• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Chick Fill Aye on same sex marry age

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
I personally choose a fast food restaurant based on whether or not I like their food, not their views on gay marriage, so this will not impact whether or not I patronize Chick Fil A.

PS - people are surprised that the company closed on Sundays is against gay marriage?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,370
25,126
136
I personally choose a fast food restaurant based on whether or not I like their food, not their views on gay marriage, so this will not impact whether or not I patronize Chick Fil A.

PS - people are surprised that the company closed on Sundays is against gay marriage?
Why does anyone have to be surprised? I doubt they thought about it much. Now that people know that Chick Fil A actively supports vile and discriminatory organizations they can freely choose not to contribute to that.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Why does anyone have to be surprised? I doubt they thought about it much. Now that people know that Chick Fil A actively supports vile and discriminatory organizations they can freely choose not to contribute to that.
Right. Next time I'm looking to book a gay marriage, I'll be sure to call up McDonald's instead.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Question to the people who only care about the food: is there anything policy-wise that would make you not patronize an establishment?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,370
25,126
136
Right. Next time I'm looking to book a gay marriage, I'll be sure to call up McDonald's instead.
That wouldn't make much of any sense and I imagine your guests will be very disappointed in your food selection. Needless to say though, your catering choices are your own!

People sometimes include their own personal ethics in their purchasing decisions. This is not news.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
That wouldn't make much of any sense and I imagine your guests will be very disappointed in your food selection. Needless to say though, your catering choices are your own!

People sometimes include their own personal ethics in their purchasing decisions. This is not news.
Free entertainment in the play area though. Could put the DJ out there, maybe put the bar in the ball pit...sounds like a good time. Cheap too!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Nice speech, but utterly irrelevant. You were trying to claim that marriage was defined by the Jewish faith, before the time of Jesus, as "one man and one woman bound together for life by the Grace of G-d".

That is bullshit. Period. Full stop.
I can certainly see how this might seen like bullshit compared to the left's contention that marriage was always the binding together of any number of people (or inanimate objects) of any gender mix in any manner until approximately the 1980 Republican Convention. Kind of like how America always had a nurturing and supportive government, even before it was a nation, to take care of people until Reagan dismantled it. Or how America had almost no guns until the NRA created the "gun culture".

What an elegant system you lefties have. Simply imagine the most politically advantageous possible history and lock onto it. No need to argue that society needs to change, just insist it's already been changed and needs to be restored.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I can certainly see how this might seen like bullshit compared to the left's contention that marriage was always the binding together of any number of people (or inanimate objects) of any gender mix in any manner until approximately the 1980 Republican Convention.
No, it's bullshit because I've read the entire Old Testament multiple times and studied Jewish history for decades, and what you are claiming is simply false.

Your original claim was: "Um, marriage was defined by the Jewish faith (of which Christianity is an offshoot) as one man and one woman bound together for life by the Grace of G-d far predating the birth of Christ."

This is false as a matter of fact. No amount of idiocy about "lefties" and "advantageous political history" and Republican Conventions will change it.

Every time you continue trying to defend this position, you look more and more ridiculous. If you don't believe me, ask one of Jacob's four wives.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
No, it's bullshit because I've read the entire Old Testament multiple times and studied Jewish history for decades, and what you are claiming is simply false.

Your original claim was: "Um, marriage was defined by the Jewish faith (of which Christianity is an offshoot) as one man and one woman bound together for life by the Grace of G-d far predating the birth of Christ."

This is false as a matter of fact. No amount of idiocy about "lefties" and "advantageous political history" and Republican Conventions will change it.

Every time you continue trying to defend this position, you look more and more ridiculous. If you don't believe me, ask one of Jacob's four wives.
Presumably she'd tell there there would be no movement on marriage within the next half millennium so that by the birth of the Christ, multiple marriages would be the norm, right?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Presumably she'd tell there there would be no movement on marriage within the next half millennium so that by the birth of the Christ, multiple marriages would be the norm, right?
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

If it helps, this would be the point where a reasonable person would say "I was mistaken about my earlier claim". Try it -- it won't leave any permanent marks.

By the way, polygamy, while not widespread in Judaism, continued to be practiced well after the Talmud was codified. So even with that qualification, you're wrong. In many cases it was not at all that Jews led the way in prohibiting polygamy, but in fact that they gave it up because of pressure of the countries in which they lived -- much as what happened with the Mormons.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,242
21,280
146
I personally choose a fast food restaurant based on whether or not I like their food, not their views on gay marriage, so this will not impact whether or not I patronize Chick Fil A.

PS - people are surprised that the company closed on Sundays is against gay marriage?
It's as if you're the first person to acknowledge this in the thread....


There's a difference between someone's views and their actual support. If this were just some bigoted ignorant redneck hating on queers, that would be one thing.

This is Chik Fil-A using profits to establish and fund several anti-homosexual "family-oriented" "Christian" "research" foundations to funnel money and active support into campaigns that use politics and hatred to block civil rights protection....because of you know, "their god."


Burger King suffered some serious boycotts in the 80s because they were slash and burning thousands and thousands of acres of rain forest to raise cattle. The boycotts worked.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,242
21,280
146
Question to the people who only care about the food: is there anything policy-wise that would make you not patronize an establishment?
Imagine if Chik Fil-A actually supported Gay marriage! :eek:

Wonder where all the "They have their right to their own views and they can support whatever they want" people would be.

not to mention the "Good, this makes me want to eat their more," people.

:hmm:
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Imagine if Chik Fil-A actually supported Gay marriage! :eek:

Wonder where all the "They have their right to their own views and they can support whatever they want" people would be.

not to mention the "Good, this makes me want to eat their more," people.

:hmm:
I still wouldn't care. Ya know, being not a hypocrite and all that. In actual political arenas I have voted in support of gay marriage. The good news is that fast food is not a political arena, and as such I don't care.

Its like when all the hippies freaked out when the CEO of Whole Foods supported various conservative causes. Really? They were surprised that a rich white guy voted Republican?
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,242
21,280
146
I still wouldn't care. Ya know, being not a hypocrite and all that.
so, you acknowledge that there is a difference between espousing one's views and actively supporting through money and political activism an belief structure?

The latter activity has long brought people to enact boycotts for companies if they reject such political activism, which is why it is generally frowned upon for businesses to engage in such activism, as it divides (and disenfranchises) potential customers.

...so the other view, you could choose to not support a company because they are idiotic for being so public about a particular cause, whatever that cause may be (in this case: their rejection of civil rights). ;)
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

If it helps, this would be the point where a reasonable person would say "I was mistaken about my earlier claim". Try it -- it won't leave any permanent marks.

By the way, polygamy, while not widespread in Judaism, continued to be practiced well after the Talmud was codified. So even with that qualification, you're wrong. In many cases it was not at all that Jews led the way in prohibiting polygamy, but in fact that they gave it up because of pressure of the countries in which they lived -- much as what happened with the Mormons.
I suspected that. So I'll make it simpler and say that the definition of marriage five or six hundred years before Christ is not a static definition. Marriage as a concept evolved from one man with as many women as he could take or buy, into one man and one woman.

There is a bizarre tendency amongst the left in this country that if they can prove any instances of contrary behavior, that then becomes THE behavioral standard, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the people did not behave that way. So be it. If you choose to believe that marriage being defined as a union between one man and one woman is a recent aberration, that's really not going to change my life. But you might as well point to Bill Clinton nailing an intern as proof that marriage was not so defined in the nineties.

Come to think of it, that's the logical next step for the left. "What! Marriage has never ever been defined as the union of one man and one woman! How dare you try to change marriage!" After all, there are still today some men living with multiple wives, so clearly (by proggie standards anyway) marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. (We'll ignore for the moment that Jewish polygamy doesn't actually get you any closer to same sex marriage as it still required one man and one woman for EACH marriage; a man could not marry a man, nor a woman marry a woman.)

For the record I'll repeat that I am in favor of gay marriage, as I don't think government (at any level) should have the authority to control whom we may and may not marry as long as our choices are mentally competent and of age. The difference seems to be that I'm honest enough to admit that opening up marriage to gays IS a change.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
I suspected that. So I'll make it simpler and say that the definition of marriage five or six hundred years before Christ is not a static definition. Marriage as a concept evolved from one man with as many women as he could take or buy, into one man and one woman.

There is a bizarre tendency amongst the left in this country that if they can prove any instances of contrary behavior, that then becomes THE behavioral standard, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the people did not behave that way. So be it. If you choose to believe that marriage being defined as a union between one man and one woman is a recent aberration, that's really not going to change my life. But you might as well point to Bill Clinton nailing an intern as proof that marriage was not so defined in the nineties.

Come to think of it, that's the logical next step for the left. "What! Marriage has never ever been defined as the union of one man and one woman! How dare you try to change marriage!" After all, there are still today some men living with multiple wives, so clearly (by proggie standards anyway) marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. (We'll ignore for the moment that Jewish polygamy doesn't actually get you any closer to same sex marriage as it still required one man and one woman for EACH marriage; a man could not marry a man, nor a woman marry a woman.)

For the record I'll repeat that I am in favor of gay marriage, as I don't think government (at any level) should have the authority to control whom we may and may not marry as long as our choices are mentally competent and of age. The difference seems to be that I'm honest enough to admit that opening up marriage to gays IS a change.
Other than a few zealots who make their way into the media's lens, I don't think that's as widespread a belief as you say. Let's not paint with too broad a brush.

Clearly some very sick and sadistic men.

I don't think the existence of polygamy or same sex marriage equals marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean though; mainly because of your statement above "the definition of marriage five or six hundred years before Christ is not a static definition." The definition has changed a few times already and could soon change again. I don't see either polygamy or same sex marriages being under the marriage umbrella as a bad thing. I'm biased towards one man - one woman because that's the arrangement with which I'm comfortable; but I wouldn't deny a polygamist his marriage, just ask that he move before the kids start being born. I'd rather not live next to a daycare center/school.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
106,242
21,280
146
I suspected that. So I'll make it simpler and say that the definition of marriage five or six hundred years before Christ is not a static definition. Marriage as a concept evolved from one man with as many women as he could take or buy, into one man and one woman.

There is a bizarre tendency amongst the left in this country that if they can prove any instances of contrary behavior, that then becomes THE behavioral standard, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of the people did not behave that way. So be it. If you choose to believe that marriage being defined as a union between one man and one woman is a recent aberration, that's really not going to change my life. But you might as well point to Bill Clinton nailing an intern as proof that marriage was not so defined in the nineties.

Come to think of it, that's the logical next step for the left. "What! Marriage has never ever been defined as the union of one man and one woman! How dare you try to change marriage!" After all, there are still today some men living with multiple wives, so clearly (by proggie standards anyway) marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. (We'll ignore for the moment that Jewish polygamy doesn't actually get you any closer to same sex marriage as it still required one man and one woman for EACH marriage; a man could not marry a man, nor a woman marry a woman.)

For the record I'll repeat that I am in favor of gay marriage, as I don't think government (at any level) should have the authority to control whom we may and may not marry as long as our choices are mentally competent and of age. The difference seems to be that I'm honest enough to admit that opening up marriage to gays IS a change.

I'll save you some time because you're going way off track--the "left" (lol--there is no left in this country! :D), doesn't care about the "original" definition of marriage, or ever tries to point to such things.

The real argument is that marriage is not an institution soley owned by the various religious systems in the world. the concept of marriage existed before man created god. And on top of that, marriage was never, ever used as a righteous devotion between two people--it was simply a legal (read religious, of the day) tool to declare property stakes. It amtters not what some peons believed they were marrying for, but that the families and those in charge knew very well that the best way to keep property (land), and to ensure that your newest property (your woman) was your mating vessel for life, was to throw some concept of god into the mix.

the only thing redefining and "destroying" marriage today is straight marriage, as it's efficacy and popularity have been on a steady decline.

Anyone that thinks straight people choose not to get married because some gay people out there want to get married (the singularly retarded argument that gay marriage hurts straight marriage), really aren't worth considering.

it really is simple--if you don't want a gay marriage, just don't get one.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
Other than a few zealots who make their way into the media's lens, I don't think that's as widespread a belief as you say. Let's not paint with too broad a brush.

Clearly some very sick and sadistic men.

I don't think the existence of polygamy or same sex marriage equals marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean though; mainly because of your statement above "the definition of marriage five or six hundred years before Christ is not a static definition." The definition has changed a few times already and could soon change again. I don't see either polygamy or same sex marriages being under the marriage umbrella as a bad thing. I'm biased towards one man - one woman because that's the arrangement with which I'm comfortable; but I wouldn't deny a polygamist his marriage, just ask that he move before the kids start being born. I'd rather not live next to a daycare center/school.
True, it was an intentionally broad brush.

I have no problem with changing the definition of marriage to encompass same sex unions; all institutions must evolve (to some degree anyway) to continue serving the societies in which they exist, and I think our society (meaning American society as well as Western civilization as a whole) can handle same sex marriage. I only object to pretending that marriage being one man and one woman is somehow something recently slipped in by fundamentalist Republican Christians.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
True story that JUST happened today.
Client had a ton of viruses and needed his data saved and hard disk wiped.
He was going to get Carbonite about 3 months ago and I asked him if he had his Carbonite username and password. Turns out he decided not to get Carbonite because they dropped Rush Limbaugh over controversial remarks he made.

So, in the real world people do choose their products based on political affiliations and social policies of companies.
 

TheNinja

Lifer
Jan 22, 2003
12,207
1
0
Meh....they are allowed to take whatever stance they like and the public is allowed to decide if they want to eat there or not.

Props to him for sticking up for what he believes in regardless if it's popular or "PC" now.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,370
25,126
136
Meh....they are allowed to take whatever stance they like and the public is allowed to decide if they want to eat there or not.

Props to him for sticking up for what he believes in regardless if it's popular or "PC" now.
Sticking up for what you believe in is not an inherently good thing.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,934
1,112
126
I like Chic-Fil-a chicken, too bad I won't be eating their anymore. I have a choice in where I eat and I will choose to eat somewhere else. I wouldn't eat somewhere if the CEO came out and said he thought black people were all lazy and stupid, I wouldn't eat somewhere if the CEO came out and said he only wants women cooks because they belong in the kitchen. Bigotry has no place in our society and I personally won't encourage it. Guess Zaxby's will get more of my business now.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
Chick fil a hasn't been open on Sundays because of the CEO's stance on it and people were ok with that even though most places are. Now his stance on this, which surely affects far less potential customers, and people freak out.

He's never hidden his Christianity and as far as his interpretation of the bible is concerned he cannot endorse gay marriage. So what? Why draw the line at that? I've never met a person on the planet I agree on all things with.

It's a rarity to see somebody potentially lose so much money over a principle and that is a good thing.

Some will pretend that gay marriage is ok biblically and it simply is not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,370
25,126
136
Chick fil a hasn't been open on Sundays because of the CEO's stance on it and people were ok with that even though most places are. Now his stance on this, which surely affects far less potential customers, and people freak out.

He's never hidden his Christianity and as far as his interpretation of the bible is concerned he cannot endorse gay marriage. So what? Why draw the line at that? I've never met a person on the planet I agree on all things with.

It's a rarity to see somebody potentially lose so much money over a principle and that is a good thing.

Some will pretend that gay marriage is ok biblically and it simply is not.
That's probably because not being open on Sundays and actively working to limit people's civil rights are two entirely different things.

Standing up for your principles is not inherently admirable. When you are standing up for contemptible principles like he is, it's just that much more vile.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
462
126
That's probably because not being open on Sundays and actively working to limit people's civil rights are two entirely different things.

Standing up for your principles is not inherently admirable. When you are standing up for contemptible principles like he is, it's just that much more vile.
His "actively working to limit people's civil rights" consists of donating to groups like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Focus on the Family.

Good thing you guys are so tolerant, else he'd REALLY be in trouble for donating to such hate groups. Why, you can't find a single member of those groups who have even cursed a cop, much less taken a dump on a cop car! Downright un-American is what it is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY