First Official GOP President Announcement

Oh I'm not "wishing" or "hoping" it will happen, it is happening.

Salesforce abandons Indiana

NCAA opposes anti-gay bill

So far the NCAA has only condemned it, they haven't said whether or not they will move the Final Four this year, probably because its a week away, but next years Women's Final Four is definitely gone.
The NFL is right behind them, safe bet the combine won't be happening in Indy anymore.

someone is losing this somewhere.

We can argue that religion is man made, that it is the fall back of the unintelligent man. That people want to use the 'excuse' of it 'violates' my religious beliefs. That these are unjustifiable beliefs and should not be used in society.

on the other side we can argue that Homosexuality IS INDEED a choice that is made. It is not natural.

In either case someone is violating someones rights. The reason why this law is needed is... did that couple NEED to go to THAT specific bakery? was it really that important? People want to make news... while that couple could have EASILY just found another shop, they wanted to prove a point with the one who refused them.

If you want to argue that religion is a concocted fabrication where i just want to use my beliefs as a way to get my way.... I will turn right around and use it again you(in regards to lgbt). My 'silly' arguments against lgbt are just as equally valid as any 'silly' argument you may have against religous beliefs.

Keep wishing, nfl is not going anywhere. They can take there 'anti gay law'(more correctly the 'pro religious freedom law') and shove it. like i said in my previous post.... what gives the lgbt community any more rights than the religious freedom community? both are on around equal credibility at this point.. but anytime christianity chooses NOT to 'turn the other cheek' it is nothing but ridicule

I respect that salesforce corporation leaving.. they have the right.. thats what i meant by choosing to not support with your dollars...

the ncaa on the other hand.. they are just a bunch of idiots

I don't really care what other people believe, but the evidence is not on your side and believing something not only doesn't make it correct, it most definitely doesn't give you the right to discriminate against others when it comes to legislation. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, and you're welcome to not make cupcakes for gays, but you don't get to write laws that strip basic civil liberties from minority groups. You never know, someday those terrible atheists might start passing laws that make it legal to discriminate against you.

Leave your religious beliefs at home, where they belong, out here in the big world, we have to be respectful of other's basic human rights.

The law is going to be challenged if it manages to pass.

You don't know anything about the NCAA or the NFL, clearly. How are the NCAA idiots, hmm? Well thats fine, they can be idiots, and they can take their millions of dollars of revenue that they generate and give it to a state that deserves it. The NFL doesn't need Indiana. They can have the combine wherever they want, they can have the Super Bowl wherever they want. Indiana does nothing for the NFL. They can pick up their team and move them to LA, yeah, they would stand to benefit GREATLY from that. But hey, Nausi's flower shop is in business!
Your posts about homosexuality are pathetic. You can't back up any of your statements. You can argue homosexuality is a choice? Oh really? Feel free.

Can you 'prove' its not? The argument that it is decided at birth is flimsy at best. Worst case scenario people can choose not participate in there 'desires'. But I guess after almost 240 years (and more if you count outside the USA history) there has to be SOMEthing to do 'civil rights' about.

Look at the end of the day, LGBT is NOT the same thing as having rights because you are a Women(a physical characteristic), as having rights because you are Black(again a physical Characteristic). It is a sexual identity(in the case of L, G, B) or an insistence that God/Nature made you incorrectly(T)

Why do we have to pursue 'civil rights', while INFRINGING religious freedom at the same time on issues of sexual identity and an insistence that Nature made you wrong

Their basic human rights trump your religious freedom. You're free to believe whatever you want, when you start passing laws that make minority groups effectively subhuman, you need to stop and be a little introspective.

I've read my fair share of the good book and I can't see Jesus getting in line with you on this.

I'm waiting for your argument that its a choice. All you have managed to do is attack the other side (with no actual evidence). And who says being LBGT is not the same thing as anything else? These are taxpaying born in the USA citizens that live their private lives however they want and its none of your business. No rights are being infringed.

Slippery slope.... let's say LGBT becomes 100% part of our society, no questions asked, utterly and completely equal.


What's next? Something WILL be next.

I am waiting on your argument that it is NOT a choice..

And Jasik .. discrimination in and of itself is not a bad thing.

Nothing about religious freedom makes the a group subhuman. Noone wants to defend religious freedom.. but you do not realize apparently that the more this 'group' is forced into society the more INFRINGEMENT is placed on religious freedom. There freedom is our infringement. At what point are we allowed to actually speak up?

Small business should have rights to decide 'we have the right to refuse service to anyone'. Now you get bigger there IS AND SHOULD be protections... Corporations, government agencies, the military should NOT be allowed to refuse service to them.. because they are not 'family owned' and therefore have a broader scope to look at.

When every other significant minority group is expressly protected from discrimination and they are expressly subject to it, then yes, you are treating them as subhuman.

As for the rights of small businesses, they have the right to refuse service to anyone, they just can't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. The issue is that they want affirmation to be able to post signs and tell people they won't serve them because they're gay. The only difference is that LGBT are about 50 years behind blacks and 100 years behind women in civil rights.

I don't buy your slippery slope, it's always been a fallacy in terms of civil liberties.

Feel free to answer your own questions. Whats next? Why does something have to be next? Its not a slippery slope at all. Soon the LBGT community will be allowed to marry whomever they wish in all 50 states, and there are no negatives to that. No ones rights are being infringed. How people live their private lives is none of your business.
Discrimination is awful, thats why anti-discrimination laws exist. You can't refuse service to people based on their skin color or gender, and soon, their sexual reference if you own a public store. You don't have that right so your rights are not being infringed. You can run a private store and have membership requirements, good luck with that.

Then let's hope this thread can just die... hell we are not even talking about Ted Cruz anymore.

Viscous.. obviously you are not getting what I am saying

DISCRIMINATION IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT A BAD THING.

(did you choose what shirt, pants or anything else you wanted to wear today over something else? thats discrimination. Discriminating is merely making choices based on whatever your value system happens to be)

The reason I am against gay marriage(being called Marriage) is because it destroys the ORIGINAL(maybe not the current day) purpose of marriage. It was a religious unity to protect procreation. Now call it something else and i could care less.

It's a pretty bad thing when you treat certain people more poorly because of how they were born.

Newflash, we were never talking about Ted Cruz. I'm actually trying to figure out which is less relevant, Ted Cruz or the original purpose of marriage. I mean, who cares about either?

if that is what you believe i suppose. i don't believe they are 'born' that way. and that is the root of it that we might as well not debate over it, cuz you will not convince me otherwise.

I'd LOVE to see you elaborate on this beyond clothes selection...


Marriage has basically always been a contract recognized by the state. Unions are actually the arrangements you're referring to. So, let the gays get married, you can have your traditional union.

Obvioiusly I do, and plenty others(just probably will not find many on a gaming forum)

All I have to say is those who say he is a 'joke' candidate beware. Not saying for sure he will get the nomination.. merely saying it is NOT 0%

Yeah ok, we will be sure to "beware."

And I won't try.

The unfortunate thing about conservatives is that you guys really want to pick what reality you live in, rather than living in the reality you live in. Science is clear on the question of whether or not it's a choice. It's rather testable to, if you have any doubts. For a week, go choose to be gay and have gay sex for a few weeks. Then choose to be straight again, come back and tell us how it went.

But anyways, if you believe marriage is for the sake of procreation, are you also equally against infertile people from getting married?

Let them get married and call it a Union, i will not oppose that in any way.

Expand on discrimination beyond clothing? easy. Like i said discrimination is merely making choices based on your value system(whatever that happens to be). Some is bad, but most is unnoticed and a good thing.

People find out that Morgan freeman dates(is married?) to his step daughter.. for that reason they decide they dont like him.. thats discrimination. Incest is seen as taboo and therefore most people will make decisions about them, descrimination. The fact that you will vote for a certain politicians based on views they have or do not have.. again discrimination. Choosing which church to attend.. discrimination...

Never thought of it. But yes if we stick to Marriage is 'a Unity to protect procreation' I guess I would support that. After all, how many times are divorces stopped(at least temporarily, for good or ill) for 'the sake of the kids' I am sure the divorce rate of couples without kids is even higher than those with(under 18)

You seem to have an odd definition of discrimination.


The key word in there is prejudice, or to pre-judge. All your examples are invalid because they're instances post judging people.

When you say "discrimination" you actually mean "preference".

Discrimination is:



You're not getting it... Marriage is a legal contract, you're saying they're trying to change the traditional definition of marriage, and saying they can call it a union, except... unions are the traditional one.

Why is it ok to have a separate word for them because it makes you feel better? It's Jim Crow all over again.

Technically, the original social reason for marriage in society has a socio-econimic base. Largely, in European cultures marriage has the primary function of uniting two or more houses financially and to grant one liege lord fealty to another by law (Providing both houses with resources and land from each others estate). Modern marriage isnt so different, no matter what the church says it did not create the system of Marriage, it only abused it by adding a theological function. You cant claim marriage by law as a process of government is in any way related to religion exclusively, both the state and its municipalities have to recognize a legal contract between two consenting adults whether they are recognized by a church or not. Saying otherwise, is a systemic disconnect. Specifically, when marriages here dont give much at all other than certain spousal benefits which any other system in law at this moment doesnt recognize or allow.

Also, that argument for discrimination is VERY shallow in reasoning. I may have chosen another set of clothing today than another, but i did not subjugate the other chosen ensemble just because i didnt want to wear it that day. That is the stupidity thats going on right now. Just because you dont like gay people, means they cant have the same things heterosexuals have the same rights to because reasons and apparently as far as most people are concerned (because it doesnt affect them) its perfectly okay. Its Institutionalized Discrimination, and it shouldnt be happening.

the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing
source Merriam Websters dictionary

You guess you would?

You mean you adamantly would be against infertile people getting married, right? You seem to be adamantly against gay marriage.

I can't talk to you about your first paragraph, but not the second...

In regards to the first... I see where you are coming from.. And yah.. I see you point 'one king marries his princess to another kings prince for purposes of uniting the kingdomes.." hmm

in regards to the second... People willingly look at the convenient first definition.. but the third definition is ignored..

Does the fact that you have to go to the third definition to cherry pick a definition that fits your narrative ever give you pause?

I did say 'in support of' 'marriage is for the unity of people to protect procreation' Now, listening to what Enuyasha said.. he proves a point.. hmm

Because the fact that you guys insist the first definition is the only definition is not cherry picking as well?