zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,116
- 30,064
- 146
Not the same thing. Being black is not a genetic defect.
again--you are a sub-human piece of trash.
genetic defect? You want to talk to me about that?
Not the same thing. Being black is not a genetic defect.
No, I don't care what they do to or with one another. Accept for this. I just don't get why they insist on gays having a " marriage ". It would be fine to have their gay union and the rights etc that would go with a legal union. I have nothing against gay people.
I hate the fact that they feel that they must bastardize marriage into something that it isn't and shouldn't be. It has nothing to do with the " Separate but equal " argument as many want to lead it back to. A gay union plainly isn't the same thing as a marriage. About this I do care a great deal.
I did once in Vallejo for a couple of years. That was back when it was almost normal though. 1973 - 74.
You can't twist my words into what you want. You just want to appear cute, but it isn't working.
Um, I don't know Reverend White, but the other two articles have nothing to do with Reverend White; one is about Rahm Emanuel welcoming Louis Farrakhan (who evidently does represent Chicago values, and G-d have mercy on Chicagoans) and the other is about Boston's Menino banning soft drinks and junk food. Neither has anything to do with Obama.you were doing so well in this thread...
bu to think that Rev White has anything ot do with Obama...sigh, might as well parrot out BILL AYERS! BILL AYERS! BILL AYERS! BILL AYERS BILL AYERS! and be done with it. sigh....
I mean, your trying to ascribe the rantings of an enraged lunatic who had only fringe relation to Obama, to the president's own sense of social justice, is as accurate as my summarily linking you to the value system of one Sarah Palin. You know....because.
Dude, you got that all wrong (that is Newark's motto)
Here is the real motto:
Chicago--vote early, and vote often!
Um, I don't know Reverend White, but the other two articles have nothing to do with Reverend White; one is about Rahm Emanuel welcoming Louis Farrakhan (who evidently does represent Chicago values, and G-d have mercy on Chicagoans) and the other is about Boston's Menino banning soft drinks and junk food. Neither has anything to do with Obama.
Antonine Dodson from the viral 2010 video, Bed Intruder Song (Hide Yo Kids, Hide Yo Wife), on Chick Fil A.
Video
Uno
As for the bolded, I've always thought that this was the killer argument for the fundamentalists, but one has to realize that such realities do not reflect a world in which homosexuality was "made by god."
I never said that I disagree with gays getting married due to their genetic defect. I am against them trying to change marriage into something that it wasn't meant to be.
What I have said and will say once more is that a gay civil union is not and can never be a marriage. Marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. A legal union between two males or females is not a marriage.
private company is perfectly with their right to "refuse service to anyone, for their own reason," just as public/corporation/government is perfectly within its right to let private company know just how they feel about those actions, and act accordingly.
simply put: local government distributes zoning permits. If a private entity or corp (remember--SCOTUS recently ruled that corporation = individual so...this really fucks over Chik Fil-A, don't you think? ) does not match the standards required by local government to obtain said permit, then they are SOL. Boo-fucking hoo. Continue selling your chicken to the trash that agrees with you.
For me its all about hypocrisy. "Christian values" are trampled on every day by the very people who howl about gays. If Chik fil A really cared about Christian values they would offer their employees a living wage, health insurance, etc. They would sell healthy food instead of heart clogging cholesterol.
How much money did Chik Fil A give to support universal health care?
Which do you think Christ would find more important? Healing the sick or preventing gay marriage?
For me its all about hypocrisy. "Christian values" are trampled on every day by the very people who howl about gays. If Chik fil A really cared about Christian values they would offer their employees a living wage, health insurance, etc. They would sell healthy food instead of heart clogging cholesterol.
How much money did Chik Fil A give to support universal health care?
Which do you think Christ would find more important? Healing the sick or preventing gay marriage?
So, now we judge companies who by how they support universal health care? oy vey.
Exactly. It won't affect your marriage at all. Gay marriage affects only those gay people who choose to get married. Nothing changes about anyone else's past, present, or future marriages. The wheels fall off of the "harm to the institution of marriage" argument for that exact reason.
If someone views their marriage as meaning less because the government permits gay couples to be regarded as married in the eyes of government and law they are placing a value in government recognition of their relationship that they criticize gay people for seeking. It is 100% hypocritical.
There's a difference between harm to individual marriages and harm to marriage as an institution.
My point was to illustrate that the possible harm to people's marriages is not the whole story or even most of it. If harm to existing marriages is to be the only criterion when considering changing the definition of marriage, then on what basis is it to be denied to any of the three groups that I referenced (polygamous, incestuous, or group marriages)? Sanctioning those types of marriages wouldn't destroy existing marriages either.
There's a difference between harm to individual marriages and harm to marriage as an institution.
My point was to illustrate that the possible harm to people's marriages is not the whole story or even most of it. If harm to existing marriages is to be the only criterion when considering changing the definition of marriage, then on what basis is it to be denied to any of the three groups that I referenced (polygamous, incestuous, or group marriages)? Sanctioning those types of marriages wouldn't destroy existing marriages either.
What is the harm to the "institution of marriage"? The "institution" is nothing more than the sum of everything everyone who is married puts into it.
How is the institution of marriage harmed by allowing 3 women and 3 men to marry?
On what basis is it to be disallowed, say, to two elderly siblings who wish to take care of each other in a non-sexual capacity?
It's not.
It's not disallowed now, nor should it be.
Uh, yes it is disallowed. Siblings can't marry, regardless of the nature of their relationship.
So you're willing to extend marriage to anyone who wants it, regardless of sex, quantity, or relationship? And you have trouble seeing how this is detrimental to the idea of marriage?
It's detrimental in that it ultimately renders marriage meaningless.
marriage is meaningless now. when you can get married and divorced in 6 months with little issues? and people complain that gays are going to ruin the sanctity of marriage?
marriage is meaningless now. when you can get married and divorced in 6 months with little issues? and people complain that gays are going to ruin the sanctity of marriage?
The divorce rate is a symptom of a broader problem within our society: lack of personal responsibility and a greater sense of entitlement.