Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo in 2013!!
This is why I am just waiting for Tim Tebow to step out of the closet and bridge the 50's with today. Maybe he will be the savior after all, for all the people still living in the stone age.
I am saying, going by what I quoted by billypilgrim, that I wouldn't be surprised if Tom Tebow came out of the closet. Have you seen his post-game interviews? Maybe if that happened all the backwards religious types would be convinced otherwise.
Eh? It wasn't meant to be a joke. Someone mentioned how often those most opposed to something are hiding something or are that themselves. I was saying wouldn't it be ironic (and I wouldn't be too surprised) if Tom Tebow was gay himself, just from seeing some of his post-game interviews. And I thought for all the people that nearly worship Tebow, maybe it would make them think twice about things. Probably not, though.
Funny someone talked about "the people that are the most outspoken about hating on homosexuals are the ones usually with skeletons in the closet (i.e. Catholic priests.)"
Kiko, perhaps your pure hatred and bigoted thoughts towards homosexuals are misguided, have you ever entertained the thought that you yourself might be a homosexual?
I'm not being sarcastic, just reaching out... trust me, it's ok if you are, God will love you just the same.
This is why I am just waiting for Tim Tebow to step out of the closet and bridge the 50's with today. Maybe he will be the savior after all, for all the people still living in the stone age.
Eh? It wasn't meant to be a joke. Someone mentioned how often those most opposed to something are hiding something or are that themselves. I was saying wouldn't it be ironic (and I wouldn't be too surprised) if Tom Tebow was gay himself, just from seeing some of his post-game interviews. And I thought for all the people that nearly worship Tebow, maybe it would make them think twice about things. Probably not, though.
Funny someone talked about "the people that are the most outspoken about hating on homosexuals are the ones usually with skeletons in the closet (i.e. Catholic priests.)"
Kiko, perhaps your pure hatred and bigoted thoughts towards homosexuals are misguided, have you ever entertained the thought that you yourself might be a homosexual?
I'm not being sarcastic, just reaching out... trust me, it's ok if you are, God will love you just the same.
Seems you haven't read the entire thread Not that there's anything wrong with that!
The bottom line is, if you want to eat at Chick-Fil-A, eat at Chick-Fil-A. But, if you do, don't claim to give a shiz about human rights
It's just IMO, but I don't believe these two things are mutually exclusive. For instance, what if several perfectly kind and decent Chick-Fil-A store employees were forced into unemployment, just because a lot of patrons "protested" by withdrawing their business?
Would be one of those "sins of the fathers" situations, and massively unfair. I really couldn't give a rip about pious executives and major shareholders. They're not the ones worrying about next month's car payment.
The bottom line is, if you want to eat at Chick-Fil-A, eat at Chick-Fil-A. But, if you do, don't claim to give a shiz about human rights
Sorry, I just have a hard time understanding how it is a human right. I do believe, though, that it is covered under "equal protection under the law" in our constitution. The constitution says nothing about it as a right. Though I do have a different belief on "rights" as most do. "Rights" such as bearing arms and many others are bs, though they may qualify as societal goods and therefore be protected in a universal manner.
The bottom line is, if you want to eat at Chick-Fil-A, eat at Chick-Fil-A. But, if you do, don't claim to give a shiz about human rights
I think this is sarcasm.
However, if this is not sarcasm, my only response can be:
Summerteeth, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Sorry, I just have a hard time understanding how it is a human right. I do believe, though, that it is covered under "equal protection under the law" in our constitution. The constitution says nothing about it as a right. Though I do have a different belief on "rights" as most do. "Rights" such as bearing arms and many others are bs, though they may qualify as societal goods and therefore be protected in a universal manner.
Are you really sorry? I don't think you are. Because you are arguing one point in response to another.
What most people here are suggesting is that homosexual couples should have the right to marry, a legal right. You respond that because it is not a natural right (like the right to life or freedom from slavery), it should not be allowed. Even if you are correct for arguments sake, that gay marriage is not a natural right, your point is useless.
There are thousands of legal rights created by the government that are not "natural rights." Under your reasoning, rights like the right to bear arms would not exist. Nor would one's right to an attorney. Or privacy. Etc.
So stop beating around the bush and just say that you think gay couples should be denied benefits from the federal government that heterosexual couples receive, such as lower taxes. Unless that's not what you think. In which case you are just being a troll...
Sorry, I just have a hard time understanding how it is a human right. I do believe, though, that it is covered under "equal protection under the law" in our constitution. The constitution says nothing about it as a right. Though I do have a different belief on "rights" as most do. "Rights" such as bearing arms and many others are bs, though they may qualify as societal goods and therefore be protected in a universal manner.
Are you really sorry? I don't think you are. Because you are arguing one point in response to another.
What most people here are suggesting is that homosexual couples should have the right to marry, a legal right. You respond that because it is not a natural right (like the right to life or freedom from slavery), it should not be allowed. Even if you are correct for arguments sake, that gay marriage is not a natural right, your point is useless.
There are thousands of legal rights created by the government that are not "natural rights." Under your reasoning, rights like the right to bear arms would not exist. Nor would one's right to an attorney. Or privacy. Etc.
So stop beating around the bush and just say that you think gay couples should be denied benefits from the federal government that heterosexual couples receive, such as lower taxes. Unless that's not what you think. In which case you are just being a troll...
Hmm?? I clearly said that it was covered under "equal protection of the law", nothing close to "because it is not a natural right (like the right to life or freedom from slavery), it should not be allowed." Don't put words in my mouth, especially when it is 100% opposite from my opinion.
Under my reasoning, said "rights" still exist (as they do) because enough people believe them to be so. I don't believe popular (majority) belief makes it so (makes it a right). I do believe there are other justifications for some things. Everything doesn't have to be blanketed as a "right" to be made legal or universal. It is quite frankly a silly and inflationary word used by the founders to mean "abilities that will therein be considered off-limits". Yet, many "unalienable rights" are regulated and should be.
Sorry, I just have a hard time understanding how it is a human right. I do believe, though, that it is covered under "equal protection under the law" in our constitution. The constitution says nothing about it as a right. Though I do have a different belief on "rights" as most do. "Rights" such as bearing arms and many others are bs, though they may qualify as societal goods and therefore be protected in a universal manner.
Are you really sorry? I don't think you are. Because you are arguing one point in response to another.
What most people here are suggesting is that homosexual couples should have the right to marry, a legal right. You respond that because it is not a natural right (like the right to life or freedom from slavery), it should not be allowed. Even if you are correct for arguments sake, that gay marriage is not a natural right, your point is useless.
There are thousands of legal rights created by the government that are not "natural rights." Under your reasoning, rights like the right to bear arms would not exist. Nor would one's right to an attorney. Or privacy. Etc.
So stop beating around the bush and just say that you think gay couples should be denied benefits from the federal government that heterosexual couples receive, such as lower taxes. Unless that's not what you think. In which case you are just being a troll...
"Sorry" in this context means "no offense" or "I respect your opinion, but..."
Kiko, you should attempt to address my post instead of rambling. Again:
What most people here are suggesting is that homosexual couples should be granted the right to marry, a legal right. You respond that because it is not a natural right (like the right to life or freedom from slavery), it should not be allowed. Even if you are correct for arguments sake, that gay marriage is not a natural right, your point is useless.
There are thousands of legal rights created by the government that are not "natural rights." Under your reasoning, rights like the right to bear arms would not exist. Nor would one's right to an attorney. Or privacy. Etc. Clearly it is not necessary for a legal right to be a natural right for society to justify its existence. Similarly, it is not necessary for gay marriage to be a natural right for society to provide the legal right.
So stop beating around the bush and just say that you think gay couples should be denied benefits from the federal government that heterosexual couples receive, such as lower taxes. Unless that's not what you think. In which case you are just being a troll...
Kiko, you should attempt to address my post instead of rambling. Again:
What most people here are suggesting is that homosexual couples should be granted the right to marry, a legal right. You respond that because it is not a natural right (like the right to life or freedom from slavery), it should not be allowed. Even if you are correct for arguments sake, that gay marriage is not a natural right, your point is useless.
There are thousands of legal rights created by the government that are not "natural rights." Under your reasoning, rights like the right to bear arms would not exist. Nor would one's right to an attorney. Or privacy. Etc. Clearly it is not necessary for a legal right to be a natural right for society to justify its existence. Similarly, it is not necessary for gay marriage to be a natural right for society to provide the legal right.
So stop beating around the bush and just say that you think gay couples should be denied benefits from the federal government that heterosexual couples receive, such as lower taxes. Unless that's not what you think. In which case you are just being a troll...
Except for I never responded with such a statement.... I said it was not a natural right, yet it is still covered, legal, and justified. Good lord man, if you are going to fill my mouth with words, at least quote what I've said for support. You are just making things up.
Post by Vector Viking on Aug 6, 2012 2:27:41 GMT -5
Maybe someone posted this before and I missed it, I tried to read the whole thread but all the derails made it a little muddy. Here's my stance: Chick-fil-a financially (in the millions) supports Exodus International, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and the Family Research Council. All of these groups are designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They advocate, among other things, "ex-gay therapy" (electroshock therapy techniques that are coincidentally listed as torture methods by NATO), imprisonment, deportation, and execution of gays; and have also financially supported politicians in Nigeria, Malawi, and Burundi who have recently enacted anti-gay laws and Uganda is considering making homosexuality punishable by death. This is the influence of American evangelism. This is the result of people like us not giving a sh!t where our money goes as long as we get a chicken sandwich and waffle fries on demand. If you think this doesn't really affect you because you're straight, try to think about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. MLK, Malcolm X, et cetera... did the pavement work but it was JFK and LBJ who finally signed into law equal rights for blacks and other minorities (except, of course, the LGBT folks). It's going to take public support from members of the majority to fulfill the guarantees of the Constitution. And that, dear friends, is why Dan Cathy is into fitness.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
