised, and disappointed, to see that Walker was nominated by GW Bush.
Because he's gay? That would be bigotry.
ukyfootball Wrote:Because he's gay? That would be bigotry.
No. That would be full disclosure. We don't see much full disclosure in present day America.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:I was surprised, and disappointed, to see that Walker was nominated by GW Bush.
Surprised and disappointed because W nominated a judge who issued a decision you disagree with or because W nominated a gay man for the federal bench?
The decision is my main concern.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:The decision is my main concern.
Then youre narrow minded. Everybody should have equal rights.
ukyfootball Wrote:Then youre narrow minded. Everybody should have equal rights.
A solid majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. Are all of them narrow minded? Do you believe that polygamous marriages between consenting adults should also be legal?
Hoot Gibson Wrote:A solid majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. Are all of them narrow minded? Do you believe that polygamous marriages between consenting adults should also be legal?
Thats comparing apples to oranges, because youre trying to tie in numbers with gender. And yes, they are. When most Americans opposed the abolition of slavery, were they narrowminded? Yes.
Just because something goes against your religion, doesnt mean other people cant do it. You do believe in separation of church and state, right?
ukyfootball Wrote:Thats comparing apples to oranges, because youre trying to tie in numbers with gender. And yes, they are. When most Americans opposed the abolition of slavery, were they narrowminded? Yes.
Just because something goes against your religion, doesnt mean other people cant do it. You do believe in separation of church and state, right?
Classic liberal dodge. Answer a question with a question and label people who disagree with you as "intolerant," "narrow-minded, " or "racist." There is much more of a historical precedent for polygamy than for gay marriage. It is very revealing that you say comparing gay marriage with polygamy is a case of comparing apples to oranges, and then without missing a beat you compare homosexuality - a behavior, with race - an innate physical characteristic. Hilarity ensues when liberals try their hand at logical debate. :Clap:
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Classic liberal dodge. Answer a question with a question and label people who disagree with you as "intolerant," "narrow-minded, " or "racist." There is much more of a historical precedent for polygamy than for gay marriage. It is very revealing that you say comparing gay marriage with polygamy is a case of comparing apples to oranges, and then without missing a beat you compare homosexuality - a behavior, with race - an innate physical characteristic. Hilarity ensues when liberals try their hand at logical debate. :Clap:
Im actually independent, but if you want to label me liberal then go ahead. However, what I was talking about is not comparing apples to oranges. What you said was comparing marriage between 2 people to numerous people marrying amongst themselves. What I compared are 2 matters that deal with bigotry and most of the nation has (at some point or another) spurned and hated both. Your claims of "logic" are also fallacious, to the point where I dont even know if you know what youre talking about.
On a separate note, homosexuality is not a choice, but rather something a person is born as. Whether you like it or not, gay marriage will eventually be allowed in America. Also, why would you even want to tell another person what they can or cant do (and eliminate big government)?
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Classic liberal dodge. Answer a question with a question and label people who disagree with you as "intolerant," "narrow-minded, " or "racist." There is much more of a historical precedent for polygamy than for gay marriage. It is very revealing that you say comparing gay marriage with polygamy is a case of comparing apples to oranges, and then without missing a beat you compare homosexuality - a behavior, with race - an innate physical characteristic. Hilarity ensues when liberals try their hand at logical debate. :Clap:
Can't stand when people do that.
ukyfootball Wrote:Im actually independent, but if you want to label me liberal then go ahead. However, what I was talking about is not comparing apples to oranges. What you said was comparing marriage between 2 people to numerous people marrying amongst themselves. What I compared are 2 matters that deal with bigotry and most of the nation has (at some point or another) spurned and hated both. Your claims of "logic" are also fallacious, to the point where I dont even know if you know what youre talking about.
On a separate note, homosexuality is not a choice, but rather something a person is born as. Whether you like it or not, gay marriage will eventually be allowed in America. Also, why would you even want to tell another person what they can or cant do (and eliminate big government)?
Lol, no.
ukyfootball Wrote:Im actually independent, but if you want to label me liberal then go ahead. However, what I was talking about is not comparing apples to oranges. What you said was comparing marriage between 2 people to numerous people marrying amongst themselves. What I compared are 2 matters that deal with bigotry and most of the nation has (at some point or another) spurned and hated both. Your claims of "logic" are also fallacious, to the point where I dont even know if you know what youre talking about.
On a separate note, homosexuality is not a choice, but rather something a person is born as. Whether you like it or not, gay marriage will eventually be allowed in America. Also, why would you even want to tell another person what they can or cant do (and eliminate big government)?
Still no answer to my original polygamy question. Instead you answer with more questions, driving home my point that you dodged the question and are employing all of the typical liberal tactics to avoid honest debate. You may call yourself an independent if you want, but your political positions and debating tactics scream liberal.
I would prefer that the federal government simply walk away from the institution of marriage altogether rather than providing its endorsement of the sham known as gay marriage. There are a compelling arguments to be made for the government actively encouraging heterosexual marriage because of its tendency to result in the birth of children, who immediately become somebody's dependents upon their birth. There is no such argument to be made for the government endorsing or encouraging gay marriage. Our court systems are over burdened as it is without adding thousands of gay divorces to their dockets for no good reason. All of the issues raised by gay couples such as property rights and hospital visitation rights can be handled legally between two adults and they can be addressed outside of the institution of marriage.
There is your apples and oranges comparison. There are good reasons that gay marriage has never been commonly sanctioned by governments over thousands of years of human history. Marriage, as a legal institution, exists primarily to provide support and rights for children, and to ensure the orderly and equitable transfer of property upon the death of the parents. You can make an argument against government involvement in the marriage between two heterosexuals incapable of producing heirs, so please spare me the liberal argument that many heterosexual unions do not result in offspring. The tax breaks for married couples were put in place to encourage propagation of our species.
As far as telling another person what he or she can and cannot do, our government does that everyday that we draw a breath and then takes control over the distribution of our assets upon our death. That is what laws do. Most conservatives believe that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of the government's business. It is none of my business either. But when the federal government starts requiring tax dollars to be used to promote a homosexual lifestyle and requiring gay partners to be provided tax funded benefits by virtue of their spouse's employment, then it becomes my business.
Now, do you want to take a shot at my question regarding polygamous marriage among consenting adults? What logical basis is there for denying polygamists the right to marry if you extend that right to gay couples?
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Still no answer to my original polygamy question. Instead you answer with more questions, driving home my point that you dodged the question and are employing all of the typical liberal tactics to avoid honest debate. You may call yourself an independent if you want, but your political positions and debating tactics scream liberal.
I would prefer that the federal government simply walk away from the institution of marriage altogether rather than providing its endorsement of the sham known as gay marriage. There are a compelling arguments to be made for the government actively encouraging heterosexual marriage because of its tendency to result in the birth of children, who immediately become somebody's dependents upon their birth. There is no such argument to be made for the government endorsing or encouraging gay marriage. Our court systems are over burdened as it is without adding thousands of gay divorces to their dockets for no good reason. All of the issues raised by gay couples such as property rights and hospital visitation rights can be handled legally between two adults and they can be addressed outside of the institution of marriage.
There is your apples and oranges comparison. There are good reasons that gay marriage has never been commonly sanctioned by governments over thousands of years of human history. Marriage, as a legal institution, exists primarily to provide support and rights for children, and to ensure the orderly and equitable transfer of property upon the death of the parents. You can make an argument against government involvement in the marriage between two heterosexuals incapable of producing heirs, so please spare me the liberal argument that many heterosexual unions do not result in offspring. The tax breaks for married couples were put in place to encourage propagation of our species.
As far as telling another person what he or she can and cannot do, our government does that everyday that we draw a breath and then takes control over the distribution of our assets upon our death. That is what laws do. Most conservatives believe that what consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of the government's business. It is none of my business either. But when the federal government starts requiring tax dollars to be used to promote a homosexual lifestyle and requiring gay partners to be provided tax funded benefits by virtue of their spouse's employment, then it becomes my business.
Now, do you want to take a shot at my question regarding polygamous marriage among consenting adults? What logical basis is there for denying polygamists the right to marry if you extend that right to gay couples?
I never said nor do I condone polygamy, which would be absolutely ludacris to think about.
Your fear of tax dollars being spent on homosexual couples shows yourself as a bigot. Even though tax dollars go to support a ton of other things (even black people, mind you), youre scared that homosexuals are going to get some money. All because your insecure, homophobic, or both.
Denying polygamists the right to marry would deal with the numers involved. Marriage between two people can be defined as girl guy, guy guy, or girl girl.\
On the other hand, Im sure you wouldnt mind having two girls marry though because "thats hot" as most guys say.
Aslan Wrote:Can't stand when people do that.
Lol, no.
Tons of evidence supports its by birth, so Im sorry youre narrow minded and insecure along with hoot.
"Research suggests that the homosexual
orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.
The question of whether someone was "really" straight or "really" gay misrecognizes the nature of sexuality, which is fluid, not fixed, a narrative that changes over time. . . . It reveals sexuality to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable and knowable state of being." âMarjorie Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, 1995
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation[/ame]
There you go. Sorry to give you older news that provides the material, but it just goes to show how out of touch you are.
ukyfootball Wrote:Tons of evidence supports its by birth, so Im sorry youre narrow minded and insecure along with hoot.
"Research suggests that the homosexual
orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.
The question of whether someone was "really" straight or "really" gay misrecognizes the nature of sexuality, which is fluid, not fixed, a narrative that changes over time. . . . It reveals sexuality to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable and knowable state of being." —Marjorie Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, 1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and...rientation
There you go. Sorry to give you older news that provides the material, but it just goes to show how out of touch you are.
Lol, great source. I'm not narrowed minded or insecure there, honky. I've known about this side of the argument since high school. Nature vs Nurture. There evidence to support this but its definitely not a fact. There's plenty of evidence for nurture too, which of course you didn't mention. IMO it's a choice.
ukyfootball Wrote:I never said nor do I condone polygamy, which would be absolutely ludacris to think about.
. IMO, none of the arguments that proponents of gay marriage use to make their case do not apply equally as well to polygamous marriages between consenting adults. To say that opponents of gay marriage are bigots but opponents of polygamy are not is ludicrous (note the correct spelling).
ukyfootball Wrote:Your fear of tax dollars being spent on homosexual couples shows yourself as a bigot. Even though tax dollars go to support a ton of other things (even black people, mind you), youre scared that homosexuals are going to get some money. All because your insecure, homophobic, or both.
The liberal in you surfaces yet again. Logic fails you, as it often does when liberals try rationalize weak, inconsistent positions, so you immediately resort to more insults.
I do not fear my tax dollars being spent on homosexuals - I strongly support providing homosexuals with the same employment benefits as heterosexuals. What I oppose is the payment of benefits to the "spouses" or domestic partners of gay government employees. If private companies want to voluntarily provide such benefits to their gay employees, then I also strongly support their right to do so.
As for the rest of your insults, they show you to have a very immature intellect. I suspect that you are an immature college kid whose liberal professors think is just swell.
ukyfootball Wrote:Denying polygamists the right to marry would deal with the numers involved. Marriage between two people can be defined as girl guy, guy guy, or girl girl.\
Marriage has a definite legal, historical, and traditional meaning in our culture and most other cultures around the world. You may define it however you wish to define it, but that does not make your definition any less wrong.
ukyfootball Wrote:On the other hand, Im sure you wouldnt mind having two girls marry though because "thats hot" as most guys say.
Unlike you, I strive to take political positions that are as logically consistent as I can make them. If two (or more) people of any sex want to take marriage vows in a church or in the privacy of their own home, then more power to them - but the federal government does not have a legitimate role to play in promoting or creating a legal institution of gay marriage.
On a final point, I cannot help but to notice the spelling errors and poor grammar of your response. For one who uses no apostrophes and is so quick to point out the minor spelling errors and grammar mistakes of others, I had expected better from you.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:. IMO, none of the arguments that proponents of gay marriage use to make their case do not apply equally as well to polygamous marriages between consenting adults. To say that opponents of gay marriage are bigots but opponents of polygamy are not is ludicrous (note the correct spelling).
The liberal in you surfaces yet again. Logic fails you, as it often does when liberals try rationalize weak, inconsistent positions, so you immediately resort to more insults.
I do not fear my tax dollars being spent on homosexuals - I strongly support providing homosexuals with the same employment benefits as heterosexuals. What I oppose is the payment of benefits to the "spouses" or domestic partners of gay government employees. If private companies want to voluntarily provide such benefits to their gay employees, then I also strongly support their right to do so.
As for the rest of your insults, they show you to have a very immature intellect. I suspect that you are an immature college kid whose liberal professors think is just swell.
Marriage has a definite legal, historical, and traditional meaning in our culture and most other cultures around the world. You may define it however you wish to define it, but that does not make your definition any less wrong.
Unlike you, I strive to take political positions that are as logically consistent as I can make them. If two (or more) people of any sex want to take marriage vows in a church or in the privacy of their own home, then more power to them - but the federal government does not have a legitimate role to play in promoting or creating a legal institution of gay marriage.
On a final point, I cannot help but to notice the spelling errors and poor grammar of your response. For one who uses no apostrophes and is so quick to point out the minor spelling errors and grammar mistakes of others, I had expected better from you.
Of course your response deals with personal attacks and the like. Im sorry its early in the morning, and im using a different computer than usual, but I also have a 4.0 gpa. Spin that how you like.
Your political position on this is very mixed. You think it should be allowed, but you dont want the government to promote gay marriage. Why? I dont know, but its weird.The government cant have gay employees, but private companies can? I'll chalk this up to your off base "logic."
Aslan Wrote:Lol, great source. I'm not narrowed minded or insecure there, honky. I've known about this side of the argument since high school. Nature vs Nurture. There evidence to support this but its definitely not a fact. There's plenty of evidence for nurture too, which of course you didn't mention. IMO it's a choice.
There were 3 sources there, numbsh!t.
ukyfootball Wrote:Of course your response deals with personal attacks and the like. Im sorry its early in the morning, and im using a different computer than usual, but I also have a 4.0 gpa. Spin that how you like.
Your political position on this is very mixed. You think it should be allowed, but you dont want the government to promote gay marriage. Why? I dont know, but its weird.The government cant have gay employees, but private companies can? I'll chalk this up to your off base "logic."
Here we see another liberal trait at work...mischaracterizing another person's position. I never said that the government cannot or should not employ gay people. You may have a 4.0 GPA - liberal professors like to hear their own words parroted by impressionable young students...but either your reading skills are lacking or you deliberately mischaracterized my position on the government policies regarding the employment of gay people.
ukyfootball Wrote:Tons of evidence supports its by birth, so Im sorry youre narrow minded and insecure along with hoot.
"Research suggests that the homosexual
orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.
The question of whether someone was "really" straight or "really" gay misrecognizes the nature of sexuality, which is fluid, not fixed, a narrative that changes over time. . . . It reveals sexuality to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable and knowable state of being." âMarjorie Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, 1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and...rientation
There you go. Sorry to give you older news that provides the material, but it just goes to show how out of touch you are.
I am not the one pushing a radical homosexual agenda and labeling everybody who disagrees with me a bigot. Those are the actions of a person who has some doubts about himself.
ukyfootball Wrote:Then youre narrow minded. Everybody should have equal rights.
I read a few more of your posts and realized that the quality of said posts indicates that they were made by an intellectual pygmy. Since I am not impressed by the touchy, feely, anything goes world of political correctness, I will proudly accept being called "narrow minded". Indeed, it is better to stand for something rather than to fall for everything. True principles and beliefs don't change to suit the "times".
GOD made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!!!
[quote=EOE]GOD made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!!!![
Wheres the proof of this?
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I am not the one pushing a radical homosexual agenda and labeling everybody who disagrees with me a bigot. Those are the actions of a person who has some doubts about himself.
Radical? Its just taking a stance on marriage. The answer is either yes or no. Sorry, your attempt at painting me as "radical" was lame, and a far-fetched reach.
When it comes down to it, your stance is either based on your religion or homophobic tendencies. The whole "reproduction" thing is whack because the Earth is already overpopulated.
ukyfootball Wrote:Radical? Its just taking a stance on marriage. The answer is either yes or no. Sorry, your attempt at painting me as "radical" was lame, and a far-fetched reach.
When it comes down to it, your stance is either based on your religion or homophobic tendencies. The whole "reproduction" thing is whack because the Earth is already overpopulated.
The earth is no overpopulated and the fact that crowded countries such as Japan and Singapore are well fed and sparsely populated areas of Africa suffer repeated famines is proof of that statement for anybody who is honest enough to investigate.
You can take a position in favor of gay marriage without labeling everybody who disagrees with you homophobes and bigots. You are probably unaware of the fact that there are many gay people who are opposed to gay marriage. Are they also homophobes in your opinion?
What about polygamists? You support gay marriage on the basis that everybody should have "equal rights" and that nobody has a right to tell gay people that they cannot marry. Given your extreme position, what do you believe gives you the right to deny consenting heterosexual adults the right to marry whomever they want? Are you a heterophobe?
Hoot Gibson Wrote:The earth is no overpopulated and the fact that crowded countries such as Japan and Singapore are well fed and sparsely populated areas of Africa suffer repeated famines is proof of that statement for anybody who is honest enough to investigate.
You can take a position in favor of gay marriage without labeling everybody who disagrees with you homophobes and bigots. You are probably unaware of the fact that there are many gay people who are opposed to gay marriage. Are they also homophobes in your opinion?
What about polygamists? You support gay marriage on the basis that everybody should have "equal rights" and that nobody has a right to tell gay people that they cannot marry. Given your extreme position, what do you believe gives you the right to deny consenting heterosexual adults the right to marry whomever they want? Are you a heterophobe?
You dont seem to get the point that everybody should have equal rights to a certain degree. Its one thing to deem marriage between two people, its another to bring along huge psychological effects that polygamy bring along. On the same note, a terrorist shouldnt have equal rights to "work" where he wants, just as freedom of speech does not mean people have the freedom to say whatever they want. Unfortunately, you dont understand that the laws of America are very ambiguous.
As for ****er, you couldnt be more wrong. By your logic, (karmas a b!tch), we can compare a poor and wealthy area of earth, and just because the wealthy area is doing fine means everything else is fine. What you fail to acknowledge is the country of India, where not only 7000 Indians die each day of ****er, but 212 million people suffer from being undernourished.
Keep wearing your rose-colored glasses, but your "education" (do you have any?) is not shining through, and you seem to be an old traditionalist.
ukyfootball Wrote:You dont seem to get the point that everybody should have equal rights to a certain degree. Its one thing to deem marriage between two people, its another to bring along huge psychological effects that polygamy bring along. On the same note, a terrorist shouldnt have equal rights to "work" where he wants, just as freedom of speech does not mean people have the freedom to say whatever they want. Unfortunately, you dont understand that the laws of America are very ambiguous.
As for ****er, you couldnt be more wrong. By your logic, (karmas a b!tch), we can compare a poor and wealthy area of earth, and just because the wealthy area is doing fine means everything else is fine. What you fail to acknowledge is the country of India, where not only 7000 Indians die each day of ****er, but 212 million people suffer from being undernourished.
Keep wearing your rose-colored glasses, but your "education" (do you have any?) is not shining through, and you seem to be an old traditionalist.
More insults and more illogic. Is that all you've got? Polygamy has a long history of being sanctioned in many cultures, which gay marriage does not. Yet, you support gay marriage and oppose the legal marriage of polygamists. There is no rational basis for supporting gay marriage and not the other. I oppose both. However, I would decriminalize consential polygamy. Sending people to prison for polygamy is a gross miscarriage of justice and a waste of resources. Polygamy should be a civil offense in cases where all parties to the marriage consented.
You have already established your ignorance in world history and effective debating tactics and you dare question other people's education? At least you have a sense of humor. :lmao:
Liberals have been blaming famines on overpopulation for many decades at least. They were doing so when I was a child your age and they will be doing so a century from now.
Nobody has ever starved because our planet cannot produce enough food to feed them. People generally starve because food is not distributed effectively, and this is usually the result of corrupt governments. Countries do not grow prosperous by accident nor do they grow poor by accident. In countries suffering famine, it is more usual than not that food rots in warehouses while people starve nearby.
As for your starvation statistics for India, I suspect that they are bogus. It would be helpful if you provided links when you make such claims. ****er is a problem in India but 7,000 deaths a day sounds like a bogus statistic made up by some left wing group (the UN, perhaps?) seeking money. Regardless of the veracity of your claim, nobody has ever died because of global over population. Those who starve to death do so because of local conditions and political circumstances.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:More insults and more illogic. Is that all you've got? Polygamy has a long history of being sanctioned in many cultures, which gay marriage does not. Yet, you support gay marriage and oppose the legal marriage of polygamists. There is no rational basis for supporting gay marriage and not the other. I oppose both. However, I would decriminalize consential polygamy. Sending people to prison for polygamy is a gross miscarriage of justice and a waste of resources. Polygamy should be a civil offense in cases where all parties to the marriage consented.
You have already established your ignorance in world history and effective debating tactics and you dare question other people's education? At least you have a sense of humor. :lmao:
Liberals have been blaming famines on overpopulation for many decades at least. They were doing so when I was a child your age and they will be doing so a century from now.
Nobody has ever starved because our planet cannot produce enough food to feed them. People generally starve because food is not distributed effectively, and this is usually the result of corrupt governments. Countries do not grow prosperous by accident nor do they grow poor by accident. In countries suffering famine, it is more usual than not that food rots in warehouses while people starve nearby.
As for your starvation statistics for India, I suspect that they are bogus. It would be helpful if you provided links when you make such claims. ****er is a problem in India but 7,000 deaths a day sounds like a bogus statistic made up by some left wing group (the UN, perhaps?) seeking money. Regardless of the veracity of your claim, nobody has ever died because of global over population. Those who starve to death do so because of local conditions and political circumstances.
Yet you refuse to say what education you have? Thats a nice way to dodge a question.
Also, those countries are third-world and usually have corrupt governments. Yet, whether you like it or not, you should know gay marriage will eventually be passed in America.
http://www.bhookh.com/****er_facts.php
Theres the link to the site, which is from google and not some "left wing group." However, this shows that you are narrow minded. Even before providing the link, you go in to reading it with the thought that its a bogus website, with propaganda that you dont want to hear. You cant possibly get over the fact that 7000 Indians die per day from huinger, and there's not enough food in the world to feed them. Youre a Republican though, so I guess you probably think its ok.
Ignorance in world history? How so? You keep sending personal attacks yet when I ask about them you cant back up your reasoning, or "logic."
The problem I have with polygamy is that it is deemed a religious practice by its procurers when in all actuality it is a cover for child sexual abuse and a haven for dirty old men.
ukyfootball Wrote:Yet you refuse to say what education you have? Thats a nice way to dodge a question.
Also, those countries are third-world and usually have corrupt governments. Yet, whether you like it or not, you should know gay marriage will eventually be passed in America.
http://www.bhookh.com/****er_facts.php
Theres the link to the site, which is from google and not some "left wing group." However, this shows that you are narrow minded. Even before providing the link, you go in to reading it with the thought that its a bogus website, with propaganda that you dont want to hear. You cant possibly get over the fact that 7000 Indians die per day from huinger, and there's not enough food in the world to feed them. Youre a Republican though, so I guess you probably think its ok.
Ignorance in world history? How so? You keep sending personal attacks yet when I ask about them you cant back up your reasoning, or "logic."
Btw, the part of the link that is blacked out is h u n g