Boston Mayor to Outlaw Chick-Fil-A

[Hyperion]

seems like i wanted to say this all my life:

FUCK
BOSTON

Same here. Fuck Boston.

Who the fuck does the mayor think he is? What an intolerant prick. No dissenting opinions in Boston. No customer freedom in Boston.

What a tragedy that some in government believe there's a right to restrict commerce based on someone's political opinion.

I'm pretty far right but it would never enter my mind to restrict someone else's business simply over politics.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

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.

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about people in this thread specifically comparing homosexual marriage to marrying their dog and others on the board who say they are against the government being involved in all marriage and yet the opposite seems to be true. It's come up in other threads on the topic but it's calmed down a bit since eduardo got banned.

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?

My dog should get benefits then, right?

 

[jbauer]

Oh come on, being here on RPF is nearly a form of religion. I'm a religious man and contrary to my pastors beliefs could care less if a dude wants to marry a dude. Go for it, just don't throw it in my face (same if it was a hetero couple)

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.

 

[trey4sports]

what is this world coming to....

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I wasn't referring to you. I was talking about people in this thread specifically comparing homosexual marriage to marrying their dog and others on the board who say they are against the government being involved in all marriage and yet the opposite seems to be true. It's come up in other threads on the topic but it's calmed down a bit since eduardo got banned.

It may just be a perspective thing here, but both of your quotes from Danke, both in context and out of context seem to me to be an attempt to point out the ills of government involvement in marriage. Now, I've never taken the 'marry your dog' tact, because the argument ad-ridiculum is a fallacy and only rhetorically valid in a fraction of a percent of the arguments it's actually used in, and this is clearly not one of them. The subtext I gathered from Danke's posts was "a government big enough to grant heterosexual or homosexual marriage, is a government big enough to grant bestial marriage."

While I avoid the bestiality argument like the plague, and while a LOT of the bestiality arguments do indeed try to de-humanize homosexuals, a still pretty significant portion of the bestiality arguments do not try to dehumanize homosexuals but use the fallacy to ridicule a whole other link in the chain. The problem they encounter is an automatic knee-jerk reaction from the pro state-sponsored gay marriage crowd who automatically see any bestiality reference as applying to themselves without bothering to examine the actual argument itself to see if it's making that attempt.

MOST of the bestiality arguments ad-ridiculum on this board do not try to link homosexuality with bestiality but with runaway government power. Still, the pro-sanction people see the word 'dog,' and freak out, 'OMG you are comparing gay people to dog-sex!!' even when it's just not so.

Even so, the bestiality argument is a non-starter, it's BS and crap and wholly fallacious and a non-sequitur. Nevertheless I bring it up because I have the objective detachment to recognize that it's not being used here how some people think it's being used here.

But in any case, examine Danke's argument more closely and you will see that he's not talking about the dangers of gay marriage, he's actually talking about the dangers of government sponsored marriage.

 

[jbauer]

MOST of the bestiality arguments ad-ridiculum on this board do not try to link homosexuality with bestiality but with runaway government power. Still, the pro-sanction people see the word 'dog,' and freak out, 'OMG you are comparing gay people to dog-sex!!' even when it's just not so.

I bet if you type hot bitch into google you'll get some really good photoes back

 

[Sola_Fide]

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.

I'll just leave this here:




Until I see secularists as consistent as that^^^, I will give them no respect.

 

[jmdrake]

I vow never to eat at Chik-fil-la on Sundays.

 

[jmdrake]

I'll just leave this here:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sola_Fide again.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

A) I assume you meant to say "world is free of religion" instead of "word is free of religion".

B) I LOL @ U for saying on the one hand those who call this a "war on Christianity" are "just being bigots" and on the other hand saying you want to see a "world free of religion". So it's not Christianity you are at war with, but all religion. I guess being an equal opportunity anti religious bigot makes you not a bigot.

 

[Danke]

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

Can a mentally handicap person? Should we restrict them from marrying?

My point is everyone should be able to marry to whomever or whatever. No state benefits because of their choices.

 

[Danke]

I vow never to eat at Chik-fil-la on Sundays.

I've tried.

 

[Miss Annie]

I'll just leave this here:




Until I see secularists as consistent as that^^^, I will give them no respect.

Love me some Glenn Bradley!

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Is there anything that concretely lays out the benefits that the government grants married couples? I honestly don't know how much contracts are affected by marriage licenses granted by the state (had an argument with someone who wanted to maintain government presence in marriage in order to ensure contracts were enforced).

 

[Nickels]

Is there anything that concretely lays out the benefits that the government grants married couples? I honestly don't know how much contracts are affected by marriage licenses granted by the state (had an argument with someone who wanted to maintain government presence in marriage in order to ensure contracts were enforced).

Ask why people want to get married if there isn't.

Edit : jmdrake didn't like my short answer. So I'll copy what he said : the benefit is "it's the thing to do" "because it's what people do for thousands of years". This may not be a very material one, but it is when you don't have it. If people think they don't have benefits to a marriage license, let's see them get rid of it. If they admit they do, let them tell you why gays shouldn't get the same.

 

[jmdrake]

Ask why people want to get married if there isn't.

Marriage predated government recognition or benefit.

 

[Nickels]

Marriage predated government recognition or benefit.

Government registered marriage did not. So I meant to say/ask "Why do people register their marriages unless there are benefits to it"?

You register your car and driver license because it's basically a crime without it, you can be fined, it's not nice and not fair, but you deal with it.
There is no crime to simply cohabitate, nor is there a crime to have children without marriage, and the state enforces child support regardless of marriage status.
So why DO people register their marriages? Do they just want a new driver license?

 

[jbauer]

http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/bios/the-old-man-the-appraiser

So does the guy who looks content up until the end (to the right of the screen) look like the old man from pawn stars?

I'll just leave this here:




Until I see secularists as consistent as that^^^, I will give them no respect.

 

[seyferjm]

http://www.history.com/shows/pawn-stars/bios/the-old-man-the-appraiser

So does the guy who looks content up until the end (to the right of the screen) look like the old man from pawn stars?

Beat me to it, I was going to post the exact same thing, haha.

 

[jmdrake]

Government registered marriage did not. So I meant to say/ask "Why do people register their marriages unless there are benefits to it"?

You register your car and driver license because it's basically a crime without it, you can be fined, it's not nice and not fair, but you deal with it.
There is no crime to simply cohabitate, nor is there a crime to have children without marriage, and the state enforces child support regardless of marriage status.
So why DO people register their marriages? Do they just want a new driver license?

I can speak for myself. I got married by my former pastor. (Now retired). Sometime after the wedding he came up to me and said in an urgent voice "Wait! We haven't signed the marriage license yet." I was like "Okay. But you just pronounce me married...so I'm married." He was like "It's not official until the license is signed." which I thought was kinda odd since I'd already been on my honeymoon. Does that mean we were "foreignicating"? Anyway, I signed the dang thing not cause I was hoping for a tax break (most folks get a tax penalty) or hoping to be on my wife's insurance (I had health insurance before I got married) or for any other supposed granted "benefit". I signed it because we wanted to be married. I think that's the case for a lot of people.