It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ben & Jerry's BAN customers from ordering two scoops of the same ice cream until...

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sorry, sir, that's a threesome, and Ben & Jerry's is doing this to protest a lack of gay marriage not a lack of polyamorous unions.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I was born liking vanillas, but was never offered any others to compare, so I was restricted in my choic due to the social demographic of my white working class parents. To hell with boundaries I say....lets have lactose free ice cream and drugs...yes drugs...that would be nice!
a reply to: Sublimecraft



posted on May, 28 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

People bitch about being denied two scoops of the same ice cream. Waaaaa. That's nothing compared to adults being denied the right to marry each other because of religious superstitious BS.

Marriage is "religious superstitious BS".

Gays had an opportunity to hit a home run on the marriage issue if they'd taken the position that the government should just stay out of it entirely, being a religious thing and all.

This is one of those instances where leftists would actually greatly benefit from limited government, but they can never admit that to anyone because it undermines the idea that the state is the solution for everything.

It shows gay rights folk care nothing for the rights of gay folk, and are simply using them to advance a political agenda.


Not entirely, no. Actually, marriage has been legal business since the dawn of time. While some cultures, the local religion effected many of the rules of marriage, the ultimate purpose of marriage was for legal binding of families, kingdoms, property rights and inheritance, and in many places in the world, was performed and sanctioned not by priests, but secular authorities.

In this case, gay marriage debate is an issue regarding secular legal issues and civil rights. Thus, the state thus needs to be involved, since, in order for marriage to be legal, the state has to accept it. Since the reasons against gay marriage are mostly religious in nature, and not based on practical law or reason, they state had to step in and say yes, at least, by our laws and in our eyes, there is no reason to deny the legal contact and its social benefits and protections to two same sex adults. The state itself can legally perform non-religious weddings, and thus, gays have a place to get hitched.



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join