Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then why are you not trying to get marriage on a federal scale? You can't get your rights on a state scale. why isn't your leader Obama trying to help? Why are you NOT protesting Obama for not helping you? You can only get what you want from the government so why are you not protesting them? so you want to marry for rights not love, gotcha.
DOMA is on it's way to the supreme court. That will more than likely handle the federal issue.
I AM working on the state level too.
Did you only marry for rights? If you have a state issued marriage license then, according to your own logic, you married for rights not love.
Why does that matter? Are you now saying I have to prove benefits to marry a person or thing?
Maybe it's emotional. Lot's of people would rather marry a dog than a person.
The whole marriage debate is about obtaining state recognition of marriages. Like it or not, the scope of such recognition changes over time. Up until 1967 it was illegal in certain states for black man to marry a white woman. Would you have complained at the time that legalizing those marriages constituted a dangerous "redefinition" of marriage? After all, marriage before then was defined exclusively as the union of two people of the same race.
Yes. The iconoclasts want to do with Chick-fil-A what they did with the school system, and what they'd like to do with the Boy Scouts.
If you can't beat em, join em... change and destroy em.
Backlash is coming.
Yep! We know what the scumbag Occupy Wall Street crowd did. I can most definitely see a major problem brewing. Somebody is ganna get hurt (ass-kicking) or killed out there - just watch and see...
Yes. The iconoclasts want to do with Chick-fil-A what they did with the school system, and what they'd like to do with the Boy Scouts.
If you can't beat em, join em... change and destroy em.
Backlash is coming.
One would hope, but I honestly don't see where enough backlash is going to come from to stop this nonsense or to salvage whatever little common sense that remains in our public policies. Given that it was almost effortless to persuade mindless zombies by the millions that the "gay" rights issue is equivalent to the racial civil rights movement in the 60s, it may well take a new colony on another planet to turn reality rightside up again.
I'm not sure this is a matter of "freedom of speech" as it is legally protected. There may be some misguided grandstanding by a few politicians, but it wouldn't succeed if they tried to actually orchestrate some form of censorship.
The impression that I get is that Cathy was just exercising freedom of speech, so people should just leave him alone. Theroretically I agree with that, but in reality saying an unwelcome thing has negative social consequences all the time. Legally of course he can say it, but just try saying what's on your mind to your boss, or during a job interview and then follow up by saying, "It's free speech". No crime was broken of course, but good luck keeping or getting the job by then appealign to free speech. Same situation here. It's a disingenuous defense.
The whole marriage debate is about obtaining state recognition of marriages. Like it or not, the scope of such recognition changes over time. Up until 1967 it was illegal in certain states for black man to marry a white woman. Would you have complained at the time that legalizing those marriages constituted a dangerous "redefinition" of marriage? After all, marriage before then was defined exclusively as the union of two people of the same race.
No, the debate is about defining marriage to fit selected people's interests. You want to change the definition to include a very small minority but exclude another small minority. That's hypocritical.
I have never complained about interracial marriage. Did you? Do you support interracial marriage?
How is someone voicing their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, hate?
Could someone tell me where he makes a disparaging remark towards gays? Did they even bother to actually listen to his words, or was the mention of God enough to drive the "too far left to care" batsh^t crazy?
''How is someone voicing their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, hate?''
It's NOT.
Of course, if the liberal 'left' can't distort the facts from the truth, then they can't spin or deflect for their intention to deceive and brainwash ignorant people...in order to get them to buy the LIE.
If you'd rather ignore the reality that some Chik-Fil-A supporters are rabidly bigoted against gays, that's entirely up to you. Doesn't mean that pointing that out is invalid or absurd.
Ignore? No, it is simple logic that there will be people in various groups that are the stereotype that serves a given agenda.
If we apply your reasoning in general, then white people are all racist hate mongers because a portion may be of the KKK.
Black people must all be racist hate mongers as well because a portion of them have hate groups.
Heck, I guess gays are hate mongers as well, because well... get the idea?
It is called a generalization. You are attempting to take 50 internet tweets and then are trying to use that specific subset as the flagship to make your point.
It is illogical, it is absurd, it is plain stupid.
You go ahead though and keep beating that dog into pulp, maybe you can find someone dumb enough to believe that garbage you are spewing.
The whole marriage debate is about obtaining state recognition of marriages. Like it or not, the scope of such recognition changes over time. Up until 1967 it was illegal in certain states for black man to marry a white woman. Would you have complained at the time that legalizing those marriages constituted a dangerous "redefinition" of marriage? After all, marriage before then was defined exclusively as the union of two people of the same race.
No it wasn't. You are talking a relatively brief period in American history. In three thousand years of Western civilization it ban on interracial marriages is not at all significant.
It is called a generalization. You are attempting to take 50 internet tweets and then are trying to use that specific subset as the flagship to make your point.
It is illogical, it is absurd, it is plain stupid.
Then by the same token, it is also illogical, absurd, and stupid to draw any generalizations from that video of the pro-gay CEO abusing a poor Chik-Fil-A employee.
By the way, I've repeatedly gone out of my way -- contrary to what you insinuate above -- to avoid claiming that those tweets represent a majority of Chik-Fil-A supporters. If you can't perceive that, then you might consider working on your reading comprehension skills.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
