Chick Fill Aye on same sex marry age

[fskimospy]

I'll go by California definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.

You realize Prop 8 has been ruled unconstitutional, right?

 

[zsdersw]

I have yet to hear a logical and reasonable answer to the following question:

What negative affect does gay marriage have on your marriage or the marriage of anyone else you know?

In other words, how does the marriage of two total strangers affect you? What is so significant about that affect that permits you to justify denying their marriage in the eyes of government and law?

 

[actuarial]

Okay, name one society, one country, one race, that is sustained by gay marriage. Or better yet, one that can survive without traditional marriage. Then you would see how important traditional marriage is to the human society, and gay marriage is no where close to have the same function, same benefit for the society, and most importantly how gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage.

This argument has tons of holes in it. Can you point to one society, country or race that was sustained by opposite sex marriage where one of the people was sterile?

Is that a justification to not allow sterile people to marry?

Your argument only holds water if same sex marriage was the only type of marriage allowed, AND if non married people weren't allowed to procreate.

 

[unokitty]

So, if a fast food company announced that a major share if its profits would be donated to organizations that are working to change the U.S. Constitution to legalize slavery or repeal voting rights for women or revoke the 1st Amendment - but you really, really liked the food there - you'd continue to "go to the business because they make great food?"

Didn't realize that my choice of a Char Grilled Chicken Salad for lunch would provoke such an analogy. It wasn't meant as a moral statement. It was meant to be lunch.

Also didn't realize it would provoke such hate. For example:

"ABC's The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren't in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ"

While I personally wouldn't go to an establishment just because the PC True Believers are boycotting it, I wouldn't stop going either.

But I want the haters to know that I wish you luck with your boycott. As I stated before, the lines are always to long when I stop to get my salad anyway,

Best of luck,
Uno

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't realize that my choice of a Char Grilled Chicken Salad for lunch would provoke such an analogy. It wasn't meant as a moral statement. It was meant to be lunch.

Also didn't realize it would provoke such hate. For example:

"ABC's The View honored Roseanne Barr with a guest-host spot on July 19, which shows they probably aren't in the habit of evaluating her sanity based on her Twitter rants. Take her wishing cancer on Chick-Fil-A fans this morning: "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ"

While I personally wouldn't go to an establishment just because the PC True Believers are boycotting it, I wouldn't stop going either.

But I want the haters to know that I wish you luck with your boycott. As I stated before, the lines are always to long when I stop to get my salad anyway,

Best of luck,
Uno

Thanks! Enjoy your salad! Nobody is trying to stop you from eating there, and nobody thinks you're interesting or edgy for continuing to do so.

 

[zinfamous]

I haven't said anything vile.

There are many shades of gray in almost everything. It isn't as simple as I hate gays or I love gays. I personally don't care what they want to do, but I certainly do not hate them. I am not against them having rights either, they can have all the " Civil Unions " they want. They shouldn't be allowed to call it a marriage because it isn't one.

You are the one slinging shit in the thread with name calling etc... What would that make you? a lot like JohnOfSheffield above.

really?

If you personally didn't care what they wanted to do, then you wouldn't have a bone in this argument.

clearly, you care a great deal. Just admit it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Okay, name one society, one country, one race, that is sustained by gay marriage. Or better yet, one that can survive without traditional marriage. Then you would see how important traditional marriage is to the human society, and gay marriage is no where close to have the same function, same benefit for the society, and most importantly how gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage.

With sperm/egg donations and invitro fertilization, straight and gay society can be sustained.

Ignorance and bigotry, unfortunately, can't be weeded-out.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't live in California. Thank God!

I'll go by California definition of marriage: A union between one man and one woman.

Obviously, you would rather live in CA.

 

[zinfamous]

Okay, name one society, one country, one race, that is sustained by gay marriage. Or better yet, one that can survive without traditional marriage. Then you would see how important traditional marriage is to the human society, and gay marriage is no where close to have the same function, same benefit for the society, and most importantly how gay marriage is not the same as traditional marriage.

explain how gay marriage threatens traditional marriage.


Do you believe that making gay marriage legal will somehow inspire all straight people to suddenly have a gay marriage?

This is the only thing you could possibly be inferring from this line of "reasoning."

 

[zinfamous]

The Mayor of Boston plans to block Chick-fil-A from setting-up shop in Boston.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/downtown/2012/07/boston_mayor_thomas_m_meninos.html

pcgeek: that's a lot more than "5 cents," don't you think?

 

[zinfamous]

So much fail in a single post...

Sustaining society is not a requirement for making something permissible. One couple's marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) doesn't affect anyone else's marriage. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

"Traditional marriage" bears the same responsibilities it always has, whether gay marriage is allowed or not.

it's OK. rchiu can no longer defend his pederast-enabler hero JoePa in the PSU thread, so he has to find another outlet to vomit out his specious arguments.

 

[Abe Froman]

Rather than boycotting Chick-Fil-Hate, why don't the gays unite and become super-patrons, filling CFA stores with gays all over. Turn them all into gay restaurants (rather than gay bars)

This would be the greatest protest in Gay rights history.

 

[zinfamous]

You cannot take away marriage because they never had it...

They could have a civil union. That would be fine with me and many others I am sure.

"separate but equal," eh? so we all know where you would have stood in the 50s.

if you think a civil union provides the same legal rights as marriage, then you have a lot of reading to do.

As it stands, you clearly believe that homosexuals are not provided the same rights to civil liberty under the constitution--and this means that you don't really believe in this country. You only believe in some version of this country that is meant to serve only you.

pathetic.

 

[zinfamous]

Rather than boycotting Chick-Fil-Hate, why don't the gays unite and become super-patrons, filling CFA stores with gays all over. Turn them all into gay restaurants (rather than gay bars)

This would be the greatest protest in Gay rights history.

:thumbsup:

that would be a real winner. imagine his skin crawling.

 

[ElFenix]

Rather than boycotting Chick-Fil-Hate, why don't the gays unite and become super-patrons, filling CFA stores with gays all over. Turn them all into gay restaurants (rather than gay bars)

This would be the greatest protest in Gay rights history.

that would be awesome

gay day at chik fil a

 

[Abe Froman]

that would be awesome

gay day at chik fil a

No, not Gay Day.... Gay Every Day.

 

[zsdersw]

No, not Gay Day.... Gay Every Day.

Fast food every day? No thanks.

 

[werepossum]

So much fail in a single post...

Sustaining society is not a requirement for making something permissible. One couple's marriage (heterosexual or otherwise) doesn't affect anyone else's marriage. Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

"Traditional marriage" bears the same responsibilities it always has, whether gay marriage is allowed or not.

This, exactly. There should be no requirement to show that something "sustains society" or is good for society in order for government to allow it. If we are free creatures, then before constraining any bit of individual freedom government should show a pressing societal need or function that MUST be fulfilled or protected, which can ONLY be fulfilled or protected by constraining that bit of individual freedom.

This is increasingly true the more closely it affects an individual. As much as I dislike government seizing wealth because it thinks an individual has "enough" or prohibiting sale of large soft drinks because it thinks it knows best, the right to choose one's own spouse is a much more fundamental freedom. Accordingly, government must show a very important need to not allow gays to marry if it is to deny them that right. There is no such need other than preserving tradition. However, society has changed; gays are no longer fringe elements, but a reasonably mainstream minority accepted by the majority of non-gays. Preserving a tradition by force is only needed if that tradition is no longer embraced by the society, and at that point it's a constraint on freedom.

This is exactly analogous to anti-miscegenation laws; it directly affected no one if a black married a white, it only offended them. Gay marriage directly affects no one else, it only offends them. Constraining others' freedom and pursuit of happiness, denying some people equal protection under the law, because their otherwise lawful conduct offends you is an evil thing. If gay marriage offends G-d, and I (along with a sizable and increasing portion of Christianity) think it does not, G-d is a big boy and is certainly capable of letting them know when He thinks it's appropriate. In the mean time we're in the slightly ludicrous position of gays being able to get married in an increasing number of Christian and Jewish churches while being denied government sanction for that marriage - our intentionally non-sectarian government is actually preserving religious traditions more strenuously than are the actual Christian and Jewish sects. And it's all because of us voters, who value our own sense of propriety more than others' freedom.

Perhaps the Jewish Conservatives’ highest legal body, the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, said it best when they unanimously approved gay marriage and set guidelines. “We acknowledge that these partnerships are distinct from those discussed in the Talmud as ’according to the law of Moses and Israel,’ but we celebrate them with the same sense of holiness and joy as that expressed in heterosexual marriages." Distinct and different from traditional marriage - but still marriage.

 

[actuarial]

Rather than boycotting Chick-Fil-Hate, why don't the gays unite and become super-patrons, filling CFA stores with gays all over. Turn them all into gay restaurants (rather than gay bars)

This would be the greatest protest in Gay rights history.

That would be awesome. Someone needs to come up with the lowest margin item so they minimize the profit that it brings though.

 

[unokitty]

"Just because people disagree with you, believe things you personally find hateful and make statements that curdle your innards, does not make them incapable of excellence. In fact, those qualities go hand in hand rather more often than one would like. Look at almost anyone who made anything beautiful ever. If the Victorians could still read Greek philosophy while intensely disapproving of the philosophers’ personal lives — and we now consider the Victorian era to be benighted and repressed — surely we can do people the same courtesy.

Judge the sandwich by the sandwich."

-- Washington Post

 

[fskimospy]

"Just because people disagree with you, believe things you personally find hateful and make statements that curdle your innards, does not make them incapable of excellence. In fact, those qualities go hand in hand rather more often than one would like. Look at almost anyone who made anything beautiful ever. If the Victorians could still read Greek philosophy while intensely disapproving of the philosophers’ personal lives — and we now consider the Victorian era to be benighted and repressed — surely we can do people the same courtesy.

Judge the sandwich by the sandwich."

-- Washington Post

How about you just let people judge the totality of the transaction and make up their own minds. If they decide that a greasy chicken sandwich isn't worth supporting homophobic bigotry over, that's their choice.

I did find the comparison of fast food chicken to the works of Plato and Aristotle amusing though. But hey, that's what editorials are for, to make dumb and overwrought comparisons.

 

[zinfamous]

This, exactly. There should be no requirement to show that something "sustains society" or is good for society in order for government to allow it. If we are free creatures, then before constraining any bit of individual freedom government should show a pressing societal need or function that MUST be fulfilled or protected, which can ONLY be fulfilled or protected by constraining that bit of individual freedom.

This is increasingly true the more closely it affects an individual. As much as I dislike government seizing wealth because it thinks an individual has "enough" or prohibiting sale of large soft drinks because it thinks it knows best, the right to choose one's own spouse is a much more fundamental freedom. Accordingly, government must show a very important need to not allow gays to marry if it is to deny them that right. There is no such need other than preserving tradition. However, society has changed; gays are no longer fringe elements, but a reasonably mainstream minority accepted by the majority of non-gays. Preserving a tradition by force is only needed if that tradition is no longer embraced by the society, and at that point it's a constraint on freedom.

This is exactly analogous to anti-miscegenation laws; it directly affected no one if a black married a white, it only offended them. Gay marriage directly affects no one else, it only offends them. Constraining others' freedom and pursuit of happiness, denying some people equal protection under the law, because their otherwise lawful conduct offends you is an evil thing. If gay marriage offends G-d, and I (along with a sizable and increasing portion of Christianity) think it does not, G-d is a big boy and is certainly capable of letting them know when He thinks it's appropriate. In the mean time we're in the slightly ludicrous position of gays being able to get married in an increasing number of Christian and Jewish churches while being denied government sanction for that marriage - our intentionally non-sectarian government is actually preserving religious traditions more strenuously than are the actual Christian and Jewish sects. And it's all because of us voters, who value our own sense of propriety more than others' freedom.

Perhaps the Jewish Conservatives’ highest legal body, the Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, said it best when they unanimously approved gay marriage and set guidelines. “We acknowledge that these partnerships are distinct from those discussed in the Talmud as ’according to the law of Moses and Israel,’ but we celebrate them with the same sense of holiness and joy as that expressed in heterosexual marriages." Distinct and different from traditional marriage - but still marriage.

excellent post, through and through, werepossum

:thumbsup:

 

[boomerang]

So we're getting ever closer to it being a crime to express your thoughts.

 

[zinfamous]

That would be awesome. Someone needs to come up with the lowest margin item so they minimize the profit that it brings though.

I was thinking that this morning. Just show up and and buy tea--I imagine this costs more to make than does lemonade--crowd the stores with only tea-purchases.

really--the true power of the consumer market. Simply another application of "deciding with your wallet." Any Free Market ideologue, whatever their stance, would have to recognize the value in this.

 

[zinfamous]

So we're getting ever closer to it being a crime to express your thoughts.

crime?

what crime?

the delusion is hilarious.