• 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]

GPS_Flex said:
Like I said, there isn't a single right a straight person has that a gay person doesn’t have. End of story. Thanks for playing though.
Click to expand...

Right to contract.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what right I have that gays don't have. You dodging the issue?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what right I have that gays don't have. You dodging the issue or can you see that the law applies same to a gay man as it does to a straight man?

Oh, you are asking for special treatment and to change the laws yet you label our current laws as hate and intolerant?

You are the intolerant and hateful one if you can’t respect the fact that you seek to force what is equivalent to polygamy or incest upon our society in such a forceful and hateful manner.
Click to expand...

The basic flaw in your argument is this. We are not discussing the difference between YOUR rights as a single male and the rights of a single gay male. Nor are we discussing desires to marry in ways that are OUTSIDE of sexual orientation... polygamy is not a sexual orientation. NOR are we discussing types of marriage where one party cannot consent, like that with children or animals. These are all false equivalencies, an error you have made in this discussion in the past, if I recall correctly. What we are discussing is why one individual can marry someone based on their sexual orientation and why another, with a different sexual orientation cannot and how, because of that there is a disparity in benefits available to those who are not allowed to marry based on their sexual orientation. Any other false equivalencies that you present are irrelevant to the argument. And, since you haven't presented anything that ISN'T a false equivalency, I anxiously await an on topic argument from you.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
I'm not anti gay but I'm equal rights. SSM isn't about equal rights so I'll cut up my Starbucks card in support of equal rights.
Click to expand...

Sure it is about equal rights. If SSM is legalized YOU can also marry someone of the same sex. See? Equal rights.
 
GPS_Flex said:
The law is the law. You can’t say it is “HATE” if people don’t approve of your desired change in the law anymore than I can say you are full of hate for opposing sex with children, polygamy or incest. This is what bugs me most about the sanctimonious “gay rights’ groups is that they don’t seek equal rights anymore, they want special treatment and special protections that exceed my rights and protections.
Click to expand...


so when interracial marriage was illegal, it was not hate because it was legal to discriminate? Oh boy you are a riot.
 
LowDown said:
Totally untrue. Any gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex. That's equal rights right there!
Click to expand...

And here we have a great example of using government for social engineering by blocking liberty. The comedy of which is that it comes from one who would otherwise be screaming for a smaller, less intrusive government.
 
Starbucks = bad coffee at a high price. another example of the defective liberal gene in action.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The basic flaw in your argument is this. We are not discussing the difference between YOUR rights as a single male and the rights of a single gay male. Nor are we discussing desires to marry in ways that are OUTSIDE of sexual orientation... polygamy is not a sexual orientation. NOR are we discussing types of marriage where one party cannot consent, like that with children or animals. These are all false equivalencies, an error you have made in this discussion in the past, if I recall correctly. What we are discussing is why one individual can marry someone based on their sexual orientation and why another, with a different sexual orientation cannot and how, because of that there is a disparity in benefits available to those who are not allowed to marry based on their sexual orientation. Any other false equivalencies that you present are irrelevant to the argument. And, since you haven't presented anything that ISN'T a false equivalency, I anxiously await an on topic argument from you.
Click to expand...


Actually, there would be tax benefits for two straight men or two straight women to marry, so it really isn't about gay rights.

I don't feel that the state should be involved in marriage, which is currently just a 3-person contract. If you eliminate the state from the contract, and allow individuals to designate a beneficiary, then it takes the social aspect out of it.
 
Last edited:
Bobcat said:
Starbucks = bad coffee at a high price. another example of the defective liberal gene in action.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
You need to knock off the irrelevant, off topic baiting or you will be removed from the thread. At the very least.
 
tessaesque said:
Are you serious? For the 38905437894237890534905th time. Animals cannot and have not ever been legally capable of representing themselves. Animals cannot be charged nor found guilty of a crime, cannot enter contract, and do not retain constitutional rights...because they're goddamned animals. The 14th amendment applies to people, and when two people, based solely on sex, are allowed rights that two other people with different sexes are denied, that is a failure of application of the 14th amendment. Just like you cannot disallow women from voting, or blacks from marrying whites, why you can't segregate schools, buses, or water fountains.

Did your history class just conveniently skip over everything from 1860 to 1970?
Click to expand...

Just a reminder that eventually your opinion of what is a right may may some day become so but as of now nobody is being denied a right because it does not exist. A small point but declaring something as a right that is not in fact a right is one of the most dishonest premises in this debate. Holding the opinion that SSM should not be allowed is not intolerant or biggoted in itself. Calling someone a bigot just for that opinion is dishonest. Doesn't matter what we did before regarding rights of any group. As of now there has been no failure of application of the 14th amendment even if it has been declared so in the opinion of one or two judges. Declaring victory and the moral high ground and making that the starting point of the debate is not fair. I know this is not going to matter to anyone who is passionately for SSM but I grow weary of the term "right" being abused in the debate.
 
Samhain said:
Actually, there would be tax benefits for two straight men or two straight women to marry, so it really isn't about gay rights.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that in principle, but again, that's not what's really being discussed. What is being discussed is the difference from a benefit standpoint from what straights who want to marry based on their sexual orientation can do and what gays who want to marry based on their sexual orientation can do. Good point, though.
 
jambalaya said:
Just a reminder that eventually your opinion of what is a right may may some day become so but as of now nobody is being denied a right because it does not exist. A small point but declaring something as a right that is not in fact a right is one of the most dishonest premises in this debate. Holding the opinion that SSM should not be allowed is not intolerant or biggoted in itself. Calling someone a bigot just for that opinion is dishonest. Doesn't matter what we did before regarding rights of any group. As of now there has been no failure of application of the 14th amendment even if it has been declared so in the opinion of one or two judges. Declaring victory and the moral high ground and making that the starting point of the debate is not fair. I know this is not going to matter to anyone who is passionately for SSM but I grow weary of the term "right" being abused in the debate.
Click to expand...

It does matter what has been done in the past. Marriage is a contract. It has existed as a contract for several centuries. Denying somebody the right to enter contract because of their sex and sexual orientation is discriminatory. This was already decided in the SCOTUS on the basis of race and ruled to be a violation of the 14th amendment. There have been other rulings applying the premise of sex to equal rights decisions previously determined in relation to race.

So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they aren't related, or that SSM is somehow different. It isn't. And eventually that'll be shown to be true.
 
Samhain said:
If you eliminate the state from the contract, and allow individuals to designate a beneficiary, then it takes the social aspect out of it.
Click to expand...


Yes, but as we all know that is not going to happen. I would support something like that, but it's a pipedream. Therefore, the only recourse is for gay people to push for legalization of SSM.
 
jambalaya said:
Just a reminder that eventually your opinion of what is a right may may some day become so but as of now nobody is being denied a right because it does not exist. A small point but declaring something as a right that is not in fact a right is one of the most dishonest premises in this debate. Holding the opinion that SSM should not be allowed is not intolerant or biggoted in itself. Calling someone a bigot just for that opinion is dishonest. Doesn't matter what we did before regarding rights of any group. As of now there has been no failure of application of the 14th amendment even if it has been declared so in the opinion of one or two judges. Declaring victory and the moral high ground and making that the starting point of the debate is not fair. I know this is not going to matter to anyone who is passionately for SSM but I grow weary of the term "right" being abused in the debate.
Click to expand...

It does exist. It's called due process. It's called the 14th Amendment. It's there in order to address topics exactly like this. It states no group of Americans can be seen differently under the law without compelling state interest.

Seems like some on the right have differing opinions of what constitutes rights depending on the subject. Some times a right is inalienable and inherent regardless of a court's opinion on it. Other times, a right doesn't exist until a court approves it. So which is it?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, but as we all know that is not going to happen. I would support something like that, but it's a pipedream. Therefore, the only recourse is for gay people to push for legalization of SSM.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why does the state have to be involved in marriage?
 
This is funny. SO...people that already pay too much to drink coffee from a 'corporation' are going to go pay too much drink more coffee from a corporation to show solidarity with SSM? Good on em!!! I hope Starbucks has a record setting day. Dont forget to tip your barista! This **** just keeps getting more and more funny. :lamo
 
Samhain said:
Why not? Why does the state have to be involved in marriage?
Click to expand...

Because STRAIGHT people want it to be. The majority of straight people do not want civil unions for themselves, they want the benefits the state gives them with marriage. And ultimately it would be the people to vote on it.

Look, I agree with you it would be better, but face it we are the small minority in thinking this way. The lawmakers and people voting them in do not feel that way as a majority.
 
VanceMack said:
This is funny. SO...people that already pay too much to drink coffee from a 'corporation' are going to go pay too much drink more coffee from a corporation to show solidarity with SSM? Good on em!!! I hope Starbucks has a record setting day. Dont forget to tip your barista! This **** just keeps getting more and more funny. :lamo
Click to expand...

The prices at Chik-fil-A are not cheap either.
 
jambalaya said:
Just a reminder that eventually your opinion of what is a right may may some day become so but as of now nobody is being denied a right because it does not exist. A small point but declaring something as a right that is not in fact a right is one of the most dishonest premises in this debate. Holding the opinion that SSM should not be allowed is not intolerant or biggoted in itself. Calling someone a bigot just for that opinion is dishonest. Doesn't matter what we did before regarding rights of any group. As of now there has been no failure of application of the 14th amendment even if it has been declared so in the opinion of one or two judges. Declaring victory and the moral high ground and making that the starting point of the debate is not fair. I know this is not going to matter to anyone who is passionately for SSM but I grow weary of the term "right" being abused in the debate.
Click to expand...

I re-read her post and didn't see the word bigot ... where did I miss it?

Do you believe that a right does not exist until granted by the government? Do you not consider marriage at all a right? If so, the equal rights amendment does cover it. If not, then how do you classify it? Is it a privilege? If so, what is the criteria for that privilege?
 
TheNextEra said:
Because STRAIGHT people want it to be. The majority of straight people do not want civil unions for themselves, they want the benefits the state gives them with marriage. And ultimately it would be the people to vote on it.

Look, I agree with you it would be better, but face it we are the small minority in thinking this way. The lawmakers and people voting them in do not feel that way as a majority.
Click to expand...

I dont know about that. The majority of those who support SSM are straight people. Honestly I don't think the majority of straight people care about what the government calls it. They will call it what they want to and it doesn't have any effect on their relationship with their spouse. As far as what the government calls it it is irrelevant to most as long as their spouse gets their benefits the name doesn't matter much.
 
Samhain said:
Why not? Why does the state have to be involved in marriage?
Click to expand...

That's fine. I'd agree with that. That's not a stance that's going to get any traction with the religious right, however.
 
VanceMack said:
This is funny. SO...people that already pay too much to drink coffee from a 'corporation' are going to go pay too much drink more coffee from a corporation to show solidarity with SSM? Good on em!!! I hope Starbucks has a record setting day. Dont forget to tip your barista! This **** just keeps getting more and more funny. :lamo
Click to expand...

Kind of like how people who were already too fat went and paid good money for fried chicken to show solidarity against it.
 
muciti said:
I dont know about that. The majority of those who support SSM are straight people. Honestly I don't think the majority of straight people care about what the government calls it. They will call it what they want to and it doesn't have any effect on their relationship with their spouse. As far as what the government calls it it is irrelevant to most as long as their spouse gets their benefits the name doesn't matter much.
Click to expand...

Then why hasn't it been done? Seems easy and simple enough if the majority want to do it right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom