[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
You serious?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
What is so special about heterosexual marriage that they NEED the recognition of the government?[/quote]
Property rights. That is the only reason government needs to be involved in coupling at all.
EDIT: in contemporary times. I suppose 4000 years ago things may have been different.[/quote]
I totally agree , The Gov has business in Divorce not Marriage
[/quote]
I think the general argument is marriage automatically includes a ton of contracts which would be expensive, time consuming and some not even possible to obtain. Generally contracts like that are not needed in ideal circumstances but only when problems arise such as divorce or death. There are also other things such as hospital visitation rights.[/quote]
All these live free or die people think it is in the best interest of liberty to quash gay marriage . . I do not think it matters who you want to marry . And yes I have heard all the straw man arguments .I think we should remove any mention of liberty or the pursuit of happiness from any official documents . And replace it with what ever Jesus said or even what people want you to think he said.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think we should remove any mention of liberty or the pursuit of happiness from any official documents.[/quote]
So, you hate America. 
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think we should remove any mention of liberty or the pursuit of happiness from any official documents.[/quote]
So, you hate America. :)[/quote]You missed his totally illegitimate point Chris.
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
You serious?[/quote]
I think so, what part do you have a problem with now?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Small Government wouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies or tell anyone in general what they can and can’t put in their bodies.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think we should remove any mention of liberty or the pursuit of happiness from any official documents.[/quote]
So, you hate America. :)[/quote]
You don’t get it. I love America just as much as you do. But in a differenct way. You see, you love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. I love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow.
Now I can not take credit for this quote by Al Franken , I did tweal it though
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Big Government wants involved in something that is none of it’s business , small government could give a flying fuck
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Small Government wouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies or tell anyone in general what they can and can’t put in their bodies.[/quote]
That is the disconnect the Republicans don’t get . They want it both ways
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Small Government wouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies or tell anyone in general what they can and can’t put in their bodies.[/quote]
That is the disconnect the Republicans don’t get . They want it both ways [/quote]
Which is why their spending record isn’t all that great either.
Who is promoting the expansion of state marriage for self-esteem reasons? Conservatives republicans, like me, aren’t libertarians. We’re small government. Not, ‘no government.’ For a relationship, which by it’s very nature, WILL have a HUGE impact on propagation, prosperity, lawfulness, and self-reliance, for good or bad, it is justifiable to discriminate against all other imaginative arrangements of consenting adults, in order to provide status, privilege, order, and to promotion this institution. The big government types want to expand this involvement, discriminating against all other imaginative human arrangements still left behind, without any justification (critical, irreplaceable role). THAT is bigotry. No more special than a friendship. And the government doesn’t need to be carrying on with the lie that is, telling us it is, through it’s promotion, as the representatives of society.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Back onto topic, Chicago violating first Amendment rights for Chic-fil-A?[/quote]
If they are using any special government powers to do so then yes. The mayor speaking out against it publicly and encouraging others to boycott it is fine. Businesses like strip clubs face these problems too but there are loopholes to limit them and nobody really complains about it like we will see with Chic-fil-A.[/quote]
You serious?[/quote]
I think so, what part do you have a problem with now?[/quote]
People have a problem with strip-clubs not because they are guilty of wrong thought, but because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior. Chick-fil-A is guilty of wrong thought, not because their business preys on people and profits from lewd behavior (unless you consider selling the best fried chicken sandwich and waffle fries lewd).
There is a difference between a business’ actions and a business’ beliefs. For example, if a grocery store owner thinks prostitution is a good idea there is no cause to shut down the grocery store. However, if that owner runs a brothel…you have cause to shut down the brothel.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Small Government wouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies or tell anyone in general what they can and can’t put in their bodies.[/quote]
It wouldn’t? A small government still regulates behavior, even right at the beginning of this country was murder considered illegal and was punishable by law. Or, are you trying to insinuate that if murder in the case of abortion was made illegal that mothers would be prosecuted?
Because there is no precedent for that, as English law for a few hundred years or so has considered the mothers to be the second victim. Which makes sense…because they are.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think we should remove any mention of liberty or the pursuit of happiness from any official documents.[/quote]
So, you hate America. :)[/quote]
You don’t get it. I love America just as much as you do. But in a differenct way. You see, you love America the way a four-year-old loves her mommy. I love America like grown-ups. To a four-year-old everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow.
Now I can not take credit for this quote by Al Franken , I did tweal it though :)[/quote]
Except I understand America better than you do, take the good with the bad. No, acknowledging it, but not taking it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Big Government wants involved in something that is none of it’s business , small government could give a flying fuck
[/quote]
Yes, small government would not attempt to redefine marriage from between a man and his wife. We agree.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
That is the disconnect the Republicans don’t get . They want it both ways [/quote]
I’m not a Republican. I’m a registered Democrat. Genius.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Big Government tries to change the definition of marriage.
Small Government would not even think to change the definition of marriage.[/quote]
Small Government wouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies or tell anyone in general what they can and can’t put in their bodies.[/quote]
That is the disconnect the Republicans don’t get . They want it both ways [/quote]
Which is why their spending record isn’t all that great either.[/quote]
Yes, it’s tough to keep up with the God King Obama. He sure whips out that checkbook a lot.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So you think its best for the government to favor certain home living situations which they think are best for society instead of leaving it up to the individuals? [/quote]
Well, yes, of course. Do you want more tax payers or more consumers? Higher educated people, or less? A bigger labor force, or a bigger prison population. Society has a vested interest.
[/quote]
Gays fit into the favorable categories you just mentioned more so than the average population. I’m glad we can finally agree that children raised in those households will statistically be better for society.[/quote]
Documentation?[/quote]
What part exactly? I thought it should be pretty obvious.[/quote]
The part where you say that gays fit into the favorable categories more so than the average pop. And children will statistically be better for society when raised by gay parents.[/quote]
Statistically gays are more educated, make more money and not in prison as much as everyone else. I don’t see how any of those 3 traits would not result in better child raising than the opposite traits.[/quote]
You can’t just list 3 traits as if that gives a full picture
Lets say I compare an anorexic with Schwarzenegger
I don’t see how these would not result in a better bodybuilding score.
You have no idea what a society raised by gay parents would look like. Adding up traits will tell you nothing. Skip the documentation