• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Support the anti-gay boycotts

If you hate people I don't want your vote. (Perot)

If you hate society -because you support gay marriage-, I don't want your money...(Companies listed above)
 
conquer said:
If you hate people I don't want your vote. (Perot)

If you hate society -because you support gay marriage-, I don't want your money...(Companies listed above)
Click to expand...

Can you explain how supporting gay marriage equates to hating society?
 
UtahBill said:
That seems to be falling on deaf ears. The gays think it is a right, therefore it must be made so, with an amendment if they can swing it...
Lots of luck, gays, there are far more important issues to take care of first...
Click to expand...

Because he is wrong....period. The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a Constitutional right.

As far as more important issues.....there can be a lot of important issues to work on. I'm certain that a lot of people thought civil rights for blacks or women were not the most pressing issues of those days either.
 
UtahBill said:
Not a very long list, and I don't recognize any of the names. As many rich LDS as I know, or know of, none of their names are on that list....
Click to expand...

Its interesting, however, that Marriot came out with a public statement that although Mormon, he did not contribute any money to the hateful initiative.
Obviously, the boycotts and threat of boycotts do have an effect...and its obvious that Mariott was concerned enough to take a pro-active stance.
 
Bonnie1988 said:
Thank you for the list of who to do business with.
Doesn't anyone have a list of who contributed against the proposition so I know who to boycott?
Click to expand...

No problem...and let me just add, it is your right to do so. Although I disagree with your position, I urge you to support your views by voting with your pocketbook.
 
disneydude said:
Absolutely I would. I strongly believe that people need to vote with their pocketbooks as much as at the ballot box.
Every year I buy a book called "Shopping for a better world", that rates companies on a variety of issues from racial equality, gender equality, support of gay rights, support of environmental issues.

I shop at stores that support causes that I believe in and I avoid those that don't.

For instance, I used to love to shop at Nordstrom Department Store, until I found out that they had the worst record of promoting racial minorities into positions of upper management. Substantially worse than many other companies. As a result, I haven't shopped at a Nordstrom in almost 20 years and shop primarily at MACY's which has a much better record.

If Disney caved into right-wing activist pressure and eliminated their sex-same benefit policies, don't think I wouldn't boycott them in a second.
Click to expand...

I know this is slightly off, but have to wonder what our economy and quality of life would be like today if more people put this thinking and effort into supporting companies that support us all through remaining domestic and not importing everything they can from third world nations that use everything from prison to child labor and poisonus products?

More on topic is the fact so many choose to ignore about the real issue at hand here of allowing the same legal rights to a same sex couple as a more traditional opposite sex one, and how this real issue is now so truly confused by a small group of people who prefer to attack tradition and religion than achieve a more important result.

In case anyone is not clear on the meaning of this it is to point out that a large amount of same sex couples will continue to have issues with basic things they really need due to a small groups very selfish and personal agenda.

Now that agenda has proven to be a mistake as the voters have spoken, and now these extremists have pushed back the real cause, and are looking to push the blame onto others with all the outcrys for boycotts and protests of anyone who does not support their agenda.

Shame on those who are screwing things up for others just to fill their own twisted needs.
 
disneydude said:
Anti Gay Blacklist


This is a list of individuals who donated money to support the hateful anti-gay discriminatory prop 8.

If you patronize any of the individuals on this list, please consider boycotting their establishments.
Click to expand...


Thank you for this list.......I will be sure to support them in every way I can.......
 
Its interesting, however, that Marriot came out with a public statement that although Mormon, he did not contribute any money to the hateful initiative.
Click to expand...

Would it be OK to ask that hate or hateful not be misued or abused as much as it has so far since for most all who I know that oppose the "tag" of Marriage needing to be attached to opposite sex couples or unions etc just do not hate anyone, and some are actually in a same sex relationship.

To assume that anyone who does not agree with you to be hateful seems very short sighted, and from previous posts here it seems many who are using this are really smarter than all that.

It seems similar to how most who voted in the recent presidential election most certainly did not hate the other seven or so candidates on the ballot that they did not vote for and were just voting their choice etc.

To be honest there are countless sick, hungry, homeless, and needy people (yes human beings) in our country who would love to have the suport that has been put into this whole battle over a name or tag, and if you really want to do something positive then put some of this energy and resources where they would do more good.

Before anyone trys to attack me for these views please consider that you do not know me, it is all meant to promote a positive result, and sometimes everyone of us needs a dose of reality when we are way too deeply involved in something we are passionate about.
 
UtahBill said:
Regardless of where the funding came from, it remains that the CITIZENS OF CA have spoken...
now it is up to the courts to decide if they have spoken correctly.
The court of public opinion, whether majority or minority, has no legal standing.
Click to expand...

Yes.. the citizens have spoken.

Proposition 22 in 2000, which was extremely similar to 8, passed with 61.4% in favor to 38.6% opposed. A mere 8 years later Proposition 8, which is attempting to amend the Californian Constitution and has ended up slamming into lawsuits along its merry way, passed 52.2% to 47.8%. Note the trend? I sure hope you do. Nearly 1% of voters have switched stances per year.

Ironically, had strictly the same voters who voted in the 2000 election voted in 2008 it would have been much closer. Obama's minority attraction pulled many African Americans who favored Prop 8 70/30.

At this rate, UtahBill, the citizens will definitely get the chance to speak again if the constitution even gets amended in the first place. :lol::shock:
 
Navy Pride said:
Thank you for this list.......I will be sure to support them in every way I can.......
Click to expand...

:rofl

I was thinkin' that somebody would pick up on that. Don't get me wrong. I don't give a hoot is Steve marries George and they tickle each other's nutsack until they turn blue in sheer delight. But the majority of the people voted against the gay marriage thing. Agree or disagree. Facts is facts. And to post a list of those who supported opposing gay marriage was more of an advertisement than a boycott. Do the math. :roll:

Boycott Schmoycott.... That's so Bill O'Reilly'ish anyways. :roll:

Keep that sh** in California. Ain't none of those people to boycott 'round here anyways.

Wedge issues. Who gives a hoot? The gays I know could actually care less. They have better things to focus on. Or, at least they say. They are happy just keeping their business to themselves, laying low, and tending to their garden and decorating their home or what the fu**ever.:roll:

Let's talk about education, infrastructure, health insurance, national security and the economy. The gooberment's got no business mandating moral issues any fuc*in' way. Leave that to the church, as if anybody gives a sh**.

Let 'em have a "civil union" with all the benefits of "marriage." Most folks are cool with that. Who cares? If they want to be as miserable as us married heterosexuals, let 'em. And if the church don't wanna let 'em get married, why should they care? The church ain't their friend to begin with. Why should they care about their approval?

Hell, I know a dozen heterosexuals that are shackin' up and don't give a damn about no marriage and they are as happy as punch. Much ado about nothin'.

As far as I'm concerned, we might as well be talkin' about Michael Jackson porkin' lil' gold diggin' boys or Paris Hilton.

What a waste of time.
 
disneydude said:
Because he is wrong....period. The Supreme Court has recognized that marriage is a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

For homosexuals?

The USSC also aren't the FF's and judicial activism and loose readings of the constitution seem to abound.

Personally I cautiously support gay marriage but I also want to see judicial activism defeated at any opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
For homosexuals?

The USSC also aren't the FF's and judicial activism and loose readings of the constitution seem to abound.

Personally I cautiously support gay marriage but I also want to see judicial activism defeated at any opportunity.
Click to expand...

"Judicial Activism" is simply a catch-phrase of the radical right-wing to complain about each and every decision that they disagree with.

Judges have always and will continue to interpret laws and make caselaw through those decisions. That is what the judicial branch is for. It amazes me whenever I hear someone say "Judges should not make law".....actually....yes, they should.....they do....and they always have. That is what common law and our system has always been about.

As far as your first question. No. The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of whether gays have a Constitutional right to marriage. They will likely one day soon. However, they have recognized that marriage is a fundamental right. The issue will be whether the concept of equal protection requires that same right be afforded to same-sex couples.
 
disneydude said:
Its interesting, however, that Marriot came out with a public statement that although Mormon, he did not contribute any money to the hateful initiative.
Obviously, the boycotts and threat of boycotts do have an effect...and its obvious that Mariott was concerned enough to take a pro-active stance.
Click to expand...
Marriot is a smart man...he did the right thing, with his right to freedom of speech...
as did steve young, football player....he ran an ad saying he did not agree with the church's stand on this issue.

since they agree with you, they must hate the LDS as well...right?
your cause here is diminished every time you use the word hateful....
 
LennyD said:
Shame on those who are screwing things up for others just to fill their own twisted needs.
Click to expand...

you could post similarly about the economic issues at hand, and use selfishness and greed along with twisted needs...

so many of us forget that there is a world outside our own wants and needs.:(
 
LennyD said:
Would it be OK to ask that hate or hateful not be misued or abused as much as it has so far since for most all who I know that oppose the "tag" of Marriage needing to be attached to opposite sex couples or unions etc just do not hate anyone, and some are actually in a same sex relationship.

To assume that anyone who does not agree with you to be hateful seems very short sighted, and from previous posts here it seems many who are using this are really smarter than all that.
It seems similar to how most who voted in the recent presidential election most certainly did not hate the other seven or so candidates on the ballot that they did not vote for and were just voting their choice etc.

To be honest there are countless sick, hungry, homeless, and needy people (yes human beings) in our country who would love to have the suport that has been put into this whole battle over a name or tag, and if you really want to do something positive then put some of this energy and resources where they would do more good.

Before anyone trys to attack me for these views please consider that you do not know me, it is all meant to promote a positive result, and sometimes everyone of us needs a dose of reality when we are way too deeply involved in something we are passionate about.
Click to expand...

very good post....we can disagree without being disagreeable, what a concept..;)
 
Farcejj said:
Yes.. the citizens have spoken.

Proposition 22 in 2000, which was extremely similar to 8, passed with 61.4% in favor to 38.6% opposed. A mere 8 years later Proposition 8, which is attempting to amend the Californian Constitution and has ended up slamming into lawsuits along its merry way, passed 52.2% to 47.8%. Note the trend? I sure hope you do. Nearly 1% of voters have switched stances per year.

Ironically, had strictly the same voters who voted in the 2000 election voted in 2008 it would have been much closer. Obama's minority attraction pulled many African Americans who favored Prop 8 70/30.

At this rate, UtahBill, the citizens will definitely get the chance to speak again if the constitution even gets amended in the first place. :lol::shock:
Click to expand...
exactly, and the violence/vandalism/name calling will likely delay the inevitable passing of full gay rights...
I have alluded to MLK being more effective than all the angry blacks combined, but it falls on deaf ears. WE WANT IT NOW is all they have to say..and while it is perfectly acceptable to want the change that is needed, forcing it down the throats of the majority is the slow way to succeed...
You might get what you want in the legal system, but it will be an even longer haul to get society to give you your due...
 
What if vBulliten discriminated against homosexuals?
 
UtahBill said:
Marriot is a smart man...he did the right thing, with his right to freedom of speech...
as did steve young, football player....he ran an ad saying he did not agree with the church's stand on this issue.

since they agree with you, they must hate the LDS as well...right?
your cause here is diminished every time you use the word hateful....
Click to expand...

No one said anything about hating the LDS....however, there is no question that the initiative is hateful, just as all discrimination is hateful. The cause is not "diminished" for calling it what it is. The cause is diminished when you overlook and excuse the actions that led to this discrimination being written into our State Constitution.
 
UtahBill said:
exactly, and the violence/vandalism/name calling will likely delay the inevitable passing of full gay rights...
I have alluded to MLK being more effective than all the angry blacks combined, but it falls on deaf ears. WE WANT IT NOW is all they have to say..and while it is perfectly acceptable to want the change that is needed, forcing it down the throats of the majority is the slow way to succeed...
You might get what you want in the legal system, but it will be an even longer haul to get society to give you your due...
Click to expand...


I agree with you completely there.
 
shuamort said:
Which tradition?
Click to expand...
Throughout the world, going back thousands of years...is that enough ???
Marriage is not between a man and his horse, not between two men, not between a woman and her cat..
Marriage is between a man and a woman, thats it..

There are off beat "churches" that will do anything for money, including "tieing a knot between a man and his horse.
But should the state accept this and make it "legal" ???
 
earthworm said:
Throughout the world, going back thousands of years...is that enough ???
Marriage is not between a man and his horse, not between two men, not between a woman and her cat..
Marriage is between a man and a woman, thats it..

There are off beat "churches" that will do anything for money, including "tieing a knot between a man and his horse.
But should the state accept this and make it "legal" ???
Click to expand...


You must have also agreed with the legal definition when it said that marriage was between a white man and a white woman...

Or the Biblical marriage that marriage is between a man and his many wives/concubines.

Nah....the definition of marriage has never changed:doh
 
disneydude said:
You must have also agreed with the legal definition when it said that marriage was between a white man and a white woman...

Or the Biblical marriage that marriage is between a man and his many wives/concubines.

Nah....the definition of marriage has never changed:doh
Click to expand...


And you wonder why 70% of the blacks voted for prop 8..........

Your example is ridiculous.....when you have inter racial marriage is in between a man and a woman.....When 2 men get married its not.........What part of that do you not understand............

You lost DD.....Get over it........
 
The left is a collection of desired oppressions including denial of free speech. Liberal judges now are trying to prohibit certain words in court such as "illegal alien" and "anchor baby." The left wants courts to dictate what the word "marriage" means.

I having been involved in politics long, but quickly learned of the extreme intolerance, hate-based, and dictatorial that so-called liberals are. They are not "liberals," they are left wing wanna-be totalitarians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom