Or until the people still driving trucks are arrested. I guess I don't see how your change is material. That's neither here nor there. This doesn't begin to address the analogy. You said gays are treated equally under a regime where they can only marry opposite sex couples. Are former pick-up truck drivers treated equally in a regime where everyone must drive cars? I'm not even interested in debating that with you right now. I know you'll never budge there. But you must budge to my analogy.
It's interesting how gays and lesbians have always tried to be different from straight people, except when it comes to the word marriage. They don't want a different form of marriage that is all their own, they want the term changed to include them. At best, it's because they gays and straights to have common ground At worst, it's because they know doing so is a big fat finger in the eye of straight people
You might make sure you are addressing the correct person when you claim I said something I never said.
Civil unions were attempted, and they failed miserably. Plus, they offended the religious just as much as marriage. I don;t know where you've been, but you're very late to the party. http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/19/us-newjersey-gays-idUSN1927298720080219 http://chicagoist.com/2010/11/24/catholics_stage_late_challenge_to_c.php
No, action are actions. They are not opinions. You've got a real persecution complex going on. Too bad, I gave you some credit earlier, but it appears you do not know the difference between actions and opinions. Since you refuse to debate in reality, we have nothing left to talk about.
And you're still dodging my analogy. This is pathetic. I get that it completely destroys your world, but at least be a man about it and try to explain why it doesn't.
Lol....sure....whatever. I'm guessing you are at work and can't fully read things. I never said actions were opinions. I said actions were the results of opinions.
Actually, your analogy was fairly weak, but I understood what you were saying. However, I was not the one that said that "gays are treated equally under a regime where they can only marry opposite sex couples"...and don't even fully really agree with that statement. "Treated equally" is a rather broad statement. p.s. I don't drive a pick-up.
It's such a weak analogy that you won't even bother explaining why. But naturally this isn't out of any concern for looking stupid because you don't really have any reason to call it weak. It's just so obviously weak that you can't be made to waste your precious time debating it. Very smooth.
Yes, my time is precious and I really should be doing something else besides having a meaningless discussion with people on an internet forum....but for you 3Link...I will take the time in an attempt to enlighten you. Your analogy is weak, because it has no basis for logic and is too broad. Pickups might be banned because of fuel consumption reasons, but people still need the ability to haul things. People have been using pickup type object ever since the wheel was invented (the wagon, the cart, etc.). As long as that need exist, it is not logical to ban pick-ups, but it might be logical to redesign them to better address the concerns they might create (environmental, fuel consumption, etc.) I know you are a smart person and can come up with a better analogy that better fits the topic, but i imagine you did not have the luxury of the time to come up with one. Beside, I thought you had no desire to debate with me.
You realize that pick-up trucks aren't the only trucks that can haul things? I choose pick-up trucks because I figured that's what most gay haters drive. But what if I choose pabst blue ribbon beer? New law. People are no longer allowed to drink pabst blue ribbon beer. But this doesn't violate anyone's rights because it applies to everyone equally, even though former drinkers of pabst blue ribbon beer are especially affected. There. Now you can't dwell on whatever bull(*)(*)(*)(*) implausibility arguments and focus on the point: a law prohibiting the behavior of all people equally doesn't necessarily affect all people equally.
See, the whole problem with your intent with your analogy is that you are wasting it on the wrong person. First off, I am not a gay-hater. I established that earlier in the tread when I stated that I do not oppose the gay lifestyle or gay marriages. In fact, I have a few gay guy friends that I would have no problem skinny-dipping with (swimming naked....not any other connotation you might believe I meant).. Second, I do not drive a pick-up. Third, I hate beer. However, I will admit that Pabst isn't too bad as it is so weak that the beer taste isn't as strong. Forth, (and I have told you many times) I never made the statement that you seem to want to credit to me. I also said that I do not necessarily agree with it. You are building a strawman (aka Aunt Sally) and you seem to be running out of straw. Also, the beer analogy was weak as well. The discussion isn't about banning objects, it is about banning or condoning a lifestyle. Besides, it would only affect the Pabst Beer Company and their employees. Beer drinkers would just find another cheap beer.
Pretty much. First, you have to accept it whether you like it or not because equal protection is built into the Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the land, and no law made by any sub-entity that violates it can stand. Your only redress is to propose and pass a Constitutional Amendment that will cause what you desire. As for being a hater, since you are presumably straight, and either in, or intend someday to be in, a heterosexual marriage, it does not effect you in any way. If it passed without headlines, without news coverage, you probably would never even notice. Given that, hate appears to be the only thing motivating your position.
It's only two that I've seen and I didn't answer it because it doesn't make any sense. If there are gays in your bedroom without your permission, call the cops, or shoot them. If they are instructing you how to spend your money, ignore them. I literally have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Your avatar says everything we all need to know about you as a poster. You are a "throw it in your face" type of homosexual. Keep it to yourself already.
I believe you are reading to broad of a definition into the Constitution. Just because YOU believe it is built into the Constitution, does not make it so. Tell you what, why don't you explain to me what you believe my position to be. I do not believe it to be one motivated by hate (as I do not hate, or even dislike gay people), therefore, I can only assume that you misunderstand what my position to be.
If you can not understand it then perhaps you do not understand the issues well enough to even discuss this.I will try to explain that simple, so simple that my 14 you understands it, little statement. Homos say what we (the homos) do in the privacy of our bedrooms is our (the homos) business. They (homos again) then say that how non homos (that are not on the homo rainbow unicorn fart powered bus) spend their (the people not on the homo rainbow unicorn fart powered bus again) money is their (the homos) business. This is a double standard.
Me>> He didn't "weigh in", he made a private donate to support traditional marriage. The same position Obama and Hillary had at the time. Are we now to go looking up every CEO's record at the time an if they supported traditional marriage are to run our of their companies? That is really to what it has come down? Are you really prepared for the repercussions of such radical stands? I have no idea what that has to do with what I stated or asked so dodge noted. That being said, his donation to defend the institution of marriage was as a private citizen not as an employee of Mozilla, a private donation. So now go back to what I ask and try to answer this time.
There is also a big difference between "make illegal" and "not recognize or sanction". Try asking "Should the state and society encourage, promote and sanction homosexuality"? And see what answers you get.
My avatar is my wife. I am a male. Pretty sure that makes me heterosexual. - - - Updated - - - Me and upwards of half a dozen Federal Judges. If so, I apologize.
Yes, and many Federal Judges have ruled the opposite. Until the Scotus makes their ruling, as it will end up going to the Scotus as they are the final say in matters of the Constitution, it is not a 'done deal'. To be clear....my position is that people should not have their lives ruined because of their beliefs or because of whom they donate their money to. The issues need to be attacked, not the individuals.
