YES Network.com

Feb 23, 2012 -- 10:11PM, HeatMiser wrote:

Feb 23, 2012 -- 9:18PM, Demonseed wrote:

On what grounds can we consider people equal under the law and deny them the same rights and protections as everyone else? 

They're not denied the same rights and protections. Isn't that the point? You'd figure they'd be content with what they've acquired -- and I think most of them are.

Feb 23, 2012 -- 9:18PM, Demonseed wrote:

Clinging on to the word marriage now, is reactionary.  In a Country with a divorce rate of 50% and about 50% of married people admit to having affairs, suddenly we want to talk about the sanctity of marriage because homosexuals are threatening our Moral Foundations?  Not to sound cynical here, but really?

This is off topic, but I have to question that oft-cited divorce rate. Are 50% of the people you know divorced? Think about it. I've met a lot of people over the years, from all walks of life, and, in my experience, it's not even close to 50%. Not even close.

Something has to be skewing that number. Maybe people like Elizabeth Taylor.

I understand what you are saying, but just for a moment pretend this was the 60 years ago and read that statement aloud.  I bet it would be pretty accurate in describing another minority group. 

As far as the divorce rate, that is from the census bureau.  I guess it can be misleading in how it is presented.  For example, they are taking the number of new marriages in a given year vs the number of new divorces in a given year.  I don't know how else you would calculate the numbers though. 

Right about now, I think a lot of these 'religious' themed topics could be debated for months, but it is pretty pointless.  In the end women who work for Catholic Hospitals will get Contraceptives, Gays will get married, the republicans will lose the election because of it (unless the economy crashes). 

Unlike the cowardly bigot from NJ..........

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes in Maryland; Governor Expected To Sign It - Unlike New Jersey's 'Straight Shooter'

Except for the religious bias involved there is no real reason not to allow gay marriages. I think it is unseemly, but then I think the rampant acceptance of polygamy is unseemly also, especially when one is running for public office.

Feb 25, 2012 -- 8:16PM, MajorYankFan wrote:

Do you think a couple of pervs like Rush or

Newt would be allowed to remarry

for the trillionth time if it was left to

a popular vote?

Both of these two criminals are part of

counterculture of the far-right.

what's perverted about trading in yor wife for a better and younger one every 4-7 years???  seriously - isn't that the real American dream??