• 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!

The anti-Chick-fil-A protest - Starbucks [W:39]

Anyone who supports SSM probably already goes to Starbucks every day of the week, so I doubt they will get much traction with this reverse boycott.

It's interesting to me how thoroughly consumerized we are as a society when we support pet causes by organizing buy-ins at businesses that SAY they support the cause. Are we tacitly saying we prefer retail stores to express our political wills rather than the state houses and Capitol Hill? No need to bother with elected representatives when we have the voice of some big business publicly aligning itself with our stances.

Dunno whether to laugh or cry.


Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.
 
It is real simple: This is a states’ rights issue until SCOTUS says it is a US constitutional issue.
End of story.

I have no more rights than any gay man does so it has nothing to do with “equality”. It has everything to do with changing the current definition of marriage, which is ok by me, but not upon the basis of ‘human rights” or “constitutional rights”.
There is no disparity in rights as the law stands unless you consider any and all limits on marriage an infringement upon the rights of others.
 
Children are under the age of consent and animals cannot give consent to marry, so there is a solid legal argument against both.

Try again.
Men can't marry men in most states so try again with your legal argument. You quote law but you are trying to change the law. Get a clue dude.
 
Men can't marry men in most states so try again with your legal argument. You quote law but you are trying to change the law. Get a clue dude.

You asked what rights gay couples don't get that straight couples do.

I gave you them.

You just contradicted yourself; first you said there were no rights gay couples don't get, now you're admitting there are rights they don't get per states not letting them allowed to marry.

YOU get a clue.

Dude.
 
You may not be able to spell it, but bore is a good word.

You failed to pass the “smug intellectual type” test with your first sentence. The rest I ignored because you failed the “classy intellectual type" test shortly thereafter.
 
You asked what rights gay couples don't get that straight couples do.

I gave you them.

You just contradicted yourself; first you said there were no rights gay couples don't get, now you're admitting there are rights they don't get per states not letting them allowed to marry.

YOU get a clue.

Dude.

No you didn’t. Are you so uneducated that I must explain what a right is to you?
 
You failed to pass the “smug intellectual type” test with your first sentence. The rest I ignored because you failed the “classy intellectual type" test shortly thereafter.

I disagree. I came across as very smug. I was not, however, going for intellectual or classy. Just bored.
 
Let me just follow up by saying that if you stood me up next to a gay male and compared our rights, there are no rights I have that he doesn’t have. He may want more rights because he likes to have sex with little boys and the law currently prohibits him from having sex with, or marrying, little boys, but his rights are no different than mine.
 
Let me just follow up by saying that if you stood me up next to a gay male and compared our rights, there are no rights I have that he doesn’t have. He may want more rights because he likes to have sex with little boys and the law currently prohibits him from having sex with, or marrying, little boys, but his rights are no different than mine.

Care to address the links I posted just for you?
 
Let me just follow up by saying that if you stood me up next to a gay male and compared our rights, there are no rights I have that he doesn’t have. He may want more rights because he likes to have sex with little boys and the law currently prohibits him from having sex with, or marrying, little boys, but his rights are no different than mine.

You have the right to marry the person you love.

And as soon as you made the assumption that a gay man is also a pedophile, you lost the thread. Talk about a moronic statement.

Btw, SCOTUS has determined that marrying the person of your choice is a right. Though they were focused on race at the time, the comparison is pretty direct.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's stop with the personal attacks, please. If you feel a post violates the rules, report it, DON'T respond in kind.
 
Do I have to explain the 14th Amendment to you?

I know that the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment doesn’t protect my right to marry my dog in the state of California. Do you need me to explain it to you?
 
I know that the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment doesn’t protect my right to marry my dog in the state of California. Do you need me to explain it to you?

The difference is your canine friend is not capable of giving legal consent to such an agreement...
 
I know that the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment doesn’t protect my right to marry my dog in the state of California. Do you need me to explain it to you?

That the best you got? Dodging the real issue and creating a strawman about marrying dogs?

Any time you want to address my links regarding SSM rights, feel free. I'm looking forward to seeing how you'll dodge them.
 
Last edited:
You have the right to marry the person you love.

And as soon as you made the assumption that a gay man is also a pedophile, you lost the thread. Talk about a moronic statement.

Btw, SCOTUS has determined that marrying the person of your choice is a right. Though they were focused on race at the time, the comparison is pretty direct.

Polygamy isn’t legal but it once was. Pedophilia isn’t legal in marriage but it once was. There are laws in place concerning marriage and you seek to change those laws to include your sexual preference.

These aren’t laws that are constitutionally protected and it isn’t hateful to say that it is a bad idea for a man to marry a five year old girl or 25 women. It is a states’ law issue that may or may not become federal law but it isn’t a “human right” to marry 25 women is it?
 
Right now, the vast majority of gay couples are being denied legal access to federally recognized marital unions.

Totally untrue. Any gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex. That's equal rights right there!
 
Polygamy isn’t legal but it once was. Pedophilia isn’t legal in marriage but it once was. There are laws in place concerning marriage and you seek to change those laws to include your sexual preference.

These aren’t laws that are constitutionally protected and it isn’t hateful to say that it is a bad idea for a man to marry a five year old girl or 25 women. It is a states’ law issue that may or may not become federal law but it isn’t a “human right” to marry 25 women is it?

Pedophilia infringes on the right of security of the young person involved. As for polygamy ... well, I don't really have a problem with it, other than thinking anyone who wants more than one wife is a masochist.

You do need to make up your mind, though. Are you arguing whether it's a state or federal jurisdiction, whether or not the rights are equal, or whether you should be able to marry your pet?

On states vs. federal, it's a federal issue due to the fact that one of the few roles federal government was actually designed to fill is to ensure that a right granted in one state is honored in all of them. On equality, we have already presented plenty of points. On the dog thing, I'm sorry, but they are right that it cannot give consent.
 
Back
Top Bottom