LGBT extremists shamelessly cause a scene at a Target store.

[Rolling squid]

A declaration of love and commitment, a political tool, a way of strengthening social bonds, a right of passage.

So surely you don't need the government involved to do that.

Yep, in our society and culture, you do. That's changing, but right now, you pretty much do.

How?

Because it provides certain rights to and over your partner, gives social cachet to the relationship, and ensures equal treatment by all the state governments under constitutional law.

Silly goose, why should those things matter? I mean, if you are hit by a car and your partner of 25 years wants to see you in the hospital, why should you care if they legally can see you or not, right? Such silly, silly, trivial little rights, of no importance whatsoever.

They can simply sign a paper saying they have that right. (or at least that's the way it should be)

At this point, doesn't it become easier to just make marriage gender blind?

[Dododecapod]

A declaration of love and commitment, a political tool, a way of strengthening social bonds, a right of passage.

So surely you don't need the government involved to do that.

Yep, in our society and culture, you do. That's changing, but right now, you pretty much do.

How?

Because it provides certain rights to and over your partner, gives social cachet to the relationship, and ensures equal treatment by all the state governments under constitutional law.

Silly goose, why should those things matter? I mean, if you are hit by a car and your partner of 25 years wants to see you in the hospital, why should you care if they legally can see you or not, right? Such silly, silly, trivial little rights, of no importance whatsoever.

They can simply sign a paper saying they have that right. (or at least that's the way it should be)

I agree. Unfortunately, it isn't, and the best way, right now, to allow LGBT people to have the same rights as everyone else with regards to the spouse of their choice, is to allow them to marry. It solves all of the problems.

[Icemany]

I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is my opinion.

Well, your opinion is homophobic, bigoted, irrelevant, and wrong.

Homophobic? I dont hate homosexuals, nor do i dislike them for being homosexual. I'm merely saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Bigoted? If I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, it means I'm bigoted? Heck, in that case i could call you bigoted as well.
Irrelevant? If my views are irrelevant, then so are yours.
Wrong? What makes you think you're right? There is no such thing as right or wrong in this debate, there are only differing opinions.

Because I, and my church, believe marriage is between any two consenting adults.

I didn't know you were a pastafarian.

So get the fuck out of our way and let us marry same sex couples.

No.

You are homophobic.

What? I'm against gay marriage = I'm "homophobic"? Being homophobic means that you DISLIKE and even hate homosexuals just because they are homosexuals. I dont do that. I judge people based on their personality and character (and their looks if they're woman... but that is irrelevant in this discussion), not their sexual orientation. I find it disgusting to see how homosexuals are still being persecuted in some countries.

Being against gay marriage doesn't make one homophobic, so stop using that tactic, it isn't working.

And... death to the church!

Erm... death to you?

The biggest thing I have with this is the hypocrisy. If they donated to a Democrat politician with a liberal agenda, there would not of been a peep, but since it is to a Republican candidate with a conservative agenda, they have caused a shitstorm.

I do not really agree that corporations should be able to donate to political campaigns, but this is so such a hypocrisy, that it isn't even funny.

It must have something to do with the conservative agenda being disgusting.

Or it might have something to do with the "liberal" agenda being disgusting. Who knows.

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

[Ifreann]

A declaration of love and commitment, a political tool, a way of strengthening social bonds, a right of passage.

So surely you don't need the government involved to do that.

Yep, in our society and culture, you do. That's changing, but right now, you pretty much do.

How?

Because it provides certain rights to and over your partner, gives social cachet to the relationship, and ensures equal treatment by all the state governments under constitutional law.

Silly goose, why should those things matter? I mean, if you are hit by a car and your partner of 25 years wants to see you in the hospital, why should you care if they legally can see you or not, right? Such silly, silly, trivial little rights, of no importance whatsoever.

They can simply sign a paper saying they have that right. (or at least that's the way it should be)

You mean, a marriage license?

[Zephie]

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.

[Buffett and Colbert]

A declaration of love and commitment, a political tool, a way of strengthening social bonds, a right of passage.

So surely you don't need the government involved to do that.

Yep, in our society and culture, you do. That's changing, but right now, you pretty much do.

How?

Because it provides certain rights to and over your partner, gives social cachet to the relationship, and ensures equal treatment by all the state governments under constitutional law.

Silly goose, why should those things matter? I mean, if you are hit by a car and your partner of 25 years wants to see you in the hospital, why should you care if they legally can see you or not, right? Such silly, silly, trivial little rights, of no importance whatsoever.

They can simply sign a paper saying they have that right. (or at least that's the way it should be)

You mean, a marriage license?

[Zephie]

A declaration of love and commitment, a political tool, a way of strengthening social bonds, a right of passage.

So surely you don't need the government involved to do that.

Yep, in our society and culture, you do. That's changing, but right now, you pretty much do.

How?

Because it provides certain rights to and over your partner, gives social cachet to the relationship, and ensures equal treatment by all the state governments under constitutional law.

Silly goose, why should those things matter? I mean, if you are hit by a car and your partner of 25 years wants to see you in the hospital, why should you care if they legally can see you or not, right? Such silly, silly, trivial little rights, of no importance whatsoever.

They can simply sign a paper saying they have that right. (or at least that's the way it should be)

You mean, a marriage license?

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

[Liuzzo]

I completely support the protest and how it was performed. My only complaint is that they were saying "shit" over the megaphone thing when there could have been kids in the store. Even then I don't really care and I think it is worth it to inform people of who their corporations are endorsing.

I would've continue the protest in the parking lot. *nods*

Except the parking lot is private property as well, and they were asked to leave it. Failure to do so would be grounds for trespassing charges.

Interestingly enough none of this happened. Why might that be? The police were called it said so right in the video. The police filed no charges so your imagination is great but apparently not what really happened.

[Tungookska]

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

[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.

[Supercool and Awesome]

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.

[Skaladora]

but not destroy marriage.

Explain how two men or two women being married destroys marriage.

Because, you know, it's been happening here for 5 years and nobody complained about their marriage being destroyed so far.

[Dododecapod]

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

Sorry, "Separate but Equal" was killed in the '60s. Anyway, how can letting more people marry destroy marriage? If anything, it would strengthen the institution.

[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

[Rolling squid]

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?

[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.

That's a perfect analogy. I was trying to come up with one.

[Zephie]

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.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Animals artificially inseminate in the wild?

Are you trying to bring humans down to the level of animals?

I love you, Iffy. I laughed out loud.

This makes me question if you are here to debate or here to bandwagon.

Yeah, it's totally hypocritical of me to agree with people I agree with, but not to agree with people I don't agree with. I'm terrible like that.

[Tungookska]

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

[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.

[Skaladora]

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.

In Canada, The Netherlands, Sweden, Spain and Belgium it is(at least partly).

[Ifreann]

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

So it would be the exact same as marriage, but it can't be called marriage or MARRIAGE WILL BE DESTROYED! Similarly, we have to call it "Nigger Book Learnin'" when blacks are educated, otherwise it will DESTROY EDUCATION.

[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.

[Rolling squid]

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

According to zephie, exclusion.

[Tungookska]

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.

you saying polygamy is bad brosef