I'll go by California definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
You realize Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, right?
I'll go by California definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
Okay, name one society, one country, one race, that is sustained by gay marriage. Or better yet, one that can survive without traditional marriage. Then you would see how important traditional marriage is to the human society, and gay marriage is no where close to have the same function, same benefit for the society, and most importantly how gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage.
So, if a fast food company announced that a major share if its profits would be donated to organizations that are working to change the U.S. Constitution to legalize slavery or repeal voting rights for women or revoke the 1st Amendment - but you really, really liked the food there - you'd continue to "go to the business because they make great food?"
Didn't realize that my choice of a Char Grilled Chicken Salad for lunch would provoke such an analogy. It wasn't meant as a moral statement. It was meant to be lunch.
Also didn't realize it would provoke such hate. For example:
"ABC's The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren't in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ"
While I personally wouldn't go to an establishment just because the PC True Believers are boycotting it, I wouldn't stop going either.
But I want the haters to know that I wish you luck with your boycott. As I stated before, the lines are always to long when I stop to get my salad anyway,
Best of luck,
Uno
I haven't said anything vile.
There are many shades of gray in almost everything. It isn't as simple as I hate gays or I love gays. I personally don't care what they want to do, but I certainly do not hate them. I am not against them having rights either, they can have all the " Civil Unions " they want. They shouldn't be allowed to call it a marriage because it isn't one.
You are the one slinging shit in the thread with name calling etc... What would that make you? a lot like JohnOfSheffield above.
Okay, name one society, one country, one race, that is sustained by gay marriage. Or better yet, one that can survive without traditional marriage. Then you would see how important traditional marriage is to the human society, and gay marriage is no where close to have the same function, same benefit for the society, and most importantly how gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage.
I don't live in California. Thank God!
I'll go by California definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.
Okay, name one society, one country, one race, that is sustained by gay marriage. Or better yet, one that can survive without traditional marriage. Then you would see how important traditional marriage is to the human society, and gay marriage is no where close to have the same function, same benefit for the society, and most importantly how gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage.
The Mayor of Boston plans to block Chick-fil-A from setting-up shop in Boston.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/downtown/2012/07/boston_mayor_thomas_m_meninos.html
So much fail in a single post...
Sustaining society is not a requirement for making something permissible. One couple's marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) doesn't affect anyone else's marriage. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
"Traditional marriage" bears the same responsibilities it always has, whether gay marriage is allowed or not.
You cannot take away marriage because they never had it...
They could have a civil union. That would be fine with me and many others I am sure.
Rather than boycotting Chick-Fil-Hate, why don't the gays unite and become super-patrons, filling CFA stores with gays all over. Turn them all into gay restaurants (rather than gay bars)
This would be the greatest protest in Gay rights history.
Rather than boycotting Chick-Fil-Hate, why don't the gays unite and become super-patrons, filling CFA stores with gays all over. Turn them all into gay restaurants (rather than gay bars)
This would be the greatest protest in Gay rights history.
that would be awesome
gay day at chik fil a
No, not Gay Day.... Gay Every Day.
This, exactly. There should be no requirement to show that something "sustains society" or is good for society in order for government to allow it. If we are free creatures, then before constraining any bit of individual freedom government should show a pressing societal need or function that MUST be fulfilled or protected, which can ONLY be fulfilled or protected by constraining that bit of individual freedom.So much fail in a single post...
Sustaining society is not a requirement for making something permissible. One couple's marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) doesn't affect anyone else's marriage. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
"Traditional marriage" bears the same responsibilities it always has, whether gay marriage is allowed or not.
Rather than boycotting Chick-Fil-Hate, why don't the gays unite and become super-patrons, filling CFA stores with gays all over. Turn them all into gay restaurants (rather than gay bars)
This would be the greatest protest in Gay rights history.
"Just because people disagree with you, believe things you personally find hateful and make statements that curdle your innards, does not make them incapable of excellence. In fact, those qualities go hand in hand rather more often than one would like. Look at almost anyone who made anything beautiful ever. If the Victorians could still read Greek philosophy while intensely disapproving of the philosophers personal lives and we now consider the Victorian era to be benighted and repressed surely we can do people the same courtesy.
Judge the sandwich by the sandwich."
-- Washington Post
This, exactly. There should be no requirement to show that something "sustains society" or is good for society in order for government to allow it. If we are free creatures, then before constraining any bit of individual freedom government should show a pressing societal need or function that MUST be fulfilled or protected, which can ONLY be fulfilled or protected by constraining that bit of individual freedom.
This is increasingly true the more closely it affects an individual. As much as I dislike government seizing wealth because it thinks an individual has "enough" or prohibiting sale of large soft drinks because it thinks it knows best, the right to choose one's own spouse is a much more fundamental freedom. Accordingly, government must show a very important need to not allow gays to marry if it is to deny them that right. There is no such need other than preserving tradition. However, society has changed; gays are no longer fringe elements, but a reasonably mainstream minority accepted by the majority of non-gays. Preserving a tradition by force is only needed if that tradition is no longer embraced by the society, and at that point it's a constraint on freedom.
This is exactly analogous to anti-miscegenation laws; it directly affected no one if a black married a white, it only offended them. Gay marriage directly affects no one else, it only offends them. Constraining others' freedom and pursuit of happiness, denying some people equal protection under the law, because their otherwise lawful conduct offends you is an evil thing. If gay marriage offends G-d, and I (along with a sizable and increasing portion of Christianity) think it does not, G-d is a big boy and is certainly capable of letting them know when He thinks it's appropriate. In the mean time we're in the slightly ludicrous position of gays being able to get married in an increasing number of Christian and Jewish churches while being denied government sanction for that marriage - our intentionally non-sectarian government is actually preserving religious traditions more strenuously than are the actual Christian and Jewish sects. And it's all because of us voters, who value our own sense of propriety more than others' freedom.
Perhaps the Jewish Conservatives highest legal body, the Rabbinical Assemblys Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, said it best when they unanimously approved gay marriage and set guidelines. We acknowledge that these partnerships are distinct from those discussed in the Talmud as according to the law of Moses and Israel, but we celebrate them with the same sense of holiness and joy as that expressed in heterosexual marriages." Distinct and different from traditional marriage - but still marriage.
That would be awesome. Someone needs to come up with the lowest margin item so they minimize the profit that it brings though.
So we're getting ever closer to it being a crime to express your thoughts.