Chick-Fil-A Fast Food Chain Donated Nearly $2 Million To Family Values Groups. Will You Support Their Love Of American Values?

You believe that you can tell how naive, immature, and illogical someone is by all of three comments? Last time I checked, it takes a lot more than that to really claim that you know someone.
And actually, I do know that. There's no where in the Constitution or any legal text that defines marriage. I've researched that, I know. If you can show me any legal texts with that definition, I'd gladly call myself wrong.
There actually is history on homosexual marriage in the Christian church, someone on this site made a thread on it. I'll find the link for you.
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...
There ya go ^^ Homosexuals have and always will exist.
http://rockhawk.com/homosexua...
Here, homosexuality in history. Yes, there were few exclusively homosexuals then because it wasn't really accepted. But even Ancient Greek cultures promoted it to some extent. It's not a new thing, hard to believe, I know.
Anyway, when have I ever thrown around the word "hate" and "racism" simply because you don't agree? I don't hate you, nor are you a racist. Nor am I the one forcing my beliefs on you. You're the one who commented on my post, remember. You are just, quite simply, anti-gay. Stop telling me about your woes with other liberal people. I'm not interesting in politics, therefore I do not consider myself liberal or conservative. My beliefs, though, are mine alone.
I cannot help it that I happen to disagree with you with how marriage should be. I'm not "frothing at the mouth", I simply disagree and will not eat at this restaurant. Is that such a big crime? Anyway, change happens, it is how the world spins around. Think about what the world would be like now if nothing ever changed? Change is, most often, not a bad thing. People just fear the unknown that comes with it. Better to just accept it, I've found, and look forward to it.

Your source doesn't "prove," it suggests. I don't take as decided fact anecdotal evidence by a few college professors.
How is it rooted in hate? Because a lot of the movement (not all) is due to forcing their will upon what is generally regarded as a primarily religious institution. In fact, if you look at many of the liberal movements, they are more invested in sticking it to Christians and traditional values. For example, look at the pro-abortionists.Most of the rabid ones aren't REALLY interested in freedom of choice. This is why many of them are against counseling of potentially aborting mothers in their other options, or the trans-vaginal ultrasound in recent news. They want the abortion to HAPPEN, not to merely have the option. I dare say most of them would never become impregnated anyway without heavy doses of alcohol on the man's part. No, they are just a certain iteration of anti-male/anti-Christian/anti... liberals who live for the battle and hate their daddies or their ex-husbands or the many many guys who never thought they were pretty. In other words, they are rooted in hatred. You get this same team spirit hatred from another iteration of liberals, the pro-gay marriage crowd. That is not to say that all pro-gay marriage or pro-choice people, for that matter, are sharing such hatred, but the general trend certainly is liberal, seeking to upset traditions. Why do you think so many liberal heterosexual couples are not bothering to marry at all, yet now there is such a push to get gay marriage legalized? It is a war between general ideologies and these issues are just weapons. People want to stick it to conservatives, the same way Obama got that "tanning tax" to stick it to white people (I know it seems childish, but this is most certainly the case). Even Allen West noted that the tax was racially motivated. Anyway, I digress.

As for why it is illogical, it is because marriage simply is not simply a union between two people who just really love each other. I'm sure if you researched your history as well as you claim to have, then you know that marriage as an expression of love is a pretty new concept. For thousands of years it was the union of a man and a woman (sometimes multiple women due to economic reasons) to create a family. Therefore, the word has meaning, a very old meaning, and it is a logical fallacy to think we can just change words to make people feel warm and fuzzy. It reminds me of a court case I remember from the 90's where a black guy went to court to have his race legally changed to "white."Similarly absurd. People's having/supporting/wanting a gay marriage does not have a bearing on what is logical. I never said legal marriages don't count, although I somewhat support the expulsion of the legal concept of marriage. I said the law can't change reality, just like it can't make the black guy white.

Don't use someone else's intelligence as an excuse for simply not making your statement 100% clear. Anyway, as I said, not everyone is hateful. Most aren't. But under any sort of movement or beliefs, there are always those few extremists that stick out compared to the rest of the group. They get the most attention and people start labeling the whole group just like those few people. Those would be the hateful people who support gay marriages. And there are the same type of people on the other end of the spectrum.
I have nothing against polygamy, I do not quite understand it, but I wouldn't use that as an excuse to not allow polygamist relationships. As far as marriage is concerned, it's a stretch, but not an issue for me to be worrying about currently. I don't care about how others want to live their lives.
Overpopulation is a myth? Have you seen what we've been going to this earth?


Anyway, that's a different topic. To your next question, yes, indeed it would.

The problem with unions is exactly that, they DON'T grant all the rights that married couples have!
http://www.now.org/issues/mar...
If you want an equal union, you'd have to completely change the meaning of the word and what it hold. Where as there's only a slight change in what people think is "true" marriage if it is legalized.
http://iwastesomuchtime.com/o...

I didn't think you were too stupid to get it, just being argumentative to act as though I were not clear. What exactly IS going on to this earth? I mean, besides what Al Gore told you. You realize you are fairly unique, as most gay marriage proponents flip out if you bring up polygamy. Extinctions aren't bad just because they are extinctions. Extinctions often occur to allow room for superior species. And can you name 5 species that have gone extinct in the past 70 years without using the internet? 1? All this is propaganda. Have you ever been in a plane? You ever look down and see allllll that uninhabited land? It doesn't matter how rapidly the population is growing, and I see population as a good thing, as life is the most valuable treasure we have. The main contributor to the recent growth is the longer life expectancy due to advances in medicine and food science. Let's play a math game: as for living space, let's say a family of 3 needs a living area of 1500 square feet. One square mile has about 28 million square feet, let's round to 30 million for simplicity. How many 1500 square foot dwellings fit into 30 million square feet? 20,000. This means you can fit 60,000 people comfortably into a square mile. There are about 6 billion people on earth now, so how many square miles do we need to hold 6B people? 100,000 square miles. That is the size of Oregon. Sure, there are other considerations such as agricultural and waste disposal requirements, but I also did not stack houses into multi-story dwellings, but let's say we went to a standard 3-story apartment complex. We'd be down to a state the size of South Carolina, for 6 BILLION people. I do sympathize, as I know you are being HEAVILY HEAVILY propagandized with the environmentalism religious zealots. I am here to explain to you why you should reject their lies and exaggerations. The goals of propagandists such as this are to make money and to train you to be obedient and hate the technological blessings we enjoy.

Population may be good, over population is not.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
They aren't lies, nor exaggerations, either. All you have to do is look at how the earth is treated in certain areas. And it doesn't look good. I don't hate "technological blessings", I just hate the way that the world can be treated. I love and Earth and nature, I don't like it being seen like this:

http://southdakotapolitics.bl...


It's disgusting. And it's only gonna get worse with more people. Common sense can tell you that.
This is off topic, though. Despite my environmental views, you completely dismissed the whole point to my comment. And that is how marriages and unions will never be the same.
Did you even look at this picture? http://iwastesomuchtime.com/s...
I thought it said a lot.

It's not ridiculous at all actually, do you hear what I'm saying? Those laws were supposed to be separate, but equal and they were not. Just like how civil unions are separate, but not equal. That's the only comparison I'm getting at! I'm not saying that I know their pain and went through what blacks did. I obviously didn't. It's just a simple comparison.
I said change was natural, not that Hilter killing millions of people was a natural thing that we should accept. In general, change is inevitable, we can't control it. Wars are inevitable too, they happen. This has nothing to do with taking the "right path" or the "easy path". Of course when millions of people are going to be harmed, we should stop it. Too bad that's a horrible comparison to the change to gay marriage since NO one is being harmed by making it legal.
But back to my actual point... from an individual scale, to a global scale. Change is natural. You are not the exact same person you were when you were born, of course not, you grew, you changed. Everyone does. The world was not the same when it was first born, of course not. It changed. Each individual country had to stand up and make a change to become independent. I didn't say that if everyone just laid back and didn't give a damn that change would still occur on the same scale. People can care and still change things. And by all means if people are being harmed, then that should change! People had to change in order to stop Hitler. And the Holocaust changed people's lives. And it's still shaping the world because of how wide spread it was and since people still remember and teach about it. So obviously change is apart of everyday life. You cannot get rid of it. It happens.

Sigh, I never said something was proven without it being proven. I simply gave you sources behind my opinions and thoughts. There are facts that can be related to Global Warming and I showed you those. Either you can ignore them, or notice them and tell me what else they would be linked to? The drastically rising sea levels. Where to YOU think the newly found water is coming from?
Just because it may not be 100% proven yet, does not mean that I have no reason to believe in it. I've seen observations, studies, etc that, to me, can only be caused by Global Warming. Until you can prove me otherwise, I'm going to carry on and believe what scientists tell me. Not some guy I'm discussing it with on the internet. Whether you're a doctor or not. I'm going to believe the people who are educated in that specific area and who dedicate their life to researching it.
Opinion is not truth. You should probably get that in your head as well (:
Again, enough with the conservative vs. liberal crap. I DO NOT CARE. I'd discuss anything I want with a liberal or a conservative. I don't pick on people just because their conservative and have those certain values. I don't simply question people because I think I'm being clever or noble. Just drop the silly political labels. People are much more complicated to be defined by such restricting labels.
How, please tell me, can you possibly know that I don't think for myself? You believe that I will just buy into what anyone will tell me or that I have a liberal talking into my ear? I'm an honors student, I've been TRAINED to think analytically. To not believe everything without a proper source. To question everything that I see and debate it. I'm not a gullible moron with a tad bit of potential that you apparently see me as.

Internet sources are not proof. Sea levels (wait for it) ARE NOT RISING. Don't you think people who lived near the beaches would know if the sea levels were rising? If it rises 5 inches on a slope of about 10 degrees, the beach would lose about 3 feet of coastline. Also, here's a basic science experiment: put ice in a glass, then put water until the water is all the way to the top. Do you think the ice floating at the top will cause the water to overflow? It won't. So why would melted ice (which isn't happening, except in doctored half-truths from your propaganda sources) from ice floating on the ocean raise the sea levels? The things you cite as your reasons to believe in GW are just simply not true! When I was your age and a little older I believed in GW because, well, I just believed it had been established fact. I later realized what the motivations were behind creating this crisis, and realized the "reliable" sources were at best, incorrect, and at worst, intentionally deceptive. There is money to be made behind global warming, not excluding scientists who make money by promoting global warming and conducting (doctoring) studies that support GW. Why do you think that professors who disagreed with GW were fired? For being backwards? Please. Although if that were the case, that in itself would completely discredit
the university scientific community, since you don't just discard data that don't agree with you (in theory). ANYONE who know what they are talking about will tell you that the goal of PhD candidates and professors is to MAKE MONEY. If you don't get funding, you don't get tenure. FACT. How do you get funding? Playing along with the hype of the day. This is how you get so many studies supporting MMGW. For every "study," you can find people refuting it with no financial stake in the matter. It's not that being a doctor in and of itself makes me qualified to comment on GW, but my experience with university research and PhD's gives me a good insight that you don't possess. You were propagandized from an early age that GW is decided fact, so getting you to believe otherwise involves first undoing what you've erroneously "learned." It's funny people like you take such pride in bucking traditions, embracing "change" for change's sake, and questioning authority, but in the matters you SHOULD question, you instead act like good little sheep. For a little perspective, before GW became chic in the 80's, I remember people panicking because we were supposed to be coming up on an ice age (I was born in the 70's). You are being fed propaganda, and no matter how many websites you find, even ones with ".gov" or ".edu" at the end, you will not prove anything. There is a lot of money and power to be had by getting you to buy into this false crisis. I have nothing to gain by convincing you otherwise. I do it because I serve the truth.