Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 25 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2013, 02:34 PM   #361
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
It's illegal to refuse your services to people on the basis of skin color or religion. Why should sexual orientation be any different.

That said, I'd rather not give such people my business rather than sue them to make a point.
Unfortunately, many who are against SSM will see this as another form of an attack on freedom of religion and speech.

Come to think of it, how many anti-SSM business owners have turned away couples going on their second, third or whatever marriage? I betcha none!
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 02:34 PM   #362
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Being gay is against the law in most countries that also allow polygamy.

But are you implying that heterosexual and homosexual monogamous marriages are superior to polygamous marriages?


We're talking about the US.

Be careful, the "religious freedom" fretting is a much more slippery slope to polygamy.

I have no opinion on polygamy. I'm gay. The two have nothing in common.

By all means, feel free to argue for the merits of polygamy.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 02:57 PM   #363
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Most likely because, if current trends continue, "almost nobody" will be marrying. A trend started well before SSM to be sure but only exacerbated by this ruluing IMO.
I'd love to hear your reasoning behind the opinion that allowing more people to marry will cause fewer people to marry.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 03:01 PM   #364
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'd love to hear your reasoning behind the opinion that allowing more people to marry will cause fewer people to marry.
I didn't even pick up on that. I'm curious about this as well.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 03:16 PM   #365
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,667
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Being gay is against the law in most countries that also allow polygamy.

But are you implying that heterosexual and homosexual monogamous marriages are superior to polygamous marriages?
Are you intentionally being obtuse? He was implying that one is born gay, but one is not born a polygamist. This is why one is outlawed and one is not. Laws against homosexuality make no sense. It's like making having brown eyes a crime.

Therefore, you cannot compare the two. It's very simple.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 03:18 PM   #366
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
That approach won't work with INDY as I've tried it several times and he counters with stories from right-wing papers about how bigots are being prosecuted under Canada's hate speech laws now, so apparently gay marriage has resulted in us losing freedom (not that we had a lot of that to begin with, being socialists).
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Well, as it happens I was on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls for a week earlier this month. Couldn't have had a better time but the price of food... jeez. With the $10 hamburgers and $17 glasses of wine I fugure we must have paid for the healthcare of at least one Canadian for 2013.

But I'd also like to praise your country for this:

‘Hate speech’ no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post



Pretty sure I remember Anitram defending this law.

Unfortunately in this country "various human rights lawyers," gay-rights zealots and others in the media and politics will be sharpening their censorship swords.

Good call.
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 03:19 PM   #367
Acrobat
 
Badyouken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 488
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoMac View Post
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
__________________
Badyouken is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 03:37 PM   #368
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by IWasBored View Post
Not digging the pandas?
No - not really. I may pick it up again.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 05:13 PM   #369
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Two things.

First, pretty sure I neither defended nor praised this law, but explained to you that our constitutional law operates in a different manner than yours and that therefore it was permissible to have this law as under s.1 of our Charter, you could justify the curtailment of rights.
Ok, thanks for clarifying, it was some time ago.
Quote:

Second, you are quoting a Conservative Senator's opinion on the law and taking that as fact. It's as if I quoted a Republican on why it's necessary to have mandatory ultrasounds for women and then state that as a fact.
So free speech is a conservative issue now rather than a universal natural rights and individual liberty issue?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 05:17 PM   #370
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
We're talking about the US.

I have no opinion on polygamy. I'm gay. The two have nothing in common.
Why? Why can't 3 guys or 3 women marry?
Quote:
By all means, feel free to argue for the merits of polygamy.
Oh I no longer argue the merits of any marriage arrangement. As of Wed ideals are not only hateful... they are unconstitutional.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 05:44 PM   #371
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Why? Why can't 3 guys or 3 women marry?

Oh I no longer argue the merits of any marriage arrangement. As of Wed ideals are not only hateful... they are unconstitutional.


Don't be an asshole. Lose with dignity.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 06:02 PM   #372
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
So free speech is a conservative issue now rather than a universal natural rights and individual liberty issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Why? Why can't 3 guys or 3 women marry?


Oh I no longer argue the merits of any marriage arrangement. As of Wed ideals are not only hateful... they are unconstitutional.
You've completely lost the plot. You've become the old man that argues with red lights and TV.

Free speech? You missed her point by light years.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 07:35 PM   #373
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I'd love to hear your reasoning behind the opinion that allowing more people to marry will cause fewer people to marry.
I'm on ignore, but this one wasn't addressed yet.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 09:57 PM   #374
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,966
Local Time: 10:11 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state my agreement with Indy that business owners shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage and should be allowed to, for instance, not support gay weddings. I do support gay marriage, and I think that business owners who do things like that are doing a wrong thing. I have a problem with them doing it. But I don't think that the government should block them. In all honesty, the free market will probably end up hurting them over time.
__________________
digitize is online now  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:10 PM   #375
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Would you also agree if they did not want to service an interracial wedding or a Muslim wedding?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com