Chick-fil-a

[z31maniac]

Btw, I don't know if you've ever taken any rhetorical based classes, but you've made several fallacious attacks and arguments. Such as Ad Hominem. Seriously, stop attacking people, and attack their arguments instead. Since you seem so bent on convincing others of your ideals, compared to simply presenting your ideas for others to learn from/ question/ scrutinize, you always end up attacking the person.

Uh oh, looks like someone found Wikipedia!

[rwh11385]

But the word marriage, in US history has on average been used to describe a man and a woman. What is the issue with having a separate term for something equal? That is like saying it's bad to have a different name for males and females.

Hmmmm. I'm sorry that somehow this is not processing in your mind. Must be all the ignorance and bigotry getting in the way of logical reasoning.

Did the US invent marriage??

Does colloquial meaning create legal definition?
Or is it just the popular mental and personal definition to religious people who seek to impose their beliefs on others? (The same kind of thing that America was founded to AVOID)

If it was the typical meaning of a word through US history, does that make it correct or appropriate? I can think of MANY words used to describe people who were brought here from Africa at the start of our nation, but none of them were right or good. And is that tradition more important than their civil rights?

And anyone who graduated from high school should know that "separate but equal" is not equal.

[FunfGan]

Uh oh, looks like someone found Wikipedia!

Nope, more like, "oh uh, somebody had a decent high school education". What the dickens would I even search for to find something like that?

Hmmmm. I'm sorry that somehow this is not processing in your mind. Must be all the ignorance and bigotry getting in the way of simple and logical understanding.

Did the US invent marriage??

Does colloquial meaning create legal definition?
Or is it just the popular mental and personal definition to religious people who seek to impose their beliefs on others? (The same kind of thing that America was founded to AVOID)

If it was the typical meaning of a word through US history, does that make it correct or appropriate? I can think of MANY words used to describe people who were brought here from Africa from the start of our nation, but none of them were right or good. And is that tradition more important than their civil rights?

And anyone who graduated from high school should know that "separate but equal" is not equal.

I'm not talking about making them eat at different places, or shop at different stores. I'm talking about a word. Same rights, different word.

[z31maniac]

And anyone who graduated from high school should know that "separate but equal" is not equal.

I guess he hasn't gotten to the "Jim Crow Laws" entry on Wiki yet.

[FunfGan]

And z31maniac, I am still quite curious what your wheel comment meant...

[z31maniac]

Nope, more like, "oh uh, somebody had a decent high school education". What the dickens would I even search for to find something like that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

That "decent" high school education hasn't even developed your basic thinking skills.

Well done.

[FunfGan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Touché. Regardless, no wikipedia was used :)

[rwh11385]

I'm not talking about making them eat at different places, or shop at different stores. I'm talking about a word. Same rights, different word.

Still unequal. Maybe I should remind you what values the nation was founded upon.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And you're talking about a word. A word that TO YOU means one thing and that your personal comfort shall come before another man's pursuit of happiness. What a hateful selfish person you are. And one who is poor at answering questions:

Does colloquial meaning create legal definition?
Or is it just the popular mental and personal definition to religious people who seek to impose their beliefs on others? (The same kind of thing that America was founded to AVOID)

If it was the typical meaning of a word through US history, does that make it correct or appropriate? I can think of MANY words used to describe people who were brought here from Africa from the start of our nation, but none of them were right or good. And is that tradition more important than their civil rights?

Just like our country has redefined who is entitled to rights that the founders discussed (former slaves, women), it will establish that homosexuals are not some broken or messed up creatures that are wrong or undeserving of the fundamental rights that all others enjoy. You can carry your bigoted opinions and no one can force you to change, but that doesn't mean that a growing percentage of fellow Americans - and most of the rest of the developed world - will think you are a horrible person who is shitting on others' rights.

[mar1t1me]

OK....after wading through this thread I will simply say...

RE: Chick-Fil-A......I've been a customer since 1964 when I could eat solid food. The original Dwarf House All-Nite Diner was a few miles from home. They weren't nearly as Jesusy then, or at least didn't flaunt it.

Now, I still love the food, but now they play Jesus music. I gotta say, it feels somehow unsacred to be taking a shit in their bathroom while "praise music" is playing......hehe

So on to gay marriage.....yes gays should be able to marry. As Jefferson might have said...."it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket". Marriage is, in the US, a civil contract, not a religious one regardless of how much the religious people stomp their feet and grumble. I say "don't want a gay marriage? Then don't have one!". There are enough other, more pressing social issues with which to deal with....

[Kershaw]

Nope, more like, "oh uh, somebody had a decent high school education".

no, you really didnt.

i find it hilarious that you have heard the phrase "separate but equal" enough times in pop culture to be aware of the phrase, but you didnt actually know what it meant. Brown vs Board of Education is an incredibly important case to our history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

[FunfGan]

You're talking about a word. A word that TO YOU means one thing and that your personal comfort shall come before another man's pursuit of happiness. What a hateful selfish person you are. And one who is poor at answering questions:

A word that in US history, while not defined in the US constitution, has been used to describe a union between man and woman. And seriously, I keep wanting take what you're saying seriously, but then you just plain attack me, making me question your knowledge. Thankfully Kershaw is here to answer semi respectfully. And here's the issue, their pursuit of happiness invades many peoples happiness, so who is more correct? That is a question to seriously consider.

[FunfGan]

no, you really didnt.

i find it hilarious that you have heard the phrase "separate but equal" enough times in pop culture to be aware of the phrase, but you didnt actually know what it meant. Brown vs Board of Education is an incredibly important case to our history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

That's not my point, I'm not using it in that sort of phrasing, such as the wickipedia page said, the people were separate but equal. Not simply a word to describe something. Again, men and women are separate but equal entities, are they not?

[rwh11385]

A word that in US history, while not defined in the US constitution, has been used to describe a union between man and woman. And seriously, I keep wanting take what you're saying seriously, but then you just plain attack me, making me question your knowledge. Thankfully Kershaw is here to answer semi respectfully. And here's the issue, their pursuit of happiness invades many peoples happiness, so who is more correct? That is a question to seriously consider.

How many words have colloquially described former slaves and used to deny them their civil rights? Did that make those things correct - because people thought that they were inferior or not worthy of equal rights??

AND HOW DOES TWO MEN MARRYING INVADE ANYONE ELSE's HAPPINESS??

The most correct thing is equal civil rights. Letting women vote did not reduce your ability to vote. But it may have upset some bigoted men who didn't think it was right, or wanted to keep tradition.

[Kershaw]

you think im being semi-respectful? lol. how's this: stop being so hateful, bigoted, and dumb.

and ffs, go to college.

[kronus]

here's the issue, their pursuit of happiness invades many peoples happiness, so who is more correct? That is a question to seriously consider.

Whose happiness does it invade? Does it invade your happiness? Why does it invade your happiness? Sounds like a personal problem.

To quote our resident conservatives speaking about tax cuts and poor people, the right to "pursue happiness" does not entitle Americans to happiness. It entitles them to have an equal footing from which to pursue happiness.

Here's some things that the civil contract of marriage currently gets you in the states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States