I remember the story well and it's a shame what happened to your great grandfather, but he never had a right to any services from other human beings.Don't make me tell the hospital story again. I have to tell it every time the topic of discrimination comes up because people like you cannot grasp why discrimination is wrong for some reason.
also there are many good conservatives here
as for libertarians IMO they arent even close to representative of REAL WORLD libertarians. Now this is just MY experience but the ones i know in real life would laugh at many of the ones here. But again there are good ones here.
And actually, in the world I'm talking about, the homosexual business would be picketed constantly and anybody who went there would be intimidated into not going there, or would simply be beaten when they left, and the business would quickly close. I guess you'd chalk up such a chain of events as "freedom at work." Beautiful, isn't it?
A working class hero is something to be
Last edited by Hard Truth; 02-23-14 at 02:04 AM.
Regardless, opening a business no matter how you go about doing it doesn't make you a servant of others against your will, and any law that decrees that is the case is a violation of human rights.
Last edited by Henrin; 02-23-14 at 02:05 AM.
7.) uhm religion has NOTHING to do with legal marriage, you seem severely confused on this topic
nor will religion be destroyed in anyway lol
8.) another thing that wont happen by granting equal rights, there is no force
9.) yes of course we are better of with equal rights in this country. I care about my fellow americans and its a basic principle they have the same rights as me, sorry that bothers you and you dont care about equal rights but they are winning and this is the reality.[/QUOTE]
By calling an LGBT union a marriage, the traditional definition of marriage is being changed. It is being change from the traditional man / woman procreation definition to same sex non-procreation capable definition. Is this not the loss of the traditional definition of marriage?
It's a false equivalency. The two things are not the same thing. Yes, they are similar in that two people commit to each other for a lifetime, well in theory and ideal anyway, but they are not the same thing, given the difference in the ability to procreate.
While I agree that before the law they should be treated exactly the same, the fact of the matter is that they are not the same thing. Civil unions would appear to be one way to allow both to coexist provided that both are treated the same before the law.
The 'separate but equal' argument doesn't apply, should both be treated exactly the same.