Bottle wrote:they actually seem to LIKE each other after all these years.
Well that definitely shows that they're not following the correct and objective traditional marriage model.
Advertisement
by Unhealthy2 » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:33 pm
Bottle wrote:they actually seem to LIKE each other after all these years.
by Fanaglia » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:34 pm
Zephie wrote:Farnhamia wrote:
So your point is that people should just behave better, stage their protests in a polite, civilized fashion, preferably far away from the people or organization they are protesting against, so as not to disturb anyone?
To be taken seriously. If you were neutral on the issue and a bunch of gay people starting yelling profanities and acting downright immature and annoying, would you support them?
Barringtonia wrote:Only dirty hippies ride bicycles, white supremacists don't ride bicycles EVER, although the Nazis did steal a lot of bicycles from the Dutch, but that was to use the steel to make TANKS!
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Jesus H. Christ on a jelly pogo stick of justice.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:NS forums are SUPERGOOGLE.
The power of dozens of ordinary humans simultaneously interrogating a search engine with slightly different keywords. I'm getting all teared up just thinking of the power.
by Sol-Kar » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Zephie wrote:...and uploads it onto youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1inmoke ... re=popular
I want to know if other LGBT people find their actions are justified, or ashamed a group of people that tries to represent them acted so immaturely. They are angry Target apparently donated 150,000 dollars to the campaign of somebody that doesn't support gay marriage, so their argument is you're hate-filled and discriminate if you don't support the special treatment of LGBT. They call target bigoted, but in the description, the videomaker writes "Call Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel at 612-696-6234 and DEMAND they get the $150,000 back or donate $150,000 to queer youth or transgender services!"
That sounds bigoted to me, them supporting the special treatment of LGBT.
by Ifreann » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:39 pm
Sol-Kar wrote:Odds are the people in the vid had no idea what they were even talking about, most of them looked like hippies anyways.
by DaWoad » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:39 pm
DaWoad wrote:Zephie wrote:DaWoad wrote:Zephie wrote:There is no good argument for it.
Premise 1: equality before the law is important
Premise 2: separate laws to govern separate groups are not equal
Premise 3: Some people have the right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to
Conclusion: Everyone should have the right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to.
Why should everyone be able to marry the same sex?
you really need me to stretch it to that point for you? fine
Premise 1: equality before the law is important
Premise 2: separate laws to govern separate groups are not equal
Premise 3: Some people have the right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to
Conclusion: Everyone should have the right to marry any consenting adult they are attracted to
Premise 4: some people are attracted to consenting adults of the same sex
Conclusion 2: In order for everyone to Have equality under the law same sex marriage must be allowed.
by Desperate Measures » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:40 pm
by DaWoad » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:48 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:I hope people fighting to uphold the definition of marriage fight this hard whenever the definition of a word changes. "Bad" does not mean "cool", folks. May the evolution of language become as stagnate as our cultural beliefs!!
by Desperate Measures » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:52 pm
DaWoad wrote:Desperate Measures wrote:I hope people fighting to uphold the definition of marriage fight this hard whenever the definition of a word changes. "Bad" does not mean "cool", folks. May the evolution of language become as stagnate as our cultural beliefs!!
Sick means Ill
Cell phone is somehting you find in jail
We must revert to the True definition of words!!!! in order to avoid the catastrophic social breakdown of our society!
by Liuzzo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:55 pm
Zephie wrote:
They are slandering target in order to try to get people to stop shopping there. They should be charged with something. It's the equivalent of me trying to tell people to stop shopping at walmart because they burn babies, when they really don't.
by The Black Forrest » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:01 pm
Zephie wrote:Bottle wrote:Jusela wrote:
No one is denying your rights. Homosexual people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people have.
Yeah, um, that's the argument that racists used to deny interracial marriage rights. "But black people have the same rights as white people...the right to marry somebody of their own race!!"
The Supreme Court threw out that crap before I was even born. I'm sure you're banking on everyone else being as ignorant of history as you are, but this isn't the forum to try to play that particular card.
They do have the same rights though, since gays can marry the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals can. What gays want are new rights, not equal rights.
by Liuzzo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:02 pm
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
It's not a first amendment right to cause a public disturbance, harass others, film/photograph people against their stated wishes, and solicit on private property in violation of company policy.
by Liuzzo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:03 pm
Zephie wrote:So I can bring a megaphone and say "gay people are cocksuckers that need to be put in their place," and that wouldn't be considered hate speech and get me taken away in handcuffs?
by The Black Forrest » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:06 pm
Vetalia wrote:Zephie wrote:Exactly. Is target promoting that candidate because of legislation he would support that benefits target? Most likely. Is target promoting him because he is anti-gay? Doubtful.
Hell no. Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...I can't blame them either, because they're in it to make money and that comes first within the confines of the law. Now, if Target were actively backing anti-LGBT legislation things might be different, but right now they're interested in making money.
by Buffett and Colbert » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:07 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by The Black Forrest » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:08 pm
Zephie wrote:Karsol wrote:Zephie wrote:Medrod wrote:
Why make a fuss about having said word?
Surely it would be better to just make these unions the norms first, as the term Civil Union would have less of the stigma attached to it in this little debate?
No, then the gays would win in the destruction of the sanctity of marriage.
Uh, Hindu's and pagans in general disagree with you and your evil monothiest faith.
Who even says I have a faith?
by The Black Forrest » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:10 pm
Zephie wrote:
They are slandering target in order to try to get people to stop shopping there. They should be charged with something. It's the equivalent of me trying to tell people to stop shopping at walmart because they burn babies, when they really don't.
by DaWoad » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:12 pm
by Buffett and Colbert » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:18 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by The Black Forrest » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:20 pm
by Zephie » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:32 pm
Liuzzo wrote:
false analogy and strawman good job.
Senestrum wrote:I just can't think of anything to say that wouldn't get me warned on this net-nanny forum.
by Buffett and Colbert » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:38 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by South Kirkcaldy » Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:55 pm
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Does anyone know which state this was done in?
Tungookska wrote: Hire Teenagers While They Still Know Everything!
Unilisia wrote:The Silver Pawn wrote:I am 14 and my name is Samantha. I have brown hair, green eyes, am about 4'11", and LOVE cats. Would you date me? I am the kind of girl who doesn't care about looks, just sweetness.
You sound like a nice friend, but since I am 19, it wouldn't really work out well legally.
Plus, I doubt your bisexual, thus making it nigh impossible for us to date.
V + V = Sqishy squish.
by Buffett and Colbert » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:06 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Dyakovo » Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:07 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Asherahan, Australian rePublic, Haganham, Infected Mushroom, Kvatchdom, Mieyland, Nimzonia, Nothreen, Singamadri, The Holy Therns, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Zurkerx
Advertisement