And I'm saying those people are being inconsistent and selective about what they oppose and what they tolerate. They're staunch opposition to homosexuality looks completely arbitrary, when you look at all the other "sins" that they seem to reluctantly tolerate. Why can't they reluctantly tolerate homosexual marriages too? Also, homosexuals aren't trying to case trouble. They only want to case fun.
I dunno, like I said, I don't care about gay marriages because it doesn't effect me. If gay people start running the streets trying to gay rape me with their spouses, then it would be a problem. Anyways, once again, I never said whether the voting was right or wrong. I'm just saying that's how some people may be voting. Get off of my dick and go harass Mamba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Patterns_of_occurrence_worldwide According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5]</sup>At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple.
That's nuts. Why are there gay people at all if they're raised by heterosexuals? (Duh) There's zero correlation between having gay parents or adoptive parents and the child being gay, too.
http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128283&page=3 That is a more detailed thread imo. Just to let you know, I don't care either way.
Oh come on. There are obvious correlations when it comes to politics, financial status, and other things, but when it comes to sexual orientation there is ZERO correlation? Yeah right.
Like I said, I dunno the actual prop in itself, I'm just commenting on heresay. I even believe that I included the IF part to my statement about it.
It was based off of religious freedom. You must be fucking dense. Their fucking agenda? They were born gay! They want to be happy, in "the land of" fucking "freedom". Perhaps gays don't care about married in the religious sense. What about the government side? Tax benefits? Also, I don't think they really give a shit if they're accepted or not. As long as they can live their life with their married partner. Sure, if they walk around whipping their Syphilis infected cocks in everyone's face then that'd be a bitch, but I don't see those shenanigans going on.
It's not even a matter of "if" it's just a silly idea to begin with. People have anal sex and that's not in the curriculum. Go on teaching sex ed like they normally would: orientation is a separate issue and wouldn't affect the schools.
-.- You aren't getting where I'm coming from. I don't know the actual proposition besides the fact that it has to do with gay marriage. Now I was listening on the radio (not a frequent thing that I do) and they said something about it being gay marriage being taugh in schools. I addressed both elementary and upper education because I don't want to sit here and just ASSUME that they are or are not teaching it to little kids. I don't like assuming things period, so I might as well cover all grounds. Trust me, I have nothing against gays and I hate how people are trying to prohibit them from legally getting married. It has no effect on the straight people, so leave them alone.
That's what my point was... I guess I haven't been writing it clearly with all this talk. I heard someone say they wanted gay marriage to be taught in schools, so I said, "I don't want gay marriage taught in schools". I guess I didn't make it clear that they should just teach the concept of marriage period. -.-
I personally prefer that they just say that marriage is a joining of two individuals and leave it at that.
Also this whole me not being clear stuff....is why I wish I could just personally SAY things to people.
