• 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!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

Your Star said:
The fact is that pedophiles are attracted to children's age, regardless of their sex. I'm sure CC can give you a link to 10-15 studies confirming that.
Click to expand...

Not true....some go just for male kids...some just for females and some for either/or....and that shows a sexual preference
This has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage and the insults the gay community likes to throw around when someone isnt for exactly what they want...

Oh one more thing..I hope you dont think your running around talking about eating ***** all the time helps your cause or puts you in a good light..because it does not...it sounds crass low class and its most defintely unnecessary on a public forum...just by stating your a lesbian everyone knows what you do....
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Equally moronic is to assert that all of those FOR maintaining the current marriage laws are anti-gay or anti-polygamy. Just WHEN did these laws, that were SUPPORTED by resident Obama until May 2010, become "anti-gay" or discriminatory? It amazes me that the SSM crowd does not see polygamy as on equal footing with SSM, one seeks to remove the gender restrictions and the other seeks to expand the number of partner restrictions of "traditional" marriage, both are QUITE RARE in the world as SSM is legal ONLY in Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands and polygamy is legal in ONLY (too many to list see the following link):

Polygamy across the world | Worldfocus
Click to expand...

Always have been no matter who supported them. If you discriminate, you discriminate. There must be some just cause for the discrominate other than your own bias, be it SSM or polygamy or any other red herring you want to try to throw in (each has to stand or fall on it's own merit). Whether a discriminationis valid or not depends on the reasoning, or just cause ot that discrmination. When you deny an entire group rights because you don't like them, or think your right is superior, and have no just cause, that discimrination is wrong.
 
lpast said:
Not true....some go just for male kids...some just for females and some for either/or....and that shows a sexual preference
This has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage and the insults the gay community likes to throw around when someone isnt for exactly what they want...

Oh one more thing..I hope you dont think your running around talking about eating ***** all the time helps your cause or puts you in a good light..because it does not...it sounds crass low class and its most defintely unnecessary on a public forum...just by stating your a lesbian everyone knows what you do....
Click to expand...

Secondary sex characteristics have not developed in a child, to say that a disgusting pedophile that molested a boy reflects homosexuality and linking that to a homosexual that is attracted to adult males is vastly different. Some pedophiles may have a preference, but I highly doubt it's due to homosexuality or even heterosexuality.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
SSM is NOT about GENDER "discrimination" any more than title 9 or separate but unequal physical requirements for the UNISEX military jobs are. Gender partner PREFERENCE perhaps, but that is NOT different than a number of partners PREFERENCE. The ABSOLUTE argument of MAN = WOMAN is not EVER going to be made, even the olympics see this BIOLOGICAL difference as OBVIOUS and important. Any attempt to make SSM about gender (i.e. a male may be substituted for a female and vice versa) opens up a whole new can of legal worms, especially in the military and in sports.
Click to expand...

The difference between military/sports and marriage is that in the former category, biological difference and physical capability play a role in performance. (In fact, I've been an advocate of women's participation in combat roles and in men's sports if they can hold their own against the big boys, which is another issue.)

But why should physical ability or biology matter when it comes to marriage? Using that logic, maybe it's okay to outlaw women marrying skinny guys and only allow women to marry muscular toned men, right? Clearly, the two men in question are not equals physically speaking.

There exists basically no justification for marriage discrimination under the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
 
lpast said:
Not true....some go just for male kids...some just for females and some for either/or....and that shows a sexual preference
This has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage and the insults the gay community likes to throw around when someone isnt for exactly what they want...

Oh one more thing..I hope you dont think your running around talking about eating ***** all the time helps your cause or puts you in a good light..because it does not...it sounds crass low class and its most defintely unnecessary on a public forum...just by stating your a lesbian everyone knows what you do....
Click to expand...

Then we should ban heterosexuality. No heterosexual should be any near kids. In fact, no adult should ever be near a kid. The fact is one's sexuality, gay or straight, has no bearing on whether they will be a pedophile or not. There is something different in people who abuse children than their gender preference.
 
Ikari said:
I don't understand why this is an issue. Why protest or support? Some dude ran his mouth about his beliefs. Who the **** cares? It's a free country. Chick-Fil-A wasn't discriminating, was it? It wasn't breaking any law, was it? Then this is a non-issue. Some dude ran his mouth, that's all there is to it. Don't like it, don't go. But to turn this into a mountain is stupid. In a free country people are going to say all sorts of things, ain't no point getting all bent out of shape over every damned thing that is said that you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the subject matter, today in America you can be chatised for an opinion, much like present day and former dictatorships. I cannot pinpoint when this started but it is alive and constantly refueld by both sides of the media. Drop by drop we are becoming a nation divided. If this continues how can we mend such wounds?
 
This issue has been blown so out of proportion it is neither funny nor sad, but bittersweet.

A CEO voiced an opinion on Gay Marriage. Mayor Rahm supposedly wants to punish the CEO, and hyper-sensitive pro-GM activists rage about it. In a twist, the ACLU defends the CEO, gaining some credibility. Is Rahm backing off? I don't know, but there's still been such a ****storm over a guy's opinion. Look, it was an interview for Pete's sake! Is the CEO supposed to lie about his pov when asked? What's wrong with people nowadays? They're so ridiculously sensitive that they've been making fools of themselves. This is just like the ****storm a few years ago when Miss California was asked a question about, iirc, marriage, she answered, and was viciously smeared. Talk about intolerance, how people can get so ******* petty and nasty when someone else gives a benign & differing opinion.
 
rhinefire said:
Regardless of the subject matter, today in America you can be chatised for an opinion, much like present day and former dictatorships. I cannot pinpoint when this started but it is alive and constantly refueld by both sides of the media. Drop by drop we are becoming a nation divided. If this continues how can we mend such wounds?
Click to expand...

There is a difference bewtween the government saying you can't say that or imposing penlties and other people responding freely to the ignorant comment. No is free from citicism.

As for the divide, we've forgotten how to have civil discourse. Not being able to walk in another's shoes has hurt us as a people.
 
StillBallin75 said:
The difference between military/sports and marriage is that in the former category, biological difference and physical capability play a role in performance. (In fact, I've been an advocate of women's participation in combat roles and in men's sports if they can hold their own against the big boys, which is another issue.)

But why should physical ability or biology matter when it comes to marriage? Using that logic, maybe it's okay to outlaw women marrying skinny guys and only allow women to marry muscular toned men, right? Clearly, the two men in question are not equals physically speaking.

There exists basically no justification for marriage discrimination under the basis of gender and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Thats is your opinion and you are quite welcome to it, however our laws are made by majority opinion through our representatives, as are constitutional amendments. Marriage is, and shall remain, an issue of state law, since the constitution makes it nether an indivdual right nor a federal power. The "I think it is unnecessarily discriminatory" argument holds no more sway in SSM, polygamy, prostitution or recreational drug use, they are controlled by law and have been for centuries. If the law is changed, by the NORMAL and legal procedures for doing so, then any an all of them may become legal just as easily as they became illegal.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Thats is your opinion and you are quite welcome to it, however our laws are made by majority opinion through our representatives, as are constitutional amendments. Marriage is, and shall remain, an issue of state law, since the constitution makes it nether an indivdual right nor a federal power. The "I think it is unnecessarily discriminatory" argument holds no more sway in SSM, polygamy, prostitution or recreational drug use, they are controlled by law and have been for centuries. If the law is changed, by the NORMAL and legal procedures for doing so, then any an all of them may become legal just as easily as they became illegal.
Click to expand...

That's why SSM keeps winning in the courts. :coffeepap
 
ttwtt78640 said:
SSM is NOT about GENDER "discrimination" any more than title 9 or separate but unequal physical requirements for the UNISEX military jobs are. Gender partner PREFERENCE perhaps, but that is NOT different than a number of partners PREFERENCE. The ABSOLUTE argument of MAN = WOMAN is not EVER going to be made, even the olympics see this BIOLOGICAL difference as OBVIOUS and important. Any attempt to make SSM about gender (i.e. a male may be substituted for a female and vice versa) opens up a whole new can of legal worms, especially in the military and in sports.
Click to expand...

Would love to delve deeper into the argument with you in another thread. Sports is irrelevant to the discussion unless the government is somehow making laws about it. The military isn't irrelevant, however again...the government CAN legally discriminate all it likes. It just needs to reach certian levels of criteria to make it allowable. Much of the sexual discrimination that occurs in the military, imho, has a stronger argument to reach that criteria than the discrimination present in marriage allowing a Man to do something a woman can not do and allowing women to do something men can not do.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's why SSM keeps winning in the courts. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

I believe DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in MA because it violates the state of MA's right to define marriage (where SSM is legal).

Many states have constitutionally defined marriage that excludes homosexual relationships, all but California had legal rulings against the. SSM is a state's rights issue and as the Constitution is currently written it does not guarantee homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Um, such laws as DOMA ARE in fact anti-gay and anti-polygamy.



They were anti-gay since their inception, I'm not sure I'm seeing what your point is.



:shrug: I'm not responsible for the attitudes of others. I have consistently been pro-polygamy as well as pro-incest marriage as other posters on this site can attest.
Click to expand...

DOMA is unconstitutional as the federal gov't/constitution has no power to regulate marriage beyond POSSIBLY making sure that a marriage contract granted LEGALLY in one state is honored in all others, as it applies to "commerce", or as equal protection of the law. To demand that all states make common laws is NOT a federal power, or the states would have no rights at all. Marriage is NOT an individual right or a federal power so, constitutionally, it is up to the states, six of which now allow SSM.
 
lpast said:
Not true....some go just for male kids...some just for females and some for either/or....and that shows a sexual preference
This has nothing to do with being for or against gay marriage and the insults the gay community likes to throw around when someone isnt for exactly what they want...

Oh one more thing..I hope you dont think your running around talking about eating ***** all the time helps your cause or puts you in a good light..because it does not...it sounds crass low class and its most defintely unnecessary on a public forum...just by stating your a lesbian everyone knows what you do....
Click to expand...

Your wrong on the first part, and as for the second part I didn't know you were against humor? It was more of a joke about Fred Phelps than me, seriously stop trying to be offended by things, or get upset at people for not agreeing with you on every exact little thing, for not bowing down to your opinions. Seriously it's what you complain about all the damn time, but you are the worst offender of what you supposedly hate. Those in glass houses buddy, those in glass houses.
 
digsbe said:
I believe DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in MA because it violates the state of MA's right to define marriage (where SSM is legal).

Many states have constitutionally defined marriage that excludes homosexual relationships, all but California had legal rulings against the. SSM is a state's rights issue and as the Constitution is currently written it does not guarantee homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Read the 14th amendment and you will realize that SSM is a constitutional right.
 
Your Star said:
Your wrong on the first part, and as for the second part I didn't know you were against humor? It was more of a joke about Fred Phelps than me, seriously stop trying to be offended by things, or get upset at people for not agreeing with you on every exact little thing, for not bowing down to your opinions. Seriously it's what you complain about all the damn time, but you are the worst offender of what you supposedly hate. Those in glass houses buddy, those in glass houses.
Click to expand...

This can be said in defense of Chick-fil-A's CEO's opinion.
 
digsbe said:
I believe DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in MA because it violates the state of MA's right to define marriage (where SSM is legal).

Many states have constitutionally defined marriage that excludes homosexual relationships, all but California had legal rulings against the. SSM is a state's rights issue and as the Constitution is currently written it does not guarantee homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

I don't think those are the only two states. The courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage here in Iowa, and I'm sure we've seen more than one here. When I have time I'll look for the numbers.
 
Your Star said:
Read the 14th Amendment and you will realize that SSM is a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question if sexuality is protected. I don't think that the 14th Amendment can be used to force homosexual marriages to be legal. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional because it violates a state's rights to define marriage.
 
digsbe said:
Which begs the question if sexuality is protected. I don't think that the 14th Amendment can be used to force homosexual marriages to be legal. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional because it violates a state's rights to define marriage.
Click to expand...

First off, it is a gender discrimination, and also please elaborate on your first point. First off sexuality is protected, but why would it not be a reason to allow SSM be legal?
 
Boo Radley said:
That's why SSM keeps winning in the courts. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

If you mean "winning in the courts" as marriage contract law being upheld as a right of the state to establish the rules and forcing states to honor ALL marriage contracts issued in ANY other state then I agree.
 
Your Star said:
Not really, what he said was pretty vile.
Click to expand...

Yes really. "Seriously stop trying to be offended by things, or get upset at people for not agreeing with you on every exact little thing, for not bowing down to your opinions" can be said to all of those who are attacking him and Chick-fil-A because of his opinion. Fair is fair, correct? I don't think his opinion is vile, either. I acknowledge that not everyone is in lock-step, supporting GM.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If you mean "winning in the courts" as marriage contract law being upheld as a right of the state to establish the rules and forcing states to honor ALL marriage contracts issued in ANY other state then I agree.
Click to expand...

No, I mean Iowa's law against it was struck down by the courts. They are not the only state this has happened in.
 
Your Star said:
First off, it is a gender discrimination, and also please elaborate on your first point. First off sexuality is protected, but why would it not be a reason to allow SSM be legal?
Click to expand...

Gender discrimination is technically legal within certain bounds. The only way the gender discrimination argument would hold legal clout is of the Equal Rights Amendment was amended, and that Amendment failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom