Wendy's Supports Chick-Fil-A

[Seawytch]

You've listed three problems/damages.
If those were ameliorated, are you saying that 'civil unions' are acceptable?

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

What indicates to you that I am "upset"? Did I intentionally mistype your screen name?

Let me try to make my belief clear.

1."What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?"
None, in that I wouldn't know whether the couple next door is 'married' or in a civil union.
But isn't the same true in reverse....i.e., if you were accorded the financial benefits that you see as being denied, why change the definition of marriage?I

Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The legal one which has changed continually.? (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Allowing equal access to civil marriage doesn't change the "definition" of marriage in the least. Did allowing women to vote change the "definition" of voting? Of course not.

And I would vote for a bill that gave you said benefits.

So you're willing to let us in the house if we use the back door. You don't see that as discriminatory? Blacks had the SAME water coming out of their fountains, and still separate but equal failed. Why do you think it will work now?

I'd fully support Civil Unions...if it were what ALL couples got. Legal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for us ain't gonna cut it.

2. Interracial marriage is in no way related to this question.
One reason is that folks are born into a race, and have no way to change same.

Discrimination is discrimination.

Homosexuality, for most, is a phase.

ROFLMAO..too incredibly stupid for response.

a. "In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation."
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.

So there aren't enough of us for equal rights or is your argument that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not worthy of equality? Not that either of your false premises matter. (the percentage of people who self identify as gay is 4%)

There are fewer pacific Islanders than gays and lesbians...can we keep them from legal marriage?

Religion is a choice...do we get to keep them from fundamental rights?

3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.

It's a legal question, period. You can't legally discriminate because you think we're icky.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

What indicates to you that I am "upset"? Did I intentionally mistype your screen name?




Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The legal one which has changed continually.? (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Allowing equal access to civil marriage doesn't change the "definition" of marriage in the least. Did allowing women to vote change the "definition" of voting? Of course not.



So you're willing to let us in the house if we use the back door. You don't see that as discriminatory? Blacks had the SAME water coming out of their fountains, and still separate but equal failed. Why do you think it will work now?

I'd fully support Civil Unions...if it were what ALL couples got. Legal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for us ain't gonna cut it.



Discrimination is discrimination.



ROFLMAO..too incredibly stupid for response.

a. "In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation."
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.

So there aren't enough of us for equal rights or is your argument that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not worthy of equality? Not that either of your false premises matter. (the percentage of people who self identify as gay is 4%)

There are fewer pacific Islanders than gays and lesbians...can we keep them from legal marriage?

Religion is a choice...do we get to keep them from fundamental rights?

3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.

It's a legal question, period. You can't legally discriminate because you think we're icky.

Holy shit. If the board's software let me give you all MY rep points for this, I would. Brilliantly executed.

 

[koshergrl]

Sure we can.

Ickiness is not protected by the Constitution, and is not a civil right, or a human one.
Sorry.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Sure we can.

Ickiness is not protected by the Constitution, and is not a civil right, or a human one.
Sorry.

So you're not protected by the Constitution then?


(Also, you're fucking vile and I really wish Fire-AIDS worked much more quickly than it apparently does)

 

[koshergrl]

Do you have to meet a "vile usage" quota?

Because you use that term a lot. I think you think it makes you appear well read.

 

[koshergrl]

Which of course anyone who has ever read your tripe knows couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look at that...STILL not a single answer to the questions posed and yet here you are AGAIN asking yet another question yourself.

I will be happy to answer your Civil Union question when you answer my two simple question I posed.

Number one...Since interracial marriage was so unpopular, should it have been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yes or no.

Number two...What is the societal harm in allowing me the rights, benefits and protections of legal, civil marriage?

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

What indicates to you that I am "upset"? Did I intentionally mistype your screen name?




Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The legal one which has changed continually.? (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Allowing equal access to civil marriage doesn't change the "definition" of marriage in the least. Did allowing women to vote change the "definition" of voting? Of course not.



So you're willing to let us in the house if we use the back door. You don't see that as discriminatory? Blacks had the SAME water coming out of their fountains, and still separate but equal failed. Why do you think it will work now?

I'd fully support Civil Unions...if it were what ALL couples got. Legal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for us ain't gonna cut it.



Discrimination is discrimination.



ROFLMAO..too incredibly stupid for response.

a. "In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation."
Column: Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay? - USATODAY.com

b. "Also interesting was the finding that by the time they get to middle age, the rate of self-identified homosexuality among women plummets well below 1%. Furthermore, between 92% of women self-identifying as homosexual and 70% of men self-identifying as homosexual have had sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, while only 6% of self-identified heterosexuals have had sex with a member of the same sex."
American Population: 1.4 Percent Homosexuals, TrySexuals, Who Knows? | DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

c. "This study asks us to consider is whether impressionable young people could be persuaded by seductive others that they are “genetically” homosexual, when in fact they are not–..." Ibid.

So there aren't enough of us for equal rights or is your argument that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not worthy of equality? Not that either of your false premises matter. (the percentage of people who self identify as gay is 4%)

There are fewer pacific Islanders than gays and lesbians...can we keep them from legal marriage?

Religion is a choice...do we get to keep them from fundamental rights?

3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.

It's a legal question, period. You can't legally discriminate because you think we're icky.

I understand that you have made every effort to make an analogy with racial discrimination, and about homosexuality...
...but neither are correct, and neither apply.

You are willing to assign gay marriage...which is the subject....as a legal question.
In that case, we'll leave up to the Supreme Court.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Do you have to meet a "vile usage" quota?

Because you use that term a lot. I think you think it makes you appear well read.

So I'm not on ignore anymore, or you were (once again) lying through your crooked teeth?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

What indicates to you that I am "upset"? Did I intentionally mistype your screen name?




Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The legal one which has changed continually.? (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Allowing equal access to civil marriage doesn't change the "definition" of marriage in the least. Did allowing women to vote change the "definition" of voting? Of course not.



So you're willing to let us in the house if we use the back door. You don't see that as discriminatory? Blacks had the SAME water coming out of their fountains, and still separate but equal failed. Why do you think it will work now?

I'd fully support Civil Unions...if it were what ALL couples got. Legal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for us ain't gonna cut it.



Discrimination is discrimination.



ROFLMAO..too incredibly stupid for response.



So there aren't enough of us for equal rights or is your argument that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not worthy of equality? Not that either of your false premises matter. (the percentage of people who self identify as gay is 4%)

There are fewer pacific Islanders than gays and lesbians...can we keep them from legal marriage?

Religion is a choice...do we get to keep them from fundamental rights?

3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.

It's a legal question, period. You can't legally discriminate because you think we're icky.

I understand that you have made every effort to make an analogy with racial discrimination, and about homosexuality...
...but neither are correct, and neither apply.

You are willing to assign gay marriage...which is the subject....as a legal question.
In that case, we'll leave up to the Supreme Court.

Both apply completely. You're just an ignorant, bigoted twat.

Phew. Now that we've cleared THAT up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What indicates to you that I am "upset"? Did I intentionally mistype your screen name?




Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The legal one which has changed continually.? (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Allowing equal access to civil marriage doesn't change the "definition" of marriage in the least. Did allowing women to vote change the "definition" of voting? Of course not.



So you're willing to let us in the house if we use the back door. You don't see that as discriminatory? Blacks had the SAME water coming out of their fountains, and still separate but equal failed. Why do you think it will work now?

I'd fully support Civil Unions...if it were what ALL couples got. Legal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for us ain't gonna cut it.



Discrimination is discrimination.



ROFLMAO..too incredibly stupid for response.



So there aren't enough of us for equal rights or is your argument that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not worthy of equality? Not that either of your false premises matter. (the percentage of people who self identify as gay is 4%)

There are fewer pacific Islanders than gays and lesbians...can we keep them from legal marriage?

Religion is a choice...do we get to keep them from fundamental rights?




It's a legal question, period. You can't legally discriminate because you think we're icky.

I understand that you have made every effort to make an analogy with racial discrimination, and about homosexuality...
...but neither are correct, and neither apply.

You are willing to assign gay marriage...which is the subject....as a legal question.
In that case, we'll leave up to the Supreme Court.

Both apply completely. You're just an ignorant, bigoted twat.

Phew. Now that we've cleared THAT up.

Where, exactly, did you learn to talk to people like that?

School...or earlier?

Or, possibly your defense for you self-esteem when dealing with your betters?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I understand that you have made every effort to make an analogy with racial discrimination, and about homosexuality...
...but neither are correct, and neither apply.

You are willing to assign gay marriage...which is the subject....as a legal question.
In that case, we'll leave up to the Supreme Court.

Both apply completely. You're just an ignorant, bigoted twat.

Phew. Now that we've cleared THAT up.

Where, exactly, did you learn to talk to people like that?

School...or earlier?

Or, possibly your defense for you self-esteem when dealing with your betters?

My "betters"? Really? You think your bullshit you're spouting makes you better than me? Again, the CDC study you quoted DOES NOT actually prove what you're trying to make it prove. Further, just because you don't like gay people having gay sex as part of their love for one another, that doesn't give you the right to deny them a basic human right.

There are a LOT of things that Conservatives do that I find icky and gross, but I wouldn't deny them the right to marry over it. You're not better than me at anything. Except being a hateful, ignorant little twat with a plus-sized ego and a minus-sized intellect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Both apply completely. You're just an ignorant, bigoted twat.

Phew. Now that we've cleared THAT up.

Where, exactly, did you learn to talk to people like that?

School...or earlier?

Or, possibly your defense for you self-esteem when dealing with your betters?

My "betters"? Really? You think your bullshit you're spouting makes you better than me? Again, the CDC study you quoted DOES NOT actually prove what you're trying to make it prove. Further, just because you don't like gay people having gay sex as part of their love for one another, that doesn't give you the right to deny them a basic human right.

There are a LOT of things that Conservatives do that I find icky and gross, but I wouldn't deny them the right to marry over it. You're not better than me at anything. Except being a hateful, ignorant little twat with a plus-sized ego and a minus-sized intellect.

Are you embarrassed?
Is that why you are attempting to alter the subject from your inability to post sans vulgar language?

Well, then...that's a good start.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Where, exactly, did you learn to talk to people like that?

School...or earlier?

Or, possibly your defense for you self-esteem when dealing with your betters?

My "betters"? Really? You think your bullshit you're spouting makes you better than me? Again, the CDC study you quoted DOES NOT actually prove what you're trying to make it prove. Further, just because you don't like gay people having gay sex as part of their love for one another, that doesn't give you the right to deny them a basic human right.

There are a LOT of things that Conservatives do that I find icky and gross, but I wouldn't deny them the right to marry over it. You're not better than me at anything. Except being a hateful, ignorant little twat with a plus-sized ego and a minus-sized intellect.

Are you embarrassed?
Is that why you are attempting to alter the subject from your inability to post sans vulgar language?

Well, then...that's a good start.

No, you dumb twat. You see, I'm not ashamed of "foul" language, because I'm not a pussy, nor am I pretentious enough to think that because one abstains for curse words somehow they're smarter. See, BitchKnuckles, I can stop using swear words any time I'd like; but you can't help being a hateful, ignorant twat.

Are you willing to admit that your CDC study actually has NOTHING to do with whether homosexuality is a phase or not?

 

[Seawytch]

Well, Sandwich....I will state that I understand your upset, and personal angst in this matter.

What indicates to you that I am "upset"? Did I intentionally mistype your screen name?




Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The legal one which has changed continually.? (Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Redhail & Turner v Safley)

Allowing equal access to civil marriage doesn't change the "definition" of marriage in the least. Did allowing women to vote change the "definition" of voting? Of course not.



So you're willing to let us in the house if we use the back door. You don't see that as discriminatory? Blacks had the SAME water coming out of their fountains, and still separate but equal failed. Why do you think it will work now?

I'd fully support Civil Unions...if it were what ALL couples got. Legal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for us ain't gonna cut it.



Discrimination is discrimination.



ROFLMAO..too incredibly stupid for response.



So there aren't enough of us for equal rights or is your argument that sexual orientation is a choice and therefore not worthy of equality? Not that either of your false premises matter. (the percentage of people who self identify as gay is 4%)

There are fewer pacific Islanders than gays and lesbians...can we keep them from legal marriage?

Religion is a choice...do we get to keep them from fundamental rights?

3. That being said, I see the solution as a political question, not a religious nor racial one.

It's a legal question, period. You can't legally discriminate because you think we're icky.

I understand that you have made every effort to make an analogy with racial discrimination, and about homosexuality...
...but neither are correct, and neither apply.

You are willing to assign gay marriage...which is the subject....as a legal question.
In that case, we'll leave up to the Supreme Court.

Nobody is comparing race to sexual orientation. What is compared (and comparable) is the discrimination faced by both groups.

http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politi...e-are-just-those-against-miscegenation/52108/

I agree ... Leave it up to the SCOTUS.

 

[philsphan04]

Which definition? The biblical one that says you can have multiple wives and must marry your rapist?

The alleged "rape" passages are based on mistranslations. You might read this article.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My "betters"? Really? You think your bullshit you're spouting makes you better than me? Again, the CDC study you quoted DOES NOT actually prove what you're trying to make it prove. Further, just because you don't like gay people having gay sex as part of their love for one another, that doesn't give you the right to deny them a basic human right.

There are a LOT of things that Conservatives do that I find icky and gross, but I wouldn't deny them the right to marry over it. You're not better than me at anything. Except being a hateful, ignorant little twat with a plus-sized ego and a minus-sized intellect.

Are you embarrassed?
Is that why you are attempting to alter the subject from your inability to post sans vulgar language?

Well, then...that's a good start.

No, you dumb twat. You see, I'm not ashamed of "foul" language, because I'm not a pussy, nor am I pretentious enough to think that because one abstains for curse words somehow they're smarter. See, BitchKnuckles, I can stop using swear words any time I'd like; but you can't help being a hateful, ignorant twat.

Are you willing to admit that your CDC study actually has NOTHING to do with whether homosexuality is a phase or not?

Maybe you could comment on this perception...

With apologies to Brendan Behan, watching you attempt to write a coherent post without crude language, is like watching a Eunuch in a Harem.

You want to, but just can’t.

Isn't that the truth....you're a message-board-Eunuch....you use said language to hide the meager quality of your posts.


You want to, but just can’t.

 

[ima]

I am about to if you just answer my simple question. Or are you too embarrassed to admit that you're against gay marriage?

Still waiting...

It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

As this was your charge, an apology for same behooves you.


Weren't ever told to apologize when you make a mistake?

Just pick any post of yours where you're against gay marriage. Because if you're not gay, it doesn't concern you, making you obsessed with what gay get up to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Still waiting...

It should be noted that you were unable to produce any indication, statements, or data that I am "so obsessed with what people you don't know (gays) get up to?"

As this was your charge, an apology for same behooves you.


Weren't ever told to apologize when you make a mistake?

Just pick any post of yours where you're against gay marriage. Because if you're not gay, it doesn't concern you, making you obsessed with what gay get up to.

You made a charge that you were not able to substantiate....
A deflection is hardly an apology.


If there is any obsession on display, it seems you are obsessed with me....

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Are you embarrassed?
Is that why you are attempting to alter the subject from your inability to post sans vulgar language?

Well, then...that's a good start.

No, you dumb twat. You see, I'm not ashamed of "foul" language, because I'm not a pussy, nor am I pretentious enough to think that because one abstains for curse words somehow they're smarter. See, BitchKnuckles, I can stop using swear words any time I'd like; but you can't help being a hateful, ignorant twat.

Are you willing to admit that your CDC study actually has NOTHING to do with whether homosexuality is a phase or not?

Maybe you could comment on this perception...

With apologies to Brendan Behan, watching you attempt to write a coherent post without crude language, is like watching a Eunuch in a Harem.

You want to, but just can’t.

Isn't that the truth....you're a message-board-Eunuch....you use said language to hide the meager quality of your posts.


You want to, but just can’t.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzfuckingzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you dumb twat. You see, I'm not ashamed of "foul" language, because I'm not a pussy, nor am I pretentious enough to think that because one abstains for curse words somehow they're smarter. See, BitchKnuckles, I can stop using swear words any time I'd like; but you can't help being a hateful, ignorant twat.

Are you willing to admit that your CDC study actually has NOTHING to do with whether homosexuality is a phase or not?

Maybe you could comment on this perception...

With apologies to Brendan Behan, watching you attempt to write a coherent post without crude language, is like watching a Eunuch in a Harem.

You want to, but just can’t.

Isn't that the truth....you're a message-board-Eunuch....you use said language to hide the meager quality of your posts.


You want to, but just can’t.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzfuckingzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Can't bring yourself to deny it?


Where is that blue-laced prose in which you excel?
You're not gonna give up now, are you?