Chick-fil-a

[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.

[FunfGan]

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

Touché. Regardless, no wikipedia was used :)

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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!

[FunfGan]

[/B]if this has genuinely intrigued you and you think you would like to educate yourself more about the varied sexual behaviors of humans, i can locate many of my sociology textbooks and lend them to you since you are close by. alternatively, you can go to a decent college and get your degree in sociology. i think it would really challenge your world views.

If I didn't wish to challenge my world views, you think I would come into the r3v "Politics and Religion" sub forum?

[Kershaw]

No, actually. I believe your questions were retorted, to which you too continued to simply insult the asker. I'm smart enough to know when to sit back and let others ask questions.

if you think those were legitimate answers, i question whether or not you ever passed a high school level science class. he simply spouted whatever the fuck he wanted to.

But I'll humor you with my own view on things

im not asking for your "views." that's what vdubin replied with as well. your views are anecdotal at best and pretty much garbage.

i'll educate you:

1. what is normal behavior in humans? please define what constitutes normal behavior.
there is no normal when it comes to human behavior. the gamut is incredibly varied. ie, rape is a common human sexual behavior. it's also common for many animals. is it normal? personally, i dont rape others. someone else might really enjoy the power trip. so when we are talking about all of humanity, we cannot define normal.
1a. what is sexually normal for humans, specifically?
see above answer: nothing.
1b. how does homosexuality fall in normal or abnormal behaviors?
trick question because there is no normal.

2. how many species on earth have members that display homosexual behaviors?
over 1500 species on earth have been documented displaying homosexual behaviors, tendencies, or inclinations.
2a. do any of these species mate for life?
yes. apparently we are not the only species with an idea of marriage.
2b. do any of these species exhibit the same lesbian, gay, bisexual tendencies that humans do?
yes. some members can be bisexual, lesbian, or gay. they run the sexual preference gamut just like us humans.
2c. would homosexuality in animals be blamed on upbringing, environment, or a want to be different?
this is actually a very interesting question. i do not have the answer, but it is excellent food for thought.

if this has genuinely intrigued you and you think you would like to educate yourself more about the varied sexual behaviors of humans, i can locate many of my sociology textbooks and lend them to you since you are close by. alternatively, you can go to a decent college and get your degree in sociology. i think it would really challenge your world views.

please let me know what you think of this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ation.research

[FunfGan]

Beautiful man.

He's ignoring the damn constitution, just as you are accusing us of doing.

[rwh11385]

"Un natural?" What a retarded crock of shit. Monogamy is unnatural and leads down a certain path of lessening the species. Genetic diversity is the only way to perpetuate a species, and monogamy is a poor choice.

As far as the gay marriage thing, WTF? You gay? No? Then why the fuck do you think you have the right to even voice an opinion?

Beautiful man.

[squidmaster]

"Un natural?" What a retarded crock of shit. Monogamy is unnatural and leads down a certain path of lessening the species. Genetic diversity is the only way to perpetuate a species, and monogamy is a poor choice.

As far as the gay marriage thing, WTF? You gay? No? Then why the fuck do you think you have the right to even voice an opinion?

:up:

It's been funny watching these bigots try to form ideas and sentences. Good thread. Sad people.

[FunfGan]

As far as the gay marriage thing, WTF? You gay? No? Then why the fuck do you think you have the right to even voice an opinion?

Because we live in the mutherfucking United States of America. Eirgo, we have freedom of opinion.

[FunfGan]

So are you saying that racists don't offend you?

Ignorance greatly bothers me, as does the hate that stems from it. Bigots negatively impact others - whether you care about your own damage to others or not, like pollution. Your bigoted opinions are toxic to society.

But at least you are admitting that you are a bigot.

You still haven't explained how I am a bigot though. I don't treat them differently, and I would be just as quick to protect the safety of a homosexual as I would a straight person.

Let me try to put it this way, which has at least helped explain my views in the past; It's not the fact that they are gay, it is the same issue I with people that party/ create pointless violence towards the innocence etc etc. It's not the fact that they simply are, it's the fact that they put their identity in that one thing. They focus on that, trying to separate themselves and create controversy.

As I've said before, no hate here :) I am fine with civil unions, and they in turn being just as equal as a marriage. 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.