LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[Dododecapod]

No one is denying your rights. Homosexual people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people have.

If the situation were switched, I doubt you'd be saying this. The right to marry is fundamental, and is recognised by the Constitution.

The right to marry. Not the right to marry straight people. But the right to marry, period.

Their point is that homosexual people can still get married, just not to the person they love. Allegedly claiming that since they can still get married to someone of the opposite sex, they aren't losing any rights. But it's still discriminatory. It's like black people being allowed to sit in the back of the bus, but not the front. They still get to ride the bus, but that's not wrong with it. What's wrong is that they can't sit wherever they want on the damn thing.

No, it's not like that.

I'm afraid it largely is. Where one group is unfairly singled out to be prohibited from doing what everyone else can, it's very much like that.

[Daistallia 2104]

They can simply sign a paper saying they have that right.

Indeed they can, in a few places like here in Iowa. It's called a marriage license.

(or at least that's the way it should be)

Glad to see your coming out in suppoert of equal marriage rights, even if you can't bring yourself out of the closet far enough to admit it.

You mean, a marriage license?

Can't call it that! That would be against the religious doctrine of some Christian groups. And we certainly wouldn't want to keep that nasty old establishment clause, would we?

[Jusela]

I am not a disgusting institution like the church that hates people and believes a book of shit!

Calling their bible a book of shit surely isn't hateful either.

Anything that is lies is shit

Obviously tolerance is a thing meant only for "minorities". Being against gay-marriage leads to you being labeled an "homophobe", while insulting an religion is completely okay.

Lovely double standards.

[Icemany]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

im sure all those people who get divorced are more a threat to marriage than the homosex people

Homosex people aren't what marriage is about.

wot is it about then

Marriage is about 2 people's love for each other, regardless of gender.

That is the rewritten homosexual definition of it.

And why is your definition, the definition of hate, correct?

[Rolling squid]

Can't call it that! That would be against the religious doctrine of some Christian groups. And we certainly wouldn't want to keep that nasty old establishment clause, would we?

Not to mention separate but equal. Dear god was that a bad choice!

[Icemany]

I am not a disgusting institution like the church that hates people and believes a book of shit!

Calling their bible a book of shit surely isn't hateful either.

Anything that is lies is shit

Obviously tolerance is a thing meant only for "minorities". Being against gay-marriage leads to you being labeled an "homophobe", while insulting an religion is completely okay.

Lovely double standards.

I hold my hands up I hate religion... it is the cause of all the trouble in the world
Hating something that is evil is acceptable imo.

[Dododecapod]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

im sure all those people who get divorced are more a threat to marriage than the homosex people

Homosex people aren't what marriage is about.

wot is it about then

Marriage is about 2 people's love for each other, regardless of gender.

That is the rewritten homosexual definition of it.

No it's what EVERYONE used...until the anti-gay lobby tried to redefine it.

[Liuzzo]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

Oh no they said SHIT. What will happen to this fucking world if we allow fucks to freely yell shit!? God damn this is a weak argument. You show me where saying shit, even during a protest is illegal and I'll give a fuck about this statement. The above profanity is to prove a point that not everyone is as tightassed as you.

[Buffett and Colbert]

No one is denying your rights. Homosexual people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people have.

If the situation were switched, I doubt you'd be saying this. The right to marry is fundamental, and is recognised by the Constitution.

The right to marry. Not the right to marry straight people. But the right to marry, period.

Their point is that homosexual people can still get married, just not to the person they love. Allegedly claiming that since they can still get married to someone of the opposite sex, they aren't losing any rights. But it's still discriminatory. It's like black people being allowed to sit in the back of the bus, but not the front. They still get to ride the bus, but that's not wrong with it. What's wrong is that they can't sit wherever they want on the damn thing.

No, it's not like that.

Actually, it definitely is. Unless you could explain how it isn't?

[Ifreann]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

im sure all those people who get divorced are more a threat to marriage than the homosex people

Homosex people aren't what marriage is about.

Heterosex people aren't what marriage is about.

[Liuzzo]

Harassing shoppers, handing out soliciting material, causing a disturbance, and filming people against their wishes: Why weren't these people arrested?

Because it was a protest.

doing illegal things is ok when youre protesting?

What did they do illegal?

Harassing customers, causing a public disturbance, soliciting on private property (against the will of the company), and video taping someone without consent all sound like a good place to start.

I didn't see the customer being harrassed, no more harassed than I am whenever I'm asked if I want to try a free sample or be given a flier or coupon. The rest, yea I can see that being illegal.

Personally, I'd consider the repeated shouting of slogans by the person with the bullhorn harassment, if I was attempting to shop in that area of the store.[/quote

That's cool man and I agree with your personal preference. This does not make it law though and they are fine in saying it.

[Dododecapod]

I am not a disgusting institution like the church that hates people and believes a book of shit!

Calling their bible a book of shit surely isn't hateful either.

Anything that is lies is shit

Obviously tolerance is a thing meant only for "minorities". Being against gay-marriage leads to you being labeled an "homophobe", while insulting an religion is completely okay.

Lovely double standards.

I hold my hands up I hate religion... it is the cause of all the trouble in the world
Hating something that is evil is acceptable imo.

Hate whatever you like. I don't care. As long as we aren't discriminating against people, it's cool.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

im sure all those people who get divorced are more a threat to marriage than the homosex people

Homosex people aren't what marriage is about.

Heterosex people aren't what marriage is about.

i c wat u did thar

[Fanaglia]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

Oh no they said SHIT. What will happen to this fucking world if we allow fucks to freely yell shit!? God damn this is a weak argument. You show me where saying shit, even during a protest is illegal and I'll give a fuck about this statement. The above profanity is to prove a point that not everyone is as tightassed as you.

"This is a revolution, dammit! We're going to have to offend SOMEbody!"
- John Adams in 1776.

[Daistallia 2104]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

So, you've caved on every thing but the name. Why stop at one word?

im sure all those people who get divorced are more a threat to marriage than the homosex people

Indeed. If one wants to defend marriage, outlawing divorce is a much better means of doing so.

[Zephie]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

im sure all those people who get divorced are more a threat to marriage than the homosex people

Homosex people aren't what marriage is about.

wot is it about then

Marriage is about 2 people's love for each other, regardless of gender.

That is the rewritten homosexual definition of it.

And why is your definition, the definition of hate, correct?

Nope. Stopping the advancement of a group of people destroying the cultural identity of your country in the guise of equal rights is not hate.

[Medrod (Ancient)]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

So, you've caved on every thing but the name. Why stop at one word?

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?

[Zephie]

The AFA does the same thing.

So? Does that justify the LGBT people being obnoxious, yelling profanities at shoppers in a store, saying they are fueling hatred and discrimination?

Oh no they said SHIT. What will happen to this fucking world if we allow fucks to freely yell shit!? God damn this is a weak argument. You show me where saying shit, even during a protest is illegal and I'll give a fuck about this statement. The above profanity is to prove a point that not everyone is as tightassed as you.

It shows their immaturity and their crybaby attitude when they don't get their way.

[Zephie]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

So, you've caved on every thing but the name. Why stop at one word?

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.

[Karsol]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

So, you've caved on every thing but the name. Why stop at one word?

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.

[UNIverseVERSE]

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?

Tried that.

The standard response of the bigots is to pass constitutional amendments preventing 'Civil unions' from being 'substantially equivalent' to marriage.

[Zephie]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

So, you've caved on every thing but the name. Why stop at one word?

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?

[Zephie]

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?

Tried that.

The standard response of the bigots is to pass constitutional amendments preventing 'Civil unions' from being 'substantially equivalent' to marriage.

If homosexuals want to be straight so badly, why don't they just find a different partner?

[Ifreann]

Nope, and I was anticipating that response. Let them have their little Civil Unions at most, but not destroy marriage.

So, you've caved on every thing but the name. Why stop at one word?

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?

If it's just a word, then we have a choice. We can side with equality, and let homosexuals get married. Or we can side with people who are desperate to deny equality to homosexuals, even if it's just in term of a word.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Who even says I have a faith?

You're talking about the sanctity of marriage. It thus follows that you believe it sacred to a God, thus that you believe in a God, thus that you have a faith.