Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're style of debate:I believe she thinks marriage is a fraud if you don't engage only in the missionary position and have children ever 9 months or so.
Awe... When one can't Debate...
Did Bodecea put some Peanut Butter out for you?...
peace...
but, but, AIDS!
but, but, pedophiles!
but, but, unnatural!
Conservatives everywhere are ashamed you call yourself one.
Try to maintain coherence, progressive idiots.
It's hard, but at least make an effort.
Yes...your legal reasoning for denying equal rights to your fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens is SOOOO coherent.
Try to maintain coherence, progressive idiots.
It's hard, but at least make an effort.
Yes...your legal reasoning for denying equal rights to your fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens is SOOOO coherent.
There's no legal reasoning required because the premise is faulty.
You aren't being denied shit.
But don't let that stop you.
What reasons have I given to prevent you from marrying your non-familial, consenting adult partner? Marriage exists for defined purposes, and to that end, certain relationships are excluded, be it right or wrong. And if you simply do not accept those traditional purposes, then, as you have pointed out, there is no real argument against bigamy. And the same arguments in favor of permitting gay marriages also apply with equal force and persuasion to ploygamist and incestuous relationships. Which is to say, if you are of the persuasion, as so many are, that any two consenting adults should be permitted to marry, then there should be no barriers.
Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.
For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
I'm so sick of the whole attitude that we have to give assholes like you anything you ask for, or be labeled as "bigots". I want a million dollars. Give it to me, now! No? Well then, you're a bigot! I have as much right to a million dollars as anyone who has a million dollars, after all. It's no FAIR that I be required to work for it. Some people inherit it, so therefore I must be able to get a million dollars too! Otherwise, you're violating my civil rights!
How asinine can you get.
Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
I imagine this on a FAQ page of a homophobe talking points web site somewhere:
Q: Why are you opposed to same sex marriage?
A: Because incest!
koshergrl said:Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
I imagine this on a FAQ page of a homophobe talking points web site somewhere:
Q: Why are you opposed to same sex marriage?
A: Because incest!
Marriage, the kind we are discussing and demanding equal access to, is a LEGAL contract. You simply can't use "tradition" to keep a group of people from a fundamental civil right.
When we get marriage equality, and we will, those groups can try to use the precedence set in allowing gays to marry. The opponents of such relationships will have to identify an overriding harm in allowing them. Incest is an easy one, but polygamy will be harder to try and stop. So?
You don't have a fundamental civil right to pretend you're participating in a legal contract if you aren't really participating in that contract.
For example, I can't participate in a land-sale contract if I don't actually sell (or purchase) land.
I can piss and moan about how unfair it is all day long...but that doesn't mean I get a land-sale contract. I have to actually participate in a land sale to get the fucking contract.
First off, WTF are you talking about? Second of all, I'm legally married. I have the same exact legal marriage certificate as millions of other people married in this state. Finally, WTF are you talking about?
As an aside...since it has already been established that civil marriage is a legal contract, requiring a courts ruling to dissolve it, what other legal contracts do you wish to deny gays and lesbians equal access to?
Well, I'm certainly not sick of people like you making utterly ridiculous analogies that have absolutely no bearing in reality. Please keep posting your convoluted thinking.
How asinine can you get.
Good question. Just when I think you can't get any more asinine...you do.
Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
I'm sure Jesus is so proud of you...
koshergrl said:Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
Wow. You need professional help.
koshergrl said:Honestly, I wish something would happen that would just take all Progressives...elsewhere. I honestly look forward to the end of the world, when I get to see you pissing and moaning about how you have the *right* to enter in at Heaven's gates, and you get booted right to hell, where you belong.
Wow. You need professional help.
Yeah. Allie's that kind of "Christian" that uses her religion and her god to "get even" with people she doesn't like.
I think they are a private organization who can admit who ever they want.
Last time I checked, businesses are prohibited by law from discriminating based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity, creed, etc. As the law stands right now, they can no more refuse to do business with women having bachelorette parties than they can refuse to do business with black people.
Mind you, I have to wonder why women would WANT to have bachelorette parties in a gay bar, but that's their issue, not mine.
I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
.
I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also. That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy
The bar owner should have every right to ban straight women, or bachelorette parties or anything he wants to ban. Just like another bar owner should have the right to ban gays, and Inns should have the right to ban gay couples.
A gay bar in Denmark bans "offensive kissing" by heterosexual couples.
Gay bar bans straight couples from kissing - Times Of India
In Australia gay bar owners have the right to ban heterosexuals completely.
Heterosexuals Are Banned at a Gay Pub in Australia - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
Establishments who cater to heterosexuals should have that same right.
I agree with Don't Taz Me Bro but also know that Cecilie is correct under our current laws.
This buisiness can be sued for discrimination just like business that refuse to serve gays, whites, or women could be sued....errr i meant blacks, oh what is the difference
They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also. That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy
They aren't refusing to serve them, they are refusing to host bachelorette parties.
Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also. That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy
The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations.
Yes and businesses have been sued for refusing to host gay functions also. That standard applies BOTH ways, just because they are a "gay oriented" business doesn't mean they can deny service to the batchelorettes....just like "straight oriented" businesses can't deny service to gay functions.
Unless you believe in double standards and hypocricy
The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations.
so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.
The establishment isn't discriminating based on heterosexuality. He is saying no more bachelorette parties. that is a blanket statement that covers both orientations.
so is stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.
or refusing to allow celebrations of gay birthdays.
Who's stopping celebrations of gay birthdays?
That's almost the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and indicative of the inflammatory, and dishonest, bullshit that the homosexual lobby engages in to force us to accomodate their every idiotic whim.
