Should we boycott gay businesses?

I have lived a very long time, and I have seen the slippery slope of morals in this country. So, let's turn this around to you: Are you prejudiced against marriage between a child and an old person? Can a ten year old marry a fifty year old? Why not? Don't they deserve equal rights? Aren't you discriminating because of age? Age discrimination is illegal in this country. See, you can turn the argument into basic human rights on many issues. The moral grounds are the defining element. No one in their right mind would want to let ten year old kids marry adults. But, in the strictly legal sense, they should have equal rights and there should be no discrimination on account of age. Right? So, I used the word "pedophile" to illustrate a point.

How about polygamy? Why is it restricted to one man and one whatever? Let's get groups of men and women marrying each other if they want. Let's have ten men get married in San Francisco asap, and if they can't, let's make a big stink about it. Right? Anybody can do anything, that's real freedom. Right?

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

reply to post by blupblup

---

Well, I think it is ridiculous for the gays to be boycotting and harassing and namecalling anyone, too. They started it.

reply to post by blupblup

---

haha idk there are some pretty crazzzzy threads out there this is definitely sparking some discussion and that's what it's supposed to be doing so i don't understand your reasoning behind your statement

Who's morals? The ones that had hatred for Blacks? Subjugated women?



Your point is lost. I can't see any similarity in the cases. When we're talking about gays we're talking about adults. This argument is too inane to answer, yet I did.

reply to post by Jim Scott

---

"us"...."them".....

Such lovely and warm use of language.

I'll leave you to spout your hate

When did they "start it"? Your source is from today. Do you know how long gays have been harassed, beaten, killed, for just being who they are? Another argument that has no validity. I will try though.

Is this thing on?

reply to post by baseball101

---

I don't mean in terms of randomness...

Alien impregnated me and such, But just because of the blind ignorance and stupidity and hatred laid out in the OP.

It is a pathetic attempt at drumming up a reaction to a rash and unfounded opening statement.

I added polygamy as an edit. That should help you.

As for women and blacks, these conditions are not sexual.

reply to post by blupblup

---

I love pronouns, too. They're great:

"pronoun: any number of a small class of words used as replacements or substitutes for a wide varietyof nouns and noun phrases" saves a lot of space. Hopefully, this helps.

Nope, doesn't help me. Doesn't help you either.



Sexual? Is that what you think of when you think of gay people? It's not about sex. They go to school, out drinking with friends, buy books(just like you), have fights, cry, enjoy a sporting event, share Christmas with friends and family. EVERYTHING just like you and me but they aren't "straight".

The 21st century is quite pleasant, please join us.

reply to post by intrepid

---

Today will do fine, because that is the article that started it all for me anyway. It brought back memories of the gays pushing and name calling the old lady supporting Prop 8, the Act Up shenanigans in our city, and the rest of the package of gay anti-hetero heterophobic mania that reeks in our streets.

I suggest the hate be stopped by the gays, as well as any anti-gays.

The OP was intended to stop the hate. I assume you didn't get that part, but were somehow blinded to that major and obvious part of the post.

So being female and/or black and/or gay is a condition??

you are seriously warped.

[edit on 1/12/08 by blupblup]

I'm just trying to help you out man. Reread what you said there as if you didn't write it. It speaks volumes.

reply to post by intrepid

---

The slang definition of gay is homosexual. That's homo*sex*ual, based on homosexuality, which is defined as "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

Unless I am missing something, it reads very heavily about sex, not baseball games, etc.


[edit on 1-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Jim Scott]

Apparently, the idea for this thread is not new:

American Family Association ends McDonald’s boycott after executive resigns from gay business group

from the Chicago tribune.

reply to post by Jim Scott

---

The definition of someone who is not homosexual, is heteroSEXUAL.
I guess all the people you see at baseball games must be nonsexual.

reply to post by intrepid

---

You're right. I should have said "gay activists" instead of "them" at the end.

baycott thier business.
Heck lets round them up.
Hmmmm then what..........

Its amazing how quickly things can go nazi eh?

Boycotting thier business is one of the most asinine things I have heard in some time. How exactly would you establish this? If the VP of say Intel is gay, are you only an AMD man? Why not the nurse that takes care of you? Why not the chef at an award winning restaurant? Sounds stupid right? Because it is.........

I can see it now the New Millenium Salem "Queer" hunts. Burn them at the stake. If they die then ooooooops our bad.

Its funny people cite a moral and ethical slippery slope in regards to homosexuals yet blindly ignore the moral and slippery slope of thier own discrimination.



[edit on 12/1/08 by FredT]

reply to post by blupblup

---

Hi. Just wanted to thank you for the ad hominem attack. I feel much better now that you think I am warped. If you don't mind, could we return to an intelligent discussion?

reply to post by FredT

---

Hi, welcome to the discussion. You may be premature in judging me for being a Nazi. I suggest you refer to this link first:

jointheimpact.wetpaint.com...

I would focus on those businesses that are actively involved in bashing supporters of Prop 8.


[edit on 1-12-2008 by Jim Scott]