Page 42 of 44

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:33 pm
by Unhealthy2
Bottle wrote:they actually seem to LIKE each other after all these years. :P


Well that definitely shows that they're not following the correct and objective traditional marriage model.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:34 pm
by Fanaglia
Zephie wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:
Zephie wrote:
Haiz wrote: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?


"Well-behaved women seldom make history"
- Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:37 pm
by Sol-Kar
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.



I feel bad for target, and they were acting VERY immaturely and just plain stupid. Odds are the people in the vid had no idea what they were even talking about, most of them looked like hippies anyways.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:39 pm
by Ifreann
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.

Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:39 pm
by DaWoad
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.

you never answered this Zephie

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:40 pm
by Desperate Measures
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!!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:48 pm
by Bottle
Ifreann wrote:
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.

Odds are you're secretly a zebra with a very special keyboard.

You are in danger of being sigged. Again.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:48 pm
by DaWoad
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!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:52 pm
by Desperate Measures
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!

They can take our rights but they will never take our DICTIONARIES!!!!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 1:55 pm
by Liuzzo
Zephie wrote:
Soheran wrote:
Vetalia wrote:Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...


So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

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.


Terribly wrong. They said Target supported this candidate and that candidate is against gay right. Slander does not apply here. You also can't be arrested for that it's civil tort law. You're welcome.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:01 pm
by The Black Forrest
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. :D

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.


Indeed. Just like the coloreds. They weren't denied anything. They had colored fountains, seating and entrances. Civil rights was a waste of time.


Seriously. At least put some effort into it.....

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:02 pm
by Liuzzo
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Haiz wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Dododecapod wrote:
Zephie wrote:
Haiz wrote: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.

Its their first amendment right to peacefully assemble. They did not destroy anything, and the store could request that they move or leave.


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.


Their display did not amount to any of those things and your grasp of the law is tenuous. Public disturbance would only be if they were asked to leave and they fought it and refused to leave. Peaceful protest is not harassment the did not create a captive audience. Corporate policy does not trump the law. How do you know all those people stated they didn't want to be taped for an event they didn't know was happening? Solicit? lol What money or exchange of value were they asking for? I agree I would be like, get the F out of my way if I were there but they did nothing illegal.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:03 pm
by Liuzzo
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?


false analogy and strawman good job.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:06 pm
by The Black Forrest
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.


Hogwash.

Many business leaders care about social issues. My current company does and donates time and effort to issues. They even allow for employees to donate a couple hours at schools and what not......

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:07 pm
by Buffett and Colbert
Does anyone know which state this was done in?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:08 pm
by The Black Forrest
Zephie wrote:
Karsol wrote:
Zephie wrote:
Medrod wrote:
Daistallia 2104 wrote:
Zephie wrote: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?


George Michael.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:10 pm
by The Black Forrest
Zephie wrote:
Soheran wrote:
Vetalia wrote:Businesses really don't care about social issues unless they impact the bottom line...


So boycotters decide to impact their bottom line.

So?

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.


So?

Christian groups do it all the time.......

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:12 pm
by DaWoad
Canadai wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Does anyone know which state this was done in?

A state of fear.

heh need to be more specific? Which one???

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:18 pm
by Buffett and Colbert
I ask in which state this occured because at least, iirc, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins allows for state Constitutions to have free speech clauses that expand on the First Amendment, so long as it doesn't infringe upon federal law.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:20 pm
by The Black Forrest
DaWoad wrote:
Canadai wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Does anyone know which state this was done in?

A state of fear.

heh need to be more specific? Which one???


Denial?

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:32 pm
by Zephie
Liuzzo wrote:
false analogy and strawman good job.

Straw man, Red Herring, Ad Hominem, you all say these too much and too liberally. It's not a straw man.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:38 pm
by Buffett and Colbert
Zephie wrote:
Liuzzo wrote:
false analogy and strawman good job.

Straw man, Red Herring, Ad Hominem, you all say these too much and too liberally.

Perhaps you use them too liberally.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:55 pm
by South Kirkcaldy
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Does anyone know which state this was done in?


It was done in Minnesota, I believe.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:06 pm
by Buffett and Colbert
South Kirkcaldy wrote:
Buffett and Colbert wrote:Does anyone know which state this was done in?


It was done in Minnesota, I believe.

Gotcha.

*starts typing furiously*

PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:07 pm
by Dyakovo
Zephie wrote:
Soheran wrote:
Political Pilgrims wrote:I think that all these homosexuals should stop spreading their message of hate against us heterosexuals.


Wait, what?

Does Target = heterosexuality now?

Heterosexuality is the default state of the human condition.

Source?