Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash

They campaigned for special rights, special rights are not constitutional.
Equality is when benefits and responsibilities are equal for equal types of couples.
Apparently you are against equality and

 

Government regulates heterosexual couples, a man is fully responsible for his child, regardless how that child was born (even if woman steals man's sperm).
It is a government that forces man to be responsible, not the man himself.
Your questions and arguments are not credible since you are denying obvious facts

 

So government regulates parental obligations, not heterosexual couples.
Glad to help you clear that up

Again, this has to do with parental obligations, not marriage.

What obvious facts am I denying? I haven’t seen you make one yet.

That you cannot answer fairly simple questions should illustrate why same sex is now and will remain law within the borders of the United States, there is no valid argument against it.

 

Special rights would indicate that same sex couples receive benefits that other couples cannot.
Last I checked, heterosexuals could still marry, thus the rights are not special.

I asked earlier but you dodged, where in the constitution do you believe an article that bars gay couples being allowed to sign a civil contract?

 

I guess they found something in the Bible that allows same sex marriage. Who knew 3% of the population could control the world?

 

Don’t be ridiculous, everyone knows 0.2% of the population controls the world.

BTW — most polling is putting LGBT populations at around 4.5% - 8.25%.

 

If purpose of marriage is not a regulation of relationship between man and woman, then there is no point to deny same benefit to asexual couple (e.g. closely related)
Since benefits are denied then benefits for homosexual marriage is nothing but special privileges and promotion of homosexuality.

 

That is an argument for incestious couples, not an argument for denying same sex couples.

Again, that does not fit the definition of ‘special’.

Still waiting on the constitutional article

 

The article is about equality.
From the government standpoint.
Heterosexual couples are not equal to homosexual couples.
homosexual couples are equal to asexual couples.
if you want equality you have to provide equal rights to ALL couples and eliminate marriage responsibility from heterosexual couples e.g. an automatic assumption that husband is a father of the child.
Since only homosexuals (not everybody) were awarded with equal right that means that homosexuality is treated as special privilege.

 

According to you, sex has nothing to do with marriage so incest is irrelevant.

 

Ok.,
So no response to how a same sex couple with children should not be able to sign a marriage contract while an infertile heterosexual couple with no children should be allowed to.
No response to where in the constitution do you believe an article that bars gay couples being allowed to sign a civil contract?

 

ok

I disagree

Asexual couples can marry though.

That responsibility [parental obligation] exists regardless of marriage.
Marriage has zero to do with it

Again, making a set of rights more inclusive means it cannot be special.
Special means it is not awarded to anyone else.
That asexual opposite sex couple can marry with the exact same rights as a same sex couple couple means it is not special.

 

The keyword is automatic obligation. Regardless whose child it is if man is married his automatically presumed to be a father.
If you extend benefits without any kind of justification to the special group it is a special right.
You can disagree all the way you want but child cannot be born by injecting male sperm to the male rectum.

 

What makes them SPECIAL rights?

I've already agreed with you that there is no such thing as marriage equality, but I'm making the point that there was no campaign to award asexual couples with benefits. There was however a campaign to award homosexuals couples with benefits, that being the campaign for same sex marriage.

 

Which has zero to do with marriage.

What justifications do asexual heterosexuals have? Elderly heterosexual couples? Sterile heterosexuals?
All of these groups have the ability to marry and are similarly situated to a same sex couple — thus, no special rights.
If the ability to procreate naturally was a requirement for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals then you would have a point. But it isn’t, so you don’t.

Which has zero to with marriage.


You should get a new argument.

 

Homosexuals found something in the Bible that allows same sex marriage?

 

So was this a 'light bulb moment' or a business move? I would like to think that they decided that their neanderthal stance to Christianity, but I think I might be disappointed.

 

Hence why there is no such thing as 'marriage equality.'

 

For who?

 

What makes them equal?

 

For the owners of the company

 

There's no justification for same sex marriage in YOUR OPINION, right? I assume that you don't expect everyone else to have your opinion.

I'm not sure that @cd8ed was saying that a child COULD be born in this manner.

 

You would like to think that they decided that their neanderthal stance to Christianity... was what?

 

Sorry...poorly written. You would like to think that they realized their stance on Christianity was 'neanderthalic'.

 

Well what exactly do you think their stance on Christianity was?