LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[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.

Who even says I have a faith?

Sanctity of 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?

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.

Gays want to legislate a change of the definition 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?

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.

Gays want to legislate a change of the definition of marriage.

What does it matter, since you don't believe in a God?

[Ifreann]

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?

If you have such a problem with homosexuals, why don't you move to Iran?

[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?

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.

Gays want to legislate a change of the definition of marriage.

What does it matter, since you don't believe in a God?

Who said I don't believe in God?

[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?

No, then the gays would win in the destruction of the sanctity of marriage.

No they wouldn't.

[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?

If you have such a problem with homosexuals, why don't you move to Iran?

If you have such a problem with heterosexuals, why don't you move to Germany?

[Buffett and Colbert]

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?

If you have such a problem with homosexuals, why don't you move to Iran?

If you have such a problem with heterosexuals, why don't you move to Germany?

I don't believe Ifreann has a problem with heterosexuals. So you were saying?

[Ifreann]

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?

If you have such a problem with homosexuals, why don't you move to Iran?

If you have such a problem with heterosexuals, why don't you move to Germany?

I don't have a problem with heterosexuals. Well, not all of them.

[Karsol]

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?

If you have such a problem with homosexuals, why don't you move to Iran?

If you have such a problem with heterosexuals, why don't you move to Germany?

Did you say the majorly Catholic filled Germany is populated soley by gay's?

[Buffett and Colbert]

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?

If you have such a problem with homosexuals, why don't you move to Iran?

If you have such a problem with heterosexuals, why don't you move to Germany?

Did you say the majorly Catholic filled Germany is populated soley by gay's?

In fact, Germany only recognises gay "partnerships," iirc.

[The Norwegian Blue]

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?

Erm, they don't want to be straight. That's...kinda the point.

[Ifreann]

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?

Erm, they don't want to be straight. That's...kinda the point.

Don't you get it? Marriage is completely heterosexual(true fact, despite zero evidence!), therefore if gays want marriage, they must want to be straight. It's like women who want to be men by doing things like holding down jobs or voting.

[Unhealthy2]

Erm, they don't want to be straight. That's...kinda the point.

What did I tell you? I warned you that his non-sequitor bullshit was getting worse. His arguments aren't even common stereotypes now. Now it's just random nonsense. "I live in Kansas, and on Tuesdays I shop for groceries, so no gay marriage." is gonna be his argument soon.

[Ifreann]

Erm, they don't want to be straight. That's...kinda the point.

What did I tell you? I warned you that his non-sequitor bullshit was getting worse. His arguments aren't even common stereotypes now. Now it's just random nonsense. "I live in Kansas, and on Tuesdays I shop for groceries, so no gay marriage." is gonna be his argument soon.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, gays can't marry

[Fanaglia]

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.

So was the Emancipation Proclamation promoting "the advancement of a group of people destroying the cultural identity of your country in the guise of equal rights"? Or the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments?

[Zephie]

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.

So was the Emancipation Proclamation promoting "the advancement of a group of people destroying the cultural identity of your country in the guise of equal rights"? Or the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments?

Nope.

[Dododecapod]

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.

So was the Emancipation Proclamation promoting "the advancement of a group of people destroying the cultural identity of your country in the guise of equal rights"? Or the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments?

Nope.

Yet, in the end, those actions DID destroy the cultural identity of our country. So, what are you defending again?

[Fanaglia]

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.

So was the Emancipation Proclamation promoting "the advancement of a group of people destroying the cultural identity of your country in the guise of equal rights"? Or the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments?

Nope.

And how the hell would legalizing gay marriage be any different?

[Buffett and Colbert]

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.

So was the Emancipation Proclamation promoting "the advancement of a group of people destroying the cultural identity of your country in the guise of equal rights"? Or the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments?

Nope.

And how the hell would legalizing gay marriage be any different?

It's different because it's different.

[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?

No, the first Amendment does that.

Maybe on public property, but Target is private property.

Target is most likely lease property that invites the public into their domain therefor the same rules do not apply as say your home. Comprende compadre?

[Bottle]

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

What about marriage is there to protect?

Yeah, I gotta admit, I don't have the slightest problem with "destroying traditional marriage."

Traditionally, marriage was the institution in which a man purchased a woman to be his domestic and sexual slave. Traditionally, marriage was a business transaction between two men, to determine who got to treat a particular woman as property. I have absolutely no problem with helping to destroy that institution!

What's nice, though, is that marriage stopped belonging to that 'tradition' a long time ago. My atheist feminist parents married in 1976, and my mom kept her own name and everything. They didn't have children for 7 whole years after they got married, yet their union wasn't annulled or invalidated by the state. When my father got a vasectomy, electing to stop being able to have children at the ripe old age of 39, my parents remained married. They have done their part to help "destroy the sanctity of marriage," and I am everlastingly proud of them for doing it. Bonus: they actually seem to LIKE each other after all these years.

[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?

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?

Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

I feel skeptical about this statement. I wonder why?

[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?

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?

Exactly! I was neutral on gay marriage, but after this, I am less likely to support it after these douchebags....

I feel skeptical about this statement. I wonder why?

Bias?

[Liuzzo]

You just need a good hard fuckin', Zephie. Take a big gay cock and enjoy self-loving your self-loathing gay self.

Thanks for the offer, but I must decline.

Hey, you may be okay. You didn't react irrationally and make threats. Perhaps we may find an alliance somewhere down the road.