Boston Mayor to Outlaw Chick-Fil-A

[smhbbag]

The reactionary voices haven't changed in 120 years.

Because they were right for the past 120 years.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

tell that to every couple getting married by the year. Just because it's bad for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make a choice. This is like a stoner telling kids who want marijuana legalized "you're not missing out, the worst thing you can do is let the government know what you're smoking".

That is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever seen. First of all, you're comparing legalizing something with giving government benefits. Secondly, legalizing a drug does not mean you're letting the government know what you're smoking. It just means the government doesn't care. That is probably the most idiotic analogy I've ever seen in my life. I'm not kidding.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I don't see why not. But I'd probably still limit 1 on 1 per registration for simplicity. If you want 3 people together, you can register them separately, one at a time.

Everybody get registered. Who cares about getting the government out of marriage, as long as we are equally enslaved by our own government.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I am saying the state should give people the equal opportunity to ruin their lives and get any state sanctioned benefits.

Why not focus on getting rid of state sanctioned marriage for hetero couples instead of trying to add state sanctioned benefits for homosexual couples? What's wrong with being anti-government involvement all the way?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So you agree anybody can marry?

Yes, but why would they want to if it weren't for the government sanctioned benefits?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Why not focus on getting rid of state sanctioned marriage for hetero couples instead of trying to add state sanctioned benefits for homosexual couples? What's wrong with being anti-government involvement all the way?

Because that would require "secular libertarians" to be consistent, which they aren't.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ahhh, so what was all that "government never gave me shit" talk about? What do you know about marriage without having done it?



Maybe you should ask them rather than take away their choice.

It's not the government's place to fund anyone's marriage. People can get married without having a government license. In fact, gays can get married, right now, without a government license. The only reason they want to is because of the government benefits that come with said license. Eliminate the government licensure of marriage and we're all on equal ground again. Do you disagree?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because that would require "secular libertarians" to be consistent, which they aren't.

I think I know what you mean, but could you define secular libertarian for me?

 

[tbone717]

I don't eat processed food much anymore, but if I did, I would eat at Chick-Fil-A.

Not sure how you define processed, but from what I recall, all their product is brought in fresh and made on site. For example, their lemonade is fresh squeezed, the chicken is breaded on site and the waffle fries are fresh cut.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I think I know what you mean, but could you define secular libertarian for me?

It's hard to define, but its the pro-abortion, salvation-comes-through-science, every-lifestyle-is-equal, reddit types.

 

[jkr]

seems like i wanted to say this all my life:

FUCK
BOSTON

 

[robmpreston]

I love how as soon as we start talking about homosexuals joining in a union, hateful bigots all of a sudden start talking about humans and dogs marrying, fucking, etc. Such a stupid and pathetic argument. Humans are not equivalent to dogs, even if you think homosexuals are subhumans you scumbag.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Then do you have a line to be drawn?

Can I marry my dog and be equally recognized by the state as a heterosexual couple?

The Rick Santorum argument? You are comparing two humans marrying each other to a human marrying a different species (in this case a dog). Are you implying that homosexuals are subhuman? Can a dog consent to marrying someone? I didn't think so

Because that would require "secular libertarians" to be consistent, which they aren't.

I think you've got that backwards buddy. It's the "Christian libertarians" who refuse to be consistent and denounce all marriage licensed by the government. Sure, they say they do, but where are the millions of threads and discussions about that? All I see is talk about "abnormal lifestyles" and "abominations" which has nothing to do with the actual argument. I thought we were against restricting freedom? Doesn't that include the freedom to make bad decisions? If a homosexual couple wants to make the mistake of getting married and face all the consequences people have listed...why should you care? Everyone on this board who is married should have a common law marriage but I doubt that's true.

“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”

 

[Tankbot85]

I love how as soon as we start talking about homosexuals joining in a union, hateful bigots all of a sudden start talking about humans and dogs marrying, fucking, etc. Such a stupid and pathetic argument. Humans are not equivalent to dogs, even if you think homosexuals are subhumans you scumbag.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So tired of people being bigots and calling what is happening a "war on christianity".

I cant wait until the word is free of religion someday.

 

[RickyJ]

seems like i wanted to say this all my life:

FUCK
BOSTON

Just fuck the mayor of Boston, leave Boston out of it. There are many good people there and Ron Paul supporters.

 

[TonySutton]

I dont eat at chick fil a because my one day to get out and roam around is generally sunday and they are closed. no big loss there anyway, I prefer naturally raised foods

Since the discussion has devolved into the never ending gay marriage debate I would like to take the opportunity to interject a recent article I read where it talks about advantages gay couples have because the federal government does not recognize their unions.

http://www.taxtv.com/hidden-tax-advantages-for-same-sex-couples/#.UA1Yj6MVodU

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

//

 

[Tudo]

Lots of people think that way about a lot of people.

They deserve whatever happens to them

 

[Tudo]

Just fuck the mayor of Boston, leave Boston out of it. There are many good people there and Ron Paul supporters.

The people who elected the mayor

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The Rick Santorum argument? You are comparing two humans marrying each other to a human marrying a different species (in this case a dog). Are you implying that homosexuals are subhuman? Can a dog consent to marrying someone? I didn't think so



I think you've got that backwards buddy. It's the "Christian libertarians" who refuse to be consistent and denounce all marriage licensed by the government. Sure, they say they do, but where are the millions of threads and discussions about that? All I see is talk about "abnormal lifestyles" and "abominations" which has nothing to do with the actual argument. I thought we were against restricting freedom? Doesn't that include the freedom to make bad decisions? If a homosexual couple wants to make the mistake of getting married and face all the consequences people have listed...why should you care? Everyone on this board who is married should have a common law marriage but I doubt that's true.

But you are wrong. The stand I took that ended my stay in the General Assembly was for an amendment to prohibit the state licensure of mariage altogether. This amendment to the mariage amendment was voted down 43 to 71, and the only weapon my opponents had to use against me in the 2012 election was my opposition to the Constitutional amendment to define marriage.

I still think I would have won if I had had as much money to spend as they did, but that's neither here nor there. The point being that I stood to denounce 'all marriage licensed by government' when it really, really counted, in what is generally considered a 'career-ending series of votes,' picked up 43 votes in the effort, and when I did so I gave such a heavy 'Christian' argument against state control that I (uncomfortably) felt more like I was delivering a sermon than a House Floor argument.

So what are you using to determine that "Christian libertarians" refuse to be consistent? The tenor of conversations on an internet based discussion board, where you have likely missed half or more of the conversations on the subject, or what actually happens in the State General Assemblies when the laws surrounding this topic come up for debate?

Because it's not the discussion boards that matter, but the legislative bodies, and I'd say that whenever we land in a legislative body that brings this matter up, we do a pretty good job staying consistent.