Gay Rights

Thanks for the debate =)"Letting GM be allowed won't stop AIDS. It will always be around no matter what. "It's true, but allowing it won't stop the spread, or slow it down. Also when married you have trust then you do it then its a whoops moment. This can happen to anyone. But chances are is that jack did have a careless. Also as shown below, since they have many partners they spread it a lot. So yes, even marriage doesn't stop it, and helps spread it because of the stats stated. "How does that prove anything? Christains (which I am) shouldn't hate gays. There is nothing in that snipbit that proves this point."I agree, I do not hate gays. But religeon bans them from marriage. So you brougt up christianity, my duty was to refute it, and it was done. The bible bans it. So I have refuted your argument with the verses above. "Im sorry, but this is unclear."I was refuting this:"Christian stuffGay people could be an atheist. Would it be good ethics to apply Christian rules one atheist? "And it was refuted. I will use the same erses again. Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah) Leviticus 18:22 Romans 1:17-32 1 Corinthians 6:9-13 (and 1 Timothy 1:9-14)that is my proof, and if you don't belive this is ani-gay then look it up. "Because there is no good reason why not.As said, your giving special rights to non-gays."Since you where proposing this law you had the BOP, you never fufiled that ey deserve these non-gay rights. "This is what I like to call "the Nature Fallacy". You cant say GM is bad because it is unnatural, because not all unnatural things are bad. Houses, cars, books, meds, clothes etc. You need more then "Because it is unnatural" It is an important reason, why give rights to a non exitant race? If it is unnatural then they do not exist. So giving rights to non existant beings is odd. There is evidence for both sides, odd you didn't try to refute it. "Banning GM wont stop this."Legilizing it won't either. Guys look at m former argument for more info. "So? What is stopping them from finding a nice person? "Nothing, I am just saying that their at a higher risk. By a lot. Another reason to ban gay marriage. Now I feel like adding more arguments, voters please don't say drops count as conssecions, but add thes in to my final arguments,These arguments are written by a gay person I think due to his "we view" things and sytax. Gay relationships are qualitatively different from straight relationships. We understand sex differently; we have a different model for what our partners means to us and their places in our lives. The fundamental model of marriage that most heterosexuals embrace--and famously proclaim as "family values"--just doesn't apply to us. And we shouldn't want it to. [1] Gay relationships are not based on this kind of attraction at all. Sexual attraction is not about the complementarity of the physical organs. Gay people don't have sex in order to complete a bio-hormonal process. Our sex is not about glands and organs. Gay people don't see their partners as "other halves,"with body parts and traits and gender-defined roles that complete them. [1]I think that he is saying that gay s*x isn't for love, rather for pleasure, downgrading the point of marriage. I do not know how true that is, but this PHD guy must have some truth in there. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is always constitutional.the gay crowd alwys says that it isn't = because it doesn't have tax benifits, yes it does because you file taxes as partered, married, single etc. Robert Knight, are critical because they say civil unions endow the same rights and privileges of heterosexual marriages — alleging that they allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.http://www.lsnjlaw.org...well thats it...have fun! vote con! or po whichever one you thought won. =)http://tobyjohnson.com... [1]