Chic-Fil-A is making history, and showing the power of the American people/voter.

[Againsheila]

What did Jesus ever say that was hateful to gays? Btw, he was probably gay himself: he only hung around with guys, fuck a girl only once to see if he'd like it (he didn't), he wore a dress and rode that gay pride animal, the donkey. And in almost all the paintings of jesus, he looks gay.

Saying "I believe in traditional marriage" is "hateful to gays"? I don't think so. Some of them may not agree with those words, or like them; but disagreeing with a minority is not "hateful", nor is it a crime in America; and NO ONE, gay or straight, has a right to force others to say only that which they find inoffensive. Your position amounts to nothing more nor less than this: "No one shall dare utter a word which is not Politically Correct, and if he does, I have the right to demand that government use its power to punish him for doing so". THAT is a direct assault on the constitution, and on freedom itself.

P.S. No one knows what Jesus looked like, as there is no contemporary image of him (there were no cameras circa 30 C.E.).

No one is forcing you say anything you don't want to, but at the same time, you can't expect to force others to live by your code of conduct, and that just because you're homophobic that that doesn't give you the right to tell others how to live.

There's no actual proof that Jesus ever existed, but he's always painted as a gay man.

You can tell just by looking????

 

[beagle9]

Saying "I believe in traditional marriage" is "hateful to gays"? I don't think so. Some of them may not agree with those words, or like them; but disagreeing with a minority is not "hateful", nor is it a crime in America; and NO ONE, gay or straight, has a right to force others to say only that which they find inoffensive. Your position amounts to nothing more nor less than this: "No one shall dare utter a word which is not Politically Correct, and if he does, I have the right to demand that government use its power to punish him for doing so". THAT is a direct assault on the constitution, and on freedom itself.

P.S. No one knows what Jesus looked like, as there is no contemporary image of him (there were no cameras circa 30 C.E.).

No one is forcing you say anything you don't want to, but at the same time, you can't expect to force others to live by your code of conduct, and that just because you're homophobic that that doesn't give you the right to tell others how to live.

There's no actual proof that Jesus ever existed, but he's always painted as a gay man.

You can tell just by looking????

I thought liberals hated profiling? OOPS!

 

[ima]

What "majority" are you talking about, otherwise that would be found within and/or vocally opposed to a specific issue ? If a majority is against something found within a specific issue, then how will it be found that they would be engaging in something that they are against, and for which is found within the specific issue that they are against, like what maybe a bunch of hypocryts would do ? Otherwise how would it be found that we as in a majority who are against something on a specific issue, would somehow be secretly telling others in our same majority who are also against these things on a specific issue, that it is ok for them to do something that we as a majority (them included) are against ? You make no sense in this wording you have presented here.

But you feel that it is ok for the minority (a few) to control the majority (many), as pertaining to a specific issue, just as they are attempting to do today, and therefore are trying to do this more and more now everyday? Sadly they do this by way of these activist judges, lawyers and rogue institutions like the ACLU, and worse an intimidated supreme court who has lost it's freakin mind over the years. You expect the people just to keep letting this stuff close in on them in America, regardless of their rights not to allow it to ? You best wake up, because it's only going to get worse if it keeps going down these roads like it is going, because some of these roads have already ended for those who have been traveling them for far to long now, (i. e. vering wildly off of the beaten path for way to long by a disfunctional internal compass), and therefore they need to get back on the "straight and narrow" roads before it is far to late for them.

As for ther majority, they will survive it all, because well they are the majority, but the few who want what they want at the majorities expense, will soon find that the majority are not so willing to keep sacrificing their own in this nation for others who are just a few in regards to their expense. It just can't and won't keep happening. Chic-Fil-A was a show of what people are thinking these days, and how they have had enough of this one sided game that has been played on them for quite sometime now in this nation.

So what is it that you have against gay people?

Why do you narrow it down to this that you ask, I mean do you really think I have something against gay people or is it rather that I have something against people trying to make this nation conform to certain ways of thinking and/or lifestyle choices that are made, and this across the board even though made by a few, thus shutting out any beliefs or lifestyles found in a majority, who might be opposed to these lifestyles or choices made by these few, yet are then being forced in many ways as a majority to conform anyways (the supreme court will side with me, your words), when they don't have to be forced and shouldn't be forced ever, but rather should be left alone in this nation just as they should be left alone in their beliefs and lives as they do live them, and have before lived them for centuries now in this nation. It matters not what I believe, but what does matter, is what is right in this nation and what is wrong in this nation. This is what matters to the majority found on many issues that are brought up or brought foward in this nation, and they expect like any other to have their voices heard, and their rights protected as they had won them so many years ago.

Nobody's trying to make you conform to anything. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But I don't see where you get a vote to decide to stop gays from getting married just because you might have a majority in some States. Nobody's even forcing churches to marry gays either.
If the majority forced gays to sit at the back of the bus, I suppose that would be ok with you?

 

[ima]

No one is forcing you say anything you don't want to, but at the same time, you can't expect to force others to live by your code of conduct, and that just because you're homophobic that that doesn't give you the right to tell others how to live.

There's no actual proof that Jesus ever existed, but he's always painted as a gay man.

You can tell just by looking????

I thought liberals hated profiling? OOPS!

it's called a gaydar.

 

[beagle9]

So what is it that you have against gay people?

Why do you narrow it down to this that you ask, I mean do you really think I have something against gay people or is it rather that I have something against people trying to make this nation conform to certain ways of thinking and/or lifestyle choices that are made, and this across the board even though made by a few, thus shutting out any beliefs or lifestyles found in a majority, who might be opposed to these lifestyles or choices made by these few, yet are then being forced in many ways as a majority to conform anyways (the supreme court will side with me, your words), when they don't have to be forced and shouldn't be forced ever, but rather should be left alone in this nation just as they should be left alone in their beliefs and lives as they do live them, and have before lived them for centuries now in this nation. It matters not what I believe, but what does matter, is what is right in this nation and what is wrong in this nation. This is what matters to the majority found on many issues that are brought up or brought foward in this nation, and they expect like any other to have their voices heard, and their rights protected as they had won them so many years ago.

Nobody's trying to make you conform to anything. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But I don't see where you get a vote to decide to stop gays from getting married just because you might have a majority in some States. Nobody's even forcing churches to marry gays either.
If the majority forced gays to sit at the back of the bus, I suppose that would be ok with you?

As highlighted above in red, I guess this is the last hope of trying to gain acceptance across the board, by adopting the cilvil rights struggle in regards to the blacks, as now to become the gay struggle in this nation as well, and this even though a majority of black families and blacks don't agree with the gay marriage issue either, but it matters not what they think does it, just so long as the plan works huh?

 

[beagle9]

So what is it that you have against gay people?

Why do you narrow it down to this that you ask, I mean do you really think I have something against gay people or is it rather that I have something against people trying to make this nation conform to certain ways of thinking and/or lifestyle choices that are made, and this across the board even though made by a few, thus shutting out any beliefs or lifestyles found in a majority, who might be opposed to these lifestyles or choices made by these few, yet are then being forced in many ways as a majority to conform anyways (the supreme court will side with me, your words), when they don't have to be forced and shouldn't be forced ever, but rather should be left alone in this nation just as they should be left alone in their beliefs and lives as they do live them, and have before lived them for centuries now in this nation. It matters not what I believe, but what does matter, is what is right in this nation and what is wrong in this nation. This is what matters to the majority found on many issues that are brought up or brought foward in this nation, and they expect like any other to have their voices heard, and their rights protected as they had won them so many years ago.

Nobody's trying to make you conform to anything. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But I don't see where you get a vote to decide to stop gays from getting married just because you might have a majority in some States. Nobody's even forcing churches to marry gays either.
If the majority forced gays to sit at the back of the bus, I suppose that would be ok with you?

Tell that to the United States Military...

 

[ima]

Why do you narrow it down to this that you ask, I mean do you really think I have something against gay people or is it rather that I have something against people trying to make this nation conform to certain ways of thinking and/or lifestyle choices that are made, and this across the board even though made by a few, thus shutting out any beliefs or lifestyles found in a majority, who might be opposed to these lifestyles or choices made by these few, yet are then being forced in many ways as a majority to conform anyways (the supreme court will side with me, your words), when they don't have to be forced and shouldn't be forced ever, but rather should be left alone in this nation just as they should be left alone in their beliefs and lives as they do live them, and have before lived them for centuries now in this nation. It matters not what I believe, but what does matter, is what is right in this nation and what is wrong in this nation. This is what matters to the majority found on many issues that are brought up or brought foward in this nation, and they expect like any other to have their voices heard, and their rights protected as they had won them so many years ago.

Nobody's trying to make you conform to anything. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But I don't see where you get a vote to decide to stop gays from getting married just because you might have a majority in some States. Nobody's even forcing churches to marry gays either.
If the majority forced gays to sit at the back of the bus, I suppose that would be ok with you?

Tell that to the United States Military...

The military? Huh?

 

[ima]

Why do you narrow it down to this that you ask, I mean do you really think I have something against gay people or is it rather that I have something against people trying to make this nation conform to certain ways of thinking and/or lifestyle choices that are made, and this across the board even though made by a few, thus shutting out any beliefs or lifestyles found in a majority, who might be opposed to these lifestyles or choices made by these few, yet are then being forced in many ways as a majority to conform anyways (the supreme court will side with me, your words), when they don't have to be forced and shouldn't be forced ever, but rather should be left alone in this nation just as they should be left alone in their beliefs and lives as they do live them, and have before lived them for centuries now in this nation. It matters not what I believe, but what does matter, is what is right in this nation and what is wrong in this nation. This is what matters to the majority found on many issues that are brought up or brought foward in this nation, and they expect like any other to have their voices heard, and their rights protected as they had won them so many years ago.

Nobody's trying to make you conform to anything. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But I don't see where you get a vote to decide to stop gays from getting married just because you might have a majority in some States. Nobody's even forcing churches to marry gays either.
If the majority forced gays to sit at the back of the bus, I suppose that would be ok with you?

As highlighted above in red, I guess this is the last hope of trying to gain acceptance across the board, by adopting the cilvil rights struggle in regards to the blacks, as now to become the gay struggle in this nation as well, and this even though a majority of black families and blacks don't agree with the gay marriage issue either, but it matters not what they think does it, just so long as the plan works huh?

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

And you keep saying that gays shouldn't make you conform to certain ways of thinking, but by forcing gays not to marry, aren't you doing the same?

And yes, you have something against gays, otherwise you wouldn't care. They're not asking to come and fuck you in the ass, is that what you're afraid of?

 

[The Gadfly]

Nobody's trying to make you conform to anything. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But I don't see where you get a vote to decide to stop gays from getting married just because you might have a majority in some States. Nobody's even forcing churches to marry gays either.
If the majority forced gays to sit at the back of the bus, I suppose that would be ok with you?

As highlighted above in red, I guess this is the last hope of trying to gain acceptance across the board, by adopting the cilvil rights struggle in regards to the blacks, as now to become the gay struggle in this nation as well, and this even though a majority of black families and blacks don't agree with the gay marriage issue either, but it matters not what they think does it, just so long as the plan works huh?

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

And you keep saying that gays shouldn't make you conform to certain ways of thinking, but by forcing gays not to marry, aren't you doing the same?

And yes, you have something against gays, otherwise you wouldn't care. They're not asking to come and fuck you in the ass, is that what you're afraid of?

First of all, Marriage, whether by civil or religious ceremony, is legally a contractual relationship which the state has a vested public interest in regulating. This has been by legal precedent a matter which the federal government has left to the states (no federal power to regulate it is enumerated in the constitution). Note that not all heterosexual marriages are permitted by the state(s); the state may (and does) refuse to grant a marriage license to heterosexuals,if one of the parties is already legally married (bigamy); if the two parties are in certain family relationships (incest), if one or both parties has/have not reached the age of consent as defined by that state, and so on. NO ONE, heterosexual or homosexual has any legal "right to marry whoever they choose"; as demonstrated that "right" may be restricted, and the courts have consistently upheld this.

Second, for the umpteenth time, the issue in this instance is NOT "gay marriage". The issue is Mr. Cathy's constitutional right to say what he believes, without being punished or sanctioned in any way, or his company being punished or sanctioned in any way, by any government, whether local, state or federal, or any official thereof. Therefore when certain public officials threatened to violate that right, the American people showed their support for that right. Note that you, gays, or anyone else who disagrees with Mr. Cathy, are free to boycott his business; what you are NOT free to do, is have the state shut down his business for you. You are also not free to interfere with his business in a way that violates criminal or civil laws (in other words, you MAY protest peacefully; you MAY NOT riot, or breach the peace). I will absolutely support your (or anyone else's) right to do that, as private individuals, if you choose. What I absolutely WILL NOT support is any attempt to have elected officials use the power of government to do it for you.

You might be surprised to learn that I do not oppose homosexual marriage, so long as the parties involved otherwise meet the state requirements for same (i.e. both parties of legal ages, etc.), nor do I favor any persecution or state punishment of homosexuals for their sexual orientation (disorderly expression of same is another matter, as defined and enforced by the same laws which apply to heterosexuals). I neither support nor oppose homosexual conduct between consenting adults; I have my own moral views on the subject, but I do not seek to impose them on others. I am a Christian, however, I do not generally support the positions of the so-called "religious right". I support their right to state their beliefs; I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Is that sufficiently clear ?

 

[beagle9]

As highlighted above in red, I guess this is the last hope of trying to gain acceptance across the board, by adopting the cilvil rights struggle in regards to the blacks, as now to become the gay struggle in this nation as well, and this even though a majority of black families and blacks don't agree with the gay marriage issue either, but it matters not what they think does it, just so long as the plan works huh?

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

And you keep saying that gays shouldn't make you conform to certain ways of thinking, but by forcing gays not to marry, aren't you doing the same?

And yes, you have something against gays, otherwise you wouldn't care. They're not asking to come and fuck you in the ass, is that what you're afraid of?

First of all, Marriage, whether by civil or religious ceremony, is legally a contractual relationship which the state has a vested public interest in regulating. This has been by legal precedent a matter which the federal government has left to the states (no federal power to regulate it is enumerated in the constitution). Note that not all heterosexual marriages are permitted by the state(s); the state may (and does) refuse to grant a marriage license to heterosexuals,if one of the parties is already legally married (bigamy); if the two parties are in certain family relationships (incest), if one or both parties has/have not reached the age of consent as defined by that state, and so on. NO ONE, heterosexual or homosexual has any legal "right to marry whoever they choose"; as demonstrated that "right" may be restricted, and the courts have consistently upheld this.

Second, for the umpteenth time, the issue in this instance is NOT "gay marriage". The issue is Mr. Cathy's constitutional right to say what he believes, without being punished or sanctioned in any way, or his company being punished or sanctioned in any way, by any government, whether local, state or federal, or any official thereof. Therefore when certain public officials threatened to violate that right, the American people showed their support for that right. Note that you, gays, or anyone else who disagrees with Mr. Cathy, are free to boycott his business; what you are NOT free to do, is have the state shut down his business for you. You are also not free to interfere with his business in a way that violates criminal or civil laws (in other words, you MAY protest peacefully; you MAY NOT riot, or breach the peace). I will absolutely support your (or anyone else's) right to do that, as private individuals, if you choose. What I absolutely WILL NOT support is any attempt to have elected officials use the power of government to do it for you.

You might be surprised to learn that I do not oppose homosexual marriage, so long as the parties involved otherwise meet the state requirements for same (i.e. both parties of legal ages, etc.), nor do I favor any persecution or state punishment of homosexuals for their sexual orientation (disorderly expression of same is another matter, as defined and enforced by the same laws which apply to heterosexuals). I neither support nor oppose homosexual conduct between consenting adults; I have my own moral views on the subject, but I do not seek to impose them on others. I am a Christian, however, I do not generally support the positions of the so-called "religious right". I support their right to state their beliefs; I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Is that sufficiently clear ?

The problem is that they can't have it their way, at least without doing what you say that they shouldn't or shall not do, and this without trampling on the rights of others (at least in their minds they can't), so it will be that these things in which they are showing in great disrespect of (or) have done wrongfully in example of, especially in regards to Chic-Fil-A or any other who opposes them being married as an opinion, or even when opposed by states and/or even by the federal government (Bill Clinton signing into law the marriage act, showing by law that marriage is between one man and one woman), and yet to no acknowledgement of this by them I guess, and so they will continue this fight in the incorrect ways no matter, even though you have expressed your views to this person in a very proper and spot on way, yet it matters not what you say or anyone says to these people, as they have an agenda and they will stick with it no matter what or who their agenda tramples upon in this nation, even when done in the wrong ways it still doesn't matter to them.

How about the anger being expressed by this person, as found within such a desperate attack in that last statement in which this person had used on me ? Lets ya know just what kind of person this nation is dealing with, thus found within these kinds of exposures within these kinds of words spoken. Good reply by you by the way...Good Job!

PS. The funny thing is or that was found in that attack or statement made, was that this person must feel that their is something wrong with a person trying to bump another person in the butt, as per the way that this person ((ima)) used that wording on me, as if it would scorn me or bother me and/or something to that affect when used...LOL.... I have never been bumped in the butt, so I wouldn't know, but by the way this person ((ima)) used it as a scare tactic on me, it must be a hurtful and vile thing I guess...LOL Now I am real scared someone will try and bump me in the butt, and it's all because of ima.. ROTFL.

 

[beagle9]

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

Are the two issues truly the same? Besides what do you do with the blacks who may be found also in a majority opinion against gay marriage in the nation ? Disregard their opinions and trample on their rights to not have that opinion on the matter or subject either ? I guess that question needs to be asked of the blacks, before trying to attach the issue of gay marriage to their struggle found in the civil rights act, and this as they have known it to be or understood it to be.

 

[ima]

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

Are the two issues truly the same? Besides what do you do with the blacks who may be found also in a majority opinion against gay marriage in the nation ? Disregard their opinions and trample on their rights to not have that opinion on the matter or subject either ? I guess that question needs to be asked of the blacks, before trying to attach the issue of gay marriage to their struggle found in the civil rights act, and this as they have known it to be or understood it to be.

What I'm saying is that blacks understand that you can never use a majority to deny the same rights for minorities. They can disagree about anything homosexual, but only a true hypocrite black person would side with the majority over the minority.

 

[ima]

As highlighted above in red, I guess this is the last hope of trying to gain acceptance across the board, by adopting the cilvil rights struggle in regards to the blacks, as now to become the gay struggle in this nation as well, and this even though a majority of black families and blacks don't agree with the gay marriage issue either, but it matters not what they think does it, just so long as the plan works huh?

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

And you keep saying that gays shouldn't make you conform to certain ways of thinking, but by forcing gays not to marry, aren't you doing the same?

And yes, you have something against gays, otherwise you wouldn't care. They're not asking to come and fuck you in the ass, is that what you're afraid of?

First of all, Marriage, whether by civil or religious ceremony, is legally a contractual relationship which the state has a vested public interest in regulating. This has been by legal precedent a matter which the federal government has left to the states (no federal power to regulate it is enumerated in the constitution). Note that not all heterosexual marriages are permitted by the state(s); the state may (and does) refuse to grant a marriage license to heterosexuals,if one of the parties is already legally married (bigamy); if the two parties are in certain family relationships (incest), if one or both parties has/have not reached the age of consent as defined by that state, and so on. NO ONE, heterosexual or homosexual has any legal "right to marry whoever they choose"; as demonstrated that "right" may be restricted, and the courts have consistently upheld this.

Second, for the umpteenth time, the issue in this instance is NOT "gay marriage". The issue is Mr. Cathy's constitutional right to say what he believes, without being punished or sanctioned in any way, or his company being punished or sanctioned in any way, by any government, whether local, state or federal, or any official thereof. Therefore when certain public officials threatened to violate that right, the American people showed their support for that right. Note that you, gays, or anyone else who disagrees with Mr. Cathy, are free to boycott his business; what you are NOT free to do, is have the state shut down his business for you. You are also not free to interfere with his business in a way that violates criminal or civil laws (in other words, you MAY protest peacefully; you MAY NOT riot, or breach the peace). I will absolutely support your (or anyone else's) right to do that, as private individuals, if you choose. What I absolutely WILL NOT support is any attempt to have elected officials use the power of government to do it for you.

You might be surprised to learn that I do not oppose homosexual marriage, so long as the parties involved otherwise meet the state requirements for same (i.e. both parties of legal ages, etc.), nor do I favor any persecution or state punishment of homosexuals for their sexual orientation (disorderly expression of same is another matter, as defined and enforced by the same laws which apply to heterosexuals). I neither support nor oppose homosexual conduct between consenting adults; I have my own moral views on the subject, but I do not seek to impose them on others. I am a Christian, however, I do not generally support the positions of the so-called "religious right". I support their right to state their beliefs; I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Is that sufficiently clear ?

From what I can tell, the courts have consistently sided with equal right to marriage for gays. The Supremes will as well eventually.

The hate chicken guy is free to say what he wants, doesn't mean he's right just because he opened his mouth. People lining up for hate chicken can openly show their disdain for homosexuals if they want, ignorance isn't a crime usually. Oh well, if you can't hate blacks anymore, gays'll do, right?

You say;"I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them." Then how about if try to stop forcing your views on marriage on gay people? It works both way.

 

[ima]

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

And you keep saying that gays shouldn't make you conform to certain ways of thinking, but by forcing gays not to marry, aren't you doing the same?

And yes, you have something against gays, otherwise you wouldn't care. They're not asking to come and fuck you in the ass, is that what you're afraid of?

First of all, Marriage, whether by civil or religious ceremony, is legally a contractual relationship which the state has a vested public interest in regulating. This has been by legal precedent a matter which the federal government has left to the states (no federal power to regulate it is enumerated in the constitution). Note that not all heterosexual marriages are permitted by the state(s); the state may (and does) refuse to grant a marriage license to heterosexuals,if one of the parties is already legally married (bigamy); if the two parties are in certain family relationships (incest), if one or both parties has/have not reached the age of consent as defined by that state, and so on. NO ONE, heterosexual or homosexual has any legal "right to marry whoever they choose"; as demonstrated that "right" may be restricted, and the courts have consistently upheld this.

Second, for the umpteenth time, the issue in this instance is NOT "gay marriage". The issue is Mr. Cathy's constitutional right to say what he believes, without being punished or sanctioned in any way, or his company being punished or sanctioned in any way, by any government, whether local, state or federal, or any official thereof. Therefore when certain public officials threatened to violate that right, the American people showed their support for that right. Note that you, gays, or anyone else who disagrees with Mr. Cathy, are free to boycott his business; what you are NOT free to do, is have the state shut down his business for you. You are also not free to interfere with his business in a way that violates criminal or civil laws (in other words, you MAY protest peacefully; you MAY NOT riot, or breach the peace). I will absolutely support your (or anyone else's) right to do that, as private individuals, if you choose. What I absolutely WILL NOT support is any attempt to have elected officials use the power of government to do it for you.

You might be surprised to learn that I do not oppose homosexual marriage, so long as the parties involved otherwise meet the state requirements for same (i.e. both parties of legal ages, etc.), nor do I favor any persecution or state punishment of homosexuals for their sexual orientation (disorderly expression of same is another matter, as defined and enforced by the same laws which apply to heterosexuals). I neither support nor oppose homosexual conduct between consenting adults; I have my own moral views on the subject, but I do not seek to impose them on others. I am a Christian, however, I do not generally support the positions of the so-called "religious right". I support their right to state their beliefs; I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Is that sufficiently clear ?

The problem is that they can't have it their way, at least without doing what you say that they shouldn't or shall not do, and this without trampling on the rights of others (at least in their minds they can't), so it will be that these things in which they are showing in great disrespect of (or) have done wrongfully in example of, especially in regards to Chic-Fil-A or any other who opposes them being married as an opinion, or even when opposed by states and/or even by the federal government (Bill Clinton signing into law the marriage act, showing by law that marriage is between one man and one woman), and yet to no acknowledgement of this by them I guess, and so they will continue this fight in the incorrect ways no matter, even though you have expressed your views to this person in a very proper and spot on way, yet it matters not what you say or anyone says to these people, as they have an agenda and they will stick with it no matter what or who their agenda tramples upon in this nation, even when done in the wrong ways it still doesn't matter to them.

How about the anger being expressed by this person, as found within such a desperate attack in that last statement in which this person had used on me ? Lets ya know just what kind of person this nation is dealing with, thus found within these kinds of exposures within these kinds of words spoken. Good reply by you by the way...Good Job!

PS. The funny thing is or that was found in that attack or statement made, was that this person must feel that their is something wrong with a person trying to bump another person in the butt, as per the way that this person ((ima)) used that wording on me, as if it would scorn me or bother me and/or something to that affect when used...LOL.... I have never been bumped in the butt, so I wouldn't know, but by the way this person ((ima)) used it as a scare tactic on me, it must be a hurtful and vile thing I guess...LOL Now I am real scared someone will try and bump me in the butt, and it's all because of ima.. ROTFL.

So if 2 gays marry, what right of yours are they trampling on? You weren't at the ceremony, you don't know them, and hell, you didn't even know that they got married, so how does that affect you?
And if you try to stop gays from marrying, aren't you trampling on the rights of others? Why should you get to decide what everyone's rights are?

 

[Againsheila]

Nobody's trying to make you conform to anything. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. But I don't see where you get a vote to decide to stop gays from getting married just because you might have a majority in some States. Nobody's even forcing churches to marry gays either.
If the majority forced gays to sit at the back of the bus, I suppose that would be ok with you?

As highlighted above in red, I guess this is the last hope of trying to gain acceptance across the board, by adopting the cilvil rights struggle in regards to the blacks, as now to become the gay struggle in this nation as well, and this even though a majority of black families and blacks don't agree with the gay marriage issue either, but it matters not what they think does it, just so long as the plan works huh?

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

And you keep saying that gays shouldn't make you conform to certain ways of thinking, but by forcing gays not to marry, aren't you doing the same?

And yes, you have something against gays, otherwise you wouldn't care. They're not asking to come and fuck you in the ass, is that what you're afraid of?

How do you know someone is gay unless they tell you? Shouldn't that be something they keep to themselves? I mean, I don't go around yelling to the world that I'm heterosexual. What I do in my bedroom is my business, not yours.

Yeah, I'm now all for gays getting married, as long as they can't force Churches to marry them. Then they can shut up and go back in the closet. I see no reason why this is being shouted out all the time. I see no reason to shut down a business because you don't agree with the CEO on a private matter. How about we shut down your business because we don't agree with you, for whatever reason? How would you like that? BTW, if they had succeeded in taking down Chick Fil A, there would have been a lot of gays unemployed.

I can't tell if someone is gay just by looking. I don't CARE! It's none of my business. Stop french kissing in public, no one should be doing that. NO ONE. Get a room already.

 

[Katzndogz]

As long as no one has to conform or adjust themselves to accommodate gay marriage, I don't care either.

 

[The Gadfly]

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

And you keep saying that gays shouldn't make you conform to certain ways of thinking, but by forcing gays not to marry, aren't you doing the same?

And yes, you have something against gays, otherwise you wouldn't care. They're not asking to come and fuck you in the ass, is that what you're afraid of?

First of all, Marriage, whether by civil or religious ceremony, is legally a contractual relationship which the state has a vested public interest in regulating. This has been by legal precedent a matter which the federal government has left to the states (no federal power to regulate it is enumerated in the constitution). Note that not all heterosexual marriages are permitted by the state(s); the state may (and does) refuse to grant a marriage license to heterosexuals,if one of the parties is already legally married (bigamy); if the two parties are in certain family relationships (incest), if one or both parties has/have not reached the age of consent as defined by that state, and so on. NO ONE, heterosexual or homosexual has any legal "right to marry whoever they choose"; as demonstrated that "right" may be restricted, and the courts have consistently upheld this.

Second, for the umpteenth time, the issue in this instance is NOT "gay marriage". The issue is Mr. Cathy's constitutional right to say what he believes, without being punished or sanctioned in any way, or his company being punished or sanctioned in any way, by any government, whether local, state or federal, or any official thereof. Therefore when certain public officials threatened to violate that right, the American people showed their support for that right. Note that you, gays, or anyone else who disagrees with Mr. Cathy, are free to boycott his business; what you are NOT free to do, is have the state shut down his business for you. You are also not free to interfere with his business in a way that violates criminal or civil laws (in other words, you MAY protest peacefully; you MAY NOT riot, or breach the peace). I will absolutely support your (or anyone else's) right to do that, as private individuals, if you choose. What I absolutely WILL NOT support is any attempt to have elected officials use the power of government to do it for you.

You might be surprised to learn that I do not oppose homosexual marriage, so long as the parties involved otherwise meet the state requirements for same (i.e. both parties of legal ages, etc.), nor do I favor any persecution or state punishment of homosexuals for their sexual orientation (disorderly expression of same is another matter, as defined and enforced by the same laws which apply to heterosexuals). I neither support nor oppose homosexual conduct between consenting adults; I have my own moral views on the subject, but I do not seek to impose them on others. I am a Christian, however, I do not generally support the positions of the so-called "religious right". I support their right to state their beliefs; I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Is that sufficiently clear ?

From what I can tell, the courts have consistently sided with equal right to marriage for gays. The Supremes will as well eventually.

The hate chicken guy is free to say what he wants, doesn't mean he's right just because he opened his mouth. People lining up for hate chicken can openly show their disdain for homosexuals if they want, ignorance isn't a crime usually. Oh well, if you can't hate blacks anymore, gays'll do, right?

You say;"I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them." Then how about if try to stop forcing your views on marriage on gay people? It works both way.

What part of "I do not oppose homosexual marriage..." (as bolded above) do you fail to comprehend? Am I to understand that I am somehow "imposing my view of marriage" on a group, just by not offering my enthusiastic support for THEIR view? Sorry, I don't impose my view on others, and I don't put Political Correctness ahead of my personal convictions, either.

 

[beagle9]

So you're trying to say that blacks, after having come out of slavery and the back of the bus, are now going to turn around and start denying something they enjoy to another minority?

Are the two issues truly the same? Besides what do you do with the blacks who may be found also in a majority opinion against gay marriage in the nation ? Disregard their opinions and trample on their rights to not have that opinion on the matter or subject either ? I guess that question needs to be asked of the blacks, before trying to attach the issue of gay marriage to their struggle found in the civil rights act, and this as they have known it to be or understood it to be.

What I'm saying is that blacks understand that you can never use a majority to deny the same rights for minorities. They can disagree about anything homosexual, but only a true hypocrite black person would side with the majority over the minority.

Sounds to me that if the blacks (in your opinion) were to push back against gays being married (as in marriage) from their view or beliefs upon, then you would call them hypocryts, and you would do this because of the issue of slavery in which they over came as a completely different issue altogether, but rather was a struggle that you are trying to infuse with the gay issue in order to give the gay issue of marriage "strength" by this method as is used by you ? If the blacks come out strong with the whites or others in this nation against gay marriage, will you be wanting to throw your black brothers and sisters under the bus, because they couldn't go along with or all the way on supporting such an issue as is found with this gay marraige issue ?

 

[ima]

Are the two issues truly the same? Besides what do you do with the blacks who may be found also in a majority opinion against gay marriage in the nation ? Disregard their opinions and trample on their rights to not have that opinion on the matter or subject either ? I guess that question needs to be asked of the blacks, before trying to attach the issue of gay marriage to their struggle found in the civil rights act, and this as they have known it to be or understood it to be.

What I'm saying is that blacks understand that you can never use a majority to deny the same rights for minorities. They can disagree about anything homosexual, but only a true hypocrite black person would side with the majority over the minority.

Sounds to me that if the blacks (in your opinion) were to push back against gays being married (as in marriage) from their view or beliefs upon, then you would call them hypocryts, and you would do this because of the issue of slavery in which they over came as a completely different issue altogether, but rather was a struggle that you are trying to infuse with the gay issue in order to give the gay issue of marriage "strength" by this method as is used by you ? If the blacks come out strong with the whites or others in this nation against gay marriage, will you be wanting to throw your black brothers and sisters under the bus, because they couldn't go along with or all the way on supporting such an issue as is found with this gay marraige issue ?

I think blacks would identify with such a struggle for acceptance, absolutely. Sure, maybe some would be religiously blind like you are, but probably not that many.
So what is it you have against gays anyways?

 

[beagle9]

First of all, Marriage, whether by civil or religious ceremony, is legally a contractual relationship which the state has a vested public interest in regulating. This has been by legal precedent a matter which the federal government has left to the states (no federal power to regulate it is enumerated in the constitution). Note that not all heterosexual marriages are permitted by the state(s); the state may (and does) refuse to grant a marriage license to heterosexuals,if one of the parties is already legally married (bigamy); if the two parties are in certain family relationships (incest), if one or both parties has/have not reached the age of consent as defined by that state, and so on. NO ONE, heterosexual or homosexual has any legal "right to marry whoever they choose"; as demonstrated that "right" may be restricted, and the courts have consistently upheld this.

Second, for the umpteenth time, the issue in this instance is NOT "gay marriage". The issue is Mr. Cathy's constitutional right to say what he believes, without being punished or sanctioned in any way, or his company being punished or sanctioned in any way, by any government, whether local, state or federal, or any official thereof. Therefore when certain public officials threatened to violate that right, the American people showed their support for that right. Note that you, gays, or anyone else who disagrees with Mr. Cathy, are free to boycott his business; what you are NOT free to do, is have the state shut down his business for you. You are also not free to interfere with his business in a way that violates criminal or civil laws (in other words, you MAY protest peacefully; you MAY NOT riot, or breach the peace). I will absolutely support your (or anyone else's) right to do that, as private individuals, if you choose. What I absolutely WILL NOT support is any attempt to have elected officials use the power of government to do it for you.

You might be surprised to learn that I do not oppose homosexual marriage, so long as the parties involved otherwise meet the state requirements for same (i.e. both parties of legal ages, etc.), nor do I favor any persecution or state punishment of homosexuals for their sexual orientation (disorderly expression of same is another matter, as defined and enforced by the same laws which apply to heterosexuals). I neither support nor oppose homosexual conduct between consenting adults; I have my own moral views on the subject, but I do not seek to impose them on others. I am a Christian, however, I do not generally support the positions of the so-called "religious right". I support their right to state their beliefs; I DO NOT support any "right" to impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Is that sufficiently clear ?

The problem is that they can't have it their way, at least without doing what you say that they shouldn't or shall not do, and this without trampling on the rights of others (at least in their minds they can't), so it will be that these things in which they are showing in great disrespect of (or) have done wrongfully in example of, especially in regards to Chic-Fil-A or any other who opposes them being married as an opinion, or even when opposed by states and/or even by the federal government (Bill Clinton signing into law the marriage act, showing by law that marriage is between one man and one woman), and yet to no acknowledgement of this by them I guess, and so they will continue this fight in the incorrect ways no matter, even though you have expressed your views to this person in a very proper and spot on way, yet it matters not what you say or anyone says to these people, as they have an agenda and they will stick with it no matter what or who their agenda tramples upon in this nation, even when done in the wrong ways it still doesn't matter to them.

How about the anger being expressed by this person, as found within such a desperate attack in that last statement in which this person had used on me ? Lets ya know just what kind of person this nation is dealing with, thus found within these kinds of exposures within these kinds of words spoken. Good reply by you by the way...Good Job!

PS. The funny thing is or that was found in that attack or statement made, was that this person must feel that their is something wrong with a person trying to bump another person in the butt, as per the way that this person ((ima)) used that wording on me, as if it would scorn me or bother me and/or something to that affect when used...LOL.... I have never been bumped in the butt, so I wouldn't know, but by the way this person ((ima)) used it as a scare tactic on me, it must be a hurtful and vile thing I guess...LOL Now I am real scared someone will try and bump me in the butt, and it's all because of ima.. ROTFL.

So if 2 gays marry, what right of yours are they trampling on? You weren't at the ceremony, you don't know them, and hell, you didn't even know that they got married, so how does that affect you?
And if you try to stop gays from marrying, aren't you trampling on the rights of others? Why should you get to decide what everyone's rights are?

Not just me, but rather also what a huge majority looks at in America when dealing with this stuff, and for whom does see well beyond the ceremony, and that is what the gays hope no one will figure out or think about when they are trying to get married (legitimized completely).

What are the down the road analysis or impacts of the new agenda that gays now have in their struggle within America, and this in order to somehow go total mainstream in America finally ? Is America ready for this yet ? Who knows, because peoples rights to vote or voice their opinions in a majority on such matters, are being oppressed and silenced by a minority, while the activist media, and activist lawyers, rogue judges, and the idiot ACLU creates mass confusion in this nation now against the majority of Americans, and all by way of the infusion of one issue into another, even though they are in no way the same.