thomwatson


quality posts: 0 Private Messages thomwatson
Shawn4168 wrote:Hmm...if you had actually researched the issue and found the actual news sources, rather than rushing to post a half-assed rant based on what you heard from a few sheep on Facebook, you would know that that is exactly what happened. The only "controversy" here comes from an interview about Dan Cathy's personal moral views (which, last I checked, he's entitled to have). Chick-Fil-A never made any sort of statement in any official capacity that condemns homosexuality or claims that they don't support gay marriage.

However, that wasn't about to stop a bunch of leftist nuts from demonizing the entire company for their skewed perceptions of the company's owner.

Chick-Fil-A has no desire to insert themselves into politics. It's the geniuses making all of the noise that are putting words in the company's mouth.



In fact, had you bothered to research the issue, as you say others should have done, you'd have learned that Chick-Fil-A, though its charitable foundation, has given over $5 million dollars over the past few years to anti-gay equality and anti-marriage equality efforts, including to SPLC-certified anti-gay hate groups.

phileoca


quality posts: 12 Private Messages phileoca

so it's okay if Target comes out and supports gay marriage with their new greeting cards, but if Chick fil A says they're pro traditional marriage than it's not ok?

At least you got 1 thing right: The media spins it.

My wife woots too

Burning-Chrome


quality posts: 4 Private Messages Burning-Chrome

Any word on woot's stance on adults marrying children? Humans marrying sheep, ponies, and other assorted farm animals? And how about relations with evergreens and shrubbery? Come on people, you're so wrapped around the axle on "equality", what about the rest of the "different" people?

bsmith1


quality posts: 105 Private Messages bsmith1
phileoca wrote:so it's okay if Target comes out and supports gay marriage with their new greeting cards, but if Chick fil A says they're pro traditional marriage than it's not ok?

At least you got 1 thing right: The media spins it.



Target says both types of marriage are ok. See the difference?

bsmith1


quality posts: 105 Private Messages bsmith1
Burning-Chrome wrote:Any word on woot's stance on adults marrying children? Humans marrying sheep, ponies, and other assorted farm animals? And how about relations with evergreens and shrubbery? Come on people, you're so wrapped around the axle on "equality", what about the rest of the "different" people?




We're talking about adult humans here. Animals and trees don't have the same rights as people, so I don't see your point. Children are not adults and aren't allowed to do most things adults can do. You gotta be like 16 or 18 in most states before you can get married.
Please restate your argument, but limit it to the people it applies to: consenting, adult humans.

llandar


quality posts: 32 Private Messages llandar
Burning-Chrome wrote:Any word on woot's stance on adults marrying children? Humans marrying sheep, ponies, and other assorted farm animals? And how about relations with evergreens and shrubbery? Come on people, you're so wrapped around the axle on "equality", what about the rest of the "different" people?



A) You're way off topic. We're not talking about the politics of marriage; we're talking about Chick-Fil-A's hamfisted PR.

B) The difference is none of the examples you gave can willfully consent to marriage.

bogus


quality posts: 11 Private Messages bogus

As others have pointed out, Chick-fil-A has a long history of bringing the owner's religion into the business and 'company line' so this isn't any big surprise. At least they are open about it, instead of sneaking around in the shadows hoping nobody notices the agenda.

As for the issue, I don't feel like getting into a protracted argument except to say that those flaming the "traditional marriage" crowd would do well to consider that the government dictating morality to religious groups is functionally equivalent to the government dictating morality to gays. The only truly "inclusive" solution is for them to get out of the marriage business entirely, which might not be such a bad idea.

BigSack22


quality posts: 0 Private Messages BigSack22
llandar wrote:A) You're way off topic. We're not talking about the politics of marriage; we're talking about Chick-Fil-A's hamfisted PR.

B) The difference is none of the examples you gave can willfully consent to marriage.




I have a friend who claims to be bi-sexual. Shouldn't she be allowed to marry a man and a woman?

robertleemartin512


quality posts: 0 Private Messages robertleemartin512

Oh goodness. As a believer in gay rights, I don't have a problem with CFA donating and supporting their idea of "traditional" marriage. They hire and serve members of the LBGT community, therefore they are not discriminating. Who you should really be angry at, is the boy scouts who do discriminate against members of the LBGT community.

PS. Knoxville is the 8th "gayest" city in the US and you can barely elbow your way through the crowd of any CFA at lunch.

bmbell


quality posts: 0 Private Messages bmbell
bsmith1 wrote:We're talking about adult humans here. Animals and trees don't have the same rights as people, so I don't see your point. Children are not adults and aren't allowed to do most things adults can do. You gotta be like 16 or 18 in most states before you can get married.
Please restate your argument, but limit it to the people it applies to: consenting, adult humans.


Can an adult marry a child yet? Can three or more people get married as a group yet? Just wait

vand3537


quality posts: 1 Private Messages vand3537

free marketing advice:

there are more Christians than gays

a lot more

I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A, but now I want to find out if there's one near me, and eat there whenever I feel the need for fast food.

Woot on the other hand is fading fast, very few good deals anymore, crappy looking site, and now this snarky lib drivel

phileoca


quality posts: 12 Private Messages phileoca
bmbell wrote:Can an adult marry a child yet? Can three or more people get married as a group yet? Just wait



A guy in japan recently married a video game character.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-16/world/japan.virtual.wedding_1_virtual-world-sal-marry?_s=PM:WORLD

My wife woots too

bmbell


quality posts: 0 Private Messages bmbell

CFA's claim is that they're pro-traditional - not anti-gay. That's like saying "pro gun rights" advocates hate the un-armed, or NAACP is really National Association for the Detriment of Non-Coloreds, or those who like Chevys hate Fords, or "pro-Texas" is really "anti other states", or those who want legal immigration hate Mexicans. Way to twist it up, Haters.

fishshapedethylbenzene


quality posts: 3 Private Messages fishshapedethylbenzene
thomwatson wrote:In fact, had you bothered to research the issue, as you say others should have done....



I tried to make this point earlier, but made the mistake of assuming a subtle nudge would do it. Silly me. =)

Now if someone could wave a Magic Wand of Reading Comprehension over this thread, maybe folks will start discussing what's actually *in* this blog post instead of whatever they've imagined there.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

This thread is AWESOME!

Well done, Llander. No matter my stance on the gay marriage issue, this thread is hilarious.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
BigSack22 wrote:I have a friend who claims to be bi-sexual. Shouldn't she be allowed to marry a man and a woman?



No. For tax reasons, you're only allowed to marry one person. However, if she doesn't legally marry both people, no one cares how many people she "marries." At least in most states. In Utah, it's actually illegal to claim that you're married to more than one person, even if you're actually not. Go free speech!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

dreprince


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dreprince

I wish we had a CFA in Oregon.

bogus


quality posts: 11 Private Messages bogus
phileoca wrote:A guy in japan recently married a video game character.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-16/world/japan.virtual.wedding_1_virtual-world-sal-marry?_s=PM:WORLD



I should try that. The American gay-marriage debate desperately needs a good trolling right now.

BigSack22


quality posts: 0 Private Messages BigSack22

Have really enjoyed my last day on woot.

Too bad that the admins had to turn the site into another venue to push the progressive agenda.

scrawford66


quality posts: 2 Private Messages scrawford66
fishshapedethylbenzene wrote:Wow. Really, wow.

http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001



Typically advocacy organizations are not the best places to go for a "fact" check.

llandar


quality posts: 32 Private Messages llandar
BigSack22 wrote:Have really enjoyed my last day on woot.

Too bad that the admins had to turn the site into another venue to push the progressive agenda.



Please consider reading the article. And wear padded shoes to avoid hurting your ankles jumping to such distant conclusions.

jaycain


quality posts: 2 Private Messages jaycain
llandar wrote:Please consider reading the article. And wear padded shoes to avoid hurting your ankles jumping to such distant conclusions.



I read the article. Although you veil it as "marketing advice," it comes across as critical of Chick-Fil-A. And if you're piling on, you're against them. Sorry coach.

But the question for your bosses is this - why would woot want to wade into such a hot-button debate that invites knee-jerk reactions? That's just stupid, because you're going to alienate a big giant segment of the populace whichever stance you take.

Instead, why don't you spend a little more cubicle time on the best way to convince all of the geeks on this website to shell out a few more clams on 4GB mp3 player that takes batteries (refurbished) or another 17" DVD-TV combo.

And take a look at groupon, chief. If it wasn't for the kindle fire, your ass would be collecting unemployment by now.

RNLori


quality posts: 6 Private Messages RNLori
HawthornThistleberry wrote:While Chick-Fil-A has every right to support anything they like, and customers have every right to boycott them or not accordingly, you're really understating this to depict it as just one guy (who happens to own the company) making a statement about personal beliefs. Chick-Fil-A has a long history of political activitism on issues related to gay rights. They're not just someone saying something that's none of anyone's business; they're using their actual revenues to fund actual efforts to change policy (or prevent change to policy) that affects actual people.

In fact, the leader "coming out" (pun intended) is great news, because now a lot more people know that their chicken-sandwich-buying lucre is being, in part, used to support politicians and initiatives to deny equal rights. If they happen to be all for denying equal rights, they know to go vote with their dollars, and vice versa. It's a GOOD thing that they know how their dollars are voting, and have been all along.



Best post in this thread. So many people misunderstand and think he was just stating his personal beliefs. I have had to explain to friends exactly what their Chicken Nugget purchases were supporting for years now.
I am straight, but have my own beliefs that "not giving a sh*t" also applies to the choice others make as to what sex they marry.
I have many gay friends, and we were discussing bringing some Wendy's takeout over to Chick Fil A and letting the couples children play in the play area while we are there. They want to get the kids meals from Chik Fil A, just for the irony of it...


lstaff


quality posts: 202 Private Messages lstaff
vand3537 wrote:free marketing advice:

there are more Christians than gays

a lot more

I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A, but now I want to find out if there's one near me, and eat there whenever I feel the need for fast food.


and that is exactly what you should do, patronize an organization whose beliefs and financial support is in line with your own.

That is the WHOLE point of this post: Did CFA consider that many in the country will disagree with them; did they consider the business impact of their actions?


Oh, and I think you have your Venn diagram wrong - about the Christians and Gays. Those circles intersect.

gbottles


quality posts: 1 Private Messages gbottles

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

kmclau1958


quality posts: 1 Private Messages kmclau1958
RNLori wrote:Best post in this thread. So many people misunderstand and think he was just stating his personal beliefs. I have had to explain to friends exactly what their Chicken Nugget purchases were supporting for years now.
I am straight, but have my own beliefs that "not giving a sh*t" also applies to the choice others make as to what sex they marry.
I have many gay friends, and we were discussing bringing some Wendy's takeout over to Chick Fil A and letting the couples children play in the play area while we are there. They want to get the kids meals from Chik Fil A, just for the irony of it...



No, but everyone knows that Chick-Fil-A isn't the only company that does that. Ben & Jerry's, Starbucks, Pepsi, Target, etc. have all notoriously donated to pro-gay marriage lobbying groups. There are probably more that give money to pro-gay marriage groups than those that give to pro-traditional marriage groups.

As a Christian, I hear about these groups all the time. I hear friends calling out the latest company and announcing their boycotts. You know what? I shrug my shoulders. If a company has a good product, I'll buy it. I personally don't like Ben & Jerry's that much, and it's way overpriced. So I don't buy it. Starbuck's coffee tastes like they were short on coffee grinds and substituted last summer's grill charcoal instead. So I don't drink it often. If they have good products, I'll give them money for their products. They can do as they please with that money, because they earned it by putting out a good product. That doesn't mean that I support gay marriage. It simply means that I prefer to pay for something worth the money.

As for the blog, I understand the author is not making an argument either way, he's simply talking about the marketing. But, in Dan Cathy's defense, maybe what he decided to do wasn't a marketing ploy. Maybe he actually believes that. And maybe he thinks that taking this stand is more important than money. My goodness, the man cuts his profits by 15% by being closed on Sundays. Is it that hard to believe that maybe he's simply standing up for his beliefs? Agree or not, you at least have to respect someone who risks a sizable amount of income to affirm their beliefs. He knew what these comments would cause, and no doubt he weighed the risks. Deal with that however you want to deal with it. I think Chick-Fil-A is alright, so I may drop in sometime in the near future. But I don't think they're great, so it's unlikely to change the frequency of my visits. I will say however, that Chick-Fil-A has hands down the most polite and kind service of any restaurant that I have ever visited, and I suspect if a gay person walked in, they would be expected to treat them with the same level of courtesy and service. For me, the ultimate mindless reaction is to simply throw money out at someone because they believe the same thing that you do, or vice versa. That doesn't show me that someone thinks for themselves. It shows me they toe the line of their peers and don't view quality as important in their financial decisions and purchases. If I want to give money to a traditional marriage group, I'll be man enough to give it to the group, not trade it in for food and allow a third party to donate a portion of their income it after I've eaten my my meal.

Personally, I think boycotting either way is a somewhat hateful thing to do. I may disagree with gay marriage, but to boycott a business owned by a homosexual is to essentially say to that person, "I don't think you should have money. I don't believe you should have a means to buy food to put on your table. I don't think you should have the means to make house payments. And I believe that based on the fact that you are gay." Boycotting is a statement and an urging for others not to support someone until they change their beliefs. To make a statement like that means you think their life should lack the basic necessities to survive, like you're going to starve them out of their beliefs. Even if you don't necessarily believe that, that's how it comes across. That's why, regardless of someone's sexual orientation, I base my business dealings solely on the product they offer. Now, there are some things I'd boycott over, but those circumstances would be pretty extreme and rare. People need to learn that boycotting beliefs and boycotting people are completely different. If you want to get somewhere in winning people over, the former is preferable to the latter.

RNLori


quality posts: 6 Private Messages RNLori
kmclau1958 wrote:
As a Christian, I hear about these groups all the time.



In what area, in any of these posts, did you hear any of us say we were also not Christians ourselves?
Christ preached love and acceptance of all of God's creatures. Why is it that people are speaking against equal rights using the basis that they are Christians as their excuse?
This issue will be thought of as horrible discrimination one day. I just wish we could all be alive to see that day arrive.
Sally Ride, the first female Astronaut, passed away this week at 61. All they could say was that she left behind her "partner" of 27 years. Her "partner" will not get any of the survivor's benefits that she was entitled to due to the defense of marriage act, which Chick-Fil-A has donated millions to. She didn't make it to see that day of change. Even worse, as a nurse, I pray her "partner" of 27 years was even allowed to be by her side as she passed away.

This issue effects more than Chicken.

You can give a sh*t, or not, but one day things will change. One day we will all really act like the Christians we say we are.

forcheck


quality posts: 0 Private Messages forcheck

Well said KMC. I really dont understand the outrage generated every time this man talks about his beliefs. The gay community wants inclusion in everything and wants everyone to accept them as they are but Christians should not be afforded the same? That said, I dont understand christian/catholic groups that rally hard against gay marriage. I am catholic my teachings have always led me to believe I should share my beliefs with others but not force myself upon them. I was taught that god believes in free will. Either follow his teachings or dont it is your choice. Boycotts are a waste of time to me. I do not understand why people feel the need to try and get others to bend to their ideas or will.

beertwenty


quality posts: 1 Private Messages beertwenty
RNLori wrote:In what area, in any of these posts, did you hear any of us say we were also not Christians ourselves?
Christ preached love and acceptance of all of God's creatures. Why is it that people are speaking against equal rights using the basis that they are Christians as their excuse?
This issue will be thought of as horrible discrimination one day. I just wish we could all be alive to see that day arrive.
Sally Ride, the first female Astronaut, passed away this week at 61. All they could say was that she left behind her "partner" of 23 years. She didn't make it to see that day, and as a nurse, I pray her "partner" of 23 years was even allowed to be by her side as she passed away.

This issue effects more than Chicken.

You can give a sh*t, or not, but one day things will change. One day we will all really act like the Christians we say we are.



+1 my thoughts exactly.

kmclau1958


quality posts: 1 Private Messages kmclau1958
RNLori wrote:In what area, in any of these posts, did you hear any of us say we were also not Christians ourselves?
Christ preached love and acceptance of all of God's creatures. Why is it that people are speaking against equal rights using the basis that they are Christians as their excuse?
This issue will be thought of as horrible discrimination one day. I just wish we could all be alive to see that day arrive.
Sally Ride, the first female Astronaut, passed away this week at 61. All they could say was that she left behind her "partner" of 23 years. She didn't make it to see that day, and as a nurse, I pray her "partner" of 23 years was even allowed to be by her side as she passed away.

This issue effects more than Chicken.

You can give a sh*t, or not, but one day things will change. One day we will all really act like the Christians we say we are.



I didn't say anyone on here WASN'T a Christian. I was simply stating that because I am and I spend my time with many Christians, I hear that a lot. You're picking up on one three-word phrase and infusing it with a ton of meaning that was not actually in it.

As for your comment about Christ, I would strongly urge you to spend some more time studying out the "Jesus is loving" statement. As one who holds undergraduate and advanced degrees in Christian theology, it's absolutely alarming to me that anyone would make a statement that generalized and without looking at the fact that Christ made some horribly harsh and condemning statements. For some good places to start, try Luke 13:1-5, Luke 14:26-27, Mark 6:10-11. You can also look at Rev. 19, which tells of his return and the slaughter of his enemies. Even the late atheist Christopher Hitchens said that Jesus is so violent that he makes the God of the Old Testament look tame in comparison.

Being a "Christian" is more than being loving. It's just like anything else. There is a body of beliefs that goes along with it. I am aware that there are some Christians that affirm gay marriage. But any Christian that does that has to cut out major portions of the Bible and ignore significant teachings of even Christ himself to do so. And if I can cite even a single teaching of Christ that affirms my belief in traditional marriage, and I certainly could do so (try googling "jesus on gay marriage"), then I would suggest that perhaps you need to reconsider your understanding of Christ. I would suggest that if you see Christ as one who would be accepting of anything and everything, you need to reinvent him by doing so, or throw him away completely and forget the term "Christian" because I don't think you'd find him lining up with the completely accepting person who you're suggesting he is.

Anyway, I'm done here. I get involved in these and spend too much time in them, and if I'm not careful, I'll waste several hours over the next few days. But I would encourage you to challenge your own view of Christ, and see where your beliefs end up in relationship to his teachings.

wootboy69


quality posts: 0 Private Messages wootboy69
jaycain wrote:I took my family to Chick-Fil-A last night, and it was awesome. Your ridiculous comments about favoring Taco Bell notwithstanding (this robs you of credibility in my mind), their chicken sandwich is the bomb.

So as we're eating, my wife (a PhD psychologist by the way), says, "Did you hear the gay and lesbians are boycotting Chick-Fil-A because of their stance on gay marriage?" I contemplated this as I chewed my spicy chicken sandwich. I took sip of my diet lemonade, and said "who gives a sh*t?"

I can assure you that I don't. When I'm eating my chicken sandwich, it doesn't even cross my mind to wonder what the owner of the company thinks about gay marriage. I care about how fast I get my sandwich, what it tastes like, how much it costs, and what their health department rating is (in that order).

So b!tch and moan about this all you want. I don't care, and neither do 95% of middle America.

I never took a marketing class in my life, but I can tell you this -- the gay lobby wasn't exactly knocking down the doors at Chick-Fil-A anyway. They have a long -standing presence in the ultra-conservative Christian community. I don't think they're losing market share at all. In fact, their base customer is more likely to come to Chick-Fil-A as a counter-protest to the publicity.



WHEN THEY CONTRIBUTE MILLIONS TO ORGANIZATIONS TO PREVENT EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, THEY AREN'T JUST A RESTAURANT ANY MORE. THEY ARE NOW JUST A BUNCH OF BIGOTTED flower garden WHO TURN MY STOMACH(AS THEIR GREASY SANDWICHES DO, TOO)
I'LL TAKE MY KIDS TO KFC FROM NOW ON.

jaycain


quality posts: 2 Private Messages jaycain
wootboy69 wrote:WHEN THEY CONTRIBUTE MILLIONS TO ORGANIZATIONS TO PREVENT EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, THEY AREN'T JUST A RESTAURANT ANY MORE. THEY ARE NOW JUST A BUNCH OF BIGOTTED flower garden WHO TURN MY STOMACH(AS THEIR GREASY SANDWICHES DO, TOO)
I'LL TAKE MY KIDS TO KFC FROM NOW ON.



Dude, chill.

You've obviously been drinking the gay lobby's kool aid, so you're probably beyond being reasoned with, but I'll give it a try.

Truett & Dan Cathy obviously believe that marriage is a religious sacrament between a man and a woman. They believe that enough to give money to groups that are opposed to gay marriage. You're YELLING AT THEM because they are actually steadfast in their beliefs. You're YELLING AT THEM because they have the courage to say out loud what they believe.

Personally, I don't care one way or another. If a couple of guys wanna commit themselves to each other, then great. They can call their "union" whatever that want, but there are a whole bunch of people out there who will never recognize this as a "marriage" because that's a word reserved to describe the civil or religious bond between a man and a woman.

Maybe we ought to come out with something else to describe the union between same sex partners. How about "Mayriage?"

TDDAWG


quality posts: 0 Private Messages TDDAWG
llandar wrote:I only offer free marketing advice to companies that are getting the tar kicked out of them for their boneheaded marketing/PR strategies.

Google seems to be doing fine.




So you think that Chik-Fil-A is getting the tar kicked out of them? Could you please tell that to the five hundred people in front of me trying to buy some Chik-Fil-A. I sure would like to get up to the counter sooner. Thanks!

bsmith1


quality posts: 105 Private Messages bsmith1
jaycain wrote:...
Maybe we ought to come out with something else to describe the union between same sex partners. How about "Mayriage?"



Or maybe we just call all civil/legal unions "marriages" , but you can also call yours a "religious union". That way, you still feel special because it implies it's different (and better in your opinion) than non-religious marriages. Everyone will be allowed to legally marry who they want, but only special people like you can have "religious unions"! Lucky you!

jaycain


quality posts: 2 Private Messages jaycain
bsmith1 wrote:Or maybe we just call all civil/legal unions "marriages" , but you can also call yours a "religious union". That way, you still feel special because it implies it's different (and better in your opinion) than non-religious marriages. Everyone will be allowed to legally marry who they want, but only special people like you can have "religious unions"! Lucky you!



That idea is gay.

3.5% of the U.S. population is gay. Only 0.5% of the U.S. population are in same-sex partnerships, and how many of them want to be married?

I don't see this as an epidemic that needs to be addressed. I also don't understand why this is presented as an "equality" argument. Same sex marriage will never be the same as traditional marriages because it is impossible for the couple to have biological children. The can never be "equal."

Okay - Captain Obvious is going to go back to work now.

RWoodward


quality posts: 58 Private Messages RWoodward
Burning-Chrome wrote:And lets not forget Chick-Fil-A is one of the very few places of business that closes all of its restaurants every Sunday, all day. How DARE they! Give them heck for this slanderous behavior too woot!



Chick-Fil-A can't even operate in Wisconsin, as all the malls require all stores to be open on Sunday, no exceptions.

I was a big fan when I lived down south. It's been years since I've eaten there.

bsmith1


quality posts: 105 Private Messages bsmith1
jaycain wrote:3.5% of the U.S. population is gay. Only 0.5% of the U.S. population are in same-sex partnerships, and how many of them want to be married?
I don't see this as an epidemic that needs to be addressed. I also don't understand why this is presented as an "equality" argument. Same sex marriage will never be the same as traditional marriages because it is impossible for the couple to have biological children. The can never be "equal."



You're forgetting the millions of Americans who are married to a member of the opposite sex, but didn't have a "religious union". I got married in a courthouse. My marriage doesn't fit your definition of a traditional marriage, so why do I still get to call it a "marriage"? Why do I enjoy all the rights and privileges of being legally married?
Additionally, some opposite sex partners are physically unable to have children. Are you suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to legally marry because they can't reproduce? What does having kids have to do with being married anyway? A lot of people don't even want kids.
So many holes in your argument...

jai151


quality posts: 8 Private Messages jai151
jaycain wrote:That idea is gay.

3.5% of the U.S. population is gay. Only 0.5% of the U.S. population are in same-sex partnerships, and how many of them want to be married?

I don't see this as an epidemic that needs to be addressed. I also don't understand why this is presented as an "equality" argument. Same sex marriage will never be the same as traditional marriages because it is impossible for the couple to have biological children. The can never be "equal."

Okay - Captain Obvious is going to go back to work now.



"Captain Obvious" obviously misses the point.

Children don't matter, religion doesn't matter, percentages don't matter.

There are legal and tax implications and advantages to being married. That is where the equality issue comes into play. Two people sharing their lives should be subject to the same set of rules regardless of their individual genders. You don't want to call it marriage? Fine, but whatever term you come up with has to apply to "traditional" married couples as well and be the legal definition of marriage. Either everyone can get married or no one can, else there is discrimination.

RWoodward


quality posts: 58 Private Messages RWoodward
jai151 wrote:
Children don't matter, religion doesn't matter, percentages don't matter.

There are legal and tax implications and advantages to being married. That is where the equality issue comes into play. Two people sharing their lives should be subject to the same set of rules regardless of their individual genders. You don't want to call it marriage? Fine, but whatever term you come up with has to apply to "traditional" married couples as well and be the legal definition of marriage. Either everyone can get married or no one can, else there is discrimination.



I had an elderly friend who's lifelong home was legally stolen from her by the nieces and nephews of her partner.

When they bought their home, same-sex couples were heavily discouraged from buying property in joint custody. In fact, she believed it was illegal at the time. Everything went in the partner's name because she had established credit -a rare thing for a woman in those days. When her partner passed away, the family who had disowned her decades before stepped forward to claim all of her property. The home, cars, furnisings, clothing, bank accounts, everything. They had her burried in a pauper's cemetery and split the procedes. My friend was literally tossed out with only the clothes on her back. She couldn't even arrange for a decent funeral because she had no right to dispose of the body. Had they been a straight couple, the State's "common law" marriage rules would have protected her. As it was, she had no rights under the law. Her years of paying the bills and upkeep on the house -along with her years of love, companionship and dedication to her partner meant absolutely nothing. No argument, legal, religious, traditional or otherwise can convince me that this was a good thing.

Kyralessa


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Kyralessa
RWoodward wrote:I had an elderly friend who's lifelong home was legally stolen from her by the nieces and nephews of her partner.



So...why didn't your elderly friend and her companion have a will?