THEMASKEDMAN52

I don't think it would be any better to have homosexual parents. But I don't think it would be any worse either. As far as I'm aware, people's parenting skills are not affected by their sexual preferences (unless of course they stray into the realms of paedophilia, but that isn't the issue here). Think about it, you're saying that you would make a better parent than me because you're homosexual and I'm not. I know that's probably not what you meant, but I think your use of the term "better" may have been an unwise decision. People should be regarded as individuals and not be judged by their sexuality. What I meant to say is I'd make a better parent then anyone who's homophobic or preaching intolerance. I didn't mean to say I'm any better, being gay I don't deserve special treatment (I already hate that other minorities get it now), but I was more-so referring that straight and gay couples combined (as well as bi, transgender, transsexual, etc), who teach tolerance are better parents. But then again, I'm not saying this is true for all gay parents, because it's not, some people preach intolerance against straights, or bi people, or transgenders, or transsexuals, which is all equally wrong. Sorry if it came off wrong.

I used to love taking orb pictures and getting people to believe my house was haunted. And it actually worked a few times too.

Say Russia did attack Estonia (Lithuania or Latvia). Do you think NATO would really be all that helpful? As much as I agree NATO is a good idea, I'm partial to trusting they'll do any better job than the UN if something like this were to occur.

I think it would be better to have gay or lesbian parents. They'd be teaching the kid(s) tolerance. Not to say heterosexuals don't, but not all heterosexuals do. In nature many animals are raised by neither parent. And they can be masculine, feminine, gay, lesbian, even transsexual. I know plenty of adopted children with two moms or two dads, and one with a transsexual mother. Last I checked they were all straight, avid partakers in their community, church goers, and very very stable.

Summed it up pretty much right there. No, I do not believe I have a soul.

Russia is making nuclear weapons. They've got a running factory on Novaya Zemlya. (Don't quote me on any of that.) Also, they are messing with Estonia, which means they're trying to secretly instigate something. But this is all Putin, and he's bringing Russia back into its former darker past aka the USSR/Soviet Union. He needs to be impeached from office so the Post-USSR Gorbachev-Russia can continue onward and leave its dark depressing past behind.

So by your logic every child raised by divorced parents where they basically live with one parents is also in jeopardy? Wow, well you better get busy, you've got a lot of kids to save, like half the country or so.

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive. Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved.

I thought history taught us, "Seperate but equal, is not equal".

I would like to pose a question to all Canadians, Spaniards, Belgians, South Africans, or Dutch that post on this forum. After your country legalized Gay Marriage, do you feel the fabric of your society has been torn at the seams? The very core infiltrated with evil? Do you feel your country will fall like the Roman Empire, due to legalizing Gay Marriage? Answer honestly. *Edit* This is not what I believe, it's what homophobic Americans believe will happen to America say Gay Marriage is legalized.

Well said. =D>

Advertising, duh. Have you see Yahoo!'s home page.

In two people under the age of consent agree to have sex, and they are caught. Is it rape, and who do they charge, the guy or the girl, if they both agreed equally to do it?

Went to U of M in 1997, got my bachelors in International Business. Graduated in 2001. I need to go back for my Masters pretty soon.

Thank God I never have to deal with it! Woot! :D

My apologies, all along I thought you were against it. I agree it shouldn't be the biggest issue, but it still needs to be done. It should a non-issue.

If it's a stupid issue, why is it an issue now? Why don't we have gay marriage, no DADT, why do they still exists? As you say, it's a stupid issue. A big one at that.

No it's not. The vagina has tons of protection that tries to kill the sperm. Both of you need to explain infertile people.

Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Belgium, and the Netherlands, that's it. Now, I want to ask any Canadians or any Dutch people here whether or not the fabric of their society has been torn by allowing gay marriage. America needs gay marriage, not gay civil unions, separate but equal, is not equal. Since homosexuality is something that we DON'T choose (ask the 1500 can be gay animals) it is equivalent to racism. Besides, I don't get it, you don't want $1 billion+ extra tax dollars? Also, it is legal in America to deny someone a job because of their sexual orientation. Heck, even the military uses it with DADT.

We need to stop it at the source. People should always use protection. If that happened, abortion wouldn't cross a persons mind. Most kids in gangs came from poor familys where they were most likely not wanted in the first place. Just using protection is the perfect solution. And there are plenty of fossil fuels left (They might be in Alaska or the Pacific but they're out there). Plus by 2020, there will probably be a better invention anyway. Those fossil fuels are close to impossible to mine, mining them would sky rocket gas prices because of the cost alone. Protection doesn't always work. And we have another problem, those in third world countries such as India and China don't know about protection, they don''t use it. And the governments don't give a crap about it, and America can't be the world police. It's a quagmire no matter how you look at it, so let's keep our options open. The last thing we need to do is eliminate our exits.

Yes, it should be. We need to vote candidates who aren't afraid of change, and are willing to live up to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION which says, "everyone is equal". What you're saying is essentially (in a context of past events): We shouldn't vote a president during the Civil Rights era based on if they believe in equality for all races or not. Or we shouldn't vote a president because of whether or not they support equal rights for woman. These issues are important. It's on the level of racism denying us rights, and is very important, especially in the '08 elections, because the generation of tomorrow wants to make a change, and improve America. "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?" ~President Abraham Lincoln This whole debate stems from people being afraid of change, afraid of people unlike them. What about poverty? sickness? disabled people? Do they suddenly not matter because everyone cares about a stupid issue?! And comparing homo-sexualty to womens'/slaves' rights duringthe Civil War doesn't make any sense. During those times, slaves were beaten and women were abused on a daily bases and had no rights at all. A home-sexual individal isn't going to be hanged for their differences. They all are important respectably. Slaves were beaten, but I'm talking Civil Rights, colored vs. white, it was worse yes, but they weren't beaten. We can be denied rights in employment, we can't get married and give the USA $1 billion dollars in extra taxes because of the Married Tax Penalty law, the list goes on. And for your information, homosexuality is a high penalty in over half the world's countries, with a few even having the death penalty. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/World_homosexuality_laws.png

It shouldn't happen. But the most important thing is that we keep abortion a choice. We do not need to have more unwanted children in our foster homes, not being adopted, and then getting on the street and getting in gangs. Especially, when gays can't adopt, which would lower the rate by half. Plus, we don't need unwanted children when the world's population is 6 billion, it was 4 billion in 1970, and will be 9 billion in 2050 if countries like India and China and even the USA keep it up. And then we will run out of resources, we will have no more fossil fuels by 2020, or even sooner, and other resources will run low as well if we reach 9 billion people by 2050.

Yes, it should be. We need to vote candidates who aren't afraid of change, and are willing to live up to the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION which says, "everyone is equal". What you're saying is essentially (in a context of past events): We shouldn't vote a president during the Civil Rights era based on if they believe in equality for all races or not. Or we shouldn't vote a president because of whether or not they support equal rights for woman. These issues are important. It's on the level of racism denying us rights, and is very important, especially in the '08 elections, because the generation of tomorrow wants to make a change, and improve America. "What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?" ~President Abraham Lincoln This whole debate stems from people being afraid of change, afraid of people unlike them.

Besides being misinformed, that idea is seriously stupid to put it bluntly. Oh yeah, let's make a law on the 2% who are promiscuous, out of what, 10% (including bisexuals) of Americans who are gay. And let the other 90% of straight Americans having sex and popping out unwanted babies 100x faster continue doing it. Smart one...

It's a choice to act straight, how would you feel if you weren't allowed to act on it. I think I love you. Just curious. But nothing is black and white in nature, so don't worry.