Chick-fil-A location at DIA paused after Denver Council cites chain's LGBT stances

That's the comparison YOU are making. I am comparing two closely related people marrying and two people of the same sex marrying.

 

Not being able to marry will not stop people being homosexual.
Homosexuals who marry do not have any influence on the lives of other peoples marriages and if those people get children.
So your entire argument is just... non existent.

You don't need a license for children. Every freaking drug addicted drunk can have multiple children in their exceptionally dangerous and violent lifestyle. And it is really is a no brainer that a stable relationship is always the best. And that includes a homosexual relationship.


^^
happy gay couple with adopted children.
Perfect example.

- - - Updated - - -

It is either YOU are making that comparison, or it has absolutely nothing at all to do with this topic = YOU are trolling off topic.

 

if finding a picture of people smiling proves success.....



this proves Mike Tyson was a good husband

 

Thats a good example of a horrible heterosexual for family life.
My points of my previous post stands.

 

nice deflection... you posted a pic as proof of a happy gay family..... pics don't prove that.

 

No one claimed it would

No one claimed it would

No, your strawmen are irrelevant to my arguments

No one claimed you do.

Silly. Every time you loudly proclaim one has nothing to do with the other, YOU are making that comparison. While I am comparing marriages.

 

Indeed. So since nobody claimed that... your entire argument is not there.
It's just a waterfall of words and meaningless.

 

I dont need to prove a thing. You need to prove they can not, since you brought it up.
While we all know heterosexual couples can be exceptionally horrible.

 

if you want to post the picture proving they are happy, seems you think you feel the need to prove it to someone. But posting pics of people smiling does not tell the true story, ask Robin Givens. I posted that pic to simply show you how silly it is to think that posting a happy picture PROVES true happiness. I can fake a smile, even on my worst days. WHo's to say those kids in your gay family pic aren't being beaten like Robin Givens was? A smile doesn't preove a thing.

 

2 white guys with 2 black children. What a lovely family pick they made.
And the point stands, since you doubt that they are unhappy... bring it.

 

I don't doubt anything... you just assume that a picture proves their happiness when I showed you a great example of how smiling people in a picture prove nothing of the sort.

are you still avoiding the initial question, though?

 

The only thing you proved with that picture is that heterosexual couples can be totally inappropriate parents, opening the door for homosexual couples.

 

My arguments dont include any of those things. The only thing meaningless is the endless procession of strawmen

 

Indeed your argument don't include a thing. That is exactly the problem.

 

The only real arguments against same sex marriage is:
"It's icky"
"It's against my chosen religion"

Both have no legal weight so the remaining arguments are... less than rational.
No matter, the issue has been decided. The votes are not there for a reversal and new voters lean heavily towards the support of gay rights.

 

Any thoughts on the topic?

Or just more of that constantly-repeated "it's the law now" irrelevance?

 

2 consenting adults
how does it affect you?
child bearing is not to be considered


am I arguing for #SSM, or #SFM(Same Family Marriage)

If you aren't willing to allow even the ones YOU don't support (incest), then you can't get your panties in a wad when someone doesn't support your group.


If a person dismisses "2 consenting adults how does it affect you? child bearing is not to be considered", over SSM and you define it as hate and bigotry.... why is it not hate and bigotry when you deny a brother and a sister "marriage equality"?

not.me can't answer that question. So I'll ask you directly.
____________________________________
Yes or no
do you support incest marraige.... remember


2 consenting adults
how does it affect you?
child bearing is not to be considered
____________________________________

if your answer is no.... do you hate those that want to marry their sibling and claim you are a bigot for not supporting them?

- - - Updated - - -

FTR - those reasons are not the only reasons to be against SSM.... it's just the only reasons he can defend, and thus, every other reason is dismissed as "irrational"

 

Absolutely.

When an argument is weak, create the goofiest opposing stances you can... and argue against those instead.

 

my religion has zero to do with my reasoning to keep #SSM off the books.

my religion is how I justify teaching my kids that gay is a choice that is influenced by environment, just like incest. But my objections to incest marraige, polygomy, is not based on my religion (heck, there were numerous cases where Christianity had both, still doesn't mean I have to think incest marraige and polygomy should be legal now)

 

I have to admit I am not well versed in on the topic of incestual sex but I will attempt to answer your question...
First, I believe that marriage should not be in the hands of the government - it was a tradition that was taken over first by religion and then by government. I think the government should treat all people as an individual and to assist in the wellbeing of children the government should issue child care credits to needy guardians.

Since that will not happen as the government needs control and people will not pass up the tax benefits; we currently create a familial bond (called marriage) to be able to transfer property and benefits. We basically make two unrelated people related. Under the current system we have I would say that marriage would not be needed for siblings, parents, or children. I see no problem with two first cousins signing a contract together.

So to directly answer your question - I'm am fine with two consenting adults signing a secular legal document.

For the other issue of being a "bigot" (which is a word interchangeable with intolerant) - while that word is often overused, I certainly can be - I don't know if I am on this particular topic but surely someone would disagree.

You can not agree with someone on a subject with rational debate, but when you derail (not you personally), lie, and make every discussion about homosexuals into aids, phedophilia, beastiality, and random sex/sex acts their agenda and hate is exposed.

I have yet to hear a valid reason to prevent same sex marriage outside the two I mentioned. Religion and personal/moral objection.
Religion is a valid objection as no one has the authority to dictate your thought
The same can be said with personal and moral objection.
These seem to be repeated ad nauseam:

• No benefit to society is often argued but this is false as stable homes (and gay people do have homes and families) create wealth, increase home ownership and stimulate the local economy more than a single person.
• *STD rates and monogamy are often argued against gay marriage even though marriage decreases the first and increases the second.
• Biological families, while preferred, is not always an option and I would much rather have a loving same sex couple or individual adopt then rather then have them rot in government wards.
• *The degradation of society is personal objection and would fit in to moral objection and opinion.

So no, they are not rational to exclude two same sex individuals from the ability to sign a contract. If you have a good rational thought please share it.

 

Then I welcome you to create substantive information to respond to instead of patting yourself on the back.

 

And no objections to incestuous marriage is fine. I disagree... but you are at least consistent in your "2 consenting adults, how does it affect you" position that you agreed with in SSM


as far as SSM concerns... take this example.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_yezl1U39g

my insurance rates go up because other people's bad behaviors.

same applies to health insurance.


Why should I be ok with my health insurance going up because billy now applies for a spouse rate because he married Bobby. Billy has risky behaviors... just like speeders, and his bad behavior affects insurance rates for everyone.

If Billy has his own insurance... he's paying for his own risk. When he gets a spouse rate, (when prior to July, he didn't), I'm forced to subsidize his reduced rate when my rate goes up (albeit ever so slightly as this cost is offset by EVERYONE, not just me)

You may not worry about pennies... I do.


Homophobia has nothing to do with it... stinginess does. I object to incest and polygomy for the same reasons

 

So you believe that homosexuals should pay for your spouse but you should not have to pay for theirs?
Interesting. Unfortunately we live in a civilized first world nation - the burdon of costs is shared, and while many advocate that everyone pay for themselves those same people ignore that costs are shared throughout our nation for the betterment of its citizens.

While studies do indeed suggest homosexual married couples typically have poorer health than their heterosexual counterparts both groups health levels are significantly improved once married. In other words a gay married couple would cost less than two single gay people.

Black people have significantly higher health costs - does your scenario apply to them? Should we have a married white Christian male rate?

 

my wife and I both have our own individual insurance. So the attempt to point out hypocracy on my part misses.


I believe everyone should pay for their lifestyle risks. Blacks are a higher risk for heart disease, and diabetes, I'm at a higher risk for skin cancer than a black guy is. All of it should be taken into account and the burden placed on the risk levels YOU bring to the table, just like a 16 yo male driver of a red sportscar should have to pay more in auto insurance than a middle aged family man driving a minivan.....

 

Sure, basing this on personal preference is wrong. Chick fil A is no worse than any franchise in my book. If the people in that area have a political gripe about them they should just not eat there.

I do oppose rabid commercial development in general though. Sometimes it seems like we're bent on paving the entire surface of the US to put Supr Wal Marts and fast food restaurants everywhere. Speculating about demand that doesn't yet exist seems hairbrained to me.