Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?

[McCulloch]

I don't think gay marriage is immoral by any means, I just oppose it because I support traditional family values.

But gay marriage does not harm nor does it challenge traditional family values. I don't want to close down the Indian restaurant up the road because I like Italian food.

It challenges the future of the nuclear family, which is generally one mother and one father and a # of children. Anything that does not include these factors (such as single motherhood, foster homes, divorces, and gay marriage) should be avoided in order to preserve traditional family values.

Does Gay Marriage threaten traditional Family Values?
Are Traditional Family Values in any danger of not being preserved?

[dianaiad]

actually, you aren't the one who claimed that 'the government has always upheld..." that was indeed someone else. However, believing it to be unlikely, in the face of, for instance, the FLDS compound assininity, is somewhat naive.

Except for the raid was beased upon reports of abuse on women and children.

Actually, it was based upon ONE report that was not only later proven fraudulent, it was known to be fraudulent at the time of the raid. It was an excuse, not the reason.

I can show you examples of both of those. In fact, I've already given one, with Reed Smoot.

Your examples are literally one hundred years old. The governement has (thankfully) become much more liberal on this issue and for the past 50 years or so upheld a private organizations right to discriminate

My friend, I am simply not as trusting as you are....and, as I have also shown, with pretty good reason.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 87:

...
My friend, I am simply not as trusting as you are....and, as I have also shown, with pretty good reason.

I find this rather ironic, given so much of religious belief is based on faith - including a belief, on faith, that a god prefers we discriminate against others.

[nygreenguy]

Is it really all that baseless to worry that your gonna be sued cause you wont marry a gay couple? McDonalds got sued cause they didnt tell the lady that her coffee was hot. Homosexuals have a more solid case than any of the frivolous lawsuits you will see.

Actually, in another thread with YOU (or perhaps WP) I showed how this lawsuit was NOT frivolous and how it went WAY beyond "hot coffee". If coffee melted your flesh down to muscle tissue, how is that frivolous?

[Kuan]

Is it really all that baseless to worry that your gonna be sued cause you wont marry a gay couple? McDonalds got sued cause they didnt tell the lady that her coffee was hot. Homosexuals have a more solid case than any of the frivolous lawsuits you will see.

Actually, in another thread with YOU (or perhaps WP) I showed how this lawsuit was NOT frivolous and how it went WAY beyond "hot coffee". If coffee melted your flesh down to muscle tissue, how is that frivolous?

It was me, It isnt frivolous. But it is well...stupid. Yeah it is a major deal that the coffee burned her that bad, but its common sense. If you buy coffee, its going to be hot.

[LiamOS]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

[Kuan]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

[LiamOS]

I don't doubt that. A bell curve has two sides.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

Not that either of the above are saying otherwise, but...

The problem seems to be when folks are unaware of all the facts of the case and when they have only a layperson's understanding of the law.

That case could not have gone forward if a judge - who is considered an expert - didn't think it had merit. Then to have a jury rule that McD's was in violation of the law indicates further there was some merit to the case.

The issue was actually over the lid not being properly placed on the cup.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

Not that either of the above are saying otherwise, but...

The problem seems to be when folks are unaware of all the facts of the case and when they have only a layperson's understanding of the law.

That case could not have gone forward if a judge - who is considered an expert - didn't think it had merit. Then to have a jury rule that McD's was in violation of the law indicates further there was some merit to the case.

The issue was actually over the lid not being properly placed on the cup and the woman receiving third degree burns as a result.

[nygreenguy]

I've had the misfortune of spilling coffee on myself a few times, and never once did it melt through my skin. If McDonnald's coffee did that to me, you're darn right that they'd be paying up.

For a little burn, I'd not sue or anything, but in cases of serious harm and ignorance on the part of a company, I'd take what I can get.

True which is why that one isnt frivolous but there are frivolous lawsuits out there.

Not that either of the above are saying otherwise, but...

The problem seems to be when folks are unaware of all the facts of the case and when they have only a layperson's understanding of the law.

That case could not have gone forward if a judge - who is considered an expert - didn't think it had merit. Then to have a jury rule that McD's was in violation of the law indicates further there was some merit to the case.

The issue was actually over the lid not being properly placed on the cup and the woman receiving third degree burns as a result.

Ive read the case, and I dont recall that ever being the issue.