Yes, because the one thing Donald Trump holds sancrosanct and inviolate is a written agreement. I mean, we have absolutely no reason to think otherwise, correct?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Floyd is, and always has been, a highly competent technical fighter who is now content to collect huge checks in farcical exhibitions. He is also a complete coward who has carefully cultivated his opponents, avoiding any fight in which the outcome could actually be in doubt, but has no problem at all terrorizing women and children.
The video of this "fight" exposes it for exactly what it is--yet another pathetic display of contempt for the sport itself and of the rubes who play along with the ruse, all while Floyd collects another giant payday. Nasukawa's absolutely ludicrous flopping is apparent for anyone who can stand to look.
2 ( +8 / -6 )
Right--they'll get a tax break subsidized by the citizenry at large. And once it expires, they'll move those jobs out of the country anyway. But this is only about the lil' man thinking he looks good, just like everything else in his tiny world.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
With all respect to baseball fans, the World Series moniker should be change to The Canada/USA Series or to The Baseball Superbowl ... the world does not get to compete in the series.
With all respect due, please do get over yourself. You of course realize that "Super Bowl" is a brand name, just like "World Series" was way back at the turn of the century, and not any kind of geographically meaningful adjective? Of course you do. They could call it the Chopped Liver Series, but why would they? Major League Baseball is under no obligation to indulge the pedantic neuroses and insecurities of the rest of the world.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
A classic narcissist is always talking about himself , either directly in his boasting or indirectly in projecting his many insecurities on his enemies. Every statement this sad little man-baby dribbles out follows this obvious pattern.
12 ( +15 / -3 )
Suffice to say that:
A) Skinny jeans of any sort are probably not the best thing to wear when moving.
B) It sounds as if this particular woman was wearing skinny jeans that were perhaps three or four sizes too small, compounding the problem exponentially (thus, her level of obesity is irrelevant, as even the leanest woman can still get in trouble with pants several sizes smaller than what would be normal for her).
Even so, how utterly fashionable she must have looked, trapped on the floor and immobile.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
What Peacetrain and Ah_so keep willfully misunderstanding here is that these men have no need for their conception of the word "normal." They cross-dress because it makes them feel good, they're comfortable with that, and who cares what anyone else thinks? And just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it can't possibly be true for others.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Besides, they've expressed understanding of 'freedom of speech'.
Yes, because if said ironworker wanted to opine about how similar Dear Leader is to a monkey, the NK government would be fine with that.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Yeah exactly, what is the point of having "stealth" fighters if you then announce where they flew out of and where they are going?
Obviously you're not a poker player....
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Sarah Fisher was a lot better driver in IndyCar in inferior machinery
The only comical bit here is that anyone actually believes Sarah Fisher was anywhere close to Danica Patrick's skill level. Yes, she's irritating and petulant, and yes, she's never passed up an opportunity to capitalize on her looks, but the truth is that she's always been a better-than-average driver. Now that it appears Tony Stewart's operation has the new car figured out a little bit earlier and better than the rest, she's taken good advantage of it. We'll find out whether she has the racecraft over 500 miles to cash in, but it's an achievement nevertheless.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
It truly would be a shame for all the 35-yr-old losers' fantasies to be trampled by the knowledge that the women being paraded before them solely to collect their cash are actual human beings with their own lives. And for this woman to shave her head as contrition for living her life as she wants to, not because that's wrong, but simply because she's terrified of being kicked off the gravy train--disgusting.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
But fpsRussia is right, understanding the story behind his crime is very important to protecting yourself and loved ones from other crimes. The point isn't to get outraged and exclaim "what a loser, he had a fight with his girlfriend so he decides to kill someone?" It is to see the point where a weak self centered narcissist finally completely broke and went beyond a tragic point of no return.
Nothing Motoyama has revealed here qualifies as "insight" into why Ichihashi committed murder, so we're no closer to "understanding" his crime. So you're saying that by identifying the breaking point of a spoiled, self-centered narcissist who had the best of everything handed to him (apparently having a fight with his girlfriend, i.e., the first time things didn't go as he'd have liked), we can somehow "protect" ourselves in the future? His crime was selfish and cruel in the extreme, and a woman that had nothing to do with his pathetic girlfriend troubles is dead because of it, and lives of her relatives are shattered as well. So the lesson is to never deny the spoiled rich anything, or else justifiable murder will result? Ridiculous.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
People are free to make the choice to smoke, even knowing what they know...That said, the government should simply give up its disingenuous efforts to pretend it doesn't want people to buy its product. Or perhaps turn the theme of its "antismoking" efforts to more of a "You Don't Have to Smoke Them, Just Buy a Lot of Them."
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Personally, I know a few gays that still eat there and have no problem with the company and don't blame the entire company, they know the CEO has the right to say what he wants, are they happy, one of them said, she doesn't care, that's his opinion
It's pretty clear that there's no shortage of people who just aren't interested in thinking too deeply about it (stopping at the idea that it's somehow only about free speech). If so, so be it. It's more of a "you can't say you were never told" sort of thing. You know what your money is going toward, and if you're OK or indifferent to that, fine.
So what is this fight to you? Do you have a horse in the race?
I just think it's clearly wrong to support inequality for some people and to try to legislate it. The moment you think it's OK for one group to be treated unfairly, you're next, regardless of whether you think this one is your fight.
People that think homosexuality is perverted, gross, and immoral are not bigots.
That's exactly what they are, so that argument begins and ends right there.
Why be so intolerant of other peoples free speech and freedom of religion?
Tolerate my intolerance of you, or else you're intolerant. Pure nonsense. Why be so intolerant of some people's sexuality that has absolutely nothing to do with your life? Oh, that's right--because it's "gross and disgusting."
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Then you need to speak to your local representative, try to make the appropriate changes to give civil unions THE EXACT rights as in marriage. That would same sex and heterosexual put them on the same level, without changing the word.
If they were the same, there'd be no need to pointlessly change the term, because they'd both be marriage.
You will never have the the Gay community be fully embraced, that's just the fact. No matter what you say, cry, have a temper tantrum, getting in peoples face and trying to force people to think or believe a certain, will not help , not in the least.
The idea is not to be 100% embraced (whatever that would be), just to have 100% of the same rights. Fighting for that is anything but "throwing a tantrum."
Again, it happens sad as it is, but if you think that these crimes will cease, probably it won't. Do whatever you have to in order to protect yourself.
I see. Let's just take the prohibition of murder off the law books, then. After all, as much as we don't want people to murder each other, we'll never be rid of it, so people should just protect themselves as they see fit.
you are living in Oz, if you think that you can change peoples perceptions,
Again, your message seems to be "give up." How utterly sad.
Again, another Straw man argument. Some guys mocking Jesus walking in a Church, cross dressing and disturbing a service and there are so many examples where Gays would get in your face and force you to accept them or to understand them, that is just as bad. I don't hear you complain or accusing them of hate speech.
Do you honestly think this ever happens, anywhere, or that it happens with some kind of frequency, so much so that it's considered a standard practice to somehow convince churchgoers of something? I guess they're just exercising their freedom of speech. It might be misguided and a dumb way to try to "convince" people of something, to say nothing of the fact that those peoples' acceptance isn't even necessary, but that has nothing to do with the overall fight to make sure everyone has the same rights. Did somebody (randomly capitalize) Straw man argument?
most of your organized religions are against homosexuality and want nothing to do with it
Right, and as we've already established, homosexuals could care less about religions accepting their lifestyle; they simply want to have the same rights as everyone. The religious types and the homosexuals never have to come into contact at all. Curious, then, that it's religious groups that lobby to deny homosexuals their equality. Perhaps they should simply live and let live.
To call CFA a bigoted Org. without hard substantial facts, then you making assumptions.
Chick-fil-a gives money to bigoted organizations and proudly admits that fact. No assumptions being made at all.
Trying to equate slavery with Gay rights
They're both clearly morally wrong, and both practices have apologists who tie themselves in rhetorical knots trying to justify them.
Sorry, but as of right now for the US and the dire state that it's in, the economy is all that matters now, nothing else. Gay issues and other issues can wait or are you telling me that 8.3% unemployment is acceptable and that is not a high priority, some people can't put food on the table, but we have to worry about Gay rights issue at the forefront?
Unfortunately, in the real world, no one is ever afforded the opportunity to simply put every other issue on hold while one and only one is worked on. Sure, the economy is important to a vastly larger group of people. And guess what? Some of those people who can't put food on the table are even homosexuals. That doesn't mean it's OK to ignore it completely until someone arbitrarily decides the time is finally right to even start thinking about it.
when it gets to the point that the country is being over-taxed, then it is a huge problem for the country.
And how exactly would granting homosexuals the right to marry increase the tax burden?
I don't have a problem with anyone, gay people can be as they want, love as they want, but you cannot force people to accept gays if they don't want, everyone has the right to feel the way they want to feel. I like slim women, does that make me a hater of heavy women? Am I not allowed to have a preference?
Once more, homosexuals aren't lobbying to have everyone like them or accept them, which is obviously pointless. They're lobbying to have the same rights as everyone. Doesn't matter whether you're a hater of heavy women, because even if you were, it's unlikely that you would then form a group that lobbies the government to deny heavy women the right to marry, correct? You could live your entire life without caring what heavy women do or how they lead their lives. It wouldn't affect you one bit.
I NEVER said that Gays are second-class
By supporting the idea that homosexuals should not have the same rights as everyone else, you're saying it tacitly. You don't have to explicitly state it.
so straight people have also the right to feel the way they want to feel as long as they don't physically abuse anyone.
Absolutely. They can feel any way they want. What they can't do is try to have the laws changed to deny homosexuals the same rights they enjoy.
Yep, the chicken is really good
I think everyone on both sides is now comically overstating the quality of the chicken served there. Those who support CFA are pretending like it's an absolute revelation, and have seemingly sworn to make it their sole purveyor of chicken from now on. Those who oppose CFA act like they now have some kind of dilemma, because after all, there simply are no other places to get fast-food chicken, and whatever will they do? I've had a Chick-fil-a less than two miles away and haven't visited it for years. I'm pretty sure I'll find a way to carry on.
You have absolutely NO, ZERO proof of that. Don't make false accusations or don't be prejudice!
I really don't know how this is supposedly not an established fact--we know, for a fact, that Chick-fil-a has given money to the Family Research Council, and Dan Cathy proudly admits it.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
Time to make the donuts, yet again. Sigh...
Trying to be a smart**?
I suppose it is possible that you simply can't see the "uleavings" part. It would fit in with your pattern of being unable or unwilling to see.
Because it is just a word and they have and should have same and fair equal treatment under the law. The wording is not important. Civil union should suffice just as well.
Civil unions and marriages are not the same, and the rights afforded a couple in each are different, to say nothing of the fact that some states don't even have civil unions. Civil unions therefore do not suffice, despite what you think is best for homosexuals. And as the two concepts are not the same, the wording is important, obviously.
and no one told you to shut up.
Me? We're not talking about me. When you tell homosexuals that their equality simply isn't important, you're both demeaning them as well as telling them to shut up and wait.
I have never met ANY gays that had a problem anywhere with the minor exception of wanting the word "marriage" written on their civil unions certificate.
I'm glad YOU haven't, but there are places where homosexuals are regularly harrassed, beaten, raped, murdered, and treated as less than human. They have quite a larger slate of problems. And your experience is hardly a large enough sample size.
You keep droning the same drum beat over and over about equality.
I wish I didn't have to, but some people just need to hear things a few times before it sinks in.
It seems like you are sounding bigoted towards religion or people that believe in it.
Gee, because the religious types have certainly been level-headed in the matter. Believe away--just don't try to impose your belief in a the magical sky man on anyone else. You see, that's the part they have such a hard time with. No one needs to convince them. However, letting them (and the organizations we've been talking about most definitely identify as Christian) lobby for unequal treatment of the people they don't like is unacceptable and needs to be opposed.
You are just making an assumption and you are pre-judging these franchises.
To think it's all clouded in mystery, that we somehow are unsure that any money at all goes from your local Chick-fil-a--at least you're good for a laugh. Yes, Dan Cathy somehow finds money in the street and it has nothing at all to do the corporation of which he's CEO. The whole point of the franchising is that the operators pay the franchiser for the use of their corporate IP. The entire reason why Chick-fil-a is so large today is because of all the cash from the franchisees. But you're not convinced--after all, it could all just be a huge coincidence. And no one ever made any claim that every owner and employee of a CFA franchise is a bigot--just that dollars spent there end up going to bigoted organizations.
You try where you can, but as with bigotry takes time, accepting Gays will take time too. You call it bigotry, others will call homosexuality immoral. Again, it depends on your point of view.
What a muddled mess of thinking this is. "you try where you can"? Except you then go on to say it's not important. Yes, it does depend on your point of view, indeed--which in no way implies both are right. Slave owners were once completely certain they were right (and hey, they even had some convenient biblical backup).
Gays are not being strung up
First, this simply isn't true--in some places, homosexuals are in fact being physically assaulted and killed simply for being who they are, whether you choose to close your eyes to it or not.
this is NOT an issue at this very moment that needs to be addressed immediately. It can wait.
Not at all patronizing in the slightest. But wait, someone once said "you try where you can..."
The economy, however, cannot!
For a moment, it's almost like you're suggesting that buying fast food chicken is a better answer to the more pressing issue of the economy. Yes, economics are an issue--and? It's really easy to rank what problems are most pressing when they're not yours, I guess.
just like my tax dollars are paying for teachers and police officers etc
You have a problem with this? Paying for police and fire protection is something you'd rather your tax dollars NOT go toward? Impossible to please everyone, I suppose. To say nothing of the fact that taxes are mandatory, and what private companies people support with their money (and what those profits are then used for) is not.
No one is trying to sell Gays anything...then they resort to calling people bigots or intolerant or homophobes
I'm not sure even you understand what you're saying at this point. I'm just repeating the simple fact that supporting unequal rights for some people and being OK with some people as second-class is bigotry. You just don't want to own up to it, it would seem, with all this willful blindness.
instead of education and understanding and accepting each persons personal feelings
So as long as homosexuals "accept" and "understand" that they're second-class, there's no problem, right? When you say that religious people (who are operating completely on faith) are free to hold the opinion that homosexuality is immoral because God and the bible say so, how exactly would you suggest the LGBT community go about "educating" them patiently?
Believe me, the company is in no way shape or form hurting right now.
I guess that's why I said "time will tell." You know, actual time has to pass, or at least more than one week. The brand is actually at a lower ebb than ever, which should be more troubling to its executive officers. Ask a marketing professional. As for the huge one-day turnout--well, so long as they can keep those three-hour lines going, they'll be fine, right?
No company franchise should ever suffer because of one persons personal beliefs.
Correct--just for what that person uses the company's profits to fund.
For that reason, this attack on the CEO's freedom of speech is nothing other than.... "hate" because he is a Christian that actually believes what his religion says he believes.
You're a little late to the party, wolfpack--we've already established that no one is impinging on his right to say whatever he wants, just that he uses his corporations' profits to fund organizations that lobby for unequal treatment for some people. But if what you're saying is true and he honestly believes what his religion says he does, I suppose he'll be familiar with the phrases "love one another" and "turn the other cheek." And don't forget supporting slavery and women as the property of men--in the bible, donchaknow.
Did he publicly state that CFA is a hate group?
I guess some basic reasoning powers on the part of the listener are implied. Giving money to hate groups is as it sounds. If he announced he was giving money to the KKK, would you even ask this kind of question? I know you're a fan of "it depends on your point of view" and all.
Can you factually prove this?
Sure--Chick-fil-a openly supports the Family Research Council, which has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups such as the Aryan Nation and the KKK. Chick-fil-a also openly supports Exodus International, and organization that claims to "cure" homosexuality by way of religion.
-5 ( +0 / -5 )
Yes, the pro-gay marriage groups should stop forcing their beliefs on others.
Yes, they really should stop fighting to be treated equally--makes all kinds of sense.
As Voltaire said (paraphrased), I disagree with what you write but I will gladly give my life to defend your right to say it. The president here did not prevent anyone from speaking their mind or writing it, and should not have his voice stiffed.
Once again, no one objects to anything he said (although by your logic, protesters exercising their same rights are 'forcing their beliefs on others"). The objection is to supplying money to groups that support unequal treatment of the people they disagree with. No one wants to deny anyone's right to object--they can do that all they want. They simply want equal treatment.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
The chicken sandwich-buying public doesn't believe CFA is a hate-group or that they discriminate against anyone.
And now Dan Cathy has conveniently made it clear that they do, so the chicken sandwich-buying public can make its decision accordingly.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
That should be:
To believe that none of the dollars that go into an independently owned and operated franchise then go on to the franchiser is pretty naive and foolish.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
@bass(insert brainless onanistic toy pun that I've been ignoring for days now)
It is just after all a word, but if it is that important, civil unions should be significant as long as their rights are protected.
Just a word, so call it marriage and everyone's happy.
That depends on your point of view.
Progress to give everyone equal rights is sometimes bad? As long as you have yours, you're OK, and those that don't are just "whining." This is just who you are and what you believe, I guess. Hope no one (especially the big bad mean old Obama government) ever tries to abridge your rights, because by your own stated viewpoints, you'll just have to shut up and accept it until your opposition deems it the right time to address the issue that they've already made up their mind about.
The Black and most of the Hispanic community are hardly Conservative, they vote usually liberal and are mostly liberal except when it comes to gay issues.
And they do so largely out of fear and ignorance, until they actually take a moment to think about how some of the actual people in their lives are homosexual--then it's not so scary, after all.
And for the billionth time, each store is independently owned and independently operated.
To believe that none of the dollars that go into an independently owned and operated franchise is pretty naive and foolish.
I agree and that includes Gays, you will always have bigotry in this world
So your plan is to simply ignore the bigotry? When did you give up on the world? And there's the idea again that homosexuals want something above and beyond, not equality.
which at this point and time with all the crap that is going on in America, this is an issue that can wait,
And there's the patronizing "this isn't important right now" argument. I'm Martin Luther King would've been happy to simply wait until the bigots lynching black people were ready to hear him out.
If that were the case, but they are NOT discriminating against Gays.
They give the money that customers (some of which at least might have been homosexual) give them to groups that work to make homosexuals lesser in the eyes of the law. I fully understand why you continually misrepresent this to be the idea that they won't sell to homosexuals--red herrings are important when you don't have an argument.
The chain shouldn't have to suffer because of one CEO's opinion.
Why? Again, he exercised his freedom of speech, and that has consequences, both for him and the company of which he's the CEO. Time will tell-- a few days' worth of increased sales versus a plummeting brand image. Which will win out over time?
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
The CFA restaurants aren't in the donating business.
The bottom line is that the money "anyone" gives CFA at the restaurant level ultimately makes for more money to donate to groups that want certain groups to have fewer rights than everyone else. And once again, no one ever suggested that CFA was somehow refusing to serve homosexuals.
You're not boycotting the actual groups that allegedly encourage unequal treatment.
First, there's not much "alleged" about these groups encouraging unequal treatment. Second, if CFA wants to throw its lot in with them, fine. Other large corporations such as Ford and JC Penney have embraced the LGBT community and reaped the rewards. Those such as CFA that choose to publicly align themselves against it will take their chances, as is their right. And before anyone cries about "bullying," it's not--simply people making decisions.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
As long as men and women, gay or straight are treated equally under the law and constitution, the wording should not matter at all.
The word becomes important when someone has always denied it to you.
or the rights of the people of all races, religion, creed or color be protected? You can't have it all.
You don't think this is possible or even desirable? Sad.
Liberals can flip flop on gay issues and they are NEVER held accountable
Well, when the conservative word on the matter is ALWAYS to marginalize and consider homosexuality disgusting and repugnant, it's hard to "flip-flop." If anything, so-called liberals like Obama are forced to pretend to toe the line artificially to placate the pretend-Christianity of the right.
But that is not the case, stating your opinion, DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING.
For the billionth time, the issue is not that he stated his opinion. The issue is that his company gives money to groups that encourage a group of Americans to be treated unequally.
Progress is a good thing depending on your point of view, it may not be the best thing for everyone,
Yes, the people who have been accustomed to treating some people unequally might have a hard time adjusting. I don't feel particularly bad for them.
a same sex couple is going to different just due to the biology involved (no pesky who left the toilet seat up issues) and on a real serious note, other dynamics that will never just never appear in a male / female marriage relationship.
If you don't worry about the "toilet seat issues" and "other dynamics" of an Adam/Eve marriage relationship, why do you care about the same in an Adam/Steve marriage relationship, enough so that the law has to somehow be involved?
Why bother with using the terms heterosexual and homosexual I mean it is nothing more than euphemism right?
Because those are not euphemisms, they're the terms themselves.
What is wrong with protecting someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"?
Because it comes at the expense of another group's rights.
Some homosexuals I know get up in arms about people using the word "gay" to mean stupid or dumb, to them the word "gay" means homosexual and should only mean homosexual, are they wrong to try and protect their precious concept of the term "gay"?
Because if you use the term that they use to describe themselves in a pejorative sense meaning "stupid or dumb," it's a bit of an obvious insult regarding who they are, wouldn't you say?
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
They do accept that different language must be used to describe what others already have.
No, they want "marriage." Do often refer to "different-sex marriage"?
A view that really is quite at odds with all cultures throughout the world and in recorded human history.
Well, slavery was once considered completely normal and "fundamental," and the idea of man flying through the sky was crazy talk. Progress is a good thing.
I would imagine those who are barred from marrying don't much care whether it's government or religion bestowing some kind of ultimate authority over the institution. They simply want access to it, and I imagine it's equally frustrating that their attempts to obtain it are met with "this is the way it's always been, therefore it can't be changed."
Look me and my family are Catholic in these matters look toward the mother church.
Not sure how I can respond to that, other than to remind you that you are in fact allowed to actually think for yourself; you don't need to cede all your thinking to some other entity.
-6 ( +2 / -8 )
As for calling them gays, what else should I call them, how should they be addressed? Hetero-challenged?
Hetero-challenged--that's just it. You clearly believe that they're "less than," and it shows in how you refer to them.
So, why do you need the word marriage if it doesn't make a difference?
Because that's what it is--why should they accept something less than what it is, with a secondary term for the same thing? Why is that so important to the people who aren't involved in their marriages?
That's because you can't spin your way out of that one. Even Obama can't. He was all his life against it and now he has an epiphany and a change of heart? Now, this year? Oh, wait, we have an election in November.
Right, he's a politician looking for political advantage; business as usual. Not sure why it's relevant.
Giving money individually is NOT forcing an Agenda on anyone, it is that individuals personal belief as to how and what they believe.
And pointing out that the giving of money to certain groups is not forcing an agenda on anyone--they can make their decisions accordingly. Put it this way--if I was totally indifferent, but then decided I wanted some Chick-fil-a, only to find a three-hour wait because thousands of people were "supporting" them, I'd feel like something was definitely being forced upon me, as opposed to people simply not going there.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
What is wrong with civil unions? I said, I agree, they should have the same rights, but my argument is why the word "marriage" what is the difference?
Right--if it's the same thing as marriage, why bother with the euphemism? To protect someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"? Why should they have to accept even different language to describe what others have? That in itself is insulting and demeaning. What's the difference, indeed?
but in my opinion the WORD marriage should be defined under the law as a man and woman.
Why? What would be different other than your delicate sensibilities being catered to?
As a minority, they have to fall in with the majority.
Very egalitarian thinking here--everyone be the same, or at least have the smarts not to complain.
they should talk to their city council and work within their community to slowly try to come to an agreement or find ways to educate people,
Why, when they'll only be told to fall in with the majority? How can you educate people who have no interest in even considering something that isn't "traditional"?
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
They can live anyway they want. I'm originally from California, Gay capitol of the world, Gays have a lot of power, they work in all fields of almost every kind of occupation, Most people don't have a problem with them. They can live anywhere and be who they want to be as they want to be.
If they'd like to enjoy the benefits of being legally married, obviously they cannot live anyway they want. The fact that you continue to refer to them as "The Gays" is pretty telling, by the way.
people that are tired of having or being forced to accept something they may not want.
That's just it--granting homosexuals the right to marry affects those who aren't homosexuals not a single bit. "Something they may not want"--why? What difference would it make to their lives?
Even Obama is (but flip flopped, we know why)
Insert standard Obama rant here.
want to force you into believing something that the majority of the people don't believe in
They just want to have the same rights and could care less what you believe. Asking for equality in the land of supposed equality is not forcing anyone to believe in things they don't want to. Giving money to organizations that seek to deny people equality or change them is trying to impose your values on others.
-4 ( +3 / -7 )