# Same Sex Marriage Foes Celebrate Chic-Fil-A Day (August 1st)



## Kira Yamato (Aug 2, 2012)

*Same-sex marriage foes celebrate 'Chick-fil-A day'*​


> By David Beasley, Reuters
> 
> ATLANTA -- Thousands of people across the United States heeded the call of two former Republican presidential candidates to eat at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday to show support for the chain restaurant as it weathers criticism for its president's public opposition to gay marriage.
> 
> ...


----------



## hammer (Aug 2, 2012)

looks like kiss day backfired, what a surprise.


----------



## Roman (Aug 2, 2012)

To be expected. Sadly, their demonstration had the opposite effect than was intended. Boycotting the company would've served them a lot better.


----------



## Golden Circle (Aug 2, 2012)

<insert spiderman in front of burning building.jpg here>

That went well!


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Aug 2, 2012)

_*Nice i went there in the morning after work..................

Glad im supporting this great companies........................*_


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2012)

Lebron Flocka James said:


> _*Nice i went there in the morning after work..................
> 
> Glad im supporting this great companies........................*_



Inorite?  I should find a local chain that has "anti-^ (use bro)" sentiments with the owner and support them because of people like you rubbing my values the wrong way.

But frankly this is fucking stupid and has exploded to the point where now local franchises of this place are going to possibly be threatened which puts local employees who either don't know or don't care about the overarching issues at risk.  And there's no "traditional value" about fucking fast food, you twats.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 2, 2012)

Ah, well predictably this happened. A shame though, says little about the intelligence of many Americans, considering there is no intelligent or rational reason to be against same-sex marriage.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> Inorite?  I should find a local chain that has "anti-^ (use bro)" sentiments with the owner and support them because of people like you rubbing my values the wrong way.
> 
> But frankly this is fucking stupid and has exploded to the point where now local franchises of this place are going to possibly be threatened which puts local employees who either don't know or don't care about the overarching issues at risk.  And there's no "traditional value" about fucking fast food, you twats.



Actually there is.  Some Mayors made this an issue by attempting to punish the chain for Cathy's comments and gay groups were trying to organize a boycott.  Traditionalists came and met them on the battelfield of their own creation.

This story makes me laugh because we had so many articles last week trying to take Chick-Fil-A down and here they are, strong and thriving.  Leftwing Activism has finally received the long awaited counterpunch.


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Actually there is.  Some Mayors made this an issue by attempting to punish the chain for Cathy's comments and gay groups were trying to organize a boycott.  Traditionalists came and met them on the battelfield of their own creation.
> 
> This story makes me laugh because we had so many articles last week trying to take Chick-Fil-A down and here they are, strong and thriving.  Leftwing Activism has finally received the long awaited counterpunch.



I know...Boston Mayor Tom Menino being one of them.

Ffs, the closest Chick-Fil-A I know is in fucking Burlington, over 20 miles away from Boston.  

I guess I'm just finding this dumb because it's a fast food chain and all I want is some motherfucking crispy chicken tenders.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Actually there is.  Some Mayors made this an issue by attempting to punish the chain for Cathy's comments and gay groups were trying to organize a boycott.  Traditionalists came and met them on the battelfield of their own creation.
> 
> This story makes me laugh because we had so many articles last week trying to take Chick-Fil-A down and here they are, strong and thriving.  Leftwing Activism has finally received the long awaited counterpunch.



HOW DARE THOSE LEFT-WING ACTIVISTS ADCOVATE EQUALITY!? FUCK YEAH FOR BIGOTRY!


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 2, 2012)

I hear chick-fil-a's are usually pretty busy anyways. Know people from the south who said it was difficult to get in for several months after one opened. The closest one to me is in Scranton though, which is like a 4-5 hour drive. So not gonna go that far to have a banging Christian chicken sandwich that would just give me diarrhea a half hour later anyway.


----------



## Roman (Aug 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Actually there is.  Some Mayors made this an issue by attempting to punish the chain for Cathy's comments and gay groups were trying to organize a boycott.  Traditionalists came and met them on the battelfield of their own creation.
> 
> This story makes me laugh because we had so many articles last week trying to take Chick-Fil-A down and here they are, strong and thriving.  Leftwing Activism has finally received the long awaited counterpunch.



"Traditional" marriage values have what to do with fast food? I think Mael's point is that one shouldn't make a big deal over traditional marriage when it comes to fast food. That's why it's stupid.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 2, 2012)

How many Chic-Fil-A's are in the North? The last time I remember seeing a Chic-Fil-A is in North Carolina, and Florida. I had a sandwich there and I din't think it was that great. Just a piece of chicken in between two slices of bread o.o

People can choose what they don't or do want to spend their money on. Knowing that Chic-Fil-A funds anti-gay organizations makes it not worth the money in my opinion. To me it's not just the food but where my moneys going. Though I don't think people need to openly boycott or increase the amount of sandwiches they buy just because of this. If you don't like it then just don't go there. Hopefully eventually the families view will change. Each generation seems to be more accepting than the last. I feel like everyone's just making pissing each other off now by doing this...


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2012)

^There are only three in the entire New England region.  One is in New Hampshire and the other two are about 20-25 north or northwest of Boston, MA.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Aug 2, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I hear chick-fil-a's are usually pretty busy anyways. Know people from the south who said it was difficult to get in for several months after one opened. The closest one to me is in Scranton though, which is like a 4-5 hour drive. So not gonna go that far to have a banging Christian chicken sandwich that would just give me diarrhea a half hour later anyway.




It's quicker to go inside Chic-fil-A than using the drive thru. My last Drive-tru trip their took nearly 50 minutes. All that for a spicy chicken sandwich and waffle fries.


----------



## Doge (Aug 2, 2012)

Kira Yamato said:


> It's quicker to go inside Chic-fil-A than using the drive thru. My last Drive-tru trip their took nearly 50 minutes. All that for a spicy chicken sandwich and waffle fries.



50 minutes is a bit hard to believe...but just walking in is a lot quicker than drive thru.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> This story makes me laugh because we had so many articles last week trying to take Chick-Fil-A down and here they are, strong and thriving.  Leftwing Activism has finally received the long awaited counterpunch.



Not really, the surge of homophobes and assorted right wing dipshits will be short lived but all the people who now associate CaF with homophobia and do not like that will never go again.

Long term business loss though I guess there maybe a niche market for small minded bigots who love chicken.

Anyway, they give money to homophobic and discriminatory causes, fuck them. End of song.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 2, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> HOW DARE THOSE LEFT-WING ACTIVISTS ADCOVATE EQUALITY!? FUCK YEAH FOR BIGOTRY!



When you caricature those who disagree with you you re-enforce your own ignorance.



Freedan said:


> "Traditional" marriage values have what to do with fast food? I think Mael's point is that one shouldn't make a big deal over traditional marriage when it comes to fast food. That's why it's stupid.



And my point, which Mael got but you missed, is that the conservatives didn't start this issue.  The CEO of the company gave his personal views and he and his company were attacked by left wing activists.  If you look down the threads you'll see gay groups organized some sort of "kiss-in" to protest an American saying what he thinks.

This overwhelming support of Chick-Fil-A is just a backlash to those attacks.  So I'd agree with you, the gay marriage issue has nothing to do with fast food, but fastfood became the battleground for those conflicting views just as Naruto has nothing to do with world politics, yet we use this forum to discuss those issues.

If you're really objective in your opinion you should also go into the thread of those organizing the "kiss-in" and state the same point.


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Aug 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> Inorite? * I should find a local chain that has "anti-^ (use bro)" sentiments with the owner and support them because of people like you rubbing my values the wrong way.*
> 
> But frankly this is fucking stupid and has exploded to the point where now local franchises of this place are going to possibly be threatened which puts local employees who either don't know or don't care about the overarching issues at risk.  And there's no "traditional value" about fucking fast food, you twats.



Point me in the direction of that restaurant, I'd love to take my family out to that place!  ​


----------



## Mael (Aug 2, 2012)

Ave Aeterna said:


> Point me in the direction of that restaurant, I'd love to take my family out to that place!  ​



Um lolno you missed the point of that.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> And my point, which Mael got but you missed, is that the conservatives didn't start this issue.  The CEO of the company gave his personal views and he and his company were attacked by left wing activists.  If you look down the threads you'll see gay groups organized some sort of "kiss-in" to protest an American saying what he thinks.
> 
> This overwhelming support of Chick-Fil-A is just a backlash to those attacks.  So I'd agree with you, the gay marriage issue has nothing to do with fast food, but fastfood became the battleground for those conflicting views just as Naruto has nothing to do with world politics, yet we use this forum to discuss those issues.
> 
> If you're really objective in your opinion you should also go into the thread of those organizing the "kiss-in" and state the same point.



Again you misrepresent the facts by pretending that this is all a reaction to the guy "giving his opinion". 

If someone asks we what I think about raisins, I'll tell them that they're disgusting and should not be considered for consumption by any living being. *That*'s giving an opinion. A whole different thing would be to fund organizations that support the execution of people who like raisins.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> When you caricature those who disagree with you you re-enforce your own ignorance.



Says the homophobe. I think most of us are aware of your stance on same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general, and given your response of "left-wing activists finally getting the counterpunch", it is hardly an inaccurate caricature. You are cheerleading ignorance and bigotry.


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Aug 2, 2012)

Mael said:


> Um lolno you missed the point of that.



Sarcasm! :
​


----------



## Lebron Flocka James (Aug 2, 2012)

Ave Aeterna said:


> Point me in the direction of that restaurant, I'd love to take my family out to that place!  ​



*Have a great time with your back door lover sweetheart...................*


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 2, 2012)

So what realistic goals did the pro-gay lobby aim to achieve when it went about organising these ‘Same Sex Kiss Day' protests at these chains? Running around and harassing Chick-Fil-A locations and customers and employees?

Yeah that was gonna work out fine.

I still find the entire response by the pro-gay lobby utterly hilarious from the very beginning. And because the company doesn’t support gay marriage doesn’t necessarily make it homophobic.


----------



## Pilaf (Aug 2, 2012)




----------



## ExoSkel (Aug 2, 2012)

As much as their company is run by an asshole, I still like their milkshake.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Aug 2, 2012)

Kira Yamato said:


> *Same-sex marriage foes celebrate 'Chick-fil-A day'*​



They have had to direct traffic for years now. This isn't new. I once entered the store at dinner time and spent 20 minutes waiting for food. There were at least 20 vehicles in line.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 2, 2012)

MbS said:


> So what realistic goals did the pro-gay lobby aim to achieve when it went about organising these ?Same Sex Kiss Day' protests at these chains? Running around and harassing Chick-Fil-A locations and customers and employees?
> 
> Yeah that was gonna work out fine.
> 
> I still find the entire response by the pro-gay lobby utterly hilarious from the very beginning. *And because the company doesn?t support gay marriage doesn?t necessarily make it homophobic*.



But donating millions of dollars to organizations that advocate for taking away gay rights does


----------



## Roman (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> And my point, which Mael got but you missed, is that the conservatives didn't start this issue.  The CEO of the company gave his personal views and he and his company were attacked by left wing activists.  If you look down the threads you'll see gay groups organized some sort of "kiss-in" to protest an American saying what he thinks.



You're the one not reading the threads. This isn't just about a guy stating his opinion. It's about a guy running a company funding anti-gay camps which, in a lot of cases, lead to people genuinely thinking there's something wrong with them, becoming depressed, developing suicidal tendencies, and as a direct consequence become less productive members of society than they would be if they were just allowed to be whoever they wanted to be.



baconbits said:


> This overwhelming support of Chick-Fil-A is just a backlash to those attacks.  So I'd agree with you, the gay marriage issue has nothing to do with fast food, but fastfood became the battleground for those conflicting views just as Naruto has nothing to do with world politics, yet we use this forum to discuss those issues.



But we don't bring Naruto into our discussions. The owner of the company brought fast food into it, on the other hand, when he uses the money he made from it to fund anti-gay camps. The overwhelming support was to be expected, given people's reactions overall and something even I agree with. Protesting in an individual restaurant never would've concluded anything, but the harsh feelings aren't as misplaced as you make them out to be.



baconbits said:


> If you're really objective in your opinion you should also go into the thread of those organizing the "kiss-in" and state the same point.





Freedan said:


> Subjective reality is subjective. That's not reality in the first place. You hold to your truths like they apply to everyone around you, but that isn't fair toward others.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians and other organized religions have been telling people what's ok and what's not for centuries, still are in countless cases (including the part of your post I JUST quoted), and you complain about activists telling you their side of the story? Sounds like a serious case of double-standards to me.





Freedan said:


> ^ *admittedly, boycotting them would be a much better way to protest the franchise since going to a random restaurant and making out will have the opposite of the intended effect, given most people's reactions on this thread.*
> 
> However, as someone correctly pointed out, heterosexual couples kiss and make out in the open all the time. There should be nothing wrong with homosexual couples doing the same, especially if said people complaining have nothing against homosexuality itself.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Aug 3, 2012)

Crowned Clown said:


> They have had to direct traffic for years now. This isn't new. I once entered the store at dinner time and spent 20 minutes waiting for food. There were at least 20 vehicles in line.



As I mentioned in my other post in this thread, I've waited twice as long and have seen longer lines, but you have to take into account that some managers saw record sales which speaks volumes.


----------



## Sanity Check (Aug 3, 2012)

.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 3, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> .



You realize that free speech only means you can say what you want without *legal* consequences, right? It does not protect you from the judgement of your peers.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Aug 3, 2012)

Conservatism is evil and popular?

Who'da thunk it?


----------



## Le Pirate (Aug 3, 2012)

KFC is better.

Besides, there's a  telling how to make a Chick-Fil-A sandwich and the ingredients to make them (not for a single sandwich, but for multiple sandwiches) end up being cheaper then buying one.


----------



## Roman (Aug 3, 2012)

Le Pirate said:


> KFC is better.
> 
> Besides, there's a  telling how to make a Chick-Fil-A sandwich and the ingredients to make them (not for a single sandwich, but for multiple sandwiches) *end up being cheaper then buying one*.



Chick-Fil-A has to make a profit somehow


----------



## Le Pirate (Aug 3, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Chick-Fil-A has to make a profit somehow



Duh. 

I was pointing out that if people wanted chicken sandwiches and didn't live near chick-fil-A they could just make them at home. And I know a lot of proponents of Gay marriage around where I live (which has two Chick Fil-A's that are both very accessible, I've never seen anything more than a 5 or 6-car line), are making them at home if they want any instead of buying them.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Aug 3, 2012)

I am in Washington this summer for an internship and was pretty sad to realize there aren't Chick-fil-a stores up here except 2 hours north. Not because of some bullshit about gay marriage but simply because it is one of my favorite chains to eat it.


----------



## neko-sennin (Aug 3, 2012)

Mael said:


> And there's no "traditional value" about fucking fast food, you twats.



Thank you.

Both days, they should have just taken the money, served the food, and kept their mouths shut. 

By taking sides in a matter irrelevant to food service, they were going to lose customers one way or another.

I know I don't need to bother trying this place.

Their owners are entitled to their opinion, but personally, I'm going to vote with my feet and my dollar and not support bigotry and ignorance.


----------



## baconbits (Aug 3, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> Not really, the surge of homophobes and assorted right wing dipshits will be short lived but all the people who now associate CaF with homophobia and do not like that will never go again.
> 
> Long term business loss though I guess there maybe a niche market for small minded bigots who love chicken.
> 
> Anyway, they give money to homophobic and discriminatory causes, fuck them. End of song.



You're not thinking.

Supporting a traditional definition of marriage is a mainstream position - this isn't some fringe movement.  And people are standing up for CaF for several reasons, not just because of the marriage issue.  Some just don't want them to cave to left wing bullying.  Others see this as a free speech issue - we have politicians saying they are going to try and hurt a business because of the religious/political views of one of its leaders.

Either way the number of people that want to kiss in CfA is far less than those who will continue to patronize it as a backlash to the attacks against CfA.  This is a battle the left has lost, mainly because of this:



MbS said:


> So what realistic goals did the pro-gay lobby aim to achieve when it went about organising these ?Same Sex Kiss Day' protests at these chains? Running around and harassing Chick-Fil-A locations and customers and employees?
> 
> Yeah that was gonna work out fine.
> 
> I still find the entire response by the pro-gay lobby utterly hilarious from the very beginning. And because the company doesn?t support gay marriage doesn?t necessarily make it homophobic.



You're right on the money.  This move didn't have any positive outcome, but usually businesses collapse under left wing pressure and retract their comments.  This time they didn't and the public is rewarding them.



Saufsoldat said:


> Again you misrepresent the facts by pretending that this is all a reaction to the guy "giving his opinion".



I misrepresent nothing.  CfA has been supporting Christian organizations for years.  The reason CfA has been in the news recently is the comments of its CEO "giving his opinion".  His opinion happened to be something you disagree with.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but when you have politicians saying they are going to try and keep a company from expanding just because of a view they disagree with you'll find that most Americans will have a problem with that.



Saufsoldat said:


> If someone asks we what I think about raisins, I'll tell them that they're disgusting and should not be considered for consumption by any living being. *That*'s giving an opinion. A whole different thing would be to fund organizations that support the execution of people who like raisins.



Your argument is hyperbolic.  No one supports anything like your analogy.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Says the homophobe. I think most of us are aware of your stance on same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general, and given your response of "left-wing activists finally getting the counterpunch", it is hardly an inaccurate caricature. You are cheerleading ignorance and bigotry.



I think it odd to think that by describing what you think of me that you have somehow countered my points.  Let's say I am all of those things - that doesn't mean I'm not right about this issue.  If Hitler says 2 + 2 = 4 he's still right.  Making me out to be your personal version of Hitler has nothing to do with my arguments.


----------



## Draffut (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Actually there is.  Some Mayors made this an issue by attempting to punish the chain for Cathy's comments and gay groups were trying to organize a boycott.  Traditionalists came and met them on the battelfield of their own creation.
> 
> This story makes me laugh because we had so many articles last week trying to take Chick-Fil-A down and here they are, strong and thriving.  Leftwing Activism has finally received the long awaited counterpunch.



Thriving, with their approval dropping from 60% to about 30%?  Affiliated corperations dropping like flies (and CFA making up completely falacious excuses why)

Having one day that a bunch of bigots got together to have a bigot rally doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I misrepresent nothing.  CfA has been supporting Christian organizations for years.  The reason CfA has been in the news recently is the comments of its CEO "giving his opinion".  His opinion happened to be something you disagree with.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but when you have politicians saying they are going to try and keep a company from expanding just because of a view they disagree with you'll find that most Americans will have a problem with that.



Nonsense, his comments are what drew mainstream attention to his bigotry and the fact that his company funds anti-gay groups.



> Your argument is hyperbolic.  No one supports anything like your analogy.



They do, actually. Part of chick-fil-a's donations went to the family research council, an organization that tried to prevent congress from condemning Ugandan legislation that seeks to execute gay people.

He gives money to an organisation that supports the execution of homosexuals, I don't see how my analogy was faulty in any way.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I think it odd to think that by describing what you think of me that you have somehow countered my points.  Let's say I am all of those things - that doesn't mean I'm not right about this issue.  If Hitler says 2 + 2 = 4 he's still right.  Making me out to be your personal version of Hitler has nothing to do with my arguments.



You have neither rational nor coherent reason on why same-sex couples should be denied the legal right to marry. The basis on which you think they should be denied this right, and why you disapprove of it and homosexuality in general is on the basis of religion, that is irrational. You don't have any logical reason on why we should continue to deny them this right. You seem pretty happy that the "left-wing activists" are getting their "counterpunch", when those activists are pushing for equal rights. So again, I'll state you are essentially cheerleading ignorance and bigotry. 

Your Hitler analogy was pretty desperate because you can't objectively prove anything about your beliefs on homosexuality or provide any basis on why the legal right to marry should not be extended to them, as a matter of fact some (it's "unnatural") have been disproven. There is no "traditional" marriage as you like to put it, that is only your ignorance on the history of marriage and its original purpose.


----------



## On and On (Aug 3, 2012)

Who cares what numbers they claim to be reporting - you can't even really trust that shit anyway. The fact of the matter is enough people are pissed off and more knowledgable, which makes me pleased  Everyone who continues to eat there is either

A bigot
Completely ignorant that this situation will probably effect someone they know
Someone who claims to be pro gay-marriage but eats there because OMG THE CHICKEN IS JUS SO GUDDD

All of them are lazy fatasses though ^_^


----------



## Roman (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> You're not thinking.



Your argument loses credibility when you accuse others of not thinking.



baconbits said:


> Supporting a traditional definition of marriage is a mainstream position - this isn't some fringe movement.  And people are standing up for CaF for several reasons, not just because of the marriage issue.  Some just don't want them to cave to left wing bullying.  Others see this as a free speech issue - we have politicians saying they are going to try and hurt a business because of the religious/political views of one of its leaders.
> 
> Either way the number of people that want to kiss in CfA is far less than those who will continue to patronize it as a backlash to the attacks against CfA.  This is a battle the left has lost.



All I will say on this is that it's neither bullying nor a free speech issue. As I mentioned earlier, the LGBT community has been bullied for a very, VERY long time by the GOP and Christian groups. You'd be foolish to deny that when there exists GOP-funded Christian anti-gay camps and organizations that support a govt which wants to execute all homosexuals a-la-Hitler. That's the key point that the left is opposing (which you constantly ignore). 

It's not about a guy stating his opinion, *it's about a guy who supports bigoted organizations with the money his fast food company makes*.

You are right, however, that they lost, as MbS said due to the poor strategy that was employed. This doesn't mean they're wrong to protest, tho. You seem to be making it out that they are wrong because they lost.



baconbits said:


> I misrepresent nothing.  CfA has been supporting Christian organizations for years.  The reason CfA has been in the news recently is the comments of its CEO "giving his opinion".  His opinion happened to be something you disagree with.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but when you have politicians saying they are going to try and keep a company from expanding just because of a view they disagree with you'll find that most Americans will have a problem with that.



Again, It's not about a guy stating his opinion, *it's about a guy who supports bigoted organizations with the money his fast food company makes*. What part of this fact don't you understand?



baconbits said:


> I think it odd to think that by describing what you think of me that you have somehow countered my points.  Let's say I am all of those things - that doesn't mean I'm not right about this issue.  If Hitler says 2 + 2 = 4 he's still right.  Making me out to be your personal version of Hitler has nothing to do with my arguments.



It doesn't mean you are right. Don't make it our as tho homosexuality is a sin as if it's fact. Your views on homosexuality are based entirely on religious opinions, NOT facts.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 3, 2012)

In b4 accusations of "EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 3, 2012)

It's hilarious really, there's constant stuff about Christianity on not judging others, and discouragement on "speaking for God", but that seems to be all it is these days. How the fuck can a CEO talk about what God wants when his amassing of wealth is pretty much what Jesus discouraged in the first place?


----------



## LesExit (Aug 3, 2012)

^
I think people need to constantly make their opinions clear to people about religion so they can keep believing it themselves in a way.

Religion all contradicts itself in some way or another. I suppose when something like religion is planted in your head from a young age you become oblivious to the many contradictions and things that don't make sense. 



Freedan said:


> It's not about a guy stating his opinion, *it's about a guy who supports bigoted organizations with the money his fast food company makes*.



This is basically how I feel about it. I wouldn't care if it was just his opinion, he has the right to say and think what he wants. It's not an issue of freedom of speech it's the fact that he's funding organizations trying to put groups of people down because of their sexual orientation. He's not just saying something he's _doing_ something

By buying their food whether you like it or not you are funding those types of organizations. 

It shocks me that people are letting a cheap piece of chicken override the fact that a group of people is being put down with the help of their money. Everyones actions do something...thats why we have to think about them so carefully.


----------



## davidpliskin (Aug 3, 2012)

CFA is breaking records because the gay mafia couldn't not respect someone's opinion.  I am in no way a Christian fundy or whatever, but whenever you have thug mayors of major cities threatening to shut down businesses because they disagrees with the CEO's religious beliefs that should send everyone a red flag.


----------



## Megaharrison (Aug 3, 2012)

My personal view of this is that a head of a private corporation has a right to free speech just like every other citizen, but that being said other groups/individuals have a right to not associate with them. Jim Henson company had every right to do what it did and made the right decision in my mind. Boycotters, have your boycotts. That being said, Government officials trying to punish the chain itself is a bit idiotic and fairly unconstitutional.


----------



## Toroxus (Aug 3, 2012)

Today is Same-Sex Kiss Day at CFA.


----------



## Roman (Aug 3, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's hilarious really, there's constant stuff about Christianity on not judging others, and discouragement on "speaking for God", but that seems to be all it is these days. How the fuck can a CEO talk about what God wants when his amassing of wealth is pretty much what Jesus discouraged in the first place?





LesExit said:


> ^
> I think people need to constantly make their opinions clear to people about religion so they can keep believing it themselves in a way.
> 
> Religion all contradicts itself in some way or another. I suppose when something like religion is planted in your head from a young age you become oblivious to the many contradictions and things that don't make sense.



Pretty much this, and I should know something about this. I was born and raised in a catholic family myself, and before I was old enough to really understand what was going on around me or to know more than what I was exposed to by my school or my parents, I was baptised (as a baby of course) and made to study for the Catechism. When children are at such an impressionable age, it's easy not to question things, and if kept up throughout a person's childhood, it becomes harder to see things from a different perspective, their belief in what they learned too strong to see the contradictions in religious texts.



LesExit said:


> It shocks me that people are letting a cheap piece of chicken override the fact that a group of people is being put down with the help of their money. Everyones actions do something...thats why we have to think about them so carefully.



"You may be funding groups that make a certain amount of the population feel so much like crap that they're driven to kill themselves in some cases, but GOD your chicken is good!"





davidpliskin said:


> CFA is breaking records because the gay mafia couldn't not respect someone's opinion.  I am in no way a Christian fundy or whatever, but whenever you have thug mayors of major cities threatening to shut down businesses because they disagrees with the CEO's religious beliefs that should send everyone a red flag.



Have you even read this thread? 



Megaharrison said:


> My personal view of this is that a head of a private corporation has a right to free speech just like every other citizen, but that being said other groups/individuals have a right to not associate with them. Jim Henson company had every right to do what it did and made the right decision in my mind. Boycotters, have your boycotts. That being said, Government officials trying to punish the chain itself is a bit idiotic and fairly unconstitutional.



What's unconstitutional is funding hate groups, and the Family Research Council IS a hate group. When will people understand this is not about a guy expressing his opinion?


----------



## baconbits (Aug 3, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Thriving, with their approval dropping from 60% to about 30%?  Affiliated corperations dropping like flies (and CFA making up completely falacious excuses why)



No one is in business for approval ratings or affiliated corps.



Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Having one day that a bunch of bigots got together to have a bigot rally doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things.



Actually it means quite a bit to those who want to analyze societal changes.

Typically when businesses get squeezed by left leaning groups they capitulate and apologize.  This has happened so often that there are left leaning groups and leaders that seem to exist solely to put pressure on whatever organization is even associated with a supposed slight.  Now that tactic is backfiring.  This speaks to a change in how people react to charges from the left.  It also speaks to the energy of those on the right.



Saufsoldat said:


> Nonsense, his comments are what drew mainstream attention to his bigotry and the fact that his company funds anti-gay groups.



First, if his defense of traditional marriage is bigotry realize that most of the country is also bigoted.  You're accusing half the US of being bigots for disagreeing with you.  Second, he supports Christian groups.  You simply label them as "anti-gay".  "Anti-gay" suggests they only exist to negate homosexuality and this isn't the case.

Third, it seems that you are conceding that this is about his comments and not anything else.  As I said before he's been supporting Christian organizations for quite some time.



Saufsoldat said:


> They do, actually. Part of chick-fil-a's donations went to the family research council, an organization that tried to prevent congress from condemning Ugandan legislation that seeks to execute gay people.
> 
> He gives money to an organisation that supports the execution of homosexuals, I don't see how my analogy was faulty in any way.



That's ludicrous.  That's not why they do what they do.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You have neither rational nor coherent reason on why same-sex couples should be denied the legal right to marry.



The fact that you made an assumption does not make it fact.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The basis on which you think they should be denied this right, and why you disapprove of it and homosexuality in general is on the basis of religion, that is irrational.



As explained before that argument is inherently stupid.

I also believe murder is wrong because of "religion" - is that irrational?  Where you get the belief from does not define every aspect of its rationality.  Simply saying I got something "from religion" is not disproving my claim for a rational argument.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You don't have any logical reason on why we should continue to deny them this right.



Making an assumption twice also doesn't make it true.



Seto Kaiba said:


> You seem pretty happy that the "left-wing activists" are getting their "counterpunch", when those activists are pushing for equal rights. So again, I'll state you are essentially cheerleading ignorance and bigotry.



Ignorance of what?  The fact that one disagrees with you doesn't imply ignorance unless you assume everyone with knowledge would have no choice but to agree with you.  If this is the case you must have such an argument that is so great we should all agree with you upon you stating it.  I'd like to hear it.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Your Hitler analogy was pretty desperate because you can't objectively prove anything about your beliefs on homosexuality or provide any basis on why the legal right to marry should not be extended to them, as a matter of fact some (it's "unnatural") have been disproven. There is no "traditional" marriage as you like to put it, that is only your ignorance on the history of marriage and its original purpose.



Like I said before, defaming me doesn't prove your argument.  Let's say I am ignorant of the history of marriage - does this make you right?  Likewise let's say I'm ignorant - does this prove your argument?  It would help if you had a grasp of some basic logic.

Lately you've called everything "desperate", as if that matters.  As if a desperate argument must be wrong simply because it is desperate - that's not solid thinking.  Instead of these claims, most of which you can only assert and not prove, make a positive argument.



Freedan said:


> Your argument loses credibility when you accuse others of not thinking.



How so?  My questioning of another's thinking is nothing but the fallout of my disagreement.  Others have questioned my thinking and accused me of worse than "not thinking".  I see you've not said anything to them - biased much?



Freedan said:


> You are right, however, that they lost, as MbS said due to the poor strategy that was employed. This doesn't mean they're wrong to protest, tho. You seem to be making it out that they are wrong because they lost.



That's an odd paragraph.  If it is a poor strategy then they shouldn't be using that strategy.  Their strategy is to protest.  If their strategy is "poor" they shouldn't be protesting.

Secondly I have not said they are wrong because they lost.  I've said that they've lost and they're also wrong.  The one doesn't necessarily cause the other.



Freedan said:


> What's unconstitutional is funding hate groups, and the Family Research Council IS a hate group.



That's actually not true.  People can legally fund groups like the KKK and Black Panthers and FRC is not a hate group.


----------



## sadated_peon (Aug 3, 2012)

If find this interesting in a kind of anthropological culture shift way... but the actual event itself boring as shit....

I really couldn't give a damn.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 3, 2012)

The thing that irks me about this is not that the anti-gay marriage people staged a counter protest, its the reasoning I'm hearing from some of them.  I hear things like "the head of Chic-Fil-A Day has freedom of speech!!!".

People need to understand freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom FROM criticism for the things you use that speech to say.  He's free to say whatever he wants and the rest of us are free to condemn him for it.

I also love the argument "but they still serve gays".  Oh well that's ok then, they're still willing to take MONEY from gay people, that clearly makes it ok.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:
			
		

> The fact that you made an assumption does not make it fact.



It's not an assumption as you've tried to argue against the case for same-sex marriage and failed to provide any logical reason why we should deny such couples the right to marry, in response to arguments in support of it.



> Ignorance of what? The fact that one disagrees with you doesn't imply ignorance unless you assume everyone with knowledge would have no choice but to agree with you. If this is the case you must have such an argument that is so great we should all agree with you upon you stating it. I'd like to hear it.



Ignorance of what marriage "traditionally" is, as well as matters dealing with homosexuality. It's not that you simply disagree, it's that you've failed to provide any logical reason for your disagreements. It's quite stupid, as it is you and other like-minded individuals that make the case that homosexuality is a "sin", "unnatural", etc. and that same-sex marriage defies "traditional marriage", and has other consequences that you completely fail to back up.



> Like I said before, defaming me doesn't prove your argument. Let's say I am ignorant of the history of marriage - does this make you right?



Yes it does, as your opposition relies on the mistaken idea of what "traditional" marriage is among other things. You yourself have constantly gone on about how same-sex marriage flies in the face of "traditional marriage", but you have no idea what that is itself.



> Likewise let's say I'm ignorant - does this prove your argument? It would help if you had a grasp of some basic logic.



Yes, it does as I'm providing counterpoints in response to your ignorance. You don't have any clue of what "traditional" marriage was, nor do you seem to have an understanding of LGBT issues in general. You base your beliefs on theological matters, rather than actual facts in this situation.



> Lately you've called everything "desperate", as if that matters. As if a desperate argument must be wrong simply because it is desperate - that's not solid thinking. Instead of these claims, most of which you can only assert and not prove, make a positive argument.



It is desperate. You cling to your religion, and selectively pick and choose what passages you want to recognize, and whose facets you cannot objectively prove as valid reason for your opposition and disapproval of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> First, if his defense of traditional marriage is bigotry realize that most of the country is also bigoted.  You're accusing half the US of being bigots for disagreeing with you.



Not for disagreeing with me, but for being bigots. There is no non-religious (and thus non-ficticious) argument against equal rights for homosexuals. 

Oh and at some point in history at least half the US was opposed to interracial marriage and yes, I would label everyone of those people bigots. Numbers don't make people right.



> Second, he supports Christian groups.  You simply label them as "anti-gay".  "Anti-gay" suggests they only exist to negate homosexuality and this isn't the case.



They are groups with the express purpose of sabotaging gay rights, how is that not anti-gay? They can be christian, muslims, jewish, hindu or secular, I don't care. The fact of the matter is that they're anti-gay. By saying "they're primarily christian, not anti-gay" you're not negating my argument in the least, you just object to me labelling them by something they are for no apparent reason.



> Third, it seems that you are conceding that this is about his comments and not anything else.  As I said before he's been supporting Christian organizations for quite some time.



It seems you didn't read my post. I clearly said that his comments merely drew attention to the thing. He's been a bigoted asshole for all his life, but he only now received widespread media attention for it.

His comments were the trigger that sparked closer inspection, nothing more.



> That's ludicrous.  That's not why they do what they do.



I didn't say anything about "why" they do what they do, I just stated the facts. Chick-Fil-A funds an organization that opposes the condemnation of (=supports) the execution of gay people. That is a fact, you cannot dodge it.


----------



## Roman (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> No one is in business for approval ratings or affiliated corps.



Media companies and TV stations.



baconbits said:


> First, if his defense of traditional marriage is bigotry realize that most of the country is also bigoted.  You're accusing half the US of being bigots for disagreeing with you.  Second, he supports Christian groups.  You simply label them as "anti-gay".  "Anti-gay" suggests they only exist to negate homosexuality and this isn't the case.



I think that's exactly what he's saying. Half the US is against gay marriage for religious reasons. Therefore half the US is bigoted. I don't find that an exaggerated claim, but the sad truth. And just because they're Christian groups doesn't mean they're any less anti-gay than they are. These are the Christian groups which run camps to "pray the gay away" and have people who're made to take part in them do things against their will, teaches them that the way they are, who they are, is wrong.



baconbits said:


> I also believe murder is wrong because of "religion" - is that irrational?  Where you get the belief from does not define every aspect of its rationality.  Simply saying I got something "from religion" is not disproving my claim for a rational argument.



If you're gonna use that kind of logic, then stoning a woman who married after losing her virginity should be fine because the bible says so. Similarly, making a rape victim marry her rapist should be the only acceptable course of action to restore her honor and her family's because religion says so.





baconbits said:


> How so?  My questioning of another's thinking is nothing but the fallout of my disagreement.  Others have questioned my thinking and accused me of worse than "not thinking".  I see you've not said anything to them - biased much?



Oh please don't pull the victim card on me, seriously 

And it didn't sound like you were questioning him. You said pretty clearly "you're not thinking." That's not a question, that's a statement. How badly others treated you notwithstanding.



baconbits said:


> That's an odd paragraph.  If it is a poor strategy then they shouldn't be using that strategy.  Their strategy is to protest.  If their strategy is "poor" they shouldn't be protesting.



You're twisting my words. I'm saying their chosen strategy to protest was incorrect. I'm not saying it was wrong for them to protest. There are alternative ways to protest, such as boycotting. I mentioned that earlier in this very thread.



baconbits said:


> That's actually not true.  People can legally fund groups like the KKK and Black Panthers and FRC is not a hate group.



Just because it's legal doesn't make it constitutional. It's also unconstitutional to permit bribery and corruption, but that didn't stop the GOP from making it legal for corporations to have no limit on campaign spending. Also, the . A hate group is defined as "an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society." The FRC is exactly that toward homosexuals.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 3, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Today is Same-Sex Kiss Day at CFA.



We can make all the redneck homophobes so nauseous that they lose their appetite and don't buy any sandwiches


----------



## Mider T (Aug 3, 2012)

Le Pirate said:


> KFC is better.



Um no.  

And I'm not sure why you're comparing the two, they're nothing alike other than the fact the primary food is chicken.


----------



## Draffut (Aug 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> No one is in business for approval ratings or affiliated corps.



You are joking right?  They both directly correlate to profit margins.



> Actually it means quite a bit to those who want to analyze societal changes.
> 
> Typically when businesses get squeezed by left leaning groups they capitulate and apologize.  This has happened so often that there are left leaning groups and leaders that seem to exist solely to put pressure on whatever organization is even associated with a supposed slight.  Now that tactic is backfiring.  This speaks to a change in how people react to charges from the left.  It also speaks to the energy of those on the right.



Chick-Fil-A had a "supposed slight"?  And yes, the reaction has been almost universally negative for Chick-Fil-A.  So I guess it does speak to what happens when you are bigots.



Tsukiyomi said:


> I also love the argument "but they still serve gays".  Oh well that's ok then, they're still willing to take MONEY from gay people, that clearly makes it ok.



They serve gays, then give their money to anti-gay organizations.  They must be saints!


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 3, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> HOW DARE THOSE LEFT-WING ACTIVISTS ADCOVATE EQUALITY!? FUCK YEAH FOR BIGOTRY!



Not everyone thinks homosexulity is right..nor that gay unions are anyway equal to the traditional marriage.probably about 80% of all humanity thats ever existed would be against gay marriage.


----------



## hammer (Aug 3, 2012)

are you saying that with two girls making out for an avatar?


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 3, 2012)

hammer said:


> are you saying that with two girls making out for an avatar?



Joke account bro..


----------



## hammer (Aug 3, 2012)

so you are a dupe?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 3, 2012)

I found a nice little post I think lays this topic out perfectly and saves me significant typing:

I tried to highlight key points for people too lazy to read it all but honestly its not all that much to read.



> This post is all I have to say about the Chick-Fil-A controversy. It sums up various posts on the issue and various points made by my friends and I. From now own, rather than spend time debating this issue person by person, I?m going to point people here.
> 
> My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue, and maybe to persuade. It?s not to ridicule or to best.
> 
> ...


Source:


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 3, 2012)

hammer said:


> so you are a dupe?



yerp sho enuff


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

Article said:
			
		

> "I don't believe in same-sex marriage. It's wrong," said Patricia Shelton, 53, after visiting a Chick-fil-A in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a state where voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage earlier this year.





			
				Article said:
			
		

> "*I don't believe* in same-sex marriage. It's wrong," said Patricia Shelton, 53, after visiting a Chick-fil-A in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a state where voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage earlier this year.






> *I *




And that's all that matters.


Also, kudos for people making the long trip to show support for something; rare now-a-days.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 3, 2012)

Bishop said:


> And that's all that matters.
> 
> 
> Also, kudos for people making the long trip to show support for something; rare now-a-days.



Considering these people help push legislation to limit the rights of homosexuals that "I" is not all that matters, their actions are effecting others.


----------



## Mider T (Aug 3, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> And yes, the reaction has been almost universally negative for Chick-Fil-A.



Um...no it hasn't?  Are you really going to blatantly distort facts like that?


----------



## Mist Puppet (Aug 3, 2012)

On and On said:


> All of them are lazy fatasses though ^_^


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Considering these people help push legislation to limit the rights of homosexuals that "I" is not all that matters, their actions are effecting others.



That was the point; someone's opinion that others should be limited the same options means thus, it should be law. I wish someone would have went up to her with the Qur'an and said, "I don't believe in women being equal to men, it's wrong."


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 3, 2012)

Bishop said:


> That was the point; someone's opinion that others should be limited the same options means thus, it should be law. I wish someone would have went up to her with the Qur'an and said, "I don't believe in women being equal to men, it's wrong."



Ah ok I misunderstood, I've been getting a lot of arguments from people that its just the CEOs opinion and thus doesn't actually harm anyone but their actions do indeed cause harm.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 3, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Chick-Fil-A had a "supposed slight"?  *And yes, the reaction has been almost universally negative for Chick-Fil-A. * So I guess it does speak to what happens when you are bigots.



It has?
Is that why the number of pro gay demostrators showing up has been absolutely pathetic in comparison to the chick fil a supporters? 




Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> They serve gays, then give their money to anti-gay organizations.  They must be saints!



Yeah..and?
Some companies give their profits to further pro gay organizations as well.surely you're not gonna be a hypocrite and say the traditionalists don't have the same right to support and further their beliefs?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 3, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> Yeah..and?
> Some companies give their profits to further pro gay organizations as well.surely you're not gonna be a hypocrite and say the traditionalists don't have the same right to support and further their beliefs?



Are you actually comparing giving money to organizations that further civil rights to giving money to organizations that actively try to pass legislation to target minorities of the population based on sexual orientation?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Ah ok I misunderstood, I've been getting a lot of arguments from people that its just the CEOs opinion and thus doesn't actually harm anyone but their actions do indeed cause harm.



That's relative to the company: No one give's a shit about the opinions of a corner store CEO of 10 shops no matter how controversial it is (barring murder), but when it is a big famous chain, people tend to care enough to make momentary reactions.

Right now the hipsters, the tumblr-ers, the liberals, all are offended and are against Chick-fil-A. But- like Trayvon Martin, like cop corruption, like Wal-mart oppression- soon, no one will give a flying fuck, and all will return to normal. The hipsters and even the gays will continue to eat at Chick-fil-A.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 3, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Are you actually comparing giving money to organizations that further civil rights to giving money to organizations that actively try to pass legislation to target minorities of the population based on sexual orientation?



And those people deserve those rights according to whom?
Because you think so everyone else is supposed to conform to your belief eh?
By many politically correct liberals standards today 95% of all humanity that ever existed would be a...

1: Racist bigot

2: Disgusting Homophobe 

3: Sick p*d*p****

4: Sexist manpig 

5: Abusive parent

Or any combination of the above.I don't give a shite about politically correctness,therefore I speak my mind.In my opinion the so called 'liberation' movements have been a  complete joke,leading women and these minorities into a mainstream sense of false entitlement.

Feminism has led to a 50% divorce rate and destruction of the family unit,as has homosexuality.You're now considered a sicko if you even admit that a 16yr old is physically attractive;when in times past women that age would have been married several years in many cases.

PC has made modern blacks and other minorities want to cry 'racism' at the slightest offense.How is it racism to reveal that blacks and hispanics on average are more likely to commit violent criminal offenses than whites?It's a fact shown in statistics several times now.

Parents are no longer able to properly displine their children because they're brainwashed to believe that doing so will traumatize them,and turn them into violent adults.Teenagers and other youth today are more violent,disrespectful,and arrogant than in previous generations.Liberal parenting has proven to be an epic failure.As has feminism which has given women their so called 'rights',at the expense of destroying the fabric of relationships by removing men and women from their naturally intended gender roles.Woemn have become more masculine,and men have become bigger pussies over the last 40 yrs.

In short I guess I could say screw political correctness,I refuse to bow down to it's standards.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 3, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> And those people deserve those rights according to whom?
> Because you think so everyone else is supposed to conform to your belief eh?
> By many politically correct liberals standards today 95% of all humanity that ever existed would be a...
> 
> ...



Ah I see, you're just a troll.  Good to know I can just ignore you then.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 3, 2012)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Ah I see, you're just a troll.  Good to know I can just ignore you then.



No.
Might be hard to beleive skippy,but not everyone agrees with your politically correct bullshit.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> And those people deserve those rights according to whom?
> Because you think so everyone else is supposed to conform to your belief eh?
> By many politically correct liberals standards today 95% of all humanity that ever existed would be a...
> 
> ...



Absurdly right in some areas, but, you will bow, or you will parish.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 3, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Um...no it hasn't?  Are you really going to blatantly distort facts like that?



While it hasn't been universally negative, it's actually been more negative than supportive. 

Their brand recognition has gone from a 65% approval/positive rating to a 39% positive rating by people - the average for a fast food chain is 43%, so Chick-Fil-A went from being viewed a lot more positively than most fast food chains to being viewed less positively than most. 

In case you don't want to watch the entire video, it's at 2:26-2:39. 



Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day may have been a success, but this could hurt them in the long run.


----------



## Stalin (Aug 3, 2012)

Spankdatbitch, you have a bit of the point but the problem is you overgeneralize to the extreme.

FIY, feminism is the problem with the divorce rate. The problem is that for years people were expected to stay married for their entire lives. Marriage was over romanticized.  People realized that not  everyone stays in love. A lot of people still rush into marriage without thinking about it. Many times, people simply fall in love.


----------



## Stalin (Aug 3, 2012)

Another thing, Feminism is very misunderstood. Like any ideology, there are many different interpretations. Yes, there do exist lesbian manhaters that make up the Feminist Stereotype. Feminism at its core is simple the idea that a woman should be able to do what shes wants. with her life. Btw, research has shown that men with feminist wives have better sex lives. Feminists like dick too you know.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

Stalin said:


> Another thing, Feminism is very misunderstood. Like any ideology, there are many different interpretations. Yes, there do exist lesbian manhaters that make up the Feminist Stereotype. Feminism at its core is simple the idea that a woman should be able to do what shes wants. with her life. Btw, *research has shown that men with feminist wives have better sex lives. Feminists like dick too you know.*



I'm not going to get into this as all because I did my dissertation on the affects of Feminism. But, show me this research for the bolded.


----------



## Stalin (Aug 3, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I'm not going to get into this as all. But, show me this research for the bolded.






Why is to hard to accept that not all Feminists are lesbians cunts that need to fuck a dick? Feminism simply means the freedom for a woman to be able to do what she wants. It can even mean being a stay-at-home mom.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

Stalin said:


> Why is to hard to accept that not all Feminists are lesbians cunts that need to fuck a dick? Feminism simply means the freedom for a woman to be able to do what she wants. It can even mean being a stay-at-home mom.



First, both are the same study. Second, this is not valid because of the small sample size. Third, this does not delve into marriage but rather partners. Fourth, this deals with both partners being feminist, not the standard woman.

Do you want to continue this debate? We can sideline VM it as not to hijack this thread, or make a thread of it.

EDIT: Second study is strongly similar, I won't claim it as the same.


----------



## drache (Aug 3, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> And those people deserve those rights according to whom?
> Because you think so everyone else is supposed to conform to your belief eh?
> By many politically correct liberals standards today 95% of all humanity that ever existed would be a...
> 
> ...


 
you know I wanted to agree with you but then you went and blamed feminism for our divorce rate

so what women should be barefoot and pregant in the kitchen?

good gods


----------



## Stalin (Aug 3, 2012)

Yes, surely, woman must a dyke who would accuse her son of being future rapist if she asks to have more rights and respect.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

Stalin said:


> Yes, surely, woman must a dyke who would accuse her son of being future rapist if she asks to have more rights and respect.



Your studies are not valid, that does not mean that stereotypes of the extreme is the fact. Don't go making accusations about something as serious as feminism, but, understand, it is what it is, and nothing more.


----------



## Rashou (Aug 3, 2012)

I'm actually becoming quite torn about this issue. Originally I was a bit squeamish over interfering in the free market, but then I also don't care if others do it, so shouldn't I be cool with boycotting too? Well one things for sure, I'm definitely not going to do what this guy did:


----------



## On and On (Aug 3, 2012)

Did your study on the "effects" of feminism? 

How do you study the effects of an idea even somewhat accurately? Tell me your findings

btw Stalin you're wrong, it's not the belief a woman can do whatever she wants, it's the belief men and women should be treated as equals. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Revolution (Aug 3, 2012)

LOL.  Only in America are people protesting a shitty chicken restaurant.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 3, 2012)

On and On said:


> Did your study on the "effects" of feminism?
> 
> How do you study the effects of an idea even somewhat accurately? Tell me your findings
> 
> btw Stalin you're wrong, it's not the belief a woman can do whatever she wants, it's the belief men and women should be treated as equals. Nothing more, nothing less.



Not "effects", "affects"; covered both macro- and micro-. Also, ideas are powerful oao, ideas shape a culture, a destiny; they can thread new trends, and destroy long-standing traditions. As for your question, I really don't believe you take it seriously, but if so, it shall be through VM; let us not high-jack a thread.


----------



## kazuri (Aug 3, 2012)

Unfortunately humans on average are too selfish to boycott "for real" unless it becomes trendy to do so. Example, the protestors should boycott whichever soft drink company does business with filet, and etc.



> LOL. Only in America are people protesting a shitty chicken restaurant.



LOL


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 3, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> Not everyone thinks homosexulity is right..nor that gay unions are anyway equal to the traditional marriage.probably about 80% of all humanity thats ever existed would be against gay marriage.



Those people are ignorant bigots then, and have no idea what "traditional marriage" is. The number of people that may believe that doesn't make it any less stupid or any less ignorant. A majority of people in this country once believed it wasn't right for the races to mingle, and that blacks were inferior to other races. The number of people that believed in this didn't make such standpoints any less ignorant or bigoted.


----------



## Big Mom (Aug 4, 2012)

Sigh. It will never end. Civil Rights Movement Part 2.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 4, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Those people are ignorant bigots then, and have no idea what "traditional marriage" is. The number of people that may believe that doesn't make it any less stupid or any less ignorant. A majority of people in this country once believed it wasn't right for the races to mingle, and that blacks were inferior to other races. The number of people that believed in this didn't make such standpoints any less ignorant or bigoted.



That goes two way Seto.
I think you guys are ignorant because you can't see how big a failure your liberal liberation movements have been.You haven't inproved the quality of relationships,nor race relations,or parenting methods.In fact the old ways while defiently not perfect,at least held the fabric of society together well for centuries.While on the other hand look how screwed up people have gotten after just 40yrs of your 'help'.We won't last nearly another 100 yrs at this rate.


----------



## Sanity Check (Aug 4, 2012)

I have an ipad assembled with child labor in china, clothes sewn in a sweatshop in singapore and I'm drinking soda made by a corporation that assassinates workers in south america to prevent them from forming labor unions...

Which of these will I boycott and protest?

Chic-Fil-A, of course!  

/typical american


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 4, 2012)

drache said:


> you know I wanted to agree with you but then you went and blamed feminism for our divorce rate
> 
> so what women should be barefoot and pregant in the kitchen?
> 
> good gods



Yep..I DO blame feminism,because it is whats partially to blame.That and the mental conditioning we've endured that have messed up natural gender roles.Women are becomming more masculine,and men are turning into infeminent wussies.

Like it or not the natural roles that nature intended were for men to be providers and leaders,and for women to be nurturers and followers.Contrary to typical laughable feminist arguments like above,a man leading doesn't mean he backhands his woman everytime she leaves the kitchen.What it means simply is that the man is responsible for taking care of his wife and kids,and should lead them by good example.

Feminists would have you believe that in the old days women were always slapped around by their husbands,never left the house,cleaned all day while crying their eyes out and their husbands got drunk etc.Thats for the most part a fantasy.Sure there were men that did that to their wives backs then,just as they do these days too.But the thing is thats not what acting like a man is supposed to look like.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 4, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> Yep..I DO blame feminism,because it is whats partially to blame.That and the mental conditioning we've endured that have messed up natural gender roles.Women are becomming more masculine,and men are turning into infeminent wussies.
> 
> Like it or not the natural roles that nature intended were for men to be providers and leaders,and for women to be nurturers and followers.Contrary to typical laughable feminist arguments like above,a man leading doesn't mean he backhands his woman everytime she leaves the kitchen.What it means simply is that the man is responsible for taking care of his wife and kids,and should lead them by good example.
> 
> Feminists would have you believe that in the old days women were always slapped around by their husbands,never left the house,cleaned all day while crying their eyes out and their husbands got drunk etc.Thats for the most part a fantasy.Sure there were men that did that to their wives backs then,just as they do these days too.But the thing is thats not what acting like a man is supposed to look like.



Once again, absurdly true in many areas, but politics correctness will eat you alive.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 4, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Absurdly right in some areas, but, you will bow, or you will parish.



I choose option C..fighting for my beliefs until I perish 



Bishop said:


> Once again, absurdly true in many areas, but politics correctness will eat you alive.



Which is probably why I will eventually end up relocating to some remote asian village where people care more about being men an women as nature intended,rather than every other thing I say offending some bleeding heart liberal


----------



## Bishop (Aug 4, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> Which is probably why I will eventually end up relocating to some remote asian village where people care more about being men an women as nature intended,rather than every other thing I say offending some bleeding heart liberal



Bullshit fight for what you believe in while the mass of emasculated men hide behind words. Life is so easy for men know-a-days because there is little competition. But, no need to go that direction. I recommend you settle down or the Bear-Jew will come in and force you to bow.


----------



## On and On (Aug 4, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Not "effects", "affects";



Semantics  



> Also, ideas are powerful oao, ideas shape a culture, a destiny; they can thread new trends, and destroy long-standing traditions.



Yes I realize this, but I find it silly the anyone can say they can measure the power of an idea accurately. Just saying. You can observe the affects at best.



> As for your question, I really don't believe you take it seriously, but if so, it shall be through VM; let us not high-jack a thread.



VM me then 


How is life for men nowadays any easier than how's is been in the past?  At least in America. If anything I would say the opposite is true. Not that men have it hard - we still have more advantages then women, but the gap in power differences gets smaller as time passes.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 4, 2012)

On and On said:


> Semantics







> Yes I realize this, but I find it silly the anyone can say they can measure the power of an idea accurately. Just saying. You can observe the affects at best.


True, dissertations tend to be more aggressive in the sense that you can scope it and add a control which you use the variable to measure.




> VM me then


----------



## On and On (Aug 4, 2012)

Bishop said:


> True, dissertations tend to be more aggressive in the sense that you can scope it and add a control which you use the variable to measure.



Excellent point 



>



Can't wait


----------



## Island (Aug 4, 2012)

Feminism aside, I don't understand how an argument could erupt over this. It's very simple logic. First, you disagree with something. Next, you boycott anything that supports what you disagree with.

There are arguments in this thread that Americans are hypocritical because there are corporations that exploit workers in China, Singapore, South America, etc. These arguments are ridiculous because they suggest that if we don't protest the most important things, we shouldn't protest anything at all. The problem is that not many Americans know about or care or think they can influence what goes on in Chinese sweatshops or South American factories.

In regards to feminism, it's also really simple. By law and in practice, men and women should be equal. The consequences of having both sexes equal are just something that society has to deal with. I'd rather have high divorce rates than 50% of the population be treated like they're inferior than the other 50%.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. If you disagree with something, you protest it. If a large number of people disagree with something, they protest in large numbers. Whether the disagreement is trivial is unimportant here. What catches the public's attention isn't always up to us. It just so happens that this time, people want to protest (or support) a corporation whose executive denounces gay marriage.

Whether or not these protests are effective isn't really the point. Arguing that these protests shouldn't happen because they probably won't do anything is essentially saying that the protesters shouldn't do anything at all.

It's a shame that protesters aren't protesting for a more important cause or protesting in a more efficient way, but it's extremely difficult to convince them to protest things that don't effect their everyday lives or to protest in ways that require them to give up their luxuries.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 4, 2012)

Island said:


> It's a shame that protesters aren't protesting for a more important cause or protesting in a more efficient way, but it's extremely difficult to convince them to protest things that don't effect their everyday lives or to protest in ways that require them to give up their luxuries.



Ya I really agree with this.

I don't think it's wrong that people want to protest this, but there really are so many problems in the world. If people put this much energy into more things this world would probably be much better. 

Though it's difficult to get people to do things unless it's directly effecting them. It doesn't feel like an urgent thing for many people, even though it should.


----------



## On and On (Aug 4, 2012)

Island said:


> There are arguments in this thread that Americans are hypocritical because there are corporations that exploit workers in China, Singapore, South America, etc. These arguments are ridiculous because they suggest that if we don't protest the most important things, we shouldn't protest anything at all. The problem is that not many Americans know about or care or think they can influence what goes on in Chinese sweatshops or South American factories.



Amen. And the most important point: you have a choice to eat fast food. In some cases you don't have a choice to purchase gas from an exploitative company, but as I've said before, if you know about the Chick-Fil-A-Gay-Lobbyism situation and still continue to eat their, either you're a despicable bigot or a lazy hypocritical fatass.



> In regards to feminism, it's also really simple. By law and in practice, men and women should be equal. The consequences of having both sexes equal are just something that society has to deal with. I'd rather have high divorce rates than 50% of the population be treated like they're inferior than the other 50%.



This.

Marriage is a social construct, rooted in partiarchy from everything I've learned. Pair bonding for the sake of successful reproduction and progession of the species is not.



> convince them to protest things that don't effect their everyday lives or to protest in ways that require them to give up their luxuries.



This too. People just don't want to come up off that fried chicken sandwich


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 4, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> That goes two way Seto.
> I think you guys are ignorant because you can't see how big a failure your liberal liberation movements have been.You haven't inproved the quality of relationships,nor race relations,or parenting methods.In fact the old ways while defiently not perfect,at least held the fabric of society together well for centuries.While on the other hand look how screwed up people have gotten after just 40yrs of your 'help'.We won't last nearly another 100 yrs at this rate.



No it doesn't, this is a grossly ignorant post that idealizes times where we had little to no understanding of matters related to medicine, sexuality, child-rearing, and race. We've made far more progress in all these matters than our predecessors and our society is actually more tightly woven together than those of past ones mainly because of these 'liberal liberation movements' plus a globalized society.


----------



## drache (Aug 4, 2012)

spankdatbitch said:


> Yep..I DO blame feminism,because it is whats partially to blame.That and the mental conditioning we've endured that have messed up natural gender roles.Women are becomming more masculine,and men are turning into infeminent wussies.
> 
> Like it or not the natural roles that nature intended were for men to be providers and leaders,and for women to be nurturers and followers.Contrary to typical laughable feminist arguments like above,a man leading doesn't mean he backhands his woman everytime she leaves the kitchen.What it means simply is that the man is responsible for taking care of his wife and kids,and should lead them by good example.
> 
> Feminists would have you believe that in the old days women were always slapped around by their husbands,never left the house,cleaned all day while crying their eyes out and their husbands got drunk etc.Thats for the most part a fantasy.Sure there were men that did that to their wives backs then,just as they do these days too.But the thing is thats not what acting like a man is supposed to look like.


 
really? so then what roles would those be?

in elephant society it is the females that rule and they get to pick which bulls stay and which go, with hyenas again the female is the leader and the males are largely there for reproduction.

It's funny that you want to go to nature and yet don't seem to understand that nature has infinite variety.

stop embrassing yourself



Bishop said:


> Once again, absurdly true in many areas, but politics correctness will eat you alive.


 
the irony is that he and to a lesser extent you are appealing to the most political correct thought there is, that all views should be equally valid or at least accorded equal seriousness.


edit: and to add to Seto's point, people have ALWAYS been complaining about progress. Every time something changes it's the end of the world, well it hasn't ended yet. And it's not going to because women are treated equally and fairly.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 4, 2012)

Island said:


> In regards to feminism, it's also really simple. By law and in practice, men and women should be equal. The consequences of having both sexes equal are just something that society has to deal with. I'd rather have high divorce rates than 50% of the population be treated like they're inferior than the other 50%.



What the hell am I reading?

Divorce should be actively discouraged. You?re simply glossing over the effects without any kind of knowledge on of the consequences it has on the family unit and on the development of children. Single parent children fare much worse financially, psychologically and development later in life than children raised by both parents. Parents fulfil different roles in upbringing children so creating some fantasy ?equality? ignores the very nature of the different roles they provide.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 4, 2012)

MbS said:


> What the hell am I reading?
> 
> Divorce should be actively discouraged. You?re simply glossing over the effects without any kind of knowledge on of the consequences it has on the family unit and on the development of children. Single parent children fare much worse financially, psychologically and development later in life than children raised by both parents. Parents fulfil different roles in upbringing children so creating some fantasy ?equality? ignores the very nature of the different roles they provide.



What the hell am _I_ reading? 

Single parent children do not fare 'much worse' than those raised by two parents. Also, marriage isn't necessary to raise children together. 

Fantasy equality? So women should stay home and look after kids and not be able to have careers of their own? Both parents should raise the children together equally.

Living in a dysfunctional house where the parents fight all the time is worse than living with one parent that has the child's best interests in mind. Discouraging divorce would just create more dysfunctional households. 

But apparently a woman should stay with her husband and not be able to make her own decisions or she will destroy her kids' lives with a divorce. 

Seriously?


----------



## Mider T (Aug 4, 2012)

ITT: Sub-par theorists don't realize who they're speaking to.


----------



## Island (Aug 4, 2012)

MbS said:


> What the hell am I reading?
> 
> Divorce should be actively discouraged. You?re simply glossing over the effects without any kind of knowledge on of the consequences it has on the family unit and on the development of children. Single parent children fare much worse financially, psychologically and development later in life than children raised by both parents. Parents fulfil different roles in upbringing children so creating some fantasy ?equality? ignores the very nature of the different roles they provide.


This isn't a one or the other scenario. It's entirely possible for men and women to be equal _and_ maintain a healthy relationship.

It's also entirely possible for a healthy child to be raised without one or both parents. The roles fulfilled by the parents are primarily to socialize the child and teach him or her how to be a functioning adult. Parents aren't necessary for this; role models are. It just so happens that the role models that are most active in a child's life are the parents.

A single parent can teach a child everything it needs to be a functioning member of society.

Parents only fulfill different roles in terms of gender identity, gender differentiation, and teaching the child how to act like a member of his or her gender. However, both parents are only necessary for this if the family lives under a rock and has no contact with the opposite sex. A boy will learn from male role models in his life even if the father is absent. It only requires an alternative role model to be there such as a bother, uncle, neighbor, teacher, pastor, and so forth.

Your main argument is that both parents are necessary because gender roles and gender identity are necessary. The latter is completely untrue. While gender roles will exist so long as gender exists, the roles don't need to be nearly as pronounced as they are today, and they aren't taught strictly and solely by the mother or father.

You are also under the assumption that gender equality is the primary cause for divorce. This is wrong. Gender _inequality_ is the cause. Women have the upper hand in divorce court simply because they're women, and often times, they actually profit from getting divorced.

How you could argue that social inequality is necessary for a functioning society is beyond me.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Aug 4, 2012)

A person's belief is not gonna stop me from buying food I want . Why in the hell would it affect you?

Although, the gays need to be patient. It won't be too long now before all the anti-gay people die out, and the more accepting generation comes along.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 4, 2012)

Magnum Bookworm said:


> A person's belief is not gonna stop me from buying food I want . Why in the hell would it affect you?
> 
> Although, the gays need to be patient. It won't be too long now before all the anti-gay people die out, and the more accepting generation comes along.



It affects me because those profits go to fighting my civil rights 

Telling a minority to be patient when it comes to having equal rights? 
Because we should have to wait years to get what we should have now.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Aug 4, 2012)

You know this shit will not fly with this generation. There's no way in hell that gays are gonna get equal rights in a society filled with Christians who act like they're out of a Stephen King novel. Sooner or later, they'll all die out.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 4, 2012)

Magnum Bookworm said:


> You know this shit will not fly with this generation. There's no way in hell that gays are gonna get equal rights in a society filled with Christians who act like they're out of a Stephen King novel. Sooner or later, they'll all die out.



We can still make progress by protesting though, so it's worth trying.


----------



## drache (Aug 4, 2012)

Magnum Bookworm said:


> You know this shit will not fly with this generation. There's no way in hell that gays are gonna get equal rights in a society filled with Christians who act like they're out of a Stephen King novel. Sooner or later, they'll all die out.


 
given recent history I would say you're utterly wrong


----------



## Zatono (Aug 5, 2012)

Although I do think its messed up that CFA is donating so much money to groups that actively supports anti-gay anything/everything, I still wouldn't outright boycott them.

It won't change their stance, and it likely won't stop them from donating money. I'm not even sure if the protesting is raising awareness about anything.

What a massive long term boycott, as people are suggesting, WOULD do is cause CFA to take substantial losses possibly leading up to laying off employees who have nothing to do with it, all because of a statement. And this is just one side effect, there are plenty more things that would happen down the line.

While in reality this definitely wouldn't happen, it still doesn't mean that people should call for things like this without thinking of consequences for everyone else.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

Same Sex kiss day and this are fucking stupid.


----------



## Toroxus (Aug 5, 2012)

Magnum Bookworm said:


> You know this shit will not fly with this generation. There's no way in hell that gays are gonna get equal rights in a society filled with Christians who act like they're out of a Stephen King novel. Sooner or later, they'll all die out.



Well, it's not happening fast enough for me, or any of the other gay adults and children that are driven to suicide.

The process of those hateful and deadly ideals dying out is happening, but don't you dare think that I'd pass by an opportunity to accelerate it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

When will the generation of people who throw a hissy fit when everyone doesn't agree with them die out?


----------



## Mider T (Aug 5, 2012)

There'd probably alot more progression on gay rights if things like this events weren't staged and people like Toroxus didn't attach their names to gay rights projects.  It doesn't help the cause.


----------



## PyropePlight (Aug 5, 2012)




----------



## drache (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Same Sex kiss day and this are fucking stupid.


 


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> When will the generation of people who throw a hissy fit when everyone doesn't agree with them die out?


 
you're so right ctk how _dare_ people be angry that a corporation is giving to 'pray the gay' away bullshit camps and the like

I mean really it's not like they are doing anything really horrible you know?

/snark

what you don't understand is it's not about agreement, hell you, that guy and 10 million of your closest friends can think it's wrong to do/be (insert your outrage) the thing is so long as it doesn't violate consent you, that guy and 10 million of your closest friends have no right to make illegal or punish people that do/be (insert your outrage)

your morality is not the end all be all


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

drache said:


> you're so right ctk how _dare_ people be angry that a corporation is giving to 'pray the gay' away bullshit camps and the like
> 
> I mean really it's not like they are doing anything really horrible you know?
> 
> ...



Drama Queen much? 

People have opinions, a lot of corporations have CEOs that believe a lot of shit. You buy a lot of shit from people who don't like gays, don't like blacks, don't like a lot of other shit. 

I would reply about the morality comment, but why do I give a darn about your morality or anyone elses on the subject of fast food. This whole thing is stupid bullshit and it's distracting from real obstacles to gay rights and real election year shit. 

Stop being part of the fucking problem.


----------



## drache (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Drama Queen much?
> 
> People have opinions, a lot of corporations have CEOs that believe a lot of shit. You buy a lot of shit from people who don't like gays, don't like blacks, don't like a lot of other shit.
> 
> ...


 
liar much?

this is about what what a ceo *said* but it *is* about what a ceo *did*

Chic Fil A donates money, alot of money at that to 'efforts' that was incredibly anti gay. What the fuck did you expect people to think of that? Especially when he pours gasoline on the matter by starting that 'traditional marriage' crap (here's a tip traditional marriage was a way for fathers to sell their daughters nothing else)

you and your attitude is the problem but hey bigotry is okay so long as we all dislike the same thing right?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

drache said:


> liar much?
> 
> this is about what what a ceo *said* but it *is* about what a ceo *did*
> 
> ...


What bigotry? I have nothing against gays, neither do a lot of the people who eat at Chick-Fil-A. The only issue I see here is someone who doesn't understand the fact that not everyone agrees with THEM and that people's money is their own to do with as they please so long as they pay taxes and don't do anything illegal.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What bigotry? I have nothing against gays, neither do a lot of the people who eat at Chick-Fil-A. The only issue I see here is someone who doesn't understand the fact that not everyone agrees with THEM and that people's money is their own to do with as they please so long as they pay taxes and don't do anything illegal.



So you'd continue to eat at places that fund the KKK and support interracial marriage bans?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So you'd continue to eat at places that fund the KKK and support interracial marriage bans?



Can you give me the data you have on the places that fund KKK activity and support interracial marriage bans?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Can you give me the data you have on the places that fund KKK activity and support interracial marriage bans?



It was a hypothetical questions. Fortunately races are now all equal in the US (at least on paper) whereas gay people still get discrimination on every corner and when someone complains you get to hear all about "free speech" as though funding organizations that support the execution of gay people should be tolerated by anyone.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So you'd continue to eat at places that fund the KKK and support interracial marriage bans?


What are these places? I don't boycott anything though, so if one exists and it's good probably so. 

The thing you don't understand is that these people boycotting chick-fil-a, the people boycotting Amazon over the opposite and all these other people just look petty. You want to crowd into a place just to support it because Fox News said or go kiss somewhere because it will upset the people there--that's all it looks like, petty. The problem for gay rights isn't Chick-Fil-A and it isn't any other fast food place or anything. 

It's people with the attitude that what they think and support should dictate someone else's actions. I don't like X so no one should do it, even if they're adults and it's not dangerous for them or others. That's the problem right there. Straight conservatives worried about gays, gays worried about what people think, people making laws to make what they think law because their world view is so fucked they can't bare to not see it. 

The problem with protesting chick-fil-a is that they have just as much right to think what they do as the gays have to be who they are. They're not persecuting anyone directly or keeping gays out of the restaurant or mistreating them directly or not serving them. This isn't like segregation, black people wish that whites just acted like this back in the 60s, 50s and 40s....

This is a man giving groups money to spread gay propaganda that much of these people only use to reinforce their worldview. Hell you could accuse Fox News of the same on a much, much larger scale and let's think about it, when was the last time any of you gave Murdoch some money? 

Yeah, I'd shut the fuck up then.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> It was a hypothetical questions. Fortunately races are now all equal in the US (at least on paper) whereas gay people still get discrimination on every corner and when someone complains you get to hear all about "free speech" as though funding organizations that support the execution of gay people should be tolerated by anyone.



Wait, I don't understand; CTK is stating his opinion of Chick-fil-A standing for traditional marriage, and you asked him if he would eat at store that supported KKK and bans against interracial marriage. I don't see where you got that from as it does not relate to this point in its entirety; there have been no organizations that have openly, or quietly proven, supported the KKK nor ban against interracial marriages in this current society or century.

In this post you mention organizations supporting the execution of gays, I ask, who are such organizations that are respectable?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

That's hyperbole. No large Christian sect believes in the execution of gays. Some of them believe gays are possessed, the Catholic church believes gays are naturally occurring, some believe gays make the choice because of environment...but most of them believe in what the Bible says about sin, "hate the sin, not the sinner."


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What are these places? I don't boycott anything though, so if one exists and it's good probably so.
> 
> The thing you don't understand is that these people boycotting chick-fil-a, the people boycotting Amazon over the opposite and all these other people just look petty. You want to crowd into a place just to support it because Fox News said or go kiss somewhere because it will upset the people there--that's all it looks like, petty. The problem for gay rights isn't Chick-Fil-A and it isn't any other fast food place or anything.
> 
> ...



Either you're trying to tell me that people shouldn't stop giving money to someone who is actively trying to make the lives of others more miserable or you're saying anti-gay propaganda does absolutely nothing to influence public opinion. Both are so completely wrong, it just hurts to read your post.

The organizations that he funds are ones that run gay camps, where innocent people are brainwashed to until they themselves believe there's something wrong with them and many are driven into suicide. Shit like prop 8 would never have passed the popular referendum if it weren't for propaganda like those disgusting ads running on TV.



Bishop said:


> Wait, I don't understand; CTK is stating his opinion of Chick-fil-A standing for traditional marriage, and you asked him if he would eat at store that supported KKK and bans against interracial marriage. I don't see where you got that from as it does not relate to this point in its entirety; there have been no organizations that have openly, or quietly proven, supported the KKK nor ban against interracial marriages in this current society or century.
> 
> In this post you mention organizations supporting the execution of gays, I ask, who are such organizations that are respectable?





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's hyperbole. No large Christian sect believes in the execution of gays. Some of them believe gays are possessed, the Catholic church believes gays are naturally occurring, some believe gays make the choice because of environment...but most of them believe in what the Bible says about sin, "hate the sin, not the sinner."



I've mentioned this at least half a dozen times in this thread now... Chick-Fil-A funds the family research council, which tried to stop congress from condemning the Ugandan bill that seeks to execute gay people and this organization also wants to criminalize homosexuality in the US. If you don't want to see gay people dead just for being gay, good for you, welcome to the 21st century. Chick-Fil-A doesn't have any problem with it, though and every dime spent there is money that endangers the lives of innocent people.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

Sources for the gay camp thing and (actually more importantly) for the Family Research Council? I would still say that a lot of this wasn't even known to CFA about the executing gays thing. That's pretty much just as good as terrorism right there.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> I've mentioned this at least half a dozen times in this thread now... Chick-Fil-A funds the family research council, which tried to stop congress from condemning the Ugandan bill that seeks to execute gay people and this organization also wants to criminalize homosexuality in the US. If you don't want to see gay people dead just for being gay, good for you, welcome to the 21st century. Chick-Fil-A doesn't have any problem with it, though and every dime spent there is money that endangers the lives of innocent people.



So, you generalize the council then go off saying that Chick-fil-A may want to see  people die if they are gay. No.

The Family Research Council was in competition for pushing their bill to supporting a bill they had proposed which would require single mothers to take classes on raising a baby if they were under 18. The opposing bill was for the money and initiative to be sent to Uganda (out side the nation) to join Italy and UK in stopping the execution of gays. It was one bill or the other, not a generalized situation of the FRC trying to continue the murders of human beings because they are gay. When they lost their bill, they enacted to re-do the language of the bill to stop generalizations, this was supported by some democrats as as well as recommended by Barack Obama to change the laguage.

You next go off into a jest that Chick-fil-A has no problem seeing gays murdered, even though they have never, publicly nor privately found, sought the harm of gays in anyway what so ever. I am asking you to provide data that proves that Chick-fil-A, or FRC, or any other respectable organization supports the death of gays, supports the KKK, or supports the ban against interracial marriage.

For more information on FRC's deal with going against the Uganda Bill, here is info from CBS new:


----------



## LesExit (Aug 5, 2012)

People don't have to be anti-gay to eat at Chick-Fil-A...though if you're spending money there you have to be able to admit you're funding an organization which is anti-gay. I don't see why any person who wasn't anti-gay would think a piece of chicken is worth fundraising an organization which tries to put down homosexuals o.o

It might not mean you're anti-gay but it sure shows how much you don't care...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sources for the gay camp thing and (actually more importantly) for the Family Research Council? I would still say that a lot of this wasn't even known to CFA about the executing gays thing. That's pretty much just as good as terrorism right there.



.

After this was made public, the FRC backpaddled and claimed they didn't oppose the bill that would've condemned the Ugandan legislation, but merely wanted "sections of it changed".

.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> So, you generalize the council then go off saying that Chick-fil-A may want to see  people die if they are gay. No.
> 
> The Family Research Council was in competition for pushing their bill to supporting a bill they had proposed which would require single mothers to take classes on raising a baby if they were under 18. The opposing bill was for the money and initiative to be sent to Uganda (out side the nation) to join Italy and UK in stopping the execution of gays. It was one bill or the other, not a generalized situation of the FRC trying to continue the murders of human beings because they are gay. When they lost their bill, they enacted to re-do the language of the bill to stop generalizations, this was supported by some democrats as as well as recommended by Barack Obama to change the laguage.



The FRC itself disagree with you on that, as they've stated that they didn't want the condemnation bill stopped, but merely altered. No surprise that they change their story as they go along of course.



> You next go off into a jest that Chick-fil-A has no problem seeing gays murdered, even though they have never, publicly nor privately found, sought the harm of gays in anyway what so ever.
> 
> I am asking you to provide data that proves that Chick-fil-A, or FRC, or any other respectable organization supports the death of gays, supports the KKK, or supports the ban against interracial marriage.
> 
> For more information on FRC's deal with going against the Uganda Bill, here is info from CBS new:



Even if they don't want to see gay people dead, and were instead just too incompetent to not give money to hate groups, they have in fact harmed gay people severely and are still actively seeking to harm them. 

If I deny you the right to marry, fund campaigns that tell everyone you're an abomination, and fund groups that even try to criminalize you for being yourself, then I am in fact seeking to harm you.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> .
> 
> After this was made public, the FRC backpaddled and claimed they didn't oppose the bill that would've condemned the Ugandan legislation, but merely wanted "sections of it changed".



First off, there is NO data in that link that confirms ANYTHING you have mentioned. That is a document recovery log for lobby schedules which does not contain anything more than amount offered and this one doesn't give a full description of anything.

Second, FRC did not backpaddle ever; they changed gears when their bill was not passed and thus sought to change the language of the bill for Uganda.



> The FRC itself disagree with you on that, as they've stated that they didn't want the condemnation bill stopped, but merely altered. No surprise that they change their story as they go along of course.


Disagree? You just reiterated what I said. I said they sought to change the language of the bill and you simply proved that; they enacted to change the language of the bill (which is exactly what I said and proved earlier).



> Even if they don't want to see gay people dead, and were instead just too incompetent to not give money to hate groups, they have in fact harmed gay people severely and are still actively seeking to harm them.
> 
> If I deny you the right to marry, fund campaigns that tell everyone you're an abomination, and fund groups that even try to criminalize you for being yourself, then I am in fact seeking to harm you.



You're switching up here; first you blatantly said they were okay with seeing gay people dead and mentioned that you said it dozens of times, now you mention that _"even if they don't want to see gay people died"_. You next avoid this area completely by directly going into how they may somehow _actively _ seek the harm of gays. Please, offer us some data on this, because in the USA that is a federal crime and the FTC would have fined them plus sought an injunction of their operations like they did to over 100 companies in 2011.

Your second paragraph is contradictory; we just proved that they didn't try to criminalize or kill gays yet you persist in saying so. You also say fund "campaigns" though all sources point to only one. You also generalize the "tell everyone you're an abomination"; they give money to churches for belief, not solely nor even publicly call gays an abomination. In fact, Chick-fil-A donates to Catholic churches who's current idea is that gays occur naturally and have not publicly put down gays since 2006.

You want to talk about _"actively seeking to harm"_? Let's talk about *actively harming*. Apple does nothing to slow the occurring problem of high suicide and oppression rates of their suppliers in China:



			
				Article said:
			
		

> (Reuters) - Apple Inc's suppliers in China have violated local labor laws when they imposed excessive overtime and skimped on insurance, a New York-based labor rights group said.



Wal-mart oppresses warehouse workers and drivers by preventing unions while exploiting workers by making them work in harsh conditions and work long hours. 

This article is from 2009, and yet, there still is no union nor resolution even though press has gotten ahold of it.

These companies *ACTIVELY* harm people, you're enrage because of a company who _may possibly somehow sorta kinda wishy-washy seem to indirectly cause the harm of gays _is still in operation.


----------



## spankdatbitch (Aug 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So you'd continue to eat at places that fund the KKK and support interracial marriage bans?



Yes I would...
To me a companies beliefs don't really matter that much as long as produce a quality product.

I don't approve of homosexuality.Yet I had nothing against that pro gay stunt Oreo cookies pulled a while back.I actually thought it was pretty funny,and I would still eat their cookies any day of the week.People have different opinions about matters.You,Toxosaurus,and Drache need to just accept this,and quit being such oversensitive wuss bags.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 5, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> Single parent children do not fare 'much worse' than those raised by two parents. Also, marriage isn't necessary to raise children together.



There?s no denying that children whose parents remain together are better off emotionally, socially and economically,



> Fantasy equality? So women should stay home and look after kids and not be able to have careers of their own? Both parents should raise the children together equally.



We can?t deny that in _some_ areas of employment true equality is not feasible. Men will always excel in roles involving labour over women. How do we elevate women to a position they can compete with their male counterpart? You cannot.



> Living in a dysfunctional house where the parents fight all the time is worse than living with one parent that has the child's best interests in mind. Discouraging divorce would just create more dysfunctional households.



We should encourage greater cooperation instead of immediately assuming divorce is the answer. To do so there should be the establishment of pro-marriage education and mentoring programs to teach couples how to develop skills to handle conflict and enhance the marital relationship.



> But apparently a woman should stay with her husband and not be able to make her own decisions or she will destroy her kids' lives with a divorce.



It?s clear you?ve never been in a heterosexual relationship if you think a woman cannot make the decisions or actually ?run? the family as the matriarch. I am in no way applying women should servitude to their husbands. Men and women simply play an equal but different role in the rearing of the family.



Island said:


> It's also entirely possible for a healthy child to be raised without one or both parents. The roles fulfilled by the parents are primarily to socialize the child and teach him or her how to be a functioning adult. Parents aren't necessary for this; role models are. It just so happens that the role models that are most active in a child's life are the parents.
> 
> A single parent can teach a child everything it needs to be a functioning member of society.



This is what I?m getting from you: it?s _possible_, which means it is not certain and not the norm. A child can be raised by a single parent but they won?t be as well off as a child raised by _both_ parents.



> Parents only fulfill different roles in terms of gender identity, gender differentiation, and teaching the child how to act like a member of his or her gender. However, both parents are only necessary for this if the family lives under a rock and has no contact with the opposite sex. A boy will learn from male role models in his life even if the father is absent. It only requires an alternative role model to be there such as a bother, uncle, neighbor, teacher, pastor, and so forth.



There's something called ?maternal' and  ?paternal? instinct and nurturing on the parents part that cannot be replicated in a guardian or any one else. And yes, a boy can learn from an alternative male role model but without a strong one they are more likely to copy negative behaviour giving way to delinquent behaviour and such children are more likely to have emotional or behavioural problems than they will have if their biological parents stay together. 



> Your main argument is that both parents are necessary because gender roles and gender identity are necessary. The latter is completely untrue. While gender roles will exist so long as gender exists, the roles don't need to be nearly as pronounced as they are today, and they aren't taught strictly and solely by the mother or father.
> 
> You are also under the assumption that gender equality is the primary cause for divorce. This is wrong. Gender _inequality_ is the cause. Women have the upper hand in divorce court simply because they're women, and often times, they actually profit from getting divorced.



Again, men and women play an equal but different role in the rearing of the family.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's hyperbole. No large Christian sect believes in the execution of gays. Some of them believe gays are possessed, the Catholic church believes gays are naturally occurring, some believe gays make the choice because of environment...but most of them believe in what the Bible says about sin, "hate the sin, not the sinner."



Catholics may believe homosexuality to be natural, but the Catholic Church does not. They hold the position that it is a sinful lifestyle CHOICE, rather than innate sexual orientation and nothing more.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Catholics may believe homosexuality to be natural, but the Catholic Church does not. They hold the position that it is a sinful lifestyle CHOICE, rather than innate sexual orientation and nothing more.


Bullshit, the Catholic Church believes that homosexuality is something that occurs naturally. There's documentation of this, you're just saying what you believe to be the opinion of the group.



It's not treated as a choice, even if it's something environmentally in them. This is also why it's considered more of a disorder than sin.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Bullshit, the Catholic Church believes that homosexuality is something that occurs naturally. There's documentation of this, you're just saying what you believe to be the opinion of the group.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not treated as a choice, even if it's something environmentally in them. This is also why it's considered more of a disorder than sin.



They believe the attractions are disorders but not *SINFUL* in and of themselves; a disorder is what? Something out of the norm, outside of the natural process of things. Furthermore, they believe that homosexual acts are unnatural as well as sinful. They believe beyond that is a choice that one can deny themselves for what they consider a more "orderly" lifestyle, as in they can "turn it off" with the right therapy. Backwards all the same:



> Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." *They are contrary to the natural law*. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. *Under no circumstances can they be approved.*





> The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. *This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial*. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition


----------



## LesExit (Aug 5, 2012)

^Wholly shit do people actually think that? That literally made me tear up in sadness. Thanks for making me feel like a piece of worthless disorderly trash religion...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They believe the attractions are disorders but not *SINFUL* in and of themselves; a disorder is what? Something out of the norm. Furthermore, they believe that homosexual acts are unnatural. They believe beyond that is a choice that one can deny themselves for what they consider a more "orderly" lifestyle, as in they can "turn it off" with the right therapy. Backwards all the same:



I have a disorder called depression, it's naturally occurring but it's still a disorder. You have the definitions for 'disorder' and 'natural' in opposition and they're not.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I have a disorder called depression, it's naturally occurring but it's still a disorder. You have the definitions for 'disorder' and 'natural' in opposition and they're not.



The Catholic church clearly defines homosexuality as something unnatural, "contrary to natural law," the attraction is not sinful but acting on it is. A disorder is something considered contrary to natural development, so my point stands...they don't consider it natural at all.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I have a disorder called depression, it's naturally occurring but it's still a disorder. You have the definitions for 'disorder' and 'natural' in opposition and they're not.



What exactly makes it a disorder o.o? Why can't homosexuality not have a place in the world? With an over populated world and countless children who need homes...why is it considered a disorder? Homosexuality has it's place in the natural worlds just like heterosexuality. Who is getting harmed by the acts of homosexuals besides homosexuals themselves from hateful people?

I don't get how homosexuality can compare to depression as a disorder. Depression is a harmful thing, mentally and physcially. While homosexuality is simply liking a certain sex. I'm not understanding


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 5, 2012)

LesExit said:


> With an over populated world



This is one of the stupidest excuses for defending homosexuality. It?s as effective as emptying the Atlantic using only a bucket. 

There?s a little something called mortality that performs a more effective role.



> and countless children who need homes...



What does this have to do with Homosexuality being a disorder?


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

MbS said:


> This is one of the stupidest excuses for defending homosexuality. It’s as effective as emptying the Atlantic using only a bucket.
> 
> There’s a little something called mortality that performs a more effective role.



Says who, you? If homosexuality was  universally accepted and given civil marriage rights + adoption, there is a possibility a lot more people would make a family without procreation. It's funny how you act like religion and society has no role in influencing sexuality and life choices. Not everyone with homosexual impulses has the courage to turn away from the heteronormative models they grew up with.


----------



## Petes12 (Aug 5, 2012)

MbS said:


> What does this have to do with Homosexuality being a disorder?



Why do people say this when absolutely no doctor or scientist or therapist or anyone with any credibility on the matter agrees?

Different isn't the same as disorder you dumbass.


----------



## Opaste (Aug 5, 2012)

LesExit said:


> What exactly makes it a disorder o.o? Why can't homosexuality not have a place in the world? With an over populated world and countless children who need homes...why is it considered a disorder? Homosexuality has it's place in the natural worlds just like heterosexuality. Who is getting harmed by the acts of homosexuals besides homosexuals themselves from hateful people?
> 
> I don't get how homosexuality can compare to depression as a disorder. Depression is a harmful thing, mentally and physcially. While homosexuality is simply liking a certain sex. I'm not understanding



Homosexuality and bisexuality are disorders about as much as being left-handed is - that is to say, not at all. The definition of a disorder used by most medical professionals states that for something to be classified as a disorder, it needs to cause the person harm or distress.

And in most cases, it's not their homosexuality itself that causes a gay person distress, but the hateful attitudes of other people and society's expectations that everyone should be straight in order to live a full and meaningful life. It's quite hard to be happy with yourself when a significant portion of the world's population still think you are a sick and twisted pervert. Let alone if it's many people in your own country calling you that.

There is really no moral or logical argument to be made for denying gay people the right to marry. People who object to it on religious grounds are certainly feel to free that way (even though it is unfortunate that some people are that close-minded), but they have no right to step on other people's rights.

I can even understand that Churches might refuse to marry any gay couples for those same religious reasons, and they probably shouldn't be forced to, but marriage isn't only a religious institution - it's also a legal contract granting a couple certain rights, and it can easily be done without any involvement from any church. The necessary ceremony (or just signing of the contract) could be performed perfectly well in the City Hall by some clerk.

So if you don't want gay weddings in your churches, I can accept that. But you can't logically and morally justify denying gay people the same legal rights of marriage, and you don't own the term "marriage". Though I guess it would be pretty cool if gay marriage was instead called "Super Awesome Rainbow Union", maybe then the opponents would loose even their last shred of an argument against it...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

izzyisozaki said:


> Says who, you? If homosexuality was  universally accepted and given civil marriage rights + adoption, there is a possibility a lot more people would make a family without procreation. It's funny how you act like religion and society has no role in influencing sexuality and life choices. Not everyone with homosexual impulses has the courage to turn away from the heteronormative models they grew up with.





Petes12 said:


> Why do people say this when absolutely no doctor or scientist or therapist or anyone with any credibility on the matter agrees?
> 
> Different isn't the same as disorder you dumbass.



He's just trying to get attention.


----------



## CandleGuy (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I have a disorder called depression, it's naturally occurring but it's still a disorder. You have the definitions for 'disorder' and 'natural' in opposition and they're not.



While I can agree on your point of disorder and natural not necessarily being in contradiction with each other. 

You would also know that lust and frequent masturbation would also be considered disorder under catholic doctrine. So y'know I don't know if there's much of a pedestal most people can stand on when it comes to handing out disorder cards.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 5, 2012)

izzyisozaki said:


> Says who, you?If homosexuality was  universally accepted and given civil marriage rights + adoption, there is a possibility a lot more people would make a family without procreation. It's funny how you act like religion and society has no role in influencing sexuality and life choices.



There is no evidence for any theory gays can help prevent overpopulation. None.



> Not everyone with homosexual impulses has the courage to turn away from the heteronormative models they grew up with.



And what does this have to do with my post?



Petes12 said:


> Why do people say this when absolutely no doctor or scientist or therapist or anyone with any credibility on the matter agrees?
> 
> Different isn't the same as disorder you dumbass.



You appear to have misunderstood my post, especially since you’ve decided to jump in without prior reading.

I didn't say it was a disorder.

Lesexit listed a number of reasons why homosexuality isn’t a disorder and yet listed children who needs homes as a reason. So tell me how does that make sense?


----------



## Karsh (Aug 5, 2012)

What I'm getting from this is that many people don't care what people do with their money
Ironic considering people seem to care so much what government does with it


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Karsh said:


> What I'm getting from this is that many people don't care what people do with their money
> Ironic considering people seem to care so much what government does with it



Yes, I see your point, however, I think the government is highly responsible for our lively-hood as well as enforces the power to take everyone's money.


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

MbS said:


> There is no evidence for any theory gays can help prevent overpopulation. None.
> 
> And what does this have to do with my post?



There are things that occur in nature that inhibit human procreation, such as disease, homosexuality, or celibacy. They are all factors whose numbers can change depending on tecnological/cultural progression.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

MbS said:


> There?s no denying that children whose parents remain together are better off emotionally, socially and economically,



On average? Yes, on average children from two parent relationships are better off. But that doesn't mean children with single parents are bad off. 



MbS said:


> We can?t deny that in _some_ areas of employment true equality is not feasible. Men will always excel in roles involving labour over women. How do we elevate women to a position they can compete with their male counterpart? You cannot.



I don't understand. What jobs can men do that they excel over women? Sure, a lot of manual labor jobs - like carpentry, for example - are occupied predominately by men. However, there are plenty of women carpenters that are just as competent in their jobs as men. 



MbS said:


> We should encourage greater cooperation instead of immediately assuming divorce is the answer. To do so there should be the establishment of pro-marriage education and mentoring programs to teach couples how to develop skills to handle conflict and enhance the marital relationship.



This is already done though. Most couples try to work out their problems before deciding on divorce. Marriage counselors do exist. 




MbS said:


> It?s clear you?ve never been in a heterosexual relationship if you think a woman cannot make the decisions or actually ?run? the family as the matriarch. I am in no way applying women should servitude to their husbands. Men and women simply play an equal but different role in the rearing of the family.



Well I'm gay so I haven't 

Yes, there are families where the man and the woman share equal power. 

However, the women being expected to stay home or take care of the children, cooking and cleaning while the man makes most of the money is not an equal relationship. Men and women can both raise and interact with children, both clean, both cook, both make money, etc. They don't need to do different things. 



MbS said:


> This is what I?m getting from you: it?s _possible_, which means it is not certain and not the norm. A child can be raised by a single parent but they won?t be as well off as a child raised by _both_ parents.



As I said, on average. You said they fared 'much worse' which is a gross exaggeration. 



MbS said:


> There's something called ?maternal' and  ?paternal? instinct and nurturing on the parents part that cannot be replicated in a guardian or any one else. And yes, a boy can learn from an alternative male role model but without a strong one they are more likely to copy negative behaviour giving way to delinquent behaviour and such children are more likely to have emotional or behavioural problems than they will have if their biological parents stay together.



You're exaggerating. You're assuming that almost all 2 parent couples have a great relationship and raise their kids well. There are a lot of 2 parent households that are dysfunctional and are worse than single parent homes. 

A lot of children today go through having their parents divorce or separate. Most of them turn out fine. 



MbS said:


> Again, men and women play an equal but different role in the rearing of the family.



Delegating different roles is not equal. Both can do the same tasks just as well as the other. But because of sexism, women are expected to take care of the children, do the majority of the cooking and cleaning, etc. There is no reason for this. Both can share the work. 

There are houses with stay at home dads instead of moms and they function just as well. There is no need for drastically different roles.


----------



## Velocity (Aug 5, 2012)

I don't really get why people are so riled up by this sort of thing. Same-Sex Marriage is never going to be universally supported and there's nothing wrong with being against it, just as there's nothing wrong with being all for it. Who cares if some CEO is against Same-Sex Marriage? It's not like he personally funds the KKK or patrols the Meximerican border with a 12-gauge, he just doesn't agree with two guys or two women getting married.

Big. Deal.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> I don't really get why people are so riled up by this sort of thing. Same-Sex Marriage is never going to be universally supported and there's nothing wrong with being against it, just as there's nothing wrong with being all for it. Who cares if some CEO is against Same-Sex Marriage? It's not like he personally funds the KKK or patrols the Meximerican border with a 12-gauge, he just doesn't agree with two guys or two women getting married.
> 
> Big. Deal.



But he _does_ personally fund anti-gay groups with profits made from people eating at the restaurants. 

There is something wrong with being against same-sex marriage: it's called being a bigot. Denying a minority group its rights for whatever reason is wrong.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> I don't really get why people are so riled up by this sort of thing. Same-Sex Marriage is never going to be universally supported and there's nothing wrong with being against it, just as there's nothing wrong with being all for it. Who cares if some CEO is against Same-Sex Marriage? It's not like he personally funds the KKK or patrols the Meximerican border with a 12-gauge, he just doesn't agree with two guys or two women getting married.
> 
> Big. Deal.



Are you being sarcastic or is this really you posting? There's a lot wrong with being against it when those individuals are the ones actively pursuing measures to keep it from being recognized. If they wanna stew in their own ignorance, that'd be one thing, but people such as the CEO are doing no such thing they are actively supporting movements and organizations against same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

My question is this: Is it only bigotry when the person doesn't agree with same sex marriage? As in, people actively seek to make it happen and will not change, does that mean people who do the opposite are bigots?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> My question is this: Is it only bigotry when the person doesn't agree with same sex marriage? As in, people actively seek to make it happen and will not change, does that mean people who do the opposite are bigots?



Considering those against it are trying to deny the rights of same-sex couples to marry, yes. What kind of question is that?


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> My question is this: Is it only bigotry when the person doesn't agree with same sex marriage? As in, people actively seek to make it happen and will not change, does that mean people who do the opposite are bigots?



I'm not sure what you mean.

Are you asking if people who adamantly support same-sex marriage are bigots for supporting it? If so - no, they are not. They are not discriminating against anyone or infringing about others' rights.

People who are against same-sex marriage are discriminating against a minority and preventing them from gaining equal rights and treatment under the law. That's why it's bigotry.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Considering those against it are trying to deny the rights of same-sex couples to marry, yes. What kind of question is that?



Okay, thanks, just wanted to know.



			
				Definition said:
			
		

> big?ot?ry   [big-uh-tree]  Show IPA
> noun, plural big?ot?ries.
> 1.
> stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
> ...


----------



## Velocity (Aug 5, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> But he _does_ personally fund anti-gay groups with profits made from people eating at the restaurants.
> 
> There is something wrong with being against same-sex marriage: it's called being a bigot. Denying a minority group its rights for whatever reason is wrong.



Is he denying anyone anything? Does he walk up to happy couples during their wedding and throw them out the building? Does he have giant signs placed in every restaurant that denies service to same-sex couples? 

Or is he simply honest about his opinion?

I personally don't give a damn about his opinions. As long as they're just that, opinions, _nobody_ should give a damn. If he is indeed funding anti-gay organisations, all he's doing is wasting money delaying the inevitable.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> Is he denying anyone anything? Does he walk up to happy couples during their wedding and throw them out the building? Does he have giant signs placed in every restaurant that denies service to same-sex couples?
> 
> Or is he simply honest about his opinion?
> 
> I personally don't give a damn about his opinions. As long as they're just that, opinions, _nobody_ should give a damn. If he is indeed funding anti-gay organisations, *all he's doing is wasting money delaying the inevitable*.



What? 

He's doing more than that. He's contributing to the fight against my equal rights. Just because gay rights will probably be achieved at some point doesn't mean it's okay for him fight against them. He's donated millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations that fight against same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination laws in the work place, portray LGBT people as child molesters and perverts to sway public opinion. 

If he simply believed marriage is between a man and woman, that'd be fine. I'd disagree, but he has a right to his opinion. However, he's actively oppressing my rights with his millions of dollars of donations. That's completely different.


----------



## Petes12 (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> My question is this: Is it only bigotry when the person doesn't agree with same sex marriage? As in, people actively seek to make it happen and will not change, does that mean people who do the opposite are bigots?



bishop, honestly, what the fuck are you talking about? bigotry is oppressing people, not trying to gain equality. until gay people start saying only gay people should be allowed to get married and not straight people, it's not bigotry.

intolerance of bigotry isn't bigotry. it's just being a decent human being.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 5, 2012)

izzyisozaki said:


> There are things that occur in nature that inhibit human procreation, such as disease, homosexuality, or celibacy.



Yes, and you know what?

Disease is a more effective way of controlling population growth.

Homosexuals simply do not contribute to any theory pertaining to preventing over population.



> They are all factors whose numbers can change depending on tecnological/cultural progression.



Yes and:

Diseases mutate and change.

Gays do not reproduce: naturally. That does not change.

Neither do the infertile. That does not change.

Next?



Matto-sama said:


> On average? Yes, on average children from two parent relationships are better off. But that doesn't mean children with single parents are bad off.



It's higher then average.  Sure, maybe a few but that is usually only a 'possibility'.



> I don't understand. What jobs can men do that they excel over women? Sure, a lot of manual labor jobs - like carpentry, for example - are occupied predominately by men. However, there are plenty of women carpenters that are just as competent in their jobs as men.



Construction - A Male dominated occupation. Requires a lot of heavy lifting, so it's better suited for men.

Special Forces in the Military - Once gain, due to the physical demands of this job, this occupation is dominated by men.

Firefighting - I know there are women firefighters, but general;y, men are better suited for the role. A very physically demanding job.

To name a few.



> This is already done though. Most couples try to work out their problems before deciding on divorce. Marriage counselors do exist.



But do people use them?

Like I said, we should have more pro-marriage education in schools and make innovative programs organized by the States to promote the idea that marriage is the best environment in which to raise healthy, happy children who can achieve their potential and that the family is the most important institution for social well-being far more excessable.



> Well I'm gay so I haven't
> 
> Yes, there are families where the man and the woman share equal power.
> 
> However, the women being expected to stay home or take care of the children, cooking and cleaning while the man makes most of the money is not an equal relationship. Men and women can both raise and interact with children, both clean, both cook, both make money, etc. They don't need to do different things.



Almost always, women excel in a maternal role, where as men serve better as the bread winner due to manual labour being the most easily available of jobs. Yet again, different ways of parenting but both impetrative.



> As I said, on average. You said they fared 'much worse' which is a gross exaggeration.



Children living with both biological parents are 20 to 35 percent more physically healthy than children from single parent homes. I consider that significant.





> You're exaggerating. You're assuming that almost all 2 parent couples have a great relationship and raise their kids well. There are a lot of 2 parent households that are dysfunctional and are worse than single parent homes.



In a few given situations it proves to be for the best. The two situations that may prove beneficial for a person to get a divorce are abusive relationships and infidelity.





> A lot of children today go through having their parents divorce or separate. Most of them turn out fine.



Source?



> Delegating different roles is not equal. Both can do the same tasks just as well as the other. But because of sexism, women are expected to take care of the children, do the majority of the cooking and cleaning, etc. There is no reason for this. Both can share the work.
> 
> There are houses with stay at home dads instead of moms and they function just as well. There is no need for drastically different roles.



Both can do the same tasks just as well as the other? Wha?

C'mon, If that was true men and women would be biologically compatible to a tee. They're not the same, they're both built differently and men are physically stronger and emotionally tougher.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

MbS said:


> Almost always, Women excel in a maternal role, where as men serve better as the bread winner due to manual labour being the most easily available of jobs. Yet again, different ways of parenting but both impetrative.





> Both can do the same tasks just as well as the other? Wha?
> 
> C'mon, If that was true men and women would be biologically and mentally compatible. They're not the same, they're both different, and thus they are not equal.



I can't take you seriously after this, I honestly can't. 

You're just reinforcing gender stereotypes at this point. 

In most developed countries, there are many jobs that don't require extensive manual labor - jobs in the service industry, retail, etc. Never mind jobs that require a college degree. 

The idea that it's best for the women to raise children and then men to work and bring in the money and food is out-dated. 

Women can work and make money just as well as men. Men can cook and clean just as well as women. Men can interact and raise children and participate just as much in the child's upbringing.

And you just said men and women aren't equal


----------



## Opaste (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> My question is this: Is it only bigotry when the person doesn't agree with same sex marriage? As in, people actively seek to make it happen and will not change, does that mean people who do the opposite are bigots?



Of course different people can be bigoted to a different extent, and otherwise open-minded person might still be prejudiced toward some particular group, but I would say that yes, the belief that some group of people should not get some right enjoyed by other people simply because you personally don't happen to like something about that group, is fundamentally bigoted.

As I said in my earlier post a few pages back, people are certainly free to hold even hateful and bigoted views, but they can not step on other people's rights. Ideally we as a species should work to ensure that as many people as possible are free to live as happy lives as possible, but if someone just can't accept the idea that some minority group they hate has that same inalienable right to pursue happiness, then the least they could do is stay out of other people's lives and focus on their own. Wanting to stop other people from finding happiness just because you personally find them "icky" is simply spiteful. (I'm not claiming you do this even though I quoted you, I'm speaking in general)


----------



## Velocity (Aug 5, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> What?
> 
> He's doing more than that. He's contributing to the fight against my equal rights. Just because gay rights will probably be achieved at some point doesn't mean it's okay for him fight against them. He's donated millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations that fight against same-sex marriage, anti-discrimination laws in the work place, portray LGBT people as child molesters and perverts to sway public opinion.
> 
> If he simply believed marriage is between a man and woman, that'd be fine. I'd disagree, but he has a right to his opinion. However, he's actively oppressing my rights with his millions of dollars of donations. That's completely different.



And are those millions being well-spent? Is the anti-gay propaganda working? I don't agree with what he's doing, but why are you showing him that he's affecting you so much? Why're you playing the victim, calling him out for bigotry and boycotting his company? All you're doing by boycotting is interfering with the lives of the people who work and eat in those restaurants to advance your own agendas...

Stop giving a damn. There will always be people against same-sex marriage, just like there are still people who think we're their property or that "colours don't mix". It's a simple fact of life that there will always be people with their heads stuck in the stone age. So stop giving a damn about their narrow-minded views and prove how they're really only trying to stop a tsunami by building a sand castle.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Aug 5, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> I can't take you seriously after this, I honestly can't.
> 
> You're just reinforcing gender stereotypes at this point.
> 
> ...



Look, I'm a woman and I have no problem with this.

People are simply better at things then other people. How do you lump people together and say you?re equal when they all have very different strengths and weaknesses. Do we hold the advancing people back so the ones who can?t compete have an ?equal? footing? If so then that is counterproductive for society, business and the workers who have the ambition and talent to rise higher.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> bishop, honestly, what the fuck are you talking about? bigotry is oppressing people, not trying to gain equality. until gay people start saying only gay people should be allowed to get married and not straight people, it's not bigotry.
> 
> intolerance of bigotry isn't bigotry. it's just being a decent human being.



I don't know Pete, the definition of bigotry in the dictionary doesn't say that. I do understand your point though, and you won't see me arguing against you in terms of opinions, but, I just think some people in here have the right heart, but are closed-minded.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> And are those millions being well-spent? Is the anti-gay propaganda working? I don't agree with what he's doing, but why are you showing him that he's affecting you so much? Why're you playing the victim, calling him out for bigotry and boycotting his company? All you're doing by boycotting is interfering with the lives of the people who work and eat in those restaurants to advance your own agendas...
> 
> Stop giving a damn. There will always be people against same-sex marriage, just like there are still people who think we're their property or that "colours don't mix". It's a simple fact of life that there will always be people with their heads stuck in the stone age. So stop giving a damn about their narrow-minded views and prove how they're really only trying to stop a tsunami by building a sand castle.



I should stop giving a damn against people that are fighting to take away and prevent my civil rights? 

Yes, I should stop giving a damn and accept being a 2nd class citizen. 

Absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Velocity (Aug 5, 2012)

*@Matto-sama*

Right, because you're totally a second class citizen. You can't go to school, or get a job, or feed your family or receive medical attention or get credit cards or loans and every other person in the entire country wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Oh, and this guy is such an evil billionaire mastermind that he has succeeded at stripping you of your right to get married and adopt children.

So yeah, you're totally a second class citizen. I definitely see where you're coming from.


----------



## zenieth (Aug 5, 2012)

Are we really politicizing everything?


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

zenieth said:


> Are we really politicizing everything?


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

MbS said:


> Yes, and you know what?
> 
> Disease is a more effective way of controlling population growth.
> 
> ...



Nice cop out. The numbers _do_ change in relation to whether it's socially accepted or not. Just like divorce or anything permittable. If homosexual marriages are allowed, their numbers can increase, hence less progeny (theoretically).

Whether homosexuality is an effective means of population control is totally irrelevant - cos it is no less of a factor in nature that, until proved otherwise, can change in its numbers. This is like hearing someone argue that modernity has no affect on childbirth rates cos omg having babiez is a natural thing cos yeah sex is so effective as a means of procreation.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> *@Matto-sama*
> 
> Right, because you're totally a second class citizen. You can't go to school, or get a job, or feed your family or receive medical attention or get credit cards or loans and every other person in the entire country wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Oh, and this guy is such an evil billionaire mastermind that he has succeeded at stripping you of your right to get married and adopt children.
> 
> So yeah, you're totally a second class citizen. I definitely see where you're coming from.



Let me see. I have to pay higher taxes than others because of marriage rights. In the majority of the states I can be denied service at a store or restaurant for being gay. I can't have the same property and inheritance rights because the federal government wouldn't recognize my marriage. In most states, I wouldn't be able to adopt children with a partner. Adoption agencies can turn me away for being gay. Violent hate crime rates against LGBT people are higher than any other minority in the US. 

I have fewer rights than straight citizens. That is a fact. That makes me a second class citizen. 

Just because I have most rights doesn't mean everything is okay.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> *@Matto-sama*
> 
> Right, because you're totally a second class citizen. You can't go to school, or get a job, or feed your family or receive medical attention or get credit cards or loans and every other person in the entire country wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.


Now you're just making a strawman. It's like saying black US citizens in the south during the 50s can't possibly be treated as second class citizens just because they actually can go to school, get a job, medical care, and credit as if that somehow is the only barometer that determines whether or not they enjoy the same level of rights as others. It's questionable to even say that's the case now.

Not having access to the legal contract of marriage as far as how it matters in taxes, life death decisions for a comatose partner, etc while a lot of others do by a vast majority is basically second class citizen status. I would say he has more than enough reason to care. Arguing that there will always be bigots isn't enough to suggest that people shouldn't care about how said bigots influence government legislature and social interactions in society at large.


----------



## zenieth (Aug 5, 2012)

Seriously, where was the uproar when Juarez was a thing, and still is.

I can't take this seriously because the paper trail for most things ends up in places we damn well don't want them to. And a good deal of them are literally just one transaction away.


----------



## Velocity (Aug 5, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> Let me see. I have to pay higher taxes than others because of marriage rights.



Stopped right there. Guess what? I have to pay higher taxes than married couples, too.

OMG I'M A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!


----------



## zenieth (Aug 5, 2012)

Winny, just smile and look pretty, cause jesus christ your words.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Okay, thanks, just wanted to know.





Bishop said:


> I don't know Pete, the definition of bigotry in the dictionary doesn't say that. I do understand your point though, and you won't see me arguing against you in terms of opinions, but, I just think some people in here have the right heart, but are closed-minded.



I had a feeling I'd see a failed attempt at cleverness from you. It's quite moronic, your attempted defense of actual bigotry. No one is denying them the right to have such an opinion, the line stops when their bigotry drives them to actively try and deny these people their rights. The attempts of a group to deny another their rights has never been acceptable.



Velocity said:


> *@Matto-sama*
> 
> Right, because you're totally a second class citizen. You can't go to school, or get a job, or feed your family or receive medical attention or get credit cards or loans and every other person in the entire country wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Oh, and this guy is such an evil billionaire mastermind that he has succeeded at stripping you of your right to get married and adopt children.
> 
> So yeah, you're totally a second class citizen. I definitely see where you're coming from.



This is moronic. One being homosexual opens themselves to a myriad of issues including sexual repression, and discrimination to varying degrees depending on where one lives. In this country, a significant portion of the population still view it as some kind of disease you can catch, and that those whom are homosexual have something wrong with them. A significant portion that still think being homosexual is a choice, and a sinful one at that. Gays for the most part, may have the same rights on paper but that is not the same as society treating them equally. Many are driven to depression, denial, and even suicide because of how their community and even the people close to them would view their homosexuality. Shouldn't the fact that one of our major parties runs on a successful platform of anti-gay bigotry tell you enough?


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> Stopped right there. Guess what? I have to pay higher taxes than married couples, too.
> 
> OMG I'M A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN!



You have the ability to pay equal taxes. I do not. You can get married and have it recognized by the government while I cannot. If you cannot understand this simple concept and refuse to acknowledge that I have fewer rights than you do, I'm done with you.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Gays for the most part, may have the same rights on paper



But I don't have the same rights on paper.


----------



## Sanity Check (Aug 5, 2012)

MbS said:


> Look, I'm a woman and I have no problem with this.
> 
> People are simply better at things then other people. How do you lump people together and say you?re equal when they all have very different strengths and weaknesses. Do we hold the advancing people back so the ones who can?t compete have an ?equal? footing? If so then that is counterproductive for society, business and the workers who have the ambition and talent to rise higher.



I would rep that ↑ if I could.  

Gender equality doesn't imply men lacking mammary glands are well suited to breast feed children or that women who lack upper body strength are well suited to open lids or lug furniture.  Its a question of necessity and circumstances.  Just as everyone can't be a rockstar or celebrity in life.  No matter how much you preach gender equality men will still be unable to give birth to children.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I had a feeling I'd see a failed attempt at cleverness from you. It's quite moronic, your attempted defense of actual bigotry. No one is denying them the right to have such an opinion, the line stops when their bigotry drives them to actively try and deny these people their rights. The attempts of a group to deny another their rights has never been acceptable.



Wrong again Seto. I showed the definition of bigotry, what you are using is not bigotry; you are simply speaking emotionally about certain actions and calling it bigotry. I need no cleverness to point out your incorrect usage of words. 

I do ask, show me proof that it becomes bigotry when they _actively try to deny_. Just show me where this is proven as bigotry, as the definition I read doesn't even cover this.




> big?ot   [big-uht]  Show IPA
> noun
> a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I would rep that ↑ if I could.
> 
> Gender equality doesn't imply men lacking mammary glands are well suited to breast feed children or that women who lack upper body strength are well suited to open lids or lug furniture.  Its a question of necessity and circumstances.  Just as everyone can't be a rockstar or celebrity in life.  No matter how much you preach gender equality men will still be unable to give birth to children.



What the hell does any of that have to do with women and men both working and taking care of the children and the house equally?


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> I would rep that ↑ if I could.
> 
> Gender equality doesn't imply men lacking mammary glands are well suited to breast feed children or that women who lack upper body strength are well suited to open lids or lug furniture.  Its a question of necessity and circumstances.  Just as everyone can't be a rockstar or celebrity in life.  No matter how much you preach gender equality men will still be unable to give birth to children.



These aren't cavemen times. Men and women have equal opportunities at effectively raising children. Anyone who has had a male single-parent can testify for this.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Wrong again Seto. I showed the definition of bigotry, what you are using is not bigotry; you are simply speaking emotionally about certain actions and calling it bigotry. I need no cleverness to point out your incorrect usage of words.



It's bigotry that drives them, that is to *discriminate* against homosexuals and deny them their rights, so again, a massively failed attempt at being clever on your part.



> a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance





> 1
> : the state of mind of a bigot
> 2
> : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot



Like I stated, massive fail on your part.



> I do ask, show me proof that it becomes bigotry when they _actively try to deny_. Just show me where this is proven as bigotry, as the definition I read doesn't even cover this.



They are driven by bigotry to actively try and deny the rights. It's moronic your questions and demands, as the very fact that they are actively trying to deny a group of people their rights, discriminating against them (hint: bigotry), based on who they are with no objective reasoning on why there'd be negative consequences in giving them such rights is proof in itself. Homosexuality is viewed as a lesser status to such individuals, morally or otherwise, often derived from religion; which is a large driving force behind their objections to LGBT individuals and their rights.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Please show me your source Seto.


----------



## Velocity (Aug 5, 2012)

zenieth said:


> Winny, just smile and look pretty, cause jesus christ your words.



I just don't get it. One guy openly says he's against same-sex marriage and it quickly becomes about "we're second class citizens because of people like him because he secretly funds organisations that exist for no reason other than to oppress us". An understandable statement, perhaps, albeit leaning towards paranoia.

We might be talking about stuff that was resolved here in England eight years ago, but I don't get why people think that there is no progress being made or that this guy is actually somehow stopping bills being passed. Yeah, he's rich and he can curry favour with other important people, but he isn't leading a doube life where he's a mild mannered CEO by day and a homophobic supervillain by night.

We've gone from a guy that openly doesn't recognise same-sex marriage to an evil billionaire mastermind who is manipulating government officials and spending millions of his own money to fund gangs who live to do nothing but beat up gay people, crash their weddings so they can't finish the service or work in stores and restaurants for no reason other than to refuse gay people service.

This is almost as absurd as that "Piracy Funds Terrorism" campaign a few years ago. Yeah the guy is a jerk and he's pointlessly trying to stop the inevitable, but so what? He's never going to change his mind. No amount of demonstrations or boycotts will affect him. Worrying about what he says, what he does, is pointless. Trying to stop him opposing gay marriage is as much of a waste of time as him opposing gay marriage in the first place. He isn't going to be able to stop Obama making gay marriage legal in every state, just as nobody is ever going to be able to stop him from being against gay marriage.

So why bother getting so riled up when waiting him out is guaranteed to see you come out on top?


----------



## Sanity Check (Aug 5, 2012)

Matto-sama said:


> What the hell does any of that have to do with women and men both working and taking care of the children and the house equally?



In most cases, men are paid more.  Women are better suited to breast feeding.  

Those are only two variables out of many.  But, if both are true, then it makes circumstantial sense for a husband to work while his wife stays home and breast feeds their child considering either won't necessarily be well suited to the opposite role.



izzyisozaki said:


> These aren't cavemen times. Men and women have equal opportunities at effectively raising children. Anyone who has had a male single-parent can testify for this.



No one said, they didn't.

Only that the reason for gender stereotypes has a circumstantial bearing involving necessity.


----------



## Petes12 (Aug 5, 2012)

that's not paranoia. the guy actually funded that shit. and he funded a hate group that funnelled millions into supporting the uganda kill the gays law so, you know, he's effectively supporting the equivalent of genocide


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

As a former person that was against homosexual marriage, I admit it was my bigotry; I had no active interest in the same-sex at the time (mostly found it squicky) so I could not relate to homo/bisexuals in that sense. I didn't care or particularly sympathize with their protests. I didn't grow up with religious fanatics or anything to feel like that. It's something ingrained into the society of whom doesn't see enough homosexuality in the open. It's like mixed-race couple thing. If you don't see it practiced openly, let alone permitted marriage, people will not get used to it.


----------



## zenieth (Aug 5, 2012)

Come on now, that athlete is having way to much fun at whatever the hell she's doing.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It's bigotry that drives them, that is to *discriminate* against homosexuals and deny them their rights, so again, a massively failed attempt at being clever on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After going to check for your source I found it; you are incorrect again. Acting as a bigot does not deny outwardly but rather inwardly as of intolerance. 

I ask again Seto, show me proof where _actively denying someone else something_ is bigotry.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Please show me your source Seto.



As this goes on all across the country, and there are so many examples, I just wanted to list a few for you. I already know your stances on these issues, so maybe it's pointless:



The ballot initiative in California to put the RIGHTS of gays to marry to a vote, something which is unconstitutional.



Amendment One in NC, same purpose. Actually, it went even further as not even civil unions among heterosexual couples are recognized either. 

These are other examples:



This is a nationwide example:



As I stated, which you keep avoiding, it's bigotry that drives the attempts to deny homosexuals their rights. They look at them as outside the norm, and as lesser people. They hate homosexuality, and they have unfounded fears of what it could lead to. There's no objective reason to deny them their rights, it's based on people's intolerance of homosexuality.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 5, 2012)

Velocity said:


> I just don't get it. One guy openly says he's against same-sex marriage and it quickly becomes about "we're second class citizens because of people like him because he secretly funds organisations that exist for no reason other than to oppress us". An understandable statement, perhaps, albeit leaning towards paranoia.



His company gives funds to groups that have a policy that encourages the demonization of homosexuality and even the cause of numerous deaths as suicide occurs when you attempt to brainwash people when it comes to their sexuality. Not to mention giving funds to an organization with an anti-gay marriage policy. It's not so much paranoia but more a matter of bothering to notice reality.

Beyond that, your post is one big strawman fallacy.


----------



## Petes12 (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> After going to check for your source I found it; you are incorrect again. Acting as a bigot does not deny outwardly but rather inwardly as of intolerance.
> 
> I ask again Seto, show me proof where _actively denying someone else something_ is bigotry.



what is with your retarded racist/homophobia apologist bullshit. even if bigotry wasn't the right word, and it is, that doesn't matter. just shut the fuck up.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> As this goes on all across the country, and there are so many examples, I just wanted to list a few for you. I already know your stances on these issues, so maybe it's pointless:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once again, you fail to grasp it. Show me where this is defined as bigotry.

You know what, just forget it because you'll never find it and will only be fustrated. What you are referring to is called _oppression_. I was attempting to show you that you were using the wrong word as they are not interchangeable nor is one who seeks to oppress by default a bigot. 

A bigot is simply someone who refuses to accept another opinion on a matter, nothing more. I feel, like the word epic, people have made the word more broad than it really is


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> what is with your retarded racist/homophobia apologist bullshit. even if bigotry wasn't the right word, and it is, that doesn't matter. just shut the fuck up.



So emotional Pete. Please, tell me where I was racist. Also, show me where I was apologetic. Please, show me where I was homophobic.


----------



## Petes12 (Aug 5, 2012)

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :* one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance*

dumbass


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> In most cases, men are paid more.  Women are better suited to breast feeding.
> 
> Those are only two variables out of many.  But, if both are true, then it makes circumstantial sense for a husband to work while his wife stays home and breast feeds their child considering either won't necessarily be well suited to the opposite role.



Because breastfeeding is the only aspect of raising a child. And there isn't baby formula either. 

And a child stays a baby forever. 

Women can go out and make just as much as a man. It's true there is inequality in pay, but in many households women can and do contribute equally or near equally in income. 

Men can nurture and take care of children too. There are stay at home dads, you know. 

Both parents can work and both parents can share the responsibility of raising a child and taking care of the house. I don't know why people can't understand this and look past stupid gender roles.


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

can we chill out a bit

this is like the last thing a bisexual wants to see

two factions clawing at each other like they're totally incompatible



zenieth said:


> Come on now, that athlete is having way to much fun at whatever the hell she's doing.



Cos she's there to win. At everything.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 5, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :* one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance*
> 
> dumbass



Once again you fail Pete: in this situation hatred is not used and civil unions are offered. So neither is a factor, that's why I didn't address it because I thought it was common knowledge.


----------



## Opaste (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Once again, you fail to grasp it. Show me where this is defined as bigotry.
> 
> You know what, just forget it because you'll never find it and will only be fustrated. What you are referring to is called _oppression_. I was attempting to show you that you were using the wrong word as they are not interchangeable nor is one who seeks to oppress by default a bigot.
> 
> A bigot is simply someone who refuses to accept another opinion on a matter, nothing more. I feel, like the word epic, people have made the word more broad than it really is



Not quite. Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines a bigot as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; _especially_ : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." It's important not to omit that latter part of the definition.

Though seeing as I've already written two posts about the subject on this thread (one of which was partially a reply to you) which have been quite effectively ignored, I'm wondering if I actually have enough clout around here to effectively take part in the conversation


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Once again you fail Pete: in this situation hatred is not used and civil unions are offered. So neither is a factor, that's why I didn't address it because I thought it was common knowledge.



"Separate but equal is inherently unequal" 

Civil unions are also not recognized by the federal government.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Once again, you fail to grasp it. Show me where this is defined as bigotry.
> 
> You know what, just forget it because you'll never find it and will only be fustrated. What you are referring to is called _oppression_. I was attempting to show you that you were using the wrong word as they are not interchangeable nor is one who seeks to oppress by default a bigot.
> 
> A bigot is simply someone who refuses to accept another opinion on a matter, nothing more. I feel, like the word epic, people have made the word more broad than it really is



It seems the only frustration is coming from you. You tried to be one of those many that go on some attempt to defend the bigots and you failed hard at it:



> "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's
> punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." - Jerry Falwell




*Spoiler*: _Newt Gingrich is "G"_ 





> L: Let’s move on to another important topic, another important battle, the attack by homosexuals on God-ordained, God-defined one only man/woman marriage. I didn’t see anything in your book about that.
> 
> G: Well, I favor a Constitutional amendment to protect the traditional family and I think we should have such an amendment.
> 
> ...









> "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to i*c*st, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." and "Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." ~ Rick Santorum





> “It isn’t that some gay will get some rights. It’s that everyone else in our state will lose rights. For instance, parents will lose the right to protect and direct the upbringing of their children. Because our K-12 public school system, of which ninety per cent of all youth are in the public school system, they will be required to learn that homosexuality is normal, equal and perhaps you should try it. And that will occur immediately, that all schools will begin teaching homosexuality.” ~ Michelle Bachmann





> “It not only is a complete undermining of the principles of family and marriage and the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down to the extent that that foundational unit of the family that is the hope of survival of this country is diminished to the extent that it literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.” ~ Trent Franks





> 'I think it's a sin because of my biblical beliefs and, although people don't agree with me, I happen to think that it is a personal choice,' ~Herman Cain





> Homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. ~ The Catholic Church's official stance on homosexuality





> We affirm God's plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a "valid alternative lifestyle." The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ. ~Baptist Church on homosexuality



I overestimated you in that I thought this didn't have to be spelled out for you, but I was wrong about that at least. 



> Once again you fail Pete: in this situation hatred is not used and civil unions are offered. So neither is a factor, that's why I didn't address it because I thought it was common knowledge.



"Separate but equal" has never been such. Many states don't even offer unions of any kind to same-sex couples. Your attempts to deny the bigotry that drives the anti-gay movement have been nothing short of a critical failure.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

So wait, some cities tried to make CFA opening there illegal? That's a bigger news story than this, that's completely illegal. In fact for once it seems like the Right is actually right in saying the Left is trying to wage war on them...

This is something that just makes those mayors look like ass holes. Also fuck San Fransisco (and the rest of California).


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Fuck Texas.



Texas is a state that actually does have it's books in the green. California is just proof that bigots come on both sides of the fence.


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Only that the reason for gender stereotypes has a circumstantial bearing involving necessity.



that's great and I think everyone knows that to an extent which is why worrying about proving it is kinda desperate. As long as women will love their children they'll be more than happy to change their diapers and breastfeed them so there is nothing wrong to promote equality in duties.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 5, 2012)

izzyisozaki said:


> that's great and I think everyone knows that to an extent which is why worrying about proving it is kinda desperate. As long as women will love their children they'll be more than happy to change their diapers and breastfeed them so there is nothing wrong to promote equality in duties.


How did you guys get on the subject of kids? A lot of kids have NO PARENTS, having gay ones is the least of their worries.


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Texas is a state that actually does have it's books in the green. California is just proof that bigots come on both sides of the fence.



Every 1 out of 4 Texans has no health insurance. 


Texas is also a center on the school --> prison pipeline and arrests and fines children things that would normally warrant detention and/or suspension. 

*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-39GhipPDE&feature=plcp[/YOUTUBE]




Texas is also ranked 27th for HDI (Human development Index) compared to California being ranked 4th. 


Texas is a horrible state.


----------



## izzyisozaki (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> How did you guys get on the subject of kids? A lot of kids have NO PARENTS, having gay ones is the least of their worries.



cos apparently believing gender roles can exist on a ground of equal opportunity is something strange? i dunno I just commented

well as for what kids want they usually want what they see is the norm. If they see other parents have a mom and a dad and they don't have one of the two they will likely desire one.

it definitely isn't the 'least' of their worries. Wanting a mother and a father is something one learns about from their earliest age.

it cannot be expected that mere children, without a society that openly acknowledges it as a model on various levels, will not desire those conventional figures. You'd have to be naive to think kids even take homosexuality in such serious consideration. Occasionally kids can touch each other without inhibitions with another of the same-sex but they are not even ready to understand what it is to them. But a female mother figure, and a male father figure, they know what that means.


----------



## drache (Aug 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So wait, some cities tried to make CFA opening there illegal? That's a bigger news story than this, that's completely illegal. In fact for once it seems like the Right is actually right in saying the Left is trying to wage war on them...
> 
> This is something that just makes those mayors look like ass holes. Also fuck San Fransisco (and the rest of California).



cities have the right to deny operating licenses if people don't like that elect a new mayor

and there is no war just action and consequence



Seto Kaiba said:


> Fuck Texas.



best post yet seto lol



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Texas is a state that actually does have it's books in the green. California is just proof that bigots come on both sides of the fence.



yes texas has it's books in the black (not green) but only because the goverment there does all of jack shit for it's citizens and spends more time attacking critical thinking and homosexauls

seto is right, fuck texas it's an embarressment


----------



## Petes12 (Aug 5, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Once again you fail Pete: in this situation hatred is not used and civil unions are offered. So neither is a factor, that's why I didn't address it because I thought it was common knowledge.


so there's no hatred behind the kill the gays bill?

shut up idiot.


----------



## LesExit (Aug 5, 2012)

Hey I'm actually in the pea sized amount of blue there is on that map 
YAY CT!


----------



## Mithos (Aug 5, 2012)

LesExit said:


> Hey I'm actually in the pea sized amount of blue there is on that map
> YAY CT!



I'm in the blue too!  

Yay Massachusetts!


----------



## Karsh (Aug 6, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Yes, I see your point, however, I think the government is highly responsible for our lively-hood as well as enforces the power to take everyone's money.



In a country where you choose your government, I disagree
it's all a choice and it tells me people will set aside their convictions for a certain taste of food of all things, as if they don't have all the food in the world already from which to choose from

it's rather shameful though perhaps unsurprising


----------



## zenieth (Aug 6, 2012)

It's unbelievably idioctic to tie your convictions to brands that you use, because a number of them likely do shit that you'd never support any day of the week. This isn't a matter of compromising convictions for delicious food. 

This is ultimately politicizing products which is stupid, cause six degrees of separation is actually a thing and a lot of shit you fund would keep you awake at night. Unless you're totally self sufficient.

Then good on you bro.

Indirectly sticking it to "The man"(What ever man that might be) isn't going to get a lot done unless you know that you're sticking it to every single indirect source, cause there'll always be some fund somewhere unless you root out the cause.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Aug 6, 2012)

The thread is just petty bullshit, people whining about Texas when I bring up a business being unable to open in a place when we're supposed to have a system where businesses aren't discriminated on because of the CEO's views. (whining about Texas because I mentioned something completely unconstitutional that three cities tried to do)

You people act like fucking children, instead of actually caring about point you just argue the Fox/MSNBC news cycle. You're the kind of clowns that would be at chick-fil-a kissing each other or protesting like it makes a fucking difference. We don't have equality for 99% of the country and a lot of businesses are involved in that. You want to make a difference, then do it. But stop bickering over the hot topic bullshit the media makes a big deal YEARS after it's well known.

A lot of the gays in this country are starting to get like a lot of blacks have and they're more concerned with everyone liking them than legal equality. Everyone is NEVER going to like you, get the fuck over it. People will call you ^ (use bro), ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), spic, etc until there aren't races and everyone is bi. The sooner you focus on the legal and stop worrying about "but he said!" the better.


----------



## neodragzero (Aug 6, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thread is just petty bullshit, people whining about Texas when I bring up a business being unable to open in a place when we're supposed to have a system where businesses aren't discriminated on because of the CEO's views. (whining about Texas because I mentioned something completely unconstitutional that three cities tried to do)


...True. I can actually agree with this point somewhat.


> You people act like fucking children, instead of actually caring about point you just argue the Fox/MSNBC news cycle. You're the kind of clowns that would be at chick-fil-a kissing each other or protesting like it makes a fucking difference. We don't have *equality* for 99% of the country and a lot of businesses are involved in that.


I would say it's better to phrase "unsustainable economic disparity" as far as how certain businesses and certain wealthy individuals have affected the 99%.


> A lot of the gays in this country are starting to get like a lot of blacks have and they're more concerned with everyone liking them than legal equality.


...Uh, where is the source of your claim there?


> The sooner you focus on the legal and stop worrying about "but he said!" the better.


Are you suggesting that LGBT people are not focused on the legal but more on "but he said!"?


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thread is just petty bullshit, people whining about Texas when I bring up a business being unable to open in a place when we're supposed to have a system where businesses aren't discriminated on because of the CEO's views. (whining about Texas because I mentioned something completely unconstitutional that three cities tried to do)
> 
> You people act like fucking children, instead of actually caring about point you just argue the Fox/MSNBC news cycle. You're the kind of clowns that would be at chick-fil-a kissing each other or protesting like it makes a fucking difference. We don't have equality for 99% of the country and a lot of businesses are involved in that. You want to make a difference, then do it. But stop bickering over the hot topic bullshit the media makes a big deal YEARS after it's well known.
> 
> A lot of the gays in this country are starting to get like a lot of blacks have and they're more concerned with everyone liking them than legal equality. Everyone is NEVER going to like you, get the fuck over it. People will call you ^ (use bro), ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), spic, etc until there aren't races and everyone is bi. The sooner you focus on the legal and stop worrying about "but he said!" the better.




you still miss the point but who really cares about your outrage? you don't like this wonderful go play else where


----------



## navy (Aug 6, 2012)

Im still eating chic-fil-a.


----------



## Karsh (Aug 6, 2012)

zenieth said:


> It's unbelievably idioctic to tie your convictions to brands that you use, because a number of them likely do shit that you'd never support any day of the week. This isn't a matter of compromising convictions for delicious food.
> 
> This is ultimately politicizing products which is stupid, cause six degrees of separation is actually a thing and a lot of shit you fund would keep you awake at night. Unless you're totally self sufficient.
> 
> ...



Cool story bro, you don't have to either do your homework on the brands you use or give a shit at all, that's entirely up to you


----------



## Roman (Aug 6, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thread is just petty bullshit, people whining about Texas when I bring up a business being unable to open in a place when we're supposed to have a system where businesses aren't discriminated on because of the CEO's views. (whining about Texas because I mentioned something completely unconstitutional that three cities tried to do)



I've grown quite tired of saying this isn't just about the CEO's opinion, but it's how he uses his company's money to fund anti-gay groups and hate organizations. It's hardly petty when there's a solid reason to complain here. Perhaps not about Texas but the company itself.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You people act like fucking children, instead of actually caring about point you just argue the Fox/MSNBC news cycle. You're the kind of clowns that would be at chick-fil-a kissing each other or protesting like it makes a fucking difference. We don't have equality for 99% of the country and a lot of businesses are involved in that. You want to make a difference, then do it. But stop bickering over the hot topic bullshit the media makes a big deal YEARS after it's well known.



You might have a point here, but since when aren't people allowed to express their opinion just because they can't make a difference? We may as well do away with this entire forum because no one here will be able to change the world, or influence how Kishimoto writes his manga. What's the point of talking about anything since we can't make a difference? That's what you're basically saying here.


----------



## Palpatine (Aug 6, 2012)




----------



## navy (Aug 6, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A lot of the gays in this country are starting to get like a lot of blacks *have* and they're more concerned with everyone liking them than legal equality. .



Before I post a "U-mad?" picture, what do you mean by "have"? What legal equality do blacks have left to concern with?





Freedan said:


> I've grown quite tired of saying this isn't just about the CEO's opinion, but it's how he uses his company's money to fund anti-gay groups and hate organizations. It's hardly petty when there's a solid reason to complain here. Perhaps not about Texas but the company itself.



I disagree. He can use the money however he wants.

Supporting traditional marriage does not always equal hatred...


----------



## Roman (Aug 6, 2012)

navy said:


> I disagree. He can use the money however he wants.
> 
> Supporting traditional marriage does not always equal hatred...



Supporting organizations that supported the bill in Uganda advocating for an organized state execution of homosexuals (sound familiar?), as well as other organizations that teach being homosexual is wrong, is not what I would call merely supporting "traditional" marriage. I would call that supporting hate groups. I should also, again, specify that traditional marriage is NOT a religious one, but one where the daughter is sold off to another family so the two sides can pool their resources. That's what marriage has been since the beginning of human civilization.


----------



## navy (Aug 6, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Supporting organizations that supported the bill in Uganda advocating for an organized state execution of homosexuals (sound familiar?), as well as other organizations that teach being homosexual is wrong, is not what I would call merely supporting "traditional" marriage. I would call that supporting hate groups. I should also, again, specify that traditional marriage is NOT a religious one, but one where the daughter is sold off to another family so the two sides can pool their resources. That's what marriage has been since the beginning of human civilization.



I said "always"

You knew perfectly well what I meant by _Traditional_.

But, "marriage" has indeed changed. So _eventually_ it will be accepted politically.


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2012)

navy said:


> I said "always"
> 
> You knew perfectly well what I meant by _Traditional_.
> 
> But, "marriage" has indeed changed. So _eventually_ it will be accepted politically.



the entire point is that the concept of 'marriage' has dramatically changed over the course of history so to appeal to 'traditional marriage' marks one as either a stupid ignorant fool or a desperate bigot


----------



## navy (Aug 6, 2012)

drache said:


> the entire point is that the concept of 'marriage' has dramatically changed over the course of history so to appeal to 'traditional marriage'* marks one as either a stupid ignorant fool or a desperate bigot*



Insults dont help arguments. But I do agree with you...


----------



## Roman (Aug 6, 2012)

navy said:


> I said "always"



But considering you also said he can use his money however he wants, you're indicating Chick-Fil-A supporting groups like the Family Research Council is perfectly fine because they're not a hate group. Problem is, they are.



navy said:


> You knew perfectly well what I meant by _Traditional_.



You know perfectly well I meant your definition of "traditional" is wrong.



navy said:


> But, "marriage" has indeed changed. So _eventually_ it will be accepted politically.



The point is that the traditional definition of marriage has no relation or bearing to religious beliefs. It was always about money and resources between families and businesses.



navy said:


> Insults dont help arguments. But I do agree with you...



He wasn't insulting you specifically.


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2012)

navy said:


> Insults dont help arguments. But I do agree with you...



I wasn't insulting you I was pointing out the only 2 logical conclusions I can think of to using the term 'traditional marriage' to mean something other then what traditional marriage actually was


----------



## Revolution (Aug 11, 2012)

Oh, the inuendo's never stop at Popey's/KFC/ChickFil'et

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmdc9RIhmOI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Jαmes (Aug 11, 2012)

i've never even heard of chic-fil-a.


----------

