Gay Couple Told Not To Return To Texas Restaurant

Well, not if you are a male, natural born in the US, white, heterosexual, christian with no gender disorders or disabilities. Then you are on your own.

 

SMW, does gay marriage enhance or reduce the spread of HIV?

- - - Updated - - -

Poor dixon, how you suffer as an oppressed minority.

 

Since gays change partners like most people change underwear, gay marriage will probably have no effect on the AIDS explosion. Esp among young black men.

Why, do you think gay marriage cures AIDS?

 

I am in the majority. No oppression, just no options when I am discriminated against. Those options are reserved for the so called "oppressed minority".

 

Implying nothing. Having a gay brother does not change some people's personal views on homosexuals or homosexuality at all.

 

If gender discrimination is removed from marriage you will have MORE options in who you are allowed to marry actually. If the incest restrictions are also removed, again you will have more options in marital choices. Why are you against this?

 

You mean we could also marry our dogs. What fun!

 

Aw slippery slope fallacy. How cute.

 

Okay.

Anyways, what are your views on what the OP said?

 

I posted my views on page 1 and went from there.

 

It's not a slippery slope fallacy. One you diminish the sacredness of marriage and argue for "marriage equality", that could also apply to not only homosexuals, but also not only to polygamous couples, but also to the situation that Smarthmouthwoman mentioned.

Give them civil unions and some of the rights that married couples get, I agree with that. But gay couples's relationship should not be given the marriage status.

 

Since when can animals give consent for anything?

You are wrong and the Constitution also disagrees with you along with all the judges and courts that are disagreeing with you and are removing gender discrimination from marriage state after state.

 

I don't care if the couple is heterosexual or homosexual, when I go to restaurant, I don't want to see any PDAs, especially footsies. People go to restaurants to eat food. Seeing PDAs would ruin my appetite. It has nothing to do with my religious views about homosexuality-it's just common sense.

 

Those gays shoulda picked a fancier restaurant with long tablecloths, you know those long ones where you can't see under the table? I remember an Italian restaurant and this girl......I nearly choked on the French bread! Luckily, no one in the establishment was the wiser.

 

So why didn't the woman tell them to stop? She didn't. She waited until they were leaving and then just told them they don't serve (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. She said nothing at all about not misbehaving or PDA in the restaurant at all. Perhaps you'd have a claim here if she had, but she didn't and you don't. The sign on their door also said nothing about not serving gays/(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s so how were they supposed to know until she told them?

I've played freakin' footsies under the table with my man, put my feet on his lap, even given him a kiss on the lips in public and in restaurants. Strangely enough no one has ever felt the need to pull us aside and tell us our behavior was gross or inappropriate or call us nasty names for it. I wonder why? Maybe because we're straight?

- - - Updated - - -

lmao! Good for you RPA1! Way to get some! Hahaha! Lemme guess she just dropped her fork?

 

1-Animals can't give consent to being eaten either.

BTW, I'm not arguing that human-animal marriages should be legalized. It's just an analogy.

2-Where does the Constitution say that marriage is a right for all adults, regardless of gender? I am not disagreeing with the Constitution itself, but saying that the constitution allows gay marriage is just your opinion/interpretation of it.

For example, people argue to legalize abortion because the Constitution says the "right to privacy" (I do not disagree with the Constution.) However, the Supreme Court judges during Roe Vs Wade had the preconceived notion that abortion is a medical procedure that a woman should be allowed to have. If you have the preconceived notion that abortion cannot be legally justified, then the "right to privacy" does not apply to abortion.

The Constitution is absolute, but interpretations of it are not.

 

In public, especially in restaurants, it is gross and inappropriate.

 

Nope...guess again.

 

Duh. Because animals are not people. You must have people, quite specifically consenting adults, to have a marriage. What part of that do you not understand?

Here's how it goes Sam. The state must have a valid reason for discriminating or restricting certain things. When it comes to marriage they must have a good reason to place the restrictions that they do on it. Thus far every court that same sex marriage has gone to has not seen any valid reason to deny two consenting adults of the same gender the right to marry.

It would be amendment 14 that protects us in that regard. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

- - - Updated - - -

Playing crotch footsies as Smartie so elegantly put it? lol I dunno.

 

Well I'll wait for Smartmouthwoman to tell you to stop being so hypersensitive about it.

 

define "hypersensitive".

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=358604&page=2&p=1063934934#post1063934934

 

I do believe that gay couples should get some benefits that straight couples get-tax breaks, hospital visitation rights if one partner is sick, etc. I am not 100% against gay rights! However, there's no need to give their relationship the status of marriage. Here's one good reason why gay couples shouldn't be given marriage status. It weakens the meaning/definition of marriage, ESPECIALLY if polygamy becomes legal.

 

How can a definition be weakened? What does that even mean? Who is affected by a 'weakened definition'? I don't read the dictionary much so I am not sure how this truly affects us, these weak definitions and all.

 

Marriage and rights are 2 separate things. The word "marriage" implies a status of a relationship. If gay couples were given civil union rights (which I support), it would not give their relationship marriage status.