Muppets dump Chick-fil-a

[JuNii]

to a fundamentalist christian, an orthodox jew, or a practicing muslim, sure.

"I'm pro civil rights, just not for people I don't like".

Then you're not pro-civil rights, Einstein.

can't say that. because as the government as society evolves, there will come a topic that you will not condone. after Same Sex couples are accepted, what's the next social issue to be fought for... Beastility? Pedophillia? if you're not for the next fight for rights... would that make you not pro civil rights?

[Farnhamia]

"I'm pro civil rights, just not for people I don't like".

Then you're not pro-civil rights, Einstein.

can't say that. because as the government as society evolves, there will come a topic that you will not condone. after Same Sex couples are accepted, what's the next social issue to be fought for... Beastility? Pedophillia? if you're not for the next fight for rights... would that make you not pro civil rights?

Are you channeling Rick Santorum all of a sudden? Or is there a subtly concealed stiletto in there, poised for the unwary responder?

[Bleckonia]

It's so funny how Chick-Fil-A money went to GLAAD.

[JuNii]

can't say that. because as the government as society evolves, there will come a topic that you will not condone. after Same Sex couples are accepted, what's the next social issue to be fought for... Beastility? Pedophillia? if you're not for the next fight for rights... would that make you not pro civil rights?

Are you channeling Rick Santorum all of a sudden? Or is there a subtly concealed stiletto in there, poised for the unwary responder?

none, I hope... just saying that the fight for civil rights is always going on. after homosexuals get their rights, the fight isn't over. it wasn't over when colored got their rights, it didn't end with women... and it won't end with homosexuals.

everyone has a line that is drawn that they won't cross. for many, it's homosexuality... but after that then what... what's the next group to fight for their share of the American Dream? and the group after that... at one point it will hit a line that everyone won't cross...

[Tmutarakhan]

"I'm pro civil rights, just not for people I don't like".

Then you're not pro-civil rights, Einstein.

can't say that. because as the government as society evolves, there will come a topic that you will not condone. after Same Sex couples are accepted, what's the next social issue to be fought for... Beastility? Pedophillia? if you're not for the next fight for rights... would that make you not pro civil rights?

The right to abuse others? Are you seriously claiming that is the same? That comes across as rather sick, you know.

[Condunum]

A nice story, I guess. Not very big, but nice.

I'm gonna come visit some time.

I would be disappointed if you didn't.

You two make me wish I lived in Texas, for once.

[Greed and Death]

So if you disagree with with gay marriage, your a bigot?
Makes no sense if bigotry is actively hating a religious or ethnic group.
I think gay marriage is wrong...
Am I a bigot?

depends... are you actively trying to stop Gay Marriage? why?

I used to think that. but after much soul searching, I could not come up with a good reason to deny those who want to marry, the right to marry. so while I do admit that Gay Marriage 'isn't for me' I would niether condem nor will I condone Gay Marriage. so I will remain silent on the issue. and I will accept the outcome. whatever it may be.

What if you were against all marriage?

[Bottle]

depends... are you actively trying to stop Gay Marriage? why?

I used to think that. but after much soul searching, I could not come up with a good reason to deny those who want to marry, the right to marry. so while I do admit that Gay Marriage 'isn't for me' I would niether condem nor will I condone Gay Marriage. so I will remain silent on the issue. and I will accept the outcome. whatever it may be.

What if you were against all marriage?

Don't get married?

[Blouman Empire]

What if you were against all marriage?

Don't get married?

Doesn't really solve the issue if you the government shouldn't favour married couples over unmarried couples or singles.

[Bottle]

Don't get married?

Doesn't really solve the issue if you the government shouldn't favour married couples over unmarried couples or singles.

Then propose an alternative system and see if other people are interested in running with it.

Just realize that marriage is actually a pretty good idea at its core, because the idea is to streamline a whole fuckton of bureaucratic hassles that surround the idea of choosing a new next of kin and a very specific type of legal partnership. Granted, there's still a lot of bullshit we need to get rid of, like the idea that sex, reproduction, or romance must be a part of it. But at the core, it's a useful concept that saves people a ton of time and money.

So anybody who wants to abolish marriage completely should be prepared to offer an alternative system, or set forth a really convincing reason why everyone should put up with the extra work and red tape.

[Bottle]

can't say that. because as the government as society evolves, there will come a topic that you will not condone. after Same Sex couples are accepted, what's the next social issue to be fought for... Beastility? Pedophillia? if you're not for the next fight for rights... would that make you not pro civil rights?

The right to abuse others? Are you seriously claiming that is the same? That comes across as rather sick, you know.

Kinda creepy when people openly flaunt the fact that they don't understand (or care about) consent, ain't it?

[Ethel mermania]

Doesn't really solve the issue if you the government shouldn't favour married couples over unmarried couples or singles.

Then propose an alternative system and see if other people are interested in running with it.

Just realize that marriage is actually a pretty good idea at its core, because the idea is to streamline a whole fuckton of bureaucratic hassles that surround the idea of choosing a new next of kin and a very specific type of legal partnership. Granted, there's still a lot of bullshit we need to get rid of, like the idea that sex, reproduction, or romance must be a part of it. But at the core, it's a useful concept that saves people a ton of time and money.

So anybody who wants to abolish marriage completely should be prepared to offer an alternative system, or set forth a really convincing reason why everyone should put up with the extra work and red tape.

There is a rabbi here, that would like to abolish civil marriage all together, His proposal is to just have government sponsored civil unions, leaving marriage to clergy or justices of the peace. A gay jewish couple would get a civil union from the state, with all the benefits of a currently found under marriage, and if they wanted to be married they would go to a reform or reconstructionalist rabbi and get married and get a ketubah (jewish marriage certificate). An orthodox rabbi would not recognize or perform a gay marriage. An atheist couple could go to a justice of the peace.

[Raeyh]

The right to abuse others? Are you seriously claiming that is the same? That comes across as rather sick, you know.

Kinda creepy when people openly flaunt the fact that they don't understand (or care about) consent, ain't it?

Then you would have to allow especially intelligent animals and children to have sex while forbidding it from adults who lack the ability to make that decision.

Which isn't what people do.

[Bottle]

Kinda creepy when people openly flaunt the fact that they don't understand (or care about) consent, ain't it?

Then you would have to allow especially intelligent animals and children to have sex while forbidding it from adults who lack the ability to make that decision.

Kinda creepy when people openly flaunt the fact that they don't understand (or care about) consent, ain't it?

[Tmutarakhan]

Then propose an alternative system and see if other people are interested in running with it.

Just realize that marriage is actually a pretty good idea at its core, because the idea is to streamline a whole fuckton of bureaucratic hassles that surround the idea of choosing a new next of kin and a very specific type of legal partnership. Granted, there's still a lot of bullshit we need to get rid of, like the idea that sex, reproduction, or romance must be a part of it. But at the core, it's a useful concept that saves people a ton of time and money.

So anybody who wants to abolish marriage completely should be prepared to offer an alternative system, or set forth a really convincing reason why everyone should put up with the extra work and red tape.

There is a rabbi here, that would like to abolish civil marriage all together, His proposal is to just have government sponsored civil unions

We already have that: that's what the word "marriage" means.

[Ethel mermania]

There is a rabbi here, that would like to abolish civil marriage all together, His proposal is to just have government sponsored civil unions

We already have that: that's what the word "marriage" means.

Ummm no, he does not want to call it marriage. Marriage would become a private affair, not a public one. I am not sure I agree with him, but I see the distinction he is trying to make.

[Tmutarakhan]

We already have that: that's what the word "marriage" means.

Ummm no, he does not want to call it marriage.

I know. I'm goddamned sick and tired of religious people trying to hijack the word. They do not get to dictate how the government uses legal terms.

[Ethel mermania]

Ummm no, he does not want to call it marriage.

I know. I'm goddamned sick and tired of religious people trying to hijack the word. They do not get to dictate how the government uses legal terms.

Maybe I am not explaining it right. He would happily perform same sex marriages. He is teyong to get government out of the defining marriage business and give it to the individuals involved.

[Farnhamia]

I know. I'm goddamned sick and tired of religious people trying to hijack the word. They do not get to dictate how the government uses legal terms.

Maybe I am not explaining it right. He would happily perform same sex marriages. He is teyong to get government out of the defining marriage business and give it to the individuals involved.

Yeah, good luck with that. It's a pie that heterosexuals have been feasting on for quite a while. Why begrudge us a piece or wto?

[Ethel mermania]

Maybe I am not explaining it right. He would happily perform same sex marriages. He is teyong to get government out of the defining marriage business and give it to the individuals involved.

Yeah, good luck with that. It's a pie that heterosexuals have been feasting on for quite a while. Why begrudge us a piece or wto?

So your saying that abolishing all government definition of marriage is not an acceptable alternative? Or are you saying what he wants is politicaly impossible (which is what I believe).

[Lialoth]

So your saying that abolishing all government definition of marriage is not an acceptable alternative? Or are you saying what he wants is politicaly impossible (which is what I believe).

Yes. Let's get rid of such a functional form of contract that saves everyone involved (government and individual) so much money and time just because you don't like it.

[Ethel mermania]

So your saying that abolishing all government definition of marriage is not an acceptable alternative? Or are you saying what he wants is politicaly impossible (which is what I believe).

Yes. Let's get rid of such a functional form of contract that saves everyone involved (government and individual) so much money and time just because you don't like it.

Huh? A couple in a civil union by his definition would be entittled to the same set of benifits as a married couple today. (Off topic: I'm ok with same sex marriage. And so is he).

[Dempublicents1]

Yes. Let's get rid of such a functional form of contract that saves everyone involved (government and individual) so much money and time just because you don't like it.

Huh? A couple in a civil union by his definition would be entittled to the same set of benifits as a married couple today. (Off topic: I'm ok with same sex marriage. And so is he).

Why go through the time, effort, and money it would take to change the law from "civil marriage" to "civil union" if the protections would remain the same? And how would that factor into international law where most people still talk about "marriage" rather than "union"?

It sounds nice, if you could just snap your fingers and have it done. But that's not really the way the world works.

[Lialoth]

Huh? A couple in a civil union by his definition would be entittled to the same set of benifits as a married couple today. (Off topic: I'm ok with same sex marriage. And so is he).

So you're just in favour of handing the word over to the christians? Yeah. I'm sorry but NOBODY should be in favour of this.

But yeah. You want a the contract form without religious undertones? We have that. It's called marriage. If you want a "religious marriage" go to a church.

[JuNii]

can't say that. because as the government as society evolves, there will come a topic that you will not condone. after Same Sex couples are accepted, what's the next social issue to be fought for... Beastility? Pedophillia? if you're not for the next fight for rights... would that make you not pro civil rights?

The right to abuse others? Are you seriously claiming that is the same? That comes across as rather sick, you know.

I'm sure there are some that thought the same thing for past civil rights... like slave ownership...
women's rights...