"Homosexuality has no purpose other than hedonism." So then: Masturbation has no purpose than hedonism... Straight sex has no purpose other than hedonism, unless it is for the sole purpose of procreation...
Like Hillary has the sense to poor piss out of a boot. Does this look like a shrewd political operator to you?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5TnnPQtiTQ&feature=related
Ole Barry has a few alias himself: Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham. lol
People who masturbate are not asking for changes in the fundamental fabric of our society. Heterosexuality can lead to procreation and propagation of the species, and assets to society in future generations. Homosexuality leads to homosexuailty.
Hillary has a resume and the political and financial resources of a former first lady to a popular president. If there was a way to bring Obama down, she and her team would have discovered it, and driven it home.
Looks like marriage is overwhelmingly defined as a union between male and female. So what are gays trying to accomplish other than access to public funds via tax incentives to further an agenda that has no positive societal purpose?
Non responsive. According to your statement regarding homosexuality being an act of hedonism... then masturbation, or straight sex for anything but procreation is an act of hedonism... You are one strange dude. Check your calendar, puritanical or Victorian thinking about sex is not "normal." By the way, straight sex where one partner is sterile, or a woman is too old to have children, is also hedonism according to your twisted thinking...
Well 777, For someone who is well known to have seriously distorted filters you thinking that I am twisted is most likely a good thing. Again, if you think the culture of homosexuality is a good thing, go for it, just don't ask me to pay for it. The debate on natural vs unnatural will never be concluded decidedly in either direction because of various axes to grind. I personally do not care if you defend gays as some sort of expression of freedom, but trying to enact legislation to suggest that a behavior should be federally protected at the expense of the taxpayer is a slippery slope. Soon a group of people WILL want to marry their pets, etc. And they WILL use certain legal precedents as a foundation for it. Such social and moral decay is the fate of all empires at the end of the day however. Too much time on the hands of the citizenry.
"Soon a group of people WILL want to marry their pets, etc. And they WILL use certain legal precedents as a foundation for it." Not likely, unless it can be shown that pets are capable of adult consent...