Chick-fil-A for lunch today

[cactuskooler]

But it's a Chicken so it's female. >.>

Could be a transgender chicken.

[MarineUS]

Could be a transgender chicken.

That's like dividing by zero. 

[Shifty]

But it's a Chicken so it's female. >.>

Let me understand, you got the hen, the chicken and the rooster. The rooster goes with the chicken. So, who’s having sex with the hen?

[TonyJoey]

(Image removed from quote.)

Let me understand, you got the hen, the chicken and the rooster. The rooster goes with the chicken. So, who’s having sex with the hen?

 

[SEraider]

when you were younger did you ever make out in public?  do you think that was acceptable for kids to watch?  I see some really freaky stuff done by straight guys and gals in public that I didnt want my children to watch when they were kids.  but there was never a public outcry about it.  gays/lesbians do not do anything different than what we straight people do in public.

I believe that we all should have the right to be equal as guaranteed by the constitution.  when it comes to yucky stuff it's different from person to person.  some straight people will do stuff that other straight people will consider yucky and yet no public outcry about it.  after all what is really the definition of yucky when it comes to a straight person?

semp

There is good old fashion decency so to guy/gal to make out in public is the sloppiest way possible, could and have been called on to please stop.  But you can't equate kissing in public between hetero and homo equal.  As kids we see our parents kiss, hold hands and express love so this is natural.  That is why people are just uncomfortable with it.  In terms of your abstract, i defer to common sense.

[Jayhawk]

But you can't equate kissing in public between hetero and homo equal. 

Yes, yes I can.

[MarineUS]

If it's not a kiss on the cheek, forehead or hand you need to leave that $#!t at the house. Plain and simple.

[BoilerDown]

Straight couples do is not yucky, it's acceptable in public.  What gays want to do is yucky, especially in public and I don't want to have my kids subjected to repulsive behavior.

What you state is New-Age gobly goo.

Two guys making out is yucky.  Two girls making out is the opposite of yucky.  So it all averages out the same as a guy making out with a girl.  I'll tell you what's yucky: Eating the body and blood of someone who died 2000 years ago.  I don't want any children of mine exposed to people who get off on doing that.

In all seriousness, whether you think its yucky or you think its wrong according to your religion, the first amendment is supposed to guarantee that religious laws aren't enforced on the general population who may not share the same religious values.  And the fourteenth amendment is supposed to guarantee that laws treat all people equally.  Any law restricting men from marrying men or women from marrying women is almost certainly a religious-based law, and should be found unconstitutional based on the 1st amendment, and those laws phrased carefully enough to not violate the 1st amendment will all violate the 14th amendment.

I for one would support a constitutional amendment saying its illegal for the government to give special privileges to those who are married, or to perform marriage ceremonies.  Instead the government should certify civil unions between two adult humans of any gender.  In order to not make thousands of laws become unconstitutional over night, a grandfather clause should be written in saying all laws that specify "marriage" prior to the passing of the amendment should be assumed to mean "marriage or civil union" afterwards.  Going forwards all laws would be required to specify "civil unions" instead of marriage, and people who used to get a marriage certificate from the government will henceforth get a "civil union" certificate.

This law / amendment would delegate the responsibility to religion to take care of the religious matter of marriage.  The government would wash its hand of one more religious responsibility, which is a good thing.

[Vudak]

I'm not a big fan of the 14th Amendment because people use it to try and pigeon-hole the inhabitants of all 50 (and widely unique) States into living by one set of values or norms.  It just doesn't work as this thread is a prime example.  I think the original plan of having the 9th and 10th mean something was a better system.  Which is probably why they passed without holding anyone at knife point.

It seems to be common sense that as I have never been to or lived in Texas, I have no idea what is best for Texas.  Likewise, if a Texan has never been to Connecticut or lived in Connecticut, they have no idea what's best for Connecticut.  I don't know why we all spend so much time worrying about what the other is doing or pretending that we know what's best for a place we've never seen.

[guncrasher]

There is good old fashion decency so to guy/gal to make out in public is the sloppiest way possible, could and have been called on to please stop.  But you can't equate kissing in public between hetero and homo equal.  As kids we see our parents kiss, hold hands and express love so this is natural.  That is why people are just uncomfortable with it.  In terms of your abstract, i defer to common sense.

ever been to the movies lately?  have you seen young people going down on each other in a movie theater?  more than once i left with my kids when they were young so they wouldnt watch this type of bedroom scene.  dont give me that crap about what feels uncomfortable.  I have yet to see a gay couple go down on each other as much as i see straight people do.


semp

[jimson]

ever been to the movies lately?  have you seen young people going down on each other in a movie theater?  more than once i left with my kids when they were young so they wouldnt watch this type of bedroom scene.  dont give me that crap about what feels uncomfortable.  I have yet to see a gay couple go down on each other as much as i see straight people do.
semp

I don't know where the hell you live but I've never witnessed this in a movie theater in my life.

Rather than redefine the legal institution of marriage, burn it. Burn it to the ground. No more legal marriage for anyone. Let the Government only recognize an agreement entered into by any two people for any reason. Let the concept of marriage only exist as a religious sacrament like baptism.

[Jayhawk]

Rather than redefine the legal institution of marriage, burn it. Burn it to the ground. No more legal marriage for anyone. Let the Government only recognize an agreement entered into by any two people for any reason. Let the concept of marriage only exist as a religious sacrament like baptism.

I would accept that.

[TonyJoey]

Boilerdown, although I've already mentioned it, I'll say it again. Not allowing same-sex marriage is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently.

[Lusche]

Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently.

Are they? How so?

[Vudak]

Boilerdown, although I've already mentioned it, I'll say it again. Not allowing same-sex marriage is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. Hetero and Homosexual relationships are two different types of relationships, meaning they can be recognized differently.

Until 9 robed demons say it is, at which time the inhabitants of all 50 states will be forced to live by the values of some.  Which seems all well and good until you realize that things aren't always going to fall your way.  Abortion, for example, is currently protected across the nation by the 14th amendment.  It could just as easily be outlawed by the same.  All it takes is for 5 of 9 unelected judges to reevaluate just who exactly is being deprived their due process and equal protection.  Just because the 14th currently champions what some people consider "progressive" and "good" doesn't mean it always will - it's a two-edged sword and one that allows for massive change without necessarily massive forethought.  

I'd rather let the States make up their own minds on all matters not specifically assigned to the Feds by the Constitution.  If one state wants to be terrible, mine will gladly welcome their best and brightest refugees.