Fast Food chain under fire from same sex couples

Nodin

Sappa wrote: »

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.

More bigoted 19th century nonsense.

This is supposedly a thread roughly concerning gay marriage, so I'm not sure why you are on about "shagg every thing going".

Bannasidhe

Sappa wrote: »

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.

My mother would be horrified if one of her children made a statement like that. My sister and her husband would take the head off their son if he made a statement like that. My brother and his wife have a lesbian daughter - as parent's they would be horrified that anyone would make a statement like that.

My son would be horrified to hear someone say that. This makes me proud of my son.

mickydoomsux

keano_afc wrote: »

Well stop the press, thats it. Conclusive proof has been unearthed.

Every single religion in the world is based on exactly the same amount of proof contained in the post you quoted.

EZ24GET

So you demand proof- that is your prerogative. Religion is based on Faith. The belief in things not seen.

Nodin

EZ24GET wrote: »

So you demand proof- that is your prerogative. Religion is based on Faith. The belief in things not seen.

......not seen and undetectable. Otherwise ye wouldn't need the "faith" thing.

fkt

Sappa wrote: »

If gays wish to embarrass their parents,alienate themselves in society and shagg every thing going let them off.

I'd be more embarrassed as a parent if I thought my son was spending his Saturday nights trying to get a reaction from strangers on the internet

Bajingo

The guy gave his opinion on same sex marriages. Fair enough. In response those homosexual couples who disagree with him are going to give their own opinions. Also fair enough.

Freedom of speech works on both sides here OP. No one is telling the man to shoot up.

EZ24GET

Nodin wrote: »

......not seen and undetectable. Otherwise ye wouldn't need the "faith" thing.

In your opinion undetectable- I see God in lots of things. But sure you don't have to see him at all.
Also this is getting pretty far off topic so not going to keep adding to that result. Everyone have a good and happy night

Nodin

EZ24GET wrote: »

In your opinion undetectable- I see God in lots of things. But sure you don't have to see him at all.
........

...if its detectable, then everyone should be able to see it. Thats the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion.

TheJak01

endabob1 wrote: »

yes.
Telling someone that he is less than you are because he likes to play hide the sausage with other boys is a million miles worse than telling you that god doesn't exist.
The gay bloke exists I can see him, touch him (if I so desire) your god doesn't exist and unless you can prove to me using actual facts that he does exist your argument, like every other fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Zion etc.. argument, is essentially just more made up hate filled ignorant sh!t.

Either way you're undermining somebody's way of life, which I consider to be equally bad in both cases. From a social standpoint it may be more frowned upon to be anti gay in this case, but I certainly believe that an individual would be equally offended in both incidences. Hence, both occurrences should be treated in the same light. You have to treat something like this based on the offence felt by the individual, not that felt by society. And I wholly believe that on that basis both are equally awful, hurtful things to say with neither rhyme nor reason to say it other than out of spite (probably more the case with the second post). Also, my god, I struggle to see on what basis I would be seen to be religious, more somebody that would happily sympathise with somebody that gets offended by a point like that because as somebody that is neither religious (believe in some form of higher power, but certainly not in a form portrayed by any religioun I have encountered) nor homosexual I am not particularly offended by either statement, but at the same time see them as equally hurtful for their respective groups. Of course, that's not something we'll know conclusively unless we find a highly Christian gay commenting here, and even then the opinion is subjective, as different people are offended by different things. I simply think the no god statement is equally offensive and thus it should be treated in the same way, otherwise we're saying "ah sure, it's fine to disrespect people's beliefs, as long as its with the general consensus", ie aren't Christians silly for not believing in god.

Why should be give religion status? Well, maybe shaping the entire of society, it's values and structure in almost every country across the world might have something to do with it. We can't simply disregard such a large part of society, and the thing that had explained how the entire universe functions, entirely, simply because we no have alternative theories on how things happened, and think we no better. Just because we have different ideas now in society, gives us no right to call all religions ignorant. Have a look around you, there are many religious sects becoming more and more progressive as certain peoples ideals have changed. We cannot paint all of religion with the same brush.

Why don't I believe in gay marriage? Simple really. Marriage is between a man and a woman in my view, due to simple definition. This is not an argument based on the rights one receives when they are married, those of course are something everybody are entitled to. My qualm is, why should be change the definition of a word, simply to become more inclusive? Gay coupled should be entitled to the same status as any married couple, but why should we brand them as something they are not? They are not a traditional married couple, there's no reason in my mind why it makes them in any way more equal for them to be able to get a married certificate. Equality is not being able to be able to call yourself the same thing. As much as I might want to be, I am not Jewish by race, as thus can't call myself do. What is important is not what I am able to call myself a Jew, but that I have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any Jew. Marriage simply isnt enough of a privilege in my opinion, and it's perfectly viable to give a civil union the same status as any married couple.

I often think now a days people who dont sympathise with gays on a complete level are all treated with the same brush. There are minor things people feel they aren't necessarily entitled to, such as the above, and then there's those that want them all burnt at the stake. Sometimes, just sometimes I feel people want too much equality, and want us all to be the exact same. They are willing to fight for that, which I'd fair enough, but you'd be surprised the number of times I've been described as some kind of gay hating monster for my view on various Internet forums, which quite frankly isn't true, and I think thats a joke. Much ado about nothing in many cases, and things minor things become a huge issue.

Nodin

TheJak01 wrote: »

Either way you're undermining somebody's way of life, which I consider to be equally bad in both cases..

Telling somebody you don't believe in their god has no impact on them. Funding groups who seek to prevent gay marriage is trying to have a direct impact on the lives of others.

TheJak01 wrote: »

Why don't I believe in gay marriage? Simple really. Marriage is between a man and a woman in my view, due to simple definition. This is not an argument based on the rights one receives when they are married, those of course are something everybody are entitled to. My qualm is, why should be change the definition of a word, simply to become more inclusive? .

Marriage has, if we take in the greater span of history, been between a man and a number of women. It has on occassion been between a woman and more than one man. Up until the reformation in Europe, marriage was a fairly loose arrangement for the vast majority of the population.

hatrickpatrick

Freedom of Speech is a value I hold to be one of the single most important rights in any democracy. To that end, I agree partially with the OP that this man is of course allowed to make any remarks he likes.

The other side of that same Freedom of Speech coin is that anybody has the right to protest about it if they want to, and to boycott the chain if they want to.

Not sure I understand how those who argue against this protest on freedom of speech grounds can't see that the protesters, too, have the exact same rights to freedom of speech as the owner of the chain. He has every right to make whatever comments he likes, and his customers have every right to protest against them if they want to.

Problem...?

Manic Moran

Nodin wrote: »

Telling somebody you don't believe in their god has no impact on them. Funding groups who seek to prevent gay marriage is trying to have a direct impact on the lives of others.

Telling someone you don't believe in gay marriage has no impact on them. Funding groups who attempt to prevent the construction of mosques will have a direct impact on the lives of other. You're mixing your examples.

NTM

MadsL

EZ24GET wrote: »

No where in the bible I read does it tell me to hate anyone.

Really? Not too hard to find examples.

2 Samuel 22:41 wrote:

Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies , that I might destroy them that hate me.

Numbers 10:35 wrote:

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward , that Moses said, Rise up , LORD , and let thine enemies be scattered ; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.

Deu 30:7 wrote:

And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.

Luke 14:26 wrote:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Manic Moran

MadsL wrote: »

EZ24GET wrote: »

No where in the bible I read does it tell me to hate anyone.

Really? Not too hard to find examples.

2 Samuel 22:41 wrote:

Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies , that I might destroy them that hate me.

Numbers 10:35 wrote:

And it came to pass, when the ark set forward , that Moses said, Rise up , LORD , and let thine enemies be scattered ; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.

Deu 30:7 wrote:

And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee.

Luke 14:26 wrote:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The first three examples aren't instructing anyone to hate anyone, and I suspect there is some context missing in the fourth.

MadsL

Manic Moran wrote: »

The first three examples aren't instructing anyone to hate anyone, and I suspect there is some context missing in the fourth.

Not instructing, but there is an awful lot of smiting going on in the Bible I read. Much of the Old Testament is a torrid tale of blood, vengeance, retribution and death. Let's not pretend it is a love-fest.

As to marriage between one man and one woman, ironic that many OT figures had more than one wife. Consider Jacob;

Genesis 29:31-30:23
New International Version (NIV)

31 When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless. 32 Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben,[a] for she said, “It is because the Lord has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.”

33 She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Because the Lord heard that I am not loved, he gave me this one too.” So she named him Simeon.

34 Again she conceived, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “Now at last my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” So he was named Levi.[c]

35 She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, “This time I will praise the Lord.” So she named him Judah.[d] Then she stopped having children.

30 When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!”

2 Jacob became angry with her and said, “Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?”

3 Then she said, “Here is Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and I too can build a family through her.”

4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, 5 and she became pregnant and bore him a son. 6 Then Rachel said, “God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son.” Because of this she named him Dan.[e]

7 Rachel’s servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. 8 Then Rachel said, “I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won.” So she named him Naphtali.[f]

9 When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. 10 Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 Then Leah said, “What good fortune!”[g] So she named him Gad.[h]

12 Leah’s servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. 13 Then Leah said, “How happy I am! The women will call me happy.” So she named him Asher.

14 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, “Please give me some of your son’s mandrakes.”

15 But she said to her, “Wasn’t it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son’s mandrakes too?”

“Very well,” Rachel said, “he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son’s mandrakes.”

16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. “You must sleep with me,” she said. “I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes.” So he slept with her that night.

17 God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son. 18 Then Leah said, “God has rewarded me for giving my servant to my husband.” So she named him Issachar.[j]

19 Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. 20 Then Leah said, “God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons.” So she named him Zebulun.[k]

21 Some time later she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah.

22 Then God remembered Rachel; he listened to her and enabled her to conceive. 23 She became pregnant and gave birth to a son and said, “God has taken away my disgrace.”

Manic Moran

I've never hated anyone who I have attempted to smite, even if they hated me. (In truth, I didn't take the time to ask their motivations, it didn't really seem a particularly pressing issue at the time).

Being not particularly religious, I make no claims to being an authority, but I believe the Old Testament is not held by Christians today to be the ultimate authority, and in cases where New and Old contradict, the values and instructions of the New take precedence. And, in fairness, there is a little less smiting in the New.

Doctor Jimbob

TheJak01 wrote: »

Either way you're undermining somebody's way of life, which I consider to be equally bad in both cases. From a social standpoint it may be more frowned upon to be anti gay in this case, but I certainly believe that an individual would be equally offended in both incidences. Hence, both occurrences should be treated in the same light. You have to treat something like this based on the offence felt by the individual, not that felt by society. And I wholly believe that on that basis both are equally awful, hurtful things to say with neither rhyme nor reason to say it other than out of spite (probably more the case with the second post). Also, my god, I struggle to see on what basis I would be seen to be religious, more somebody that would happily sympathise with somebody that gets offended by a point like that because as somebody that is neither religious (believe in some form of higher power, but certainly not in a form portrayed by any religioun I have encountered) nor homosexual I am not particularly offended by either statement, but at the same time see them as equally hurtful for their respective groups. Of course, that's not something we'll know conclusively unless we find a highly Christian gay commenting here, and even then the opinion is subjective, as different people are offended by different things. I simply think the no god statement is equally offensive and thus it should be treated in the same way, otherwise we're saying "ah sure, it's fine to disrespect people's beliefs, as long as its with the general consensus", ie aren't Christians silly for not believing in god.

Why should be give religion status? Well, maybe shaping the entire of society, it's values and structure in almost every country across the world might have something to do with it. We can't simply disregard such a large part of society, and the thing that had explained how the entire universe functions, entirely, simply because we no have alternative theories on how things happened, and think we no better. Just because we have different ideas now in society, gives us no right to call all religions ignorant. Have a look around you, there are many religious sects becoming more and more progressive as certain peoples ideals have changed. We cannot paint all of religion with the same brush.

Why don't I believe in gay marriage? Simple really. Marriage is between a man and a woman in my view, due to simple definition. This is not an argument based on the rights one receives when they are married, those of course are something everybody are entitled to. My qualm is, why should be change the definition of a word, simply to become more inclusive? Gay coupled should be entitled to the same status as any married couple, but why should we brand them as something they are not? They are not a traditional married couple, there's no reason in my mind why it makes them in any way more equal for them to be able to get a married certificate. Equality is not being able to be able to call yourself the same thing. As much as I might want to be, I am not Jewish by race, as thus can't call myself do. What is important is not what I am able to call myself a Jew, but that I have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as any Jew. Marriage simply isnt enough of a privilege in my opinion, and it's perfectly viable to give a civil union the same status as any married couple.

I often think now a days people who dont sympathise with gays on a complete level are all treated with the same brush. There are minor things people feel they aren't necessarily entitled to, such as the above, and then there's those that want them all burnt at the stake. Sometimes, just sometimes I feel people want too much equality, and want us all to be the exact same. They are willing to fight for that, which I'd fair enough, but you'd be surprised the number of times I've been described as some kind of gay hating monster for my view on various Internet forums, which quite frankly isn't true, and I think thats a joke. Much ado about nothing in many cases, and things minor things become a huge issue.

The part I don't get is you being ok with religions changing over time, yet you have issue with changing the definition of a word.

MadsL

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've never hated anyone who I have attempted to smite, even if they hated me. (In truth, I didn't take the time to ask their motivations, it didn't really seem a particularly pressing issue at the time).

Lol, I respectfully bow to your considerable experience of smiting

Being not particularly religious, I make no claims to being an authority, but I believe the Old Testament is not held by Christians today to be the ultimate authority, and in cases where New and Old contradict, the values and instructions of the New take precedence.

Old and New Covenants indeed.

And, in fairness, there is a little less smiting in the New.

Don't want to give too much away but you should see how it ends, lakes of fire and all sorts of mayhem.

It just amuses me when people claim the Bible they read doesn't say this or that, when it is indeed a rather strange book that says some rather strange things that seem to pop up in some strange contexts.

For example, contemporary Christians quoting homosexuality as an abomination because of Sodom and Gomorrah yet utterly failing to stop wearing mixed fibre clothing as per the instructions of Deuteronomy 22:11.

floggg

A very good essay on this whole issue - I think those on both sides of the debate should read this in full - http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

So here goes:

1. This isn’t simply about marriage. Shocker, right? It’s extremely frustrating that same-sex marriage is the great continental divide. People are judged according to how they stand on this issue, as if no other issue matters. Did you know that a person can be for same-sex marriage and still be homophobic? Did you know that a person can be against same-sex marriage and be gay? We all get categorized very quickly based on the marriage issue and maybe that’s not fair. But here’s what you should know:

- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together.

- In 75 countries in the world, being gay is illegal. In many, the penalty is life in prison. These are countries we can’t openly visit. In 9 countries, being gay is punishable by death. In many others, violence against gays is tacitly accepted by the authorities. These are countries where we would be killed. Killed.

- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.

- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

2. This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.

3. This isn’t about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of them are of the liberal variety, it’s true, but even this concept seems lost on some of you. Most of them are pro-LGBT rights. Pro-gay and Pro-Christ are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been, in the history of Christianity, though it’s been difficult at times. It’s not impossible to be both.

If someone is telling you it is, then maybe you should wonder why they’d do that. I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug addict Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it. I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the Church, and the Church does very little to combat them. Sometimes it seems like being gay is the ONLY thing certain modern Christian movements won’t allow. Why’s that, I wonder?

Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Remember that? It’s in red. So let’s examine that:

4. If things were reversed, I’d stand up for you.

Please think about this: How would you feel if KFC came out tomorrow and said they were spending money against equality for Asian Americans, or African Americans, or religious people? Really. Think about it. What would you do? How would you feel? How would you feel if, after their announcement, there was a big increase in KFC sales and I was all over Facebook supporting KFC. Please stop reading right now and imagine this. I’m serious.

You can stop now because it’s ludicrous. It would never happen.

Oh, I don’t mean the part about KFC being against some group. That COULD happen. I mean the part about me supporting them. Let me tell you something, and you can damn well believe it: I’d sign on for the boycott IMMEDIATELY.

Why? Well, because I believe in equality for all people, that’s why. But also, personally, from the bottom of my heart: because you are my friend, and I don’t willingly support people who harm you for just being you. How could I? How could I, really? But, more importantly for our purposes, how could you?

Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?

Well, it makes me a Chikin.

Yeah, so suddenly it is cause for anger, ridiculous or not.

But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.

Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?

That’s why we’re so angry. This is personal for us. There are times in your life when you have the opportunity to stand up for your friends. When you let that opportunity pass, your friends notice. It doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, but it diminishes you, and it diminishes the friendship. That’s how it is, no matter what the issue or what the venue.

So stand up. Stand up for us. Do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with us on everything, but repudiate Chick-Fil-A. Unlike them on Facebook. Withdraw your support for them. Join us in the boycott. If you can’t do that, then please ask yourself whether I’m your friend. In fact, ask yourself whether anyone is.