Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

    Originally posted by goober View Post
    The government is denying equal protection. Legally married same sex couples do not enjoy the same rights as legally married mixed sex couples.
    Maybe there are still some states that prohibit same sex marriage, but that will change, just like the equal protection issues will be worked out. DOMA or what is left of it when the courts finished will be repealed.

    You have already lost this issue, the victory has been won, it's just that there are pockets of resistance that are unaware how thoroughly they have been defeated.
    Support or same sex marriage is over 70% in the under 30 demographic, and growing, it's 30% and growing in the over 60 demographic.
    You just can't win with those demographics. It's a cultural thing, and the intolerant culture of hate lost. Deal with it.
    MAYBE there are still some states? POCKETS of resistance? ROFL!

    Dude - the vast majority of the WORLD doesn't support it. Keep telling yourself that....really...


    Oh man goober - you're always good for a laugh. Not good for facts, but damn, you're funny.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

      Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
      This all assumes, of course, that it is genetic. I am unaware of any definitive proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait as of yet, though I suspect that discovery is coming. Is it natural attempt at population control? Could it be a method by which nature is trying to remove some other trait from our gene pool? If it is a benefit, how are we benefiting? For the record I don't see something which flies in the face of millions of years of evolution as something that is beneficial.

      I suspect the persistence of any "gay gene" has more to do with homosexuals having a stigma attached to them in most societies and they, therefore, keep their homosexuality under wraps. They aren't free to express it. I mean, if homosexuals are welcomed with open arms, free from any sort of stigma, oppression, and so on, how will these genes be passed on? Logic dictates that the genetic trait will eventually fade from our pool if that is the case as carriers fail to pass it on.

      You raise a good point about us removing it though. I think such a question, when it is discovered to be genetic, will ignite an ethical firestorm.
      You raise an interesting point. Its basically a lose/lose for the homosexual crowd. If it is genetic, it is easily argued as a defect and you can rest assured future generations will absolutely have the gay gene removed. If it is purely behavioral, then they haven't a leg to stand on with regards to any special legal protections.

      I would say things are as good as they're going to get and the more homosexuals push, the harder the rest of the world is going to push back. Pretending it is natural, normal and accepted is just that - pretending. Most of us tolerate it or ignore it, but we don't endorse it.

      That said, since there are far too many hyper-sensitive people here, I don't care if a person is gay, bi or straight. What you do in your bedroom is your concern.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

        Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
        This all assumes, of course, that it is genetic. I am unaware of any definitive proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait as of yet, though I suspect that discovery is coming. Is it natural attempt at population control? Could it be a method by which nature is trying to remove some other trait from our gene pool? If it is a benefit, how are we benefiting? For the record I don't see something which flies in the face of millions of years of evolution as something that is beneficial.

        I suspect the persistence of any "gay gene" has more to do with homosexuals having a stigma attached to them in most societies and they, therefore, keep their homosexuality under wraps. They aren't free to express it. I mean, if homosexuals are welcomed with open arms, free from any sort of stigma, oppression, and so on, how will these genes be passed on? Logic dictates that the genetic trait will eventually fade from our pool if that is the case as carriers fail to pass it on.

        You raise a good point about us removing it though. I think such a question, when it is discovered to be genetic, will ignite an ethical firestorm.
        There is evidence that there is a genetic component, there are families with more gays , and some families just don't seem to have any.
        It's clear that if it is genetic, it is not expressed as homosexuality in the majority of the people who carry it, and must give them some reproductive advantage to compensate for the reduced reproduction rates where the gene does get expressed as strong same sex attraction.
        What ever it turns out to be, I'd rather accept it as a part of humanity, than try to prune it from the human branch of the tree of life.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

          Originally posted by goober View Post
          What ever it turns out to be, I'd rather accept it as a part of humanity, than try to prune it from the human branch of the tree of life.
          That is where you and I differ. I think if such a definitive gene can be identified we need to take steps to remove it. Prune the branch, as you say.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

            Originally posted by HonorsDaddy View Post
            MAYBE there are still some states? POCKETS of resistance? ROFL!

            Dude - the vast majority of the WORLD doesn't support it. Keep telling yourself that....really...


            Oh man goober - you're always good for a laugh. Not good for facts, but damn, you're funny.
            Ever hear the word "trend", google it.
            In the US we are already at the 50-50 point, coming from something like 93-7 against 40 years ago.
            That is huge movement on an issue(can you think of another issue where opinion has moved that much?), and its already like 70-30 pro same sex marriage in the under 30 cohort and rising.
            It's 30-70 in favor in the over 60 cohort, but when that cohort was the under 30 cohort it was 7-93 in favor.
            The movement is all one way, and it's not slowing down. Dick Cheney is pro same sex marriage, do you sense a crack in your conservative armor?

            Where is same sex marriage legal ? Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden parts of the US and Mexico

            And where is same sex marriage banned? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, get the picture? suddenly to feel good about your position you need to team up with Islamic hard liners, does that tell you something?

            Can you explain how you imagine this turns around?
            How does this trend towards tolerance which is world wide in scope, get reversed?

            You know how this turns out, and knowing that, how do you justify to yourself being the last person to change their mind?
            It's like watching old footage of civil rights marches, and wishing you were back there , so you could yell obscenities at Dr. King, what are you thinking?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

              Originally posted by ThorHammer View Post
              That is where you and I differ. I think if such a definitive gene can be identified we need to take steps to remove it. Prune the branch, as you say.
              How?
              By denying heterosexual couples the right to reproduce because of the possibility their child might be gay?

              I think diversity adds to the human experience, and I'd hate to prune the contributions of gay people from the culture, it would be a tragic loss.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                And what you call a trend towards tolerance, I call a slippery slope toward decadence. I think it was Holland who just ruled that pedophilia is a disability now. Soon we will have to adopt that philosophy because it's part of the trend toward tolerance. NAMBLA is pushing for man/boy sex and to lower or remove age of consent laws. I suppose there will be a trend towards that to. In the name of tolerance of course.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                  Originally posted by goober View Post
                  I think diversity adds to the human experience, and I'd hate to prune the contributions of gay people from the culture, it would be a tragic loss.
                  how would their contributions be any different whether homo- or heterosexual?

                  This is a gripe I have with celebrations like "gay" awareness month: Their contribution has little to do with their sexual orientation. If they contributed, recognize them for it regardless of skin color, creed, sexual orientation, or gender (did I leave anyone out) ...

                  It is similar to my opinion about "gay" christians: Their submission to Christ has nothing to do with their gender identity or their sexual orientation. I'm no more a "straight" christian or a "white" Christian or a "man" Christian than anyone is a [characteristic identified] Christian. If you are a Christian, you are a Christian regardless of what ELSE you are and definitely regardless of your particular brand of chosen sin.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    Ever hear the word "trend", google it.
                    Ever hear the word "fad"? Google it.
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    In the US we are already at the 50-50 point, coming from something like 93-7 against 40 years ago.
                    Yet even in CA, every single time it goes to a vote it loses by at least a 2:1 margin. Hm...think MAYBE the polls are off?
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    That is huge movement on an issue(can you think of another issue where opinion has moved that much?), and its already like 70-30 pro same sex marriage in the under 30 cohort and rising.
                    It's 30-70 in favor in the over 60 cohort, but when that cohort was the under 30 cohort it was 7-93 in favor.
                    Yet, as I said, when actually put to a vote...
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    The movement is all one way, and it's not slowing down. Dick Cheney is pro same sex marriage, do you sense a crack in your conservative armor?
                    This may shock you, but once again disregarding the oft repeated fact that I'm not conservative, unlike the typical liberal, conservatives are not monolithic in any opinion. Cheney is welcome to whatever opinion he wishes.
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    Where is same sex marriage legal ? Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden parts of the US and Mexico
                    Ok - fine. So?
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    And where is same sex marriage banned? Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, get the picture? suddenly to feel good about your position you need to team up with Islamic hard liners, does that tell you something?
                    Better way of saying that would have been: Where is same sex marriage illegal? Everywhere else.
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    Can you explain how you imagine this turns around?
                    Turns around? Again, you seem to think it has some kind of unstoppable momentum.

                    I don't have a problem if the law is changed the right way. I have issues with claiming it is something it isn't.
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    How does this trend towards tolerance which is world wide in scope, get reversed?
                    Again, look up "fad"....
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    You know how this turns out, and knowing that, how do you justify to yourself being the last person to change their mind?
                    1) You seem to think I make up my mind based on a popularity contest.
                    2) I won't change my mind. I've nothing to change. Gay "marriage" is illegal in the US. Simple as that. If the law changes, it changes. I simply find it dishonest that there is a repeated attempt to make a claim of rights being abused when they aren't.
                    Originally posted by goober View Post
                    It's like watching old footage of civil rights marches, and wishing you were back there , so you could yell obscenities at Dr. King, what are you thinking?
                    Hm...not something I do, and I would have thought you'd have learned by now that I don't suffer insults and having words put in my mouth.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                      Originally posted by HonorsDaddy View Post
                      Ever hear the word "fad"? Google it.

                      Yet even in CA, every single time it goes to a vote it loses by at least a 2:1 margin. Hm...think MAYBE the polls are off?

                      Yet, as I said, when actually put to a vote...

                      This may shock you, but once again disregarding the oft repeated fact that I'm not conservative, unlike the typical liberal, conservatives are not monolithic in any opinion. Cheney is welcome to whatever opinion he wishes.

                      Ok - fine. So?

                      Better way of saying that would have been: Where is same sex marriage illegal? Everywhere else.

                      Turns around? Again, you seem to think it has some kind of unstoppable momentum.

                      I don't have a problem if the law is changed the right way. I have issues with claiming it is something it isn't.

                      Again, look up "fad"....

                      1) You seem to think I make up my mind based on a popularity contest.
                      2) I won't change my mind. I've nothing to change. Gay "marriage" is illegal in the US. Simple as that. If the law changes, it changes. I simply find it dishonest that there is a repeated attempt to make a claim of rights being abused when they aren't.

                      Hm...not something I do, and I would have thought you'd have learned by now that I don't suffer insults and having words put in my mouth.
                      So it's a 40 year old "fad", that has overwhelming support cooked into the demographics, and the trend is steady and hasn't reversed anywhere.
                      There is even a mechanism I can point to that will continue to support the trend, called the entertainment media, Hollywood sets the trends and the styles and the cultural mores, at least that's the way it works in America, and most of the free world.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                        With a 35-0 record against legalizing gay marriage by overwhelming majorities in every case as HonorsDaddy mentioned, you want to deny reality. Instead you prefer to live in the potential world of what could be the future.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                          Originally posted by goober View Post
                          How?
                          By denying heterosexual couples the right to reproduce because of the possibility their child might be gay?
                          There is no easy answer to "how" in this case. First and foremost, however, I would not deny the right of those who carry the gene the reproduce. If we could identify the exact gene I would hope a screening could eventually be done in the womb, so expecting parents could know if their baby will have the gene or not and take whatever steps they choose (to include abortion). On top of this, I hope the stigma surrounding homosexuals would go away so those with the active trait could live openly as homosexuals, thus effectively removing them from the gene pool. We would need to assure, of course, that those with the active gene would not be allowed to donate sperm or eggs. The problem would then work itself out eventually.

                          Originally posted by goober View Post
                          I think diversity adds to the human experience, and I'd hate to prune the contributions of gay people from the culture, it would be a tragic loss.
                          Diversity can be overstated, IMO. That said, who is to say it was the "gay gene" that prompted the contributions of known homosexuals?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                            Originally posted by JohnLocke View Post
                            With a 35-0 record against legalizing gay marriage by overwhelming majorities in every case as HonorsDaddy mentioned, you want to deny reality. Instead you prefer to live in the potential world of what could be the future.
                            And yet the number of jurisdictions that allow same sex marriage continues to increase.

                            And support continues to increase, the numbers say it will be legal in all 50 states in 2025(I saw an analysis that said based on the trend and the current state by state polling, Mississippi is the last state to legalize same sex marriage in 2025, I think there may be a few that last longer, but I think by 2040 it's 50 states for sure.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                              Originally posted by goober View Post
                              So it's a 40 year old "fad", that has overwhelming support cooked into the demographics, and the trend is steady and hasn't reversed anywhere.
                              There is even a mechanism I can point to that will continue to support the trend, called the entertainment media, Hollywood sets the trends and the styles and the cultural mores, at least that's the way it works in America, and most of the free world.
                              The idea of gay "marriage" has not been kicking around the mainstream for 40 years Goober. If you want to believe that, I'm done trying to educate you.

                              The entertainment media would also have you believe that it is perfectly normal to do a lot of things the general public has and continues find distasteful. Just because Hollywood likes something doesn't mean the rest of us do.

                              I realize you may be easily swayed by flash and emotion, but most of us are not.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: Cities seeking to ban Chick-Fil-A?

                                Originally posted by goober View Post
                                And yet the number of jurisdictions that allow same sex marriage continues to increase.
                                When the general public objects to something and the courts force it upon them, eventually the general public tells the court to go get fucked.
                                Originally posted by goober View Post
                                And support continues to increase, the numbers say it will be legal in all 50 states in 2025(I saw an analysis that said based on the trend and the current state by state polling, Mississippi is the last state to legalize same sex marriage in 2025, I think there may be a few that last longer, but I think by 2040 it's 50 states for sure.
                                Perhaps that will be the case - perhaps not. Bear in mind there were also numbers that said we'd be overpopulated and unable to support ourselves by the 1980s, we would run out of oil in the 90's and gas would be $50 a gallon by 2000. These were real predictions made by people who were just as adamant in their beliefs as you are and had supposed "data" to prove it.

                                Future predictions of human nature are a crapshoot at best Goober. It was predicted, based on trends at the time, that nuclear power would be the norm rather than the exception by the late 20th century - we see how THAT worked out.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X