Another good reason to boycott Target

[HoughMade]

What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

 

[bmbutch]

Well, may I simply ask that in lieu of prayer, you do works.

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

I'll be praying as well, & likely doing works, likely not for you, but ya never know. Will def., disagree with your last sentence, but free will & America says you are free to your beliefs.

 

[Henry]

What's the difference of a state-recognized union before the fact or a state-adjudication and enforcement of said union after the fact? Practically there is none.

I see your point, and agree, but there is no contract in the world that can cover the full gamut of spousal privileges and protections currently existing. Certainly not practically, and probably not cost effectively.

Your solution is to dump the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to come back and read your comments again later...I literally busted out laughing when I got to the point where having the state involved in individual relationships was justified based on practicability and cost effectiveness. I actually spit coffee all over my keyboard. Lucky as I am, it's still working!

Some seriously funny stuff there!

 

[Ford Truck]

Target's anti 2nd Amendment stance is enough for me to spend my money elsewhere.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

There is a standard, and as it stands now, the current prohibition on state-recognized unions of a secular nature for anyone other than a man-woman make-up is discriminatory.


I am quite happy to have the state recognize my union contract with my spouse as it prevents and precludes anybody else from claiming the same rights of marriage that I enjoy. Without it, our union contract is practically indefensible in court, and there's nothing stopping Betty Lou from claiming to be Mr88GT's wife. At which point, I must engage in a long and costly court battle to prove not only my right to the spousal privileges of the union, but her lack of claim. No, thanks. The legal aspect of the marriage pretty much requires some state involvement. It'll be on the front end or the back end, and I'd much prefer the front end.

EDIT: forgot to mention my comment about the OP. Target is free to make whatever choices it wants. But I do find it ridiculous that it is pandering to a tiny majority of the population in a part of society and geographic locale it has no business--literally and figuratively--getting involved in. What exactly does Indiana marriage law have to do with Target's business model?

Whereas if the State got out of the marriage business altogether, there would be no incentive whatsoever for anyone else to fraudulently claim to be married to your husband - no benefits, no easier tax brackets, no special anything, no special reason to try to make false claims. State non-favoritism in fact disincentivizes fraud and in no way weakens your civil contract whatsoever. Next.

 

[88GT]

Whereas if the State got out of the marriage business altogether, there would be no incentive whatsoever for anyone else to fraudulently claim to be married to your husband - no benefits, no easier tax brackets, no special anything, no special reason to try to make false claims. State non-favoritism in fact disincentivizes fraud and in no way weakens your civil contract whatsoever. Next.

I disagree. The entire concept of testate succession proves otherwise.

 

[Henry]

I disagree. The entire concept of testate succession proves otherwise.

Again, another matter that can be addressed through contract law without state involvement in marriage.

 

[HoughMade]

I think you mean intestate succession- inheritance without a will...or maybe not. Fun fact, in Indiana, regardless of what your will says, your spouse can elect to take "against the will" up to 50% of your estate (unless you have children from a previous marriage).

 

[billt]

Your solution is to dump the baby out with the bathwater.

In a same sex marriage there can be no baby. Unless they buy one. A same sex marriage is like a flashlight with no batteries. It cannot perform the functions it was designed to. And I like to window shop at Target while I concealed carry, and walk the isles eating my Chic-Fil-A sandwich. It makes me feel good inside. You know, like when a J-Dam lands on a ISIS tank.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It makes me feel good inside. You know, like when a J-Dam lands on a ISIS tank.

I like that.

 

[Sybaris]

Target's anti 2nd Amendment stance is enough for me to spend my money elsewhere.

Their prices are enough to keep my money out of their tillers.

 

[Sybaris]

In a same sex marriage there can be no baby. Unless they buy one. A same sex marriage is like a flashlight with no batteries. It cannot perform the functions it was designed to.

Neither can post-menopausal women or naturally sterile men, not to mention those that have had their tubes tied or vasectomies.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Neither can post-menopausal women or naturally sterile men, not to mention those that have had their tubes tied or vasectomies.

Or the guys that are on medication that takes the "lead" out of the "pencil".

Actually, that might explain some of the anger and frustration that finds it's way onto these forums.

 

[lj98]

Out of curiosity, how do you differentiate between the concept of contract law and that of state involvement in an institution such as marriage?

 

[billt]

Neither can post-menopausal women or naturally sterile men, not to mention those that have had their tubes tied or vasectomies.

Most in that condition have already, "been there and done that". Which is why they had it done in the first place. All same sex "marriages" can do is attempt to replicate a successful process with a tongue licking an unsatisfied dish, or poking a flashlight in the wrong dark cave. Both are a poor substitute for the "real deal". But it's what they do when there is no "other end" to use. But at least they don't have to worry about "pulling the goalie"....Right?

 

[Sybaris]

Most in that condition have already, "been there and done that". Which is why they had it done in the first place. All same sex "marriages" can do is attempt to replicate a successful process with a tongue licking an unsatisfied dish, or poking a flashlight in the wrong dark cave. Both are a poor substitute for the "real deal". But it's what they do when there is no "other end" to use. But at least they don't have to worry about "pulling the goalie"....Right?

As long as there are those that have not "been there and done that" and are sterile the inability for couples in a same sex marriage to naturally reproduce is still a weak argument for preventing them to marry. It seems those opposed are hung up on the reproductive act itself when in this day it is entirely unnecessary to preserve natural reproduction in order to promote the species. It comes down to all are created equal and must have equal rights.

 

[billt]

As long as there are those that have not "been there and done that" and are sterile the inability for couples in a same sex marriage to naturally reproduce is still a weak argument for preventing them to marry. It seems those opposed are hung up on the reproductive act itself when in this day it is entirely unnecessary to preserve natural reproduction in order to promote the species. It comes down to all are created equal and must have equal rights.

Not to hi-jack, but this is why ISIS is such a threat in this country. We as a people worry more about stupid crap like this, and legalizing pot, than we do an ever increasing group of religious fanatics who would love to kill us and take over our country, just like they're doing in Iraq.

 

[ashby koss]

If you are going to use "procreation" as your rationale to exclude same sex marriages from rights, then why don't we just exclude opposite sex marriages from those same rights until they "procreate"?

I have still not heard 1 single reason that is logical or sane that validates the idea of excluding same sex couples from the same rights as every other citizen of the United States.

I am not invested myself into a same-sex marriage and am happily married with son, but I respect the rights that our forefathers and nation stand for. The simple truth is that many people that are against same-sex marriages are using THEIR PERSONAL BELIEFS IN A RELIGION TO RESTRICT THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF SOMEONE ELSE! This is one of the most un-american and shameful things outside of being Barack Obama. If you can't see that then I truly feel sorry for you.

 

[billt]

I am not invested myself into a same-sex marriage and am happily married with son, but I respect the rights that our forefathers and nation stand for.

How "happy" do you think your son would be having 2 fathers, or mothers? No one talks of the childrens welfare that come from these clusterf*@k "marriages". I could care less what two consenting adults want, or want to do behind closed doors. But todays children are screwed up enough without having to explain to their friends why their mother married her dog. It seems the more abnormal things become in our society, the more people think it should become a "right".

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I could care less what two consenting adults want, or want to do behind closed doors.

I don't know, you seem pretty fixated on it, if you ask me.