The Planned Kiss In at Chck-fil-a On Friday,

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

You indicated that someone was a homophobe filled with hate.

Never, ever said that. That statement was made by another poster, responded to by Marc, and then included in my first post for context.

Quote

You then turned that into him actively promoting inequality.

Nope, That's where I started, and that's exactly what he said. He also, at the same time said he didn't agree that doing that was bigoted.

Quote

You've been twisting his comments at every exchange.

I disagree. I've asked the same question in as many different ways as I can think of since each time he didn't appear to 'get it'.

I'm actually surprised to see this response from you. Generally you're one of the more thoughtful posters on topics, and take time to read and understand other points of view - even if you disagree with them.

Quote

Please go back and read the exchange again.

I would encourage you to do the same (and I really don't mean that in a snarky way). I have done nothing but ask him to explain a statement (I hadn't even said if I agree or disagree with the statement until a response to JGoose).

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I looked back over the thread. It looks to me as if you have twisted things around. You indicated that someone was a homophobe filled with hate. He disagreed. You then turned that into him actively promoting inequality. He said he wasn't doing that. You then asked how doing so was not bigotted. You've been twisting his comments at every exchange. I'm not surprised he quit responding.

Please go back and read the exchange again.

Whoa, dude. I don't know what you were reading, but it's not the same thread I've been following. I think you might want to carefully read the exchange again.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Well just to be fair, there are many here within this blog and the LGBT actively devoted to his /her own opinions and prejudices; especially those who regard or treat christians with hatred and intolerance. Don't take this personal...just saying

You'll get no argument from me there! There's plenty of blame to go around

Performance Designs Factory Team

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well, I wasn't planning on going, but then when I thought about; How often do I get to see hot Lebanese babes in a lip-lock.

too bad, in real life, watching any two average people kissing is likely equivalent in voyeuristic fun as watching a walrus trying to climb over a rock - and probably just as sexy. Unlike what our healthy imaginations wish it was like

If you go, I hope you like walruses

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

Well, I wasn't planning on going, but then when I thought about; How often do I get to see hot Lebanese babes in a lip-lock.

too bad, in real life, watching any two average people kissing is likely equivalent in voyeuristic fun as watching a walrus trying to climb over a rock - and probably just as sexy. Unlike what our healthy imaginations wish it was like

If you go, I hope you like walruses

One day at the local DZ, in the area where the tandem students wait, there was a pair of cute babes waiting for their turn, who just couldn't keep their hands off each other. It definitely made the day more interesting.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

You indicated that someone was a homophobe filled with hate.

No, he didn't. rushm came up with that phrase. I replied that if someone actively promotes inequality he would be in fact that. and then ianmdrennan chimed into the exchange.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

It goes back to the problem that marriage is a religious practice, and never should have been recognized by the government. The government should recognize only civil unions for all couples, and those who also want the religious ceremony are free to go to whatever church they want for it.

It's hard to define what marriage is but it isn't necessarily a religious practice, because unless I missed something non-believers can marry in many parts of the world, including the US of A. Also in many Western nations the business part of marriage (the part that comes with rights and duties etc.) is strictly secular. For example: if you want to marry here you have to go to the city hall for a civil marriage. The religious marriage is optional, and the different faiths can pretty much shape that as they see fit.

[rehmwa 2]

Oh good. the semantics thing again.

next thing we know, someone will cut and paste from an on line dictionary

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Marinus 0]

That already happened in post #50

But we still need someone to whine about spelling, a PA, and a Godwin to complete this discussion.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That already happened in post #50

But we still need someone to whine about spelling, a PA, and a Godwin to complete this discussion.

I'm pretty sure you're just trying to attack me by spelling "Goodwin" that way.
How dare you!

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Oh good. the semantics thing again.

next thing we know, someone will cut and paste from an on line dictionary

OK, I apologize for posting a link to the dictionary.

And I do have to admit, the marriage of fried chicken and pickle on a Chick-fil-A sandwich was one of my favorite things as a teenager hanging out in the mall.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

OK, I apologize for posting a link to the dictionary.

phah! anyone can post from a politically biased source like that. I want facts and credentials.

everyone knows the so called "dictionary" is just a tool of social repression

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Marinus 0]

Quote

everyone knows the so called "dictionary" is just a tool of social repression

dicktionary.

Obvious gay agenda is being obvious.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I'm actually surprised to see this response from you. Generally you're one of the more thoughtful posters on topics, and take time to read and understand other points of view - even if you disagree with them.

I agree, and I was surprised to see that from him too. I think some of the replies were confusing as to who said what, so he probably got mixed up somewhere if he was reading too fast.

I vote we just give him a spanking and carry on.

[billvon 3,120]

>How often do I get to see hot Lebanese babes in a lip-lock.

Not often enough! Much better than Syrian babes doing the same thing.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm actually surprised to see this response from you. Generally you're one of the more thoughtful posters on topics, and take time to read and understand other points of view - even if you disagree with them.

I agree, and I was surprised to see that from him too. I think some of the replies were confusing as to who said what, so he probably got mixed up somewhere if he was reading too fast.

I vote we just give him a spanking and carry on.

I thought about posting "Who's on first"

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, I wasn't planning on going, but then when I thought about; How often do I get to see hot Lebanese babes in a lip-lock.

too bad, in real life, watching any two average people kissing is likely equivalent in voyeuristic fun as watching a walrus trying to climb over a rock - and probably just as sexy. Unlike what our healthy imaginations wish it was like

If you go, I hope you like walruses

So attractive in theory, so disappointing in reality.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

The whole argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Or between form and function.
Or between sweet and spicy.
Or between science and art.
Or between Heaven and Hell. (William Blake)
Or between two people of the same sex. (Merriam-Webster)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Doesn't matter what Merriam-Webster says. Only what the government says because they are the ones enforcing the law. If you want to have fun and see other conflicts see also the differences between the government and the dictionary when talking about assault rifles and also thongs (when defining for obscenity laws).

Some times I don't know whether to laugh or cry.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,120]

> Only what the government says because they are the ones enforcing the law.

Well, that's easy then. Since in some places in the US same-sex marriage is legal, then it DOES refer to a marriage between two people of the same sex. Even California recognizes same-sex marriages that were made in-state before it was banned.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

>The whole argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not about
>taking away rights.

Of course it is. Gays had the right to marry in California. That right was taken away.

But then it was given back to them and then put on hold until an appeal to the supreme court is heard. I think soon gays will have the right to unite also.

Quote

> Your argument is "if you don't call a family of geese a pack, you are a bigot."

No. More like "if you don't call a black american a citizen (or a voter), you're a bigot." And up until about 100 years ago, blacks were not considered citizens, or voters. Fortunately we changed those definitions.

I'm sure that gay couples will soon be allowed to provide insurance for each other, get tax breaks, and do all of those things that hetero couples can do. I just don't think that it will be called marriage because there are unique situations that are involved when gays have kids. It needs be be called something else so these situations can be addressed.

Also, lets be honest, the only reason this is an issue right now is because of all the legal benefits/ entitlements that our society has developed. That's what the whole marriage thing is about, getting their greedy little hands on them.

If you were to go back and talk to people who truly have had their rights stepped on, they would tell people now a days to stop their whining.

Or are you just trying to pick a fight because I said I liked puppies in the other thread, especially the cute ones?

I'm sure if you were to ask anyone who truly has had their rights squashed or suppressed, you would hear a different story.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,120]

>But then it was given back to them . . .

Well not yet it hasn't been. The right was taken away after anti-gay-rights forces (like, say, the owners of Chick-Fil-A) strongly supported a ballot measure to deny them those rights. They have not yet regained them.

Thus I can see some anger towards such people. You would probably feel some resentment towards the people who worked to take your rights away (especially if they succeeded.)

> I just don't think that it will be called marriage . . . .

It might or might not be. Unfortunately, in many places the only way to get the same rights that married couples have is to call it marriage and make it identical. Many gay people have noticed that the "civil unions" that have been proposed as a substitute are often not equivalent to marriages. Thus they see these civil unions as a trick to deny them rights while getting them to shut up about it.

But if states get away from that, and offer gay couples legal status (call it marryge or something) that is identical to being married then the issue would largely go away.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

If you were to go back and talk to people who truly have had their rights stepped on, they would tell people now a days to stop their whining.

You know gays have had their rights stepped on, right?

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

....anti-gay-rights forces....

Why does it have to be "anti-gay-rights forces?" Why can't it be "Pro-Sanctity-of-Marriage forces?" You do realize there is a difference, right?

You do realize that all of the "rights" that are being "oppressed" are all new benefits that have evolved with our society, specifically (insurance, etc...) over about the last 70 years, and can be given without calling it marriage?

Quote

It might or might not be. Unfortunately, in many places the only way to get the same rights that married couples have is to call it marriage and make it identical. Many gay people have noticed that the "civil unions" that have been proposed as a substitute are often not equivalent to marriages. Thus they see these civil unions as a trick to deny them rights while getting them to shut up about it.

But if states get away from that, and offer gay couples legal status (call it marryge or something) that is identical to being married then the issue would largely go away.

Like I said, the supreme court should be ruling really soon and all of this will be behind us. I strongly suspect that there will be equal rights for all, and then the left will stop comparing the lack of insurance to slavery.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

If you were to go back and talk to people who truly have had their rights stepped on, they would tell people now a days to stop their whining.

You know gays have had their rights stepped on, right?

I guess I was asleep in school when the taught us about how gays were brought over in slave ships and how Lincoln freed the gays with the emancipation proclamation....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why does it have to be "anti-gay-rights forces?" Why can't it be "Pro-Sanctity-of-Marriage forces?" You do realize there is a difference, right?

fuck if I can see the difference. Given their lack of interest in stopping one day marriages by celebrities, forgive me if I question your assertion that this is anything other than stopping gays. If they really are about the sanctity of marriage then their proposals should be attacking no fault divorce laws too.