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.
They have grown up in a PC world where reality has been turned on its head. They have been told exactly what they shall think and what they shall not think from day one of their lives - it is all they have ever known. So naturally, when they see others dare to deviate from prescribed and demanded thought processes embedded in their young minds, they are aghast.
*LOL* Who exactly has been taught what they "shall think and what they shall not think from day one of their lives"? Couldn't be those who disagree with gay marriage based on certain readings of the Bible, could it? Talk about a "prescription." Those people can't think outside of very narrow, fundamentalist readings of the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
Yes, as Roadking said, they are to be pitied.
People who don't realize the difference between the privilege of a civil institution and religious beliefs are the ones to be pitied. If you are an American, such a thing should HORRIFY you, as this way of thinking has much in common with the Taliban!!!!
Last edited by helenejen; 07-22-2012 at 09:32 AM..
So a commandment morality as is common to religions is not the source of your motivation to deny a civil privilege to a group of fellow citizens? What is then?
So if we allow gays to marry then why not polygamist or sisters and brothers?
If we shouldnt deny the right to marry to two males, based on the priciple of equality then why not let marry sister and a brother or... two brothers ?
Once you tweek the definition of marriage making it more inclusive what is there to stop other groups of people such as polygamists from asking for the same?
So if we allow gays tmarry thnn why not polygamist or sisters and brothers?
If we shouldnt deny the right to marry to two males, based on the priciple of equality then why not let marry two brothers ?
This thread and many others already offer an explanation to your question. But to recap, allowing one consenting adult to marry another consenting adult does not at the same time make arguments for polygamy or incestual marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
Once you tweek the definition of marriage making it more inclusive what stopping other groups of people such as polygamists from asking for the same?
So if we allow gays tmarry thnn why not polygamist or sisters and brothers?
If we shouldnt deny the right to marry to two males, based on the priciple of equality then why not let marry two brothers ?
Once you tweek the definition of marriage making it more inclusive what stopping other groups of people such as polygamists from asking for the same?
Other than you, who is fighting for the right to marry a sibling? You understand the slippery slope argument isn't valid when there is no market for the abstract "examples" you're throwing out to justify the denial of inherent rights.
Other than you, who is fighting for the right to marry a sibling? You understand the slippery slope argument isn't valid when there is no market for the abstract "examples" you're throwing out to justify the denial of inherent rights.
Who says abstract? Polygamy had a huge market not so long ago and still has among some. If you allow gay marriage would allow gay marriage betwen brothers and why not? There is no medical contraindication, only moral and once you do away with moral objections, like in case of gay marriage, what is the reason to deny two siblings of the same sex to marry?
Then you must be a bigot according to the gay community... or at least some of the gay idiots on this board. You can't have it both ways. You either agree with them or you are a bigot.
He and his sons are not bigots. They either just don't have enough morals/pride/common sense/self-respect to give their $$ to a company that does not value or respect them. That doesn't make them bigots.
He and his sons are not bigots. They either just don't have enough morals/pride/common sense and foolishly give their $$ to a company that does not value or respect them. That doesn't make them bigots.
Exactly the point in a nutshell. Thank you.
I am also boycotting that fast food establishment.
I am also boycotting that fast food establishment.
When I was in center city years ago, I was surprised that you even had CFAs up there. I ate at one in a mall that was close to Independence Hall. It was not as clean, tasty or friendly as the other ones that I frequented. You're not missing much.
I am surprised how often this topic is coming up in gay circles. I was at a gay pride party yesterday when one of the guests received a tweet about it. Admittedly, some of them don't even have a CFA near them. Many of them are most likely sheepoids like most americans and don't really care. I stopped eating there about a year and a half ago, even though I ate there usually about 4-5 times a week. I had to wean myself off of them gradually cause I had been eating them since I was a kid.
I'm glad that the mayor of Boston took a stand against what CFA is doing. I hope that more mayors will follow his lead to block their expansion into progressive areas of the country. Hit where it hurts, silver and gold.
I ate there yesterday and I thought of this thread and chuckled.
Perhaps a better reason to boycott them is the fact the damn drive-thru line at lunch time is always backed up so far that often times it spills beyond the parking lot and backs up the main road leading into the place.
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.