Chick Fill Aye on same sex marry age

[zinfamous]

Not the same thing. Being black is not a genetic defect.

again--you are a sub-human piece of trash.

genetic defect? You want to talk to me about that?

 

[zinfamous]

No, I don't care what they do to or with one another. Accept for this. I just don't get why they insist on gays having a " marriage ". It would be fine to have their gay union and the rights etc that would go with a legal union. I have nothing against gay people.

I hate the fact that they feel that they must bastardize marriage into something that it isn't and shouldn't be. It has nothing to do with the " Separate but equal " argument as many want to lead it back to. A gay union plainly isn't the same thing as a marriage. About this I do care a great deal.

this is simple, bigot: civil union is not afforded the same rights as "marriage"

all that is wanted from the LGBT community is equal rights/equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, this puritanical society that you and your bronze-age community have fashioned demand that only something called "marriage" achieve those rights. It doesn't have to be "marriage," but that is what remains the legal definition of a recognized couple.

so...this means that to engage in the "freedoms" that all in this country share, gays must be allowed to marry. Civil Unions do not work, simply because Civil Unions are denied many rights that "marriages" are not.

If you deny this fact, then you deny reality as it stands.

If you defend gays and their right and freedom to live how they choose, but consequently deny their ability to have these freedoms by demanding that they be excluded from your self-proscribed social limits, then you are both a bigot and a fucking liar.

sorry, but truth hurts

 

[zinfamous]

I did once in Vallejo for a couple of years. That was back when it was almost normal though. 1973 - 74.

The hippies claimed the Bay Area from the starched fogies in 67. You must have been too stoned to remember that.


(by the way...not necessarily for the better :|)

 

[zinfamous]

You can't twist my words into what you want. You just want to appear cute, but it isn't working.

Gay = genetic defect isn't a "cute" display of ignorance in your mind?




come on, dude, lets start talking genetics.

now

 

[werepossum]

you were doing so well in this thread...

bu to think that Rev White has anything ot do with Obama...sigh, might as well parrot out BILL AYERS! BILL AYERS! BILL AYERS! BILL AYERS BILL AYERS! and be done with it. sigh....


I mean, your trying to ascribe the rantings of an enraged lunatic who had only fringe relation to Obama, to the president's own sense of social justice, is as accurate as my summarily linking you to the value system of one Sarah Palin. You know....because.

Um, I don't know Reverend White, but the other two articles have nothing to do with Reverend White; one is about Rahm Emanuel welcoming Louis Farrakhan (who evidently does represent Chicago values, and G-d have mercy on Chicagoans) and the other is about Boston's Menino banning soft drinks and junk food. Neither has anything to do with Obama.

Dude, you got that all wrong (that is Newark's motto)

Here is the real motto:

Chicago--vote early, and vote often!

 

[zinfamous]

Um, I don't know Reverend White, but the other two articles have nothing to do with Reverend White; one is about Rahm Emanuel welcoming Louis Farrakhan (who evidently does represent Chicago values, and G-d have mercy on Chicagoans) and the other is about Boston's Menino banning soft drinks and junk food. Neither has anything to do with Obama.

Rev. White was the dude at "Obama's Church" near Hyde Park many years ago who made the "God damn America!" sermon, that was parroted all over the media, ad nauseum, during the 08 campaign.

He was roundly labeled as Obama's "spiritual and moral guide"...because of that one line (taken massively out of context, of course. White was a loon, more or less--but his comment was about America treating the poor and disenfranchised as shit, going against Jesus' teachings and all that.). Anyway, the Obamas went to that church a handful of times over the years. He had to court the community to get into the good graces of the people of whom they knew very little, to win the state senate seat. If anything, Obama is guilty of playing politics as it relates to White's church.

Farakhan's compound is in Hyde Park--but to say he represents the values of Chicago is to know dick about Chicago. He probably represents South Chicago, and maybe just a corner of Hyde Park--but Chicago?


Just spend a day going back and forth on the red line if you want to have your assumptions of Chicago "unity" shattered.

 

[Aikouka]

Hmm... apparently people down here are taking part in Chic-Fil-A Appreciation Day on August 1, which is being pushed by Mike Huckabee.

Antonine Dodson from the viral 2010 video, “Bed Intruder Song” (“Hide Yo Kids, Hide Yo Wife”), on Chick Fil A.

Video

Uno

Why would a meme source's opinion matter to me? That's like taking advice from goatse.

As for the bolded, I've always thought that this was the killer argument for the fundamentalists, but one has to realize that such realities do not reflect a world in which homosexuality was "made by god."

My guess is that religious people think that homosexuality is a "work of the devil."

 

[Orignal Earl]

 

[zsdersw]

I never said that I disagree with gays getting married due to their genetic defect. I am against them trying to change marriage into something that it wasn't meant to be.

According to whom?

What I have said and will say once more is that a gay civil union is not and can never be a marriage. Marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman. A legal union between two males or females is not a marriage.

Sure it can and yes it can be. You don't have to like it, but government action doesn't hinge upon what you like and don't like.

 

[techs]

For me its all about hypocrisy. "Christian values" are trampled on every day by the very people who howl about gays. If Chik fil A really cared about Christian values they would offer their employees a living wage, health insurance, etc. They would sell healthy food instead of heart clogging cholesterol.
How much money did Chik Fil A give to support universal health care?
Which do you think Christ would find more important? Healing the sick or preventing gay marriage?

 

[CPA]

private company is perfectly with their right to "refuse service to anyone, for their own reason," just as public/corporation/government is perfectly within its right to let private company know just how they feel about those actions, and act accordingly.

simply put: local government distributes zoning permits. If a private entity or corp (remember--SCOTUS recently ruled that corporation = individual so...this really fucks over Chik Fil-A, don't you think? ) does not match the standards required by local government to obtain said permit, then they are SOL. Boo-fucking hoo. Continue selling your chicken to the trash that agrees with you.

No it doesn't and you know that. A private company cannot refuse service to someone for a litany of reasons, race being one of them. And the government cannot refuse service if in doing so they forbid that individual (corporation, person, etc) from exercising their constitutional rights.

 

[CPA]

For me its all about hypocrisy. "Christian values" are trampled on every day by the very people who howl about gays. If Chik fil A really cared about Christian values they would offer their employees a living wage, health insurance, etc. They would sell healthy food instead of heart clogging cholesterol.
How much money did Chik Fil A give to support universal health care?
Which do you think Christ would find more important? Healing the sick or preventing gay marriage?

So, now we judge companies who by how they support universal health care? oy vey.

 

[techs]

For me its all about hypocrisy. "Christian values" are trampled on every day by the very people who howl about gays. If Chik fil A really cared about Christian values they would offer their employees a living wage, health insurance, etc. They would sell healthy food instead of heart clogging cholesterol.
How much money did Chik Fil A give to support universal health care?
Which do you think Christ would find more important? Healing the sick or preventing gay marriage?

So, now we judge companies who by how they support universal health care? oy vey.

I wasn't judging the company. I was noting the hypocrisy in choosing gay marriage as an issue of such great importance.
While children are malnourished and dying from lack of health care the issue of such great concern to the Christian owner of Chik Fil A is gay marriage?

 

[Atreus21]

Exactly. It won't affect your marriage at all. Gay marriage affects only those gay people who choose to get married. Nothing changes about anyone else's past, present, or future marriages. The wheels fall off of the "harm to the institution of marriage" argument for that exact reason.

If someone views their marriage as meaning less because the government permits gay couples to be regarded as married in the eyes of government and law they are placing a value in government recognition of their relationship that they criticize gay people for seeking. It is 100% hypocritical.

There's a difference between harm to individual marriages and harm to marriage as an institution.

My point was to illustrate that the possible harm to people's marriages is not the whole story or even most of it. If harm to existing marriages is to be the only criterion when considering changing the definition of marriage, then on what basis is it to be denied to any of the three groups that I referenced (polygamous, incestuous, or group marriages)? Sanctioning those types of marriages wouldn't destroy existing marriages either.

 

[zsdersw]

There's a difference between harm to individual marriages and harm to marriage as an institution.

My point was to illustrate that the possible harm to people's marriages is not the whole story or even most of it. If harm to existing marriages is to be the only criterion when considering changing the definition of marriage, then on what basis is it to be denied to any of the three groups that I referenced (polygamous, incestuous, or group marriages)? Sanctioning those types of marriages wouldn't destroy existing marriages either.

What is the harm to the "institution of marriage"? The "institution" is nothing more than the sum of everything everyone who is married puts into it.

 

[surfsatwerk]

There's a difference between harm to individual marriages and harm to marriage as an institution.

My point was to illustrate that the possible harm to people's marriages is not the whole story or even most of it. If harm to existing marriages is to be the only criterion when considering changing the definition of marriage, then on what basis is it to be denied to any of the three groups that I referenced (polygamous, incestuous, or group marriages)? Sanctioning those types of marriages wouldn't destroy existing marriages either.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

*gasp*

BWAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[Atreus21]

What is the harm to the "institution of marriage"? The "institution" is nothing more than the sum of everything everyone who is married puts into it.

How is the institution of marriage harmed by allowing 3 women and 3 men to marry? On what basis is it to be disallowed, say, to two elderly siblings who wish to take care of each other in a non-sexual capacity?

 

[classy]

Well I am going to continue to eat at Chick Fila

 

[zsdersw]

How is the institution of marriage harmed by allowing 3 women and 3 men to marry?

It's not.

On what basis is it to be disallowed, say, to two elderly siblings who wish to take care of each other in a non-sexual capacity?

It's not disallowed now, nor should it be.

 

[Atreus21]

It's not.



It's not disallowed now, nor should it be.

Uh, yes it is disallowed. Siblings can't marry, regardless of the nature of their relationship.

So you're willing to extend marriage to anyone who wants it, regardless of sex, quantity, or relationship? And you have trouble seeing how this is detrimental to the idea of marriage?

It's detrimental in that it ultimately renders marriage meaningless.

 

[zsdersw]

Uh, yes it is disallowed. Siblings can't marry, regardless of the nature of their relationship.

Yes, I was reading your question as being in general, not specific to marriage.

So you're willing to extend marriage to anyone who wants it, regardless of sex, quantity, or relationship? And you have trouble seeing how this is detrimental to the idea of marriage?

It's detrimental in that it ultimately renders marriage meaningless.

Marriage is a commitment. The gender, quantity, or relationship of the people involved is not within the government's purview to decide what is acceptable and what is not. That purview is exclusively held by each and every adult citizen to decide for themselves what arrangement(s) they want to make. That may fly in the face of your religious views or your upbringing, but neither of those have a monopoly on what is right and proper under the Constitution.

Marriage wouldn't become meaningless, it would remain the same lifelong commitment it has always been.

 

[waggy]

marriage is meaningless now. when you can get married and divorced in 6 months with little issues? and people complain that gays are going to ruin the sanctity of marriage?

 

[ch33zw1z]

marriage is meaningless now. when you can get married and divorced in 6 months with little issues? and people complain that gays are going to ruin the sanctity of marriage?

marriage is only meaningless to others, but that doesn't mean it has to be meaningless to you.

You're right though, marriage has become disposable to many.

 

[zsdersw]

marriage is meaningless now. when you can get married and divorced in 6 months with little issues? and people complain that gays are going to ruin the sanctity of marriage?

The divorce rate is a symptom of a broader problem within our society: lack of personal responsibility and a greater sense of entitlement.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The divorce rate is a symptom of a broader problem within our society: lack of personal responsibility and a greater sense of entitlement.

but but but, it's the heathens fault!!