Chick-fil-A Calgary Airport

[FraserB]

Has anyone ever tried Chick-fil-A? One is opening in the airport and I figured I'd give it a try on my way through this week.

[Env-Consultant]

Make sure you get an order of homophobia with a side of intolerance. Don't forget to let them know it's the 21st century and they can stop living like underevolved cavepeople.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

[93VR6]

Personally I don't care about their view on marriage, I'm there to eat chicken.

I am opposed to them trying to sue the eat more kale guy; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/eat-more-kale-lawsuit/

My name happens to be Kale and I order shirts and hoodies from this guy all the time, he always includes a hand written letter and 5-10 stickers, one of the most pleasant people I've had the pleasure of corresponding with.

[Dalking]

its been open for weeks now, dont know why people talk it up so much, i prefer kfc lol

[n1zm0]

I tried it in Florida, it's not bad, the chicken sandwich mcmuffin thing, then later something like fried chicken with biscuits and gravy, it was good but it's still just fast food in the end.

[xnvy]

Yum Yum Chicken. 'Nuff said.

Personally, i didn't find Chick-Fil-A to be all that great.

[trieu]

Love the waffle fries!

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant
Make sure you get an order of homophobia with a side of intolerance. Don't forget to let them know it's the 21st century and they can stop living like underevolved cavepeople.

Ya like the peons working at the Calgary Airport location know anything about Chick-fil-A's corporate policy much less have the ability to modify it :rolleyes:

They're stuck in the dark ages, but if they make a tastey chicken sandwich I could care less.

[dino_martini]

Wanted to try it this past Sunday but of course being religious they were closed. Another time I suppose.

[RX_EVOLV]

Tried it in Salt Lake City couple weeks ago. They were okay. Nothing special imo.

[ercchry]

do they serve cream pies too? :rofl:

[bjstare]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant
Make sure you get an order of homophobia with a side of intolerance. Don't forget to let them know it's the 21st century and they can stop living like underevolved cavepeople.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

Who cares.

They aren't leading our country, it's a fast food company.

If the chicken is good, eat it.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by cjblair


If the chicken is good, eat it.

It isn't good, at least not the 2 locations in the US I went to years back. I didn't think you could make chicken greasier than KFC, I was proven wrong.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


It isn't good, at least not the 2 locations in the US I went to years back. I didn't think you could make chicken greasier than KFC, I was proven wrong.

Haha well I haven't had chik-fil-a, but one thing I can tell you is that greasy != bad. haha I can definitely think of some great tasting greasy food (/chicken)

[Xtrema]

My Chic-Fil-A experience in Florida was great customer service. Food is good for fast food.

But just like Five Guys, what's good in Florida doesn't really transfer to Canada because food sources are different.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Env-Consultant
Make sure you get an order of homophobia with a side of intolerance. Don't forget to let them know it's the 21st century and they can stop living like underevolved cavepeople.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
Right....Just because a company or person takes a moral stand on something they are automatically "homophobic," intolerant, and "underevolved cavepeople"?

Firstly, that is very intolerant thing you have just said. Secondly, the term "homophobia" is such a non-sense term and is a straw man. There are likely some true homophobics but the vast majority of people who oppose same sex marriage do so on moral grounds, not some irrational fear of gays. It really seems these days that people prefer to just rehash everything they read off the Internet instead of actually think for themselves. It's very unfortunate but it is a byproduct of this new definition of "tolerance."

So they've taken a moral stand on something, so what? Either eat their food or don't but do it based on rational reasons.

[A790]

Originally posted by duaner
So they've taken a moral stand on something, so what? Either eat their food or don't but do it based on rational reasons.
You implying his reasons for not eating there is irrational is intolerant, by the way.

Given that Chick-Fil-A has made donations to organizations known to actively campaign against equality for gay couples, I'd say it's safe to say that they're pretty intolerant regarding the issue.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night bud. Go enjoy your chicken.

[Speed_69]

I've had Chick-fil-A at the Calgary airport and would definitely say it's a good chicken sandwich, better than KFC. The menu is small and is rather expensive for fast food, but both service and food are good. The waffle fries are really good too!

[duaner]

Originally posted by A790

You implying his reasons for not eating there is irrational is intolerant, by the way.
Of course it's intolerant, in the classic definition of the word. Intolerance presupposes a difference of opinion but that one chooses to live and let live, to agree to disagree. Not this new definition where it is used a pejorative term as though it is so awful to be intolerant; basically being the equivalent of bigotry.

Although I should say that if his decision to eat there is based on his moral grounds, then he is twice a hypocrite--once for being intolerant while calling them intolerant, and the second for disparaging them for taking a moral stand and then not eating there based on his own morality.


Originally posted by A790
Given that Chick-Fil-A has made donations to organizations known to actively campaign against equality for gay couples, I'd say it's safe to say that they're pretty intolerant regarding the issue.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night bud. Go enjoy your chicken.
Again, "intolerant." What do you mean by that term?

Thanks, I do enjoy my chicken but I have never eaten there.

[A790]

Originally posted by duaner
Intolerance presupposes a difference of opinion but that one chooses to live and let live, to agree to disagree. Not this new definition where it is used a pejorative term as though it is so awful to be intolerant; basically being the equivalent of bigotry.

Adapt or die? :dunno:


Originally posted by duaner
Although I should say that if his decision to eat there is based on his moral grounds, then he is twice a hypocrite--once for being intolerant while calling them intolerant, and the second for disparaging them for taking a moral stand and then not eating there based on his own morality.

Again, "intolerant." What do you mean by that term?
I'm not interested in splitting hairs with you just because you've decided you don't like the way a word is used now. Let me know which word I should use when trying to identify something as "actively campaigning against equality for other sexual orientations". :thumbsup:

[suntan]

Meh. If I stopped doing business with everybody that held a prejudiced view, I'd be broke and dead.

Racism, misogyny, ageism, classism ... They're all still alive and well in Calgary. And 99% of the time, it's white guys that hold those views. Yippee.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by suntan
Racism, misogyny, ageism, classism ... They're all still alive and well in Calgary. And 99% of the time, it's white guys that hold those views. Yippee.

I find educated white guys tends to be less of those things.

Minorities are more racist than white guys.

[suntan]

I know lots of educated white guys that are those things. I still get called "CHINK" by "educated" white guys, for fuck's sake.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Xtrema


I find educated white guys tends to be less of those things.

Minorities are more racist than white guys.

:werd:

depositing a cheque at the bank, EI girl goes "arnt you a little young to have that much money" to the wife :nut:

so professional... but then again she does still get ID'd every time we go out :rofl:

[bjstare]

Originally posted by ercchry


:werd:

depositing a cheque at the bank, EI girl goes "arnt you a little young to have that much money" to the wife :nut:

so professional... but then again she does still get ID'd every time we go out :rofl:

#humblebrag

[Isaiah]

#notsohumble

[lilmira]

Originally posted by Xtrema


I find educated white guys tends to be less of those things.

Minorities are more racist than white guys.

Being a minority gives you immunity!

http://www.freshbikescycling.com/merchant/3351/images/site/diplomaticimmunity.jpg

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by cjblair


#humblebrag

Ding! :rofl:

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by ercchry


:werd:

depositing a cheque at the bank, EI girl goes "arnt you a little young to have that much money" to the wife :nut:



How on earth is that racist?

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by suntan
CHINK

That's funny because I haven't even heard this word for probably 10-15 years. In fact, I had forgotten it even existed until you mentioned it.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok



How on earth is that racist?

ageist... wasnt that clear? we were talking about all the ist's :dunno:

cause usually if you are intolerant of one thing then well...

[A790]

Originally posted by suntan
Meh. If I stopped doing business with everybody that held a prejudiced view, I'd be broke and dead.

Racism, misogyny, ageism, classism ... They're all still alive and well in Calgary. And 99% of the time, it's white guys that hold those views. Yippee.
Those things exist in every society. A friend of mine is in Japan and the amount of racism and prejudice he's subjected to is insane.

As a white dude I can't imagine what your experience is like. I know there are people that act like trash towards other people, and that's a sad thing.

My experience with racism has always been the opposite. I get automatically called out for being racist/sexist/etc. just for being white. I'd like to think that there are lots of people out there that embrace and celebrate diversity, and I hope that it becomes more obvious over time.

[xnvy]

Originally posted by A790
I'd like to think that there are lots of people out there that embrace and celebrate diversity, and I hope that it becomes more obvious over time. Now you're just discriminating against discriminatory people :D

[kenny]

If you're going to boycott Chick-Fil-A, make sure to skip Dairy Queen, Bed Bath & Beyond, Geico, Dole Foods, Goodyear, Lowes, Sysco (oh shit, good luck with that one since every restaurant uses them), Verizon... etc etc the list goes on. Better cancel that trip to Disneyland or Disney World and skip movie plans if it's a movie by 20th century fox.

Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite or anything :P

[sputnik]

Originally posted by kenny
If you're going to boycott Chick-Fil-A, make sure to skip Dairy Queen, Bed Bath & Beyond, Geico, Dole Foods, Goodyear, Lowes, Sysco (oh shit, good luck with that one since every restaurant uses them), Verizon... etc etc the list goes on. Better cancel that trip to Disneyland or Disney World and skip movie plans if it's a movie by 20th century fox.

Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite or anything :P

Don't forget to boycott In-N-Out Burger as well.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3081/3212155774_ac8c17f9c3.jpg

[raceman6135]

Originally posted by kenny
If you're going to boycott Chick-Fil-A, make sure to skip Dairy Queen, Bed Bath & Beyond, Geico, Dole Foods, Goodyear, Lowes, Sysco (oh shit, good luck with that one since every restaurant uses them), Verizon... etc etc the list goes on. Better cancel that trip to Disneyland or Disney World and skip movie plans if it's a movie by 20th century fox.

Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite or anything :P

Don't buy a Ford or drink any Coca-Cola products (Nazi Germany supporters).

[beyond_ban]

^ better stay away from those SS Mercedes as well

[TheHumbleGeek]

ROFL! Okay, this thread made me laugh....

See, in my personal experience, I've been accused of being homophobic AND bigoted because I oppose gay marriage. But then, I've also done some research into the issue, and have taken a stand based on my morality AND my research.

That said, I will gladly support any company willing to actually take a stand FOR morality... Thats FOR MORALITY (and ethics for that matter), not against equality. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and that line of thinking.

Oh, and its a damned fast-food restaurant, not a church or some state-run food providing station, so they are allowed to have corporate opinions that may border on current-thinking level political correctness. If you don't like their FOOD(!), eat elsewhere

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek

See, in my personal experience, I've been accused of being homophobic AND bigoted because I oppose gay marriage. But then, I've also done some research into the issue, and have taken a stand based on my morality AND my research.


Just curious what research you found that homesexual marriage is a bad thing? I understand the religious bigot morality part of the arguement, but I've never seen a hint of research that suggested gay people getting married will harm society.

[A790]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
See, in my personal experience, I've been accused of being homophobic AND bigoted because I oppose gay marriage.
That's because you are. The rest of the tripe you posted is only there to justify your bigotry. You don't think the rest of us buy into that bullshit, do you?

[TheHumbleGeek]

Didn't say it was a bad thing did I?

Actually, my research (admittedly done in like 2002 or thereabouts) showed that IN CANADA, after the legal definition of marriage was changed to be almost all-inclusive (people still can't marry their pets, for example), A group of church denominations stood up together and said that they will still not perform same-sex marriage, as it goes against their legally protected religious freedom. Well, within a short timeframe, several of those denominations found themselves facing discrimination complaints (attempted lawsuits, since the Human Rights Commission doesnt deal with issues of religious freedom). In an unsurprisingly expected turn of events, the supreme court wouldnt even entertain the lawsuits because religious freedom has already been protected time and again.

Now, I do remember that very soon after that, christians (and almost any person who takes a stand against same-sex marriage) started being accused of being homophobic and bigoted. Most of the time with no evidence to back it up, as well. But because there was such a push for human rights, everyone was ready to start lynch mobs over perceived "intolerance" and any injustice at all really.

I also take issue with the half-truths used to make it seem like homosexuality is naturally occuring and therefore 100% okay.... But thats an entirely different topic... If they came out and said simply "look, without technology (and adoption), we wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of having kids" I'd be alot more open to the idea, but when people try to baffle with bullshit, I get uppity.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by A790

That's because you are. The rest of the tripe you posted is only there to justify your bigotry. You don't think the rest of us buy into that bullshit, do you?

Cam, that high horse you are riding is getting tired, best give it a rest.

And yes. You better believe a lot of people are buying it, because they have the same values. You may not want to agree with them, but each person has their own set of values, and in the society we live in. You can call them bigots and such if you like, but each person is entitled to their own values and beliefs. You might think they are wrong, but there are others who will think they are fine.

I would point out a recent thread where his type of thinking was exposed pretty quickly, but I don't want to draw unnecessary attention to it.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
I also take issue with the half-truths used to make it seem like homosexuality is naturally occuring and therefore 100% okay.... But thats an entirely different topic... If they came out and said simply "look, without technology (and adoption), we wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of having kids" I'd be alot more open to the idea, but when people try to baffle with bullshit, I get uppity.

are you trying to say that homosexuality is a human creation and therefore unnatural?

[01RedDX]

.

[TheHumbleGeek]

Nope, didn't say that either.

Homosexuality is indeed naturally occuring...

HOWEVER, in a fair number of species of animals (used to justify homosexuality being natural) an individual showing homosexual tendencies is ostracized from the group, but the ad's and propaganda just sorta skip over that part....

[01RedDX]

.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
Nope, didn't say that either.

Homosexuality is indeed naturally occuring...

HOWEVER, in a fair number of species of animals (used to justify homosexuality being natural) an individual showing homosexual tendencies is ostracized from the group, but the ad's and propaganda just sorta skip over that part....

wrong.

I know you're not going to read this, but here's a popular text that reviews the scientific literature on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Evolutions-Rainbow-Diversity-Gender-Sexuality/dp/0520260120

[bourge73]

Well this thread derailed pretty quick lol. Maybe they use gay chickens? oh nooooes

[01RedDX]

.

[bourge73]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


Homo milk in the batter for sure.


OMG don't even get me started on Homo milk. Just the thought of buying it or using it in my coffee makes me well uncomfortable....

[A790]

Originally posted by spikerS


Cam, that high horse you are riding is getting tired, best give it a rest.

And yes. You better believe a lot of people are buying it, because they have the same values. You may not want to agree with them, but each person has their own set of values, and in the society we live in. You can call them bigots and such if you like, but each person is entitled to their own values and beliefs. You might think they are wrong, but there are others who will think they are fine.

I would point out a recent thread where his type of thinking was exposed pretty quickly, but I don't want to draw unnecessary attention to it.
You know what Chris, I have a lot of respect for you so I'm not going to respond in my usual "no fucks given" style.

I also respect that everyone has different values, but that doesn't mean I need to respect them OR their values. In the case of TheHumbleGeek, I can't respect the values of someone who would seek to restrict the rights of a group of people when granting those people equality impacts their life in basically no way whatsoever.

Gay people wanting to get married that are denied that privilege are made to feel as if they are less human than those of us who can get married freely. Whether or not gay marriage is legal won't change Geek's life, but it will significantly impact a gay persons life.

And that's the crux: have your family values, your religious values, your "whatever" values. However, what right do you have to restrict the rights of another person? Especially considering that person hasn't done anything "wrong" aside from being gay and wanting to be married.

That's the real issue I have. As far as I'm concerned, there's no justification for it.

If you look back on the debates and conflict that surrounded other "human rights" issues (desegregation, interracial marriage, etc.) you'll find that most of the arguments used against gay marriage are the same ones used back then. Seems ridiculous now though, doesn't it?

[spikerS]

I respect you too Cam, but you are missing the point.

By calling people bigots or homophobes is no better than being the bigot or homophobe. Each person has the right to their own set of beliefs and values. Harping on them because of their beliefs is the same as the person harping on someone for their sexual orientation. They are both discriminatory and predatory.

This is a highly charged topic, and a bunch of assholes on both sides, (some of the present company are exempt), but if this place has good chicken, I am going to go eat some chicken, but that does not mean that I support their views on everything, just that they have chicken that I like to eat.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by spikerS
By calling people bigots or homophobes is no better than being the bigot or homophobe. Each person has the right to their own set of beliefs and values. Harping on them because of their beliefs is the same as the person harping on someone for their sexual orientation. They are both discriminatory and predatory.


If a person believes the earth is flat, they are undeniably wrong because 100% of the empirical evidence indicates the earth is not flat, but is instead round. It doesn't matter if that's their belief, and their faith cannot justify it.

This might seem a silly example now, but it wasn't always (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth). Regardless, the point is that the same argument applies to modern day issues such as homophobia, climate change, and religion.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by FixedGear


If a person believes the earth is flat, they are undeniably wrong because 100% of the empirical evidence indicates the earth is not flat, but is instead round. It doesn't matter if that's their belief, and their faith cannot justify it.

This might seem a silly example now, but it wasn't always (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth). Regardless, the point is that the same argument applies to modern day issues such as homophobia, climate change, and religion.

no it doesn't, otherwise you would have made the argument for homophobia.

We can prove that the earth is not flat. We can demonstrate that the earth is more shaped like an egg than a sphere. We know how much mass the earth has, how much is covered by water, etc...

You can't measure how "gay" a person is. There is no way to determine if a person chooses to be gay, or bi, or whatever. Some are born that way, some choose to be that way, but can you prove it?

But, regardless of everything else, you have missed the point of the argument. Just because person A has a belief that person B does not agree with, does not give person B the right to trample them, verbally or otherwise. They may wish to enter into a discussion and the merits of a train of though, but the second that one of them makes it a personal attack by labeling someone as stupid, or a bigot, or whatever, they are no better than someone calling a gay person a derogatory name.

There is a difference in a discussion, and making it personal.

There is a rule in debate competitions, the first one to yell, or hurl a personal insult, has lost.

Either way, I think I want to go there and try the chicken even more.

[FixedGear]

Homosexuality is an undeniable fact of nature, regardless of the ultimate cause. See the reference above if you want a guide to the scientific literature. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is like denying Caucasians the right to marry.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by FixedGear
Homosexuality is an undeniable fact of nature, regardless of the ultimate cause. See the reference above if you want a guide to the scientific literature. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is like denying Caucasians the right to marry.

Sure, but that is your opinion and belief. You have no right to bully or force others to change their belief, no matter how wrong you think they are.

Every law or popular thought is just that, the general consensus of the populace at any given time. The world, for the most part, has accepted that things like witchcraft and such is poppy-cock and laughs at it, but at one point, people were burned at the stake daily for just the accusation of being a witch. We as a society have gotten past that, but each society will get to that point at their own time. There are many places in asia, india and africa where the practice still occurs.

We can't expect the world to all adopt the same line of thoughts on any given issue, nor can we expect the same of any given populace. 20 years ago, no one would step up to the plate for gay rights, but today, it is becoming more and more the popular consensus.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
Didn't say it was a bad thing did I?

Actually, my research (admittedly done in like 2002 or thereabouts) showed that IN CANADA, after the legal definition of marriage was changed to be almost all-inclusive (people still can't marry their pets, for example), A group of church denominations stood up together and said that they will still not perform same-sex marriage, as it goes against their legally protected religious freedom. Well, within a short timeframe, several of those denominations found themselves facing discrimination complaints (attempted lawsuits, since the Human Rights Commission doesnt deal with issues of religious freedom). In an unsurprisingly expected turn of events, the supreme court wouldnt even entertain the lawsuits because religious freedom has already been protected time and again.


Alright, I understand that SOME douchebag homo's wanted to be a bunch of assholes and try to get married in a church that didn't want them, and when (as expected) they were denied that, tried suing just to be a bunch of self righteous pricks, but that's not the majority of people who want to be married, that's just a bunch of dicks.

You shouldn't condemn all gay marriage, just because a select few want to go to war with the church. Marriage is no longer just a "religious" thing, there is no patent on it. Lots of atheists, agnostics, and non-practicing religious people also like to get married as well.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by spikerS


Sure, but that is your opinion and belief. You have no right to bully or force others to change their belief, no matter how wrong you think they are.

Every law or popular thought is just that, the general consensus of the populace at any given time. The world, for the most part, has accepted that things like witchcraft and such is poppy-cock and laughs at it, but at one point, people were burned at the stake daily for just the accusation of being a witch. We as a society have gotten past that, but each society will get to that point at their own time. There are many places in asia, india and africa where the practice still occurs.

We can't expect the world to all adopt the same line of thoughts on any given issue, nor can we expect the same of any given populace. 20 years ago, no one would step up to the plate for gay rights, but today, it is becoming more and more the popular consensus.

No. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a major difference between beliefs and empirical fact. You can believe all you want that the earth is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it's actually round; it doesn't matter what you believe, you are still wrong. 2+2=4 no matter what your parents taught you as a kid.

The witch trials were founded beliefs that no longer exist because they were refuted by empirical evidence. On the other hand, homosexuality has existed throughout all of time and nature. This is a documented, undeniable fact. Anyone who has a problem with that should read and evaluate the scientific documentation I provided in the link above.

[rx7_turbo2]

Ok couple questions.

1) Are their chicken sandwiches good?
2a) Do I have to prove my heterosexuality to order one?
b) If yes, do I have to use my wife to prove it?
3) Whats Chick-fil-A's stance on self-gratification?
4) I support gay marriage, I also support tastey chicken sandwhiches, is there a way to compromise? Like I only support gay marriage between two women, and I'm only allowed to sniff the sandwiches?
:dunno: I'm so confused:nut:

[spikerS]

Originally posted by FixedGear


No. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there is a major difference between beliefs and empirical fact. You can believe all you want that the earth is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it's actually round; it doesn't matter what you believe, you are still wrong. 2+2=4 no matter what your parents taught you as a kid.

The witch trials were founded beliefs that no longer exist because they were refuted by empirical evidence. On the other hand, homosexuality has existed throughout all of time and nature. This is a documented, undeniable fact. Anyone who has a problem with that should read and evaluate the scientific documentation I provided in the link above.

I have tried to explain it to you, and you can point to the earth is flat theory while skipping over everything that I have explained.

I guess I am going to lose this discussion. I can't fix stupid.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Ok couple questions.

1) Are their chicken sandwiches good?
2a) Do I have to prove my heterosexuality to order one?
b) If yes, do I have to use my wife to prove it?
3) Whats Chick-fil-A's stance on self-gratification?
4) I support gay marriage, I also support tastey chicken sandwhiches, is there a way to compromise? Like I only support gay marriage between two women, and I'm only allowed to sniff the sandwiches?
:dunno: I'm so confused:nut:

!WIN!

[GTS4tw]

Originally posted by spikerS


Cam, that high horse you are riding is getting tired, best give it a rest.

And yes. You better believe a lot of people are buying it, because they have the same values. You may not want to agree with them, but each person has their own set of values, and in the society we live in. You can call them bigots and such if you like, but each person is entitled to their own values and beliefs. You might think they are wrong, but there are others who will think they are fine.

I would point out a recent thread where his type of thinking was exposed pretty quickly, but I don't want to draw unnecessary attention to it.

Thanks, I don't always agree with you, but this was well said.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by spikerS
There is a rule in debate competitions, the first one to yell, or hurl a personal insult, has lost.



Originally posted by spikerS
I can't fix stupid.

:dunno:

[TheHumbleGeek]

Originally posted by A790

I also respect that everyone has different values, but that doesn't mean I need to respect them OR their values. In the case of TheHumbleGeek, I can't respect the values of someone who would seek to restrict the rights of a group of people when granting those people equality impacts their life in basically no way whatsoever.
...
And that's the crux: have your family values, your religious values, your "whatever" values. However, what right do you have to restrict the rights of another person? Especially considering that person hasn't done anything "wrong" aside from being gay and wanting to be married.


Uh... What????? So, you have the right to restrict my rights, because I would (as you put it) choose to restrict rights for a different group of people?
Truthfully, I had (and have, just FYI) no problems with homosexuals being homosexuals... same as I have no problems with heterosexuals being heterosexuals.... What I took issue with, was the fact that a group of same-sex supporters tried to force my choice of religion into accepting them, in direct contradiction of the original Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. If they had won the legal right to get married and let the churches oppose it as they wished, I would not have taken a stand against it. But because they chose to continue the fight even after they had won (legally, in the courts), I'm actively choosing to dig in my heels and oppose it, as a reactionary move, against what is (IN MY OPINION) an unethical continuation of a decided conflict (kicking someone when they are down).

FixedGear, since the amazon page doesn't really get into specifics, can I ask what the original thesis was? It seems from the title and editor's blurb, as though they started with a biased premise and then proceeded to prove that premise to be correct. Which makes me question the validity of such science, because it raises the question of "just how much opposing evidence was ignored or disregarded because it would have proved the premise incorrect?"

And Tik-Tok, You are right. It was just a group of douche-bag homo's, but they had the chance to walk away the victor in the fight and chose not to. Whether they wanted to or not, they (and people like them) have become the voice for the entire community. I am left wondering what would have happened if they had won and let the church stand, had taken the attitude of "Whatever makes you feel comfortable in your life"...

Would either side have become as fanatical as they are in this day and age? I guess I might draw comparisons to the fanaticism in the middle east between muslim and jew... People still say that it's a religious thing, but I would tend to lean more towards it being a bunch of fanatical idiots who have been so completely brainwashed into their hatred (yup, that goes for the same-sex marriage debate as well), that all they see is the purity of their beliefs, and nothing else.



Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
Ok couple questions.

1) Are their chicken sandwiches good?
2a) Do I have to prove my heterosexuality to order one?
b) If yes, do I have to use my wife to prove it?
3) Whats Chick-fil-A's stance on self-gratification?
4) I support gay marriage, I also support tastey chicken sandwhiches, is there a way to compromise? Like I only support gay marriage between two women, and I'm only allowed to sniff the sandwiches?
:dunno: I'm so confused:nut:



Originally posted by spikerS


!WIN!


Agreed! Double WIN!!

[wishicouldwrench]

Originally posted by FixedGear





:dunno:

I facepalmed so hard while I was reading what he wrote. I agree with you 100%.

[wishicouldwrench]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
What I took issue with, was the fact that a group of same-sex supporters tried to force my choice of religion into accepting them, in direct contradiction of the original Canadian charter of rights and freedoms.

This position has already been destroyed in this thread, but I guess I'll take a stab at it.

So a small sub-group of a larger group did something that you didn't like, and now you have resentment towards the larger group.

Interesting. I guess I can't fault you because I'm exactly the same way. Ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?

Just kidding. I'm not a retard that forms opinions about the population based on an insignificant subgroup that may not be an accurate representation of the population.


Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
If they had won the legal right to get married and let the churches oppose it as they wished, I would not have taken a stand against it. But because they chose to continue the fight even after they had won (legally, in the courts), I'm actively choosing to dig in my heels and oppose it, as a reactionary move, against what is (IN MY OPINION) an unethical continuation of a decided conflict (kicking someone when they are down).

Basically you're out to get some kind of childish revenge against gay people because an insignificant fraction of them did something you didn't like. I'm glad I'm not so petty.


Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
And Tik-Tok, You are right. It was just a group of douche-bag homo's, but they had the chance to walk away the victor in the fight and chose not to. Whether they wanted to or not, they (and people like them) have become the voice for the entire community. I am left wondering what would have happened if they had won and let the church stand, had taken the attitude of "Whatever makes you feel comfortable in your life"...

Get over it. Seriously. If I had enough time to waste I could dig up a shit load of frivolous lawsuits brought to the courts by religious institutions. If I was like you, I would then supply that as a justification for limiting certain rights of religious institutions.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. My thoughts are that your thoughts are stupid.

[OU812]

Jebus!!

Came in wanting to read about resteraunt.

Left thread talking about everything but?

:hijack: of the year right here.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek


Agreed! Double WIN!!

Mmmmm, I miss the double down....

The delicious homoeroticism of biting into a nice set of meaty buns.... :drool:

[bjstare]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Mmmmm, I miss the double down....

The delicious homoeroticism of biting into a nice set of meaty buns.... :drool:

The double down. It's just so good.

[A790]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek


Uh... What????? So, you have the right to restrict my rights, because I would (as you put it) choose to restrict rights for a different group of people?
Except for the fact that your rights aren't and haven't been restricted in any way. At all.

So a bunch of overzealous gay people tried to sue your church and lost- that means that gay marriage is now unacceptable?

lol. Love the logic there.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by A790

Except for the fact that your rights aren't and haven't been restricted in any way. At all.

So a bunch of overzealous gay people tried to sue your church and lost- that means that gay marriage is now unacceptable?

lol. Love the logic there.

When you're desperately looking for an excuse to be a bigot (while trying to convince yourself you're not a bigot), anything will do.

[xnvy]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


When you're desperately looking for an excuse to be a bigot (while trying to convince yourself you're not a bigot), anything will do.

http://cdn.blogs.fredericksburg.com/toontalk/files/2010/03/cjonesweb032510.jpg

This is essentially the message I get from reading TheHumbleGeek's posts.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

That comic is spot-on.

[2Legit2Quit]

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x374/thieve/76895-grandpa-simpson.gif

[TheHumbleGeek]

Originally posted by A790

Except for the fact that your rights aren't and haven't been restricted in any way. At all.

So a bunch of overzealous gay people tried to sue your church and lost- that means that gay marriage is now unacceptable?

lol. Love the logic there.

Actually, You are right... My rights arent being restricted, Im just being subjected to hate speech because of my choice of religion. That better?

Referring to someone who made an educated choice as a bigot qualifies as hate speech as much calling a gay man a fruitcake.

Yet again, you missed the point. I HAD no issue with same-sex marriage UNTIL they tried to sue the churchs. They had won the legal fight, but it wasnt good enough. Now, most people who oppose same-sex marriage are AUTOMATICALLY referred to as bigots and homophobes, even without a shred of evidence to back up the accusation. I had no issue until I started being told that my choice of religion automatically makes me bigoted and homophobic. I had no issue until they tried to force the issue. Same as westboro baptist makes all christians look bad, so to, then, do the pursuers of the same-sex marriage fight make the entire LGBTT community look bad.

Heres something that really makes me chuckle tho... a very quick search on the merriam-webster website defines Bigot as
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

Have I demonstrated an strong AND unfair dislike towards same-sex marriage? Strong dislike, Yes, but founded on research, so, no, not unfair.

Oh, okay, how about Homophobic?
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Homosexuality
Nope, no irrational fear or aversion either. So, there goes the idea that i'm a homophobic bigot...

[A790]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek
Yet again, you missed the point. I HAD no issue with same-sex marriage UNTIL they tried to sue the churchs. They had won the legal fight, but it wasnt good enough. Now, most people who oppose same-sex marriage are AUTOMATICALLY referred to as bigots and homophobes, even without a shred of evidence to back up the accusation. I had no issue until I started being told that my choice of religion automatically makes me bigoted and homophobic. I had no issue until they tried to force the issue. Same as westboro baptist makes all christians look bad, so to, then, do the pursuers of the same-sex marriage fight make the entire LGBTT community look bad.
Bud, the only person referencing religion in this conversation is you. I never mentioned it, and neither did anyone else when discussing your points.

I missed the point, eh? Are you and I even having the same conversation? lol

Assuming that we ARE having the conversation I fail to see your logic where some people suing the church means that you now must be opposed to gay marriage.

I know lots of Christian people that support gay marriage. I know lots of Muslims that support it too. Hell, I could list off a bunch of different religions and find people that support them. I mean, how are you surprised and offended that a bunch of gay people tried to sue the church for discrimination? You don't happen to be one of those people that thinks that there's a "war on Christianity", do you? The fact that people tried a litigious method to have a voice within their religion is surprising to you?

You forget that these people - and they are people, don't devalue them by attempting to put distance between you and them - ASKED the church for openness/equality first. Then they sued, and they lost. O NOES, those people who just want to be treated as equals sued us for not treating them like equals?! I know, let's campaign against them even more- that'll learn 'em!

We live in a world where people get sued for administering CPR (are you anti-CPR, by chance?), for serving hot coffee, for NOT saying that plastic bags can suffocate babies, etc. The fact that the church got sued is as surprising as the fact that Calgary didn't get warm weather until late May.

Bud, there was a time when Christians were killed for being Christian. Hell, in parts of the world, that still happens. The same goes for Muslims, Buddhists, atheists (up until very recently it was illegal for atheists to hold political office in some states). However, people pushed to have their voices heard and their causes respected. This is no different, aside from the fact that you're now on the oppressing side.

Since you're handy with a dictionary, look up the definition of a logical fallacy. :)

[Env-Consultant]

I'm so happy I posted that initial first response...:rofl:


But I'm with Cam - quit hiding behind this whole oohhhh well they is infringin' on our rights, they is!!!!

Get over yourself - if two guys want to bang each other, get married, and adopt kids, then leave them the fuck alone. I don't believe in any god, but I pray anyone opposed to gay marriage ends up with kids that are uber-gay (no hiding it, dad) and then you end up in this conflicted Fiddler on The Roof "TRADITION! But.... on the other hand... I love my son, and he is, after all, a human..." type of scenario.

Don't hide behind that "I've done my research" bullshit - this issue is no different than the segregation of blacks or women being allowed to vote. Should your church be sued? Yes. Discriminating due to human traits that aren't chosen? Absolutely it is. It's not your right to do that - it's called a crime. Don't like it? Move to Afgahnastan or Syria, join an extremist group and get your shit away from civilized, evolved, non-cavepeople.

How do organizations even have time to oppose shit like this (abortion as well)? I don't even have kids and you wouldn't catch me dead having enough time to go out and protest crap that doesnt affect me.

Get over yourself - go bang your wife (or hand for most of you who decide to act like DBs and judge everyone but yourself)..... and hope your kids don't end up gay - cause you all have at least one guy rooting aginst you.

[gatorade]

Originally posted by Xtrema


I find educated white guys tends to be less of those things.

Minorities are more racist than white guys.

I actually do grading at a university and the people who write things that are explicitly racist and misogynistic have thus far only been white guys.

ie. Jewish people are privileged because there are Jews at the head of many major corporations

Granted this was only a small sample of a few hundred students, but this has also been consistent in the experience of other graduate students, mainly of females ones. Outside of assignments this is experienced in during class discussions, office hours and assignments.

[xnvy]

Comparing Cam's latest post in this thread to the OP and trying to figure out how this thread got so OT is hilarious :rofl:

[sexualbanana]

I basically started skimming a lot of the posts, but I'll quickly give my take on this in order to continue the thread derailment....

This reminds me of the recent rash of ignorant corporate douchebaggery of Abercrombie & Fitch and Lululemon. Where at the corporate level (mostly from key executives), they publicly state that they don't want fat & ugly people to wear their clothes and thus they try to discourage these people from wearing their clothes at the store-level through systematic inventory control.

It's a vile and heinous practice that is based on an incredibly shallow system of beliefs. BUT, it's their beliefs and if that key executive wants to do business that way, then it's not my business to convince him to change his mind. As a consumer, I have no obligation to buy clothing from either of these stores. If one of their customers decides that their stance on fat/ugly people wearing their clothes is offensive, they can decide to no longer be a customer, as a result. It's Lululemon's and A&F's decision to do business that way, probably knowing that it'll cost them revenues. So as long as they're willing to sacrifice profit for their own views on morality/homosexuality/social issues in general, then good for them.

[TheHumbleGeek]

Originally posted by A790

Bud, the only person referencing religion in this conversation is you. I never mentioned it, and neither did anyone else when discussing your points.

I missed the point, eh? Are you and I even having the same conversation? lol

Assuming that we ARE having the conversation I fail to see your logic where some people suing the church means that you now must be opposed to gay marriage.

I know lots of Christian people that support gay marriage. I know lots of Muslims that support it too. Hell, I could list off a bunch of different religions and find people that support them. I mean, how are you surprised and offended that a bunch of gay people tried to sue the church for discrimination? You don't happen to be one of those people that thinks that there's a "war on Christianity", do you? The fact that people tried a litigious method to have a voice within their religion is surprising to you?

You forget that these people - and they are people, don't devalue them by attempting to put distance between you and them - ASKED the church for openness/equality first. Then they sued, and they lost. O NOES, those people who just want to be treated as equals sued us for not treating them like equals?! I know, let's campaign against them even more- that'll learn 'em!

We live in a world where people get sued for administering CPR (are you anti-CPR, by chance?), for serving hot coffee, for NOT saying that plastic bags can suffocate babies, etc. The fact that the church got sued is as surprising as the fact that Calgary didn't get warm weather until late May.

Bud, there was a time when Christians were killed for being Christian. Hell, in parts of the world, that still happens. The same goes for Muslims, Buddhists, atheists (up until very recently it was illegal for atheists to hold political office in some states). However, people pushed to have their voices heard and their causes respected. This is no different, aside from the fact that you're now on the oppressing side.

Since you're handy with a dictionary, look up the definition of a logical fallacy. :)

It doesnt mean that I must, but yes, i have made that choice. Was I surprised when I found out that they sued the church? actually, yes... but I was WAY less cynical than I have become. Does it bother me that they resorted to a litigious method? Kinda, since it wasn't EVERY denomination, only a couple, so its not like they were being completely excluded from the christian church. Am I anti-cpr? not a chance, tho my certification has expired, I was (and in some ways, still are) trained to respond to most first-aid emergencies.

Do I think there is a "War on Christianity"?? You bet your ass I do... Tell a non-believer you are a christian and just watch their reaction. Watch as the assumptions flash across their eyes... I must be this, and I must be like those WBC nutjobs, and I must believe *blah blah blah*... I make my choices, not because my religion tells me to, but because I am a person, and therefore can show intelligence, even if it is contrary to current popular social thinking. That doesn't make me a bigot or a homophobe, just unpopular, but thats okay, i've never been popular in my life so it doesnt bother me. I do agree that perhaps my conclusion is a logical fallacy, as is the assumption that because I am religious I must be a bigot.


Originally posted by Env-Consultant
I'm so happy I posted that initial first response...:rofl:


But I'm with Cam - quit hiding behind this whole oohhhh well they is infringin' on our rights, they is!!!!

Get over yourself - if two guys want to bang each other, get married, and adopt kids, then leave them the fuck alone. I don't believe in any god, but I pray anyone opposed to gay marriage ends up with kids that are uber-gay (no hiding it, dad) and then you end up in this conflicted Fiddler on The Roof "TRADITION! But.... on the other hand... I love my son, and he is, after all, a human..." type of scenario.

Don't hide behind that "I've done my research" bullshit - this issue is no different than the segregation of blacks or women being allowed to vote. Should your church be sued? Yes. Discriminating due to human traits that aren't chosen? Absolutely it is. It's not your right to do that - it's called a crime. Don't like it? Move to Afgahnastan or Syria, join an extremist group and get your shit away from civilized, evolved, non-cavepeople.

How do organizations even have time to oppose shit like this (abortion as well)? I don't even have kids and you wouldn't catch me dead having enough time to go out an protest crap that doesnt affect me.

Get over yourself - go bang your wife (or hand for most of you who decide to act like DBs and judge everyone but yourself)..... and hope your kids don't end up gay - cause you all have at least one guy rooting aginst you.

Hmmm... Hate speech can take many forms.... What was that definition of Bigot, again? Oh yea,

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


Originally posted by sexualbanana
I basically started skimming a lot of the posts, but I'll quickly give my take on this in order to continue the thread derailment....

This reminds me of the recent rash of ignorant corporate douchebaggery of Abercrombie & Fitch and Lululemon. Where at the corporate level (mostly from key executives), they publicly state that they don't want fat & ugly people to wear their clothes and thus they try to discourage these people from wearing their clothes at the store-level through systematic inventory control.

It's a vile and heinous practice that is based on an incredibly shallow system of beliefs. BUT, it's their beliefs and if that key executive wants to do business that way, then it's not my business to convince him to change his mind. As a consumer, I have no obligation to buy clothing from either of these stores. If one of their customers decides that their stance on fat/ugly people wearing their clothes is offensive, they can decide to no longer be a customer, as a result. It's Lululemon's and A&F's decision to do business that way, probably knowing that it'll cost them revenues. So as long as they're willing to sacrifice profit for their own views on morality/homosexuality/social issues in general, then good for them.

See, thats the interesting thing. As much as their are extremists on both sides of the issue, there are a few people in the middle, that respect a company just for picking a side, instead of the usual corporate wishy-washyness for profit's sake. Anyways, thank you for being respectful.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by TheHumbleGeek


It doesnt mean that I must, but yes, i have made that choice. Was I surprised when I found out that they sued the church? actually, yes... but I was WAY less cynical than I have become. Does it bother me that they resorted to a litigious method? Kinda, since it wasn't EVERY denomination, only a couple, so its not like they were being completely excluded from the christian church. Am I anti-cpr? not a chance, tho my certification has expired, I was (and in some ways, still are) trained to respond to most first-aid emergencies.

Do I think there is a "War on Christianity"?? You bet your ass I do... Tell a non-believer you are a christian and just watch their reaction. Watch as the assumptions flash across their eyes... I must be this, and I must be like those WBC nutjobs, and I must believe *blah blah blah*... I make my choices, not because my religion tells me to, but because I am a person, and therefore can show intelligence, even if it is contrary to current popular social thinking. That doesn't make me a bigot or a homophobe, just unpopular, but thats okay, i've never been popular in my life so it doesnt bother me. I do agree that perhaps my conclusion is a logical fallacy, as is the assumption that because I am religious I must be a bigot.



Hmmm... Hate speech can take many forms.... What was that definition of Bigot, again? Oh yea,




See, thats the interesting thing. As much as their are extremists on both sides of the issue, there are a few people in the middle, that respect a company just for picking a side, instead of the usual corporate wishy-washyness for profit's sake. Anyways, thank you for being respectful.



There isn't a middle ground when it comes to an opinion on gay marriage. You either support it or your labelled hateful/bigoted.

[HuMz]

I don't see how this is a civil rights issue either. Prior to legalizing gay marriage homosexuals have had the same rights as the rest of us heterosexuals. Nothing like the discrimination of blacks comparison.

The definition of marriage has always been between one man and one woman. So it is actually about re-defining marriage to something other than that. And now that the definition of marriage has been changed to something other then one man and one woman. Polygamy, insectal, and marrying pets etc are likely to be state recognized.

Most people don't realize there are societal implications to changing the family/marriage structure from having a biological mother and father.

[FixedGear]

We should have seen this coming once they started letting people marry outside their race. God simply didn't intend for white people to marry blacks or Asians. It's the work if the devil I tell you. And I'm not just saying this because my religion tells me to, I've done lots of research and have arrived at this educated conclusion. Not much we can do about it now, you either support interracial marriage or are labelled a racist and a bigot. :rolleyes:

[A790]

Originally posted by xnvy
Comparing Cam's latest post in this thread to the OP and trying to figure out how this thread got so OT is hilarious :rofl:
My bad :rofl:

[HuMz]

Originally posted by FixedGear
We should have seen this coming once they started letting people marry outside their race. God simply didn't intend for white people to marry blacks or Asians. It's the work if the devil I tell you. And I'm not just saying this because my religion tells me to, I've done lots of research and have arrived at this educated conclusion. Not much we can do about it now, you either support interracial marriage or are labelled a racist and a bigot. :rolleyes:

Just about anyone who has come out in the public eye the last couple years and expressed a traditional view on marriage has been labeled hateful and bigoted by the LGBT, and in extreme cases they have been fired.

[FraserB]

I didn't even make it there last night lol. Both my flights got delayed and was pissed off so I just went home.

Either way, A+ derail (even by Beyond standards).:rofl:

[speedog]

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Chick-fil-A - anyone tried it?

Any reviews of the Calgary location?

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by HuMz


Just about anyone who has come out in the public eye the last couple years and expressed a traditional view on marriage has been labeled hateful and bigoted by the LGBT, and in extreme cases they have been fired.

I'm in total agreement with you. I get called a racist every time I tell a black person they shouldn't drink from public water fountains. That's the traditional view of water fountain use and the blacks have completely ruined that. What the hell is this world coming to?

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by speedog
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Chick-fil-A - anyone tried it?

Any reviews of the Calgary location?

Tried it today at 6am. Full menu service even at that time. Tastes just like it does in the USA. Delicious.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by FixedGear


I'm in total agreement with you. I get called a racist every time I tell a black person they shouldn't drink from public water fountains. That's the traditional view of water fountain use and the blacks have completely ruined that. What the hell is this world coming to?

So because I hold a traditional view on marriage I automatically hold a rascist view on blacks? Sounds logical.:rolleyes:

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by HuMz


So because I hold a traditional view on marriage I automatically hold a rascist view on blacks? Sounds logical.:rolleyes:

Of course it's not logical - I didn't call you a racist. I was just point out how we are the same because our traditional views are under attack.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by FixedGear


Of course it's not logical - I didn't call you a racist. I was just point out how we are the same because our traditional views are under attack.

It sure sounded like you were implying that a traditional view on marriage equates to a traditional view on blacks.

Except holding a traditional view on marriage and a traditional racist view on blacks don't relate to each other in any way. The view you mentioned is without a doubt hate filled and discriminatory and the courts have proven this.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by HuMz


It sure sounded like you were implying that a traditional view on marriage equates to a traditional view on blacks.

Except holding a traditional view on marriage and a traditional racist view on blacks don't relate to each other in any way. The view you mentioned is without a doubt hate filled and discriminatory.

so what you are saying is... black people are people... but gay people are not people... i get it now

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by HuMz


It sure sounded like you were implying that a traditional view on marriage equates to a traditional view on blacks.

Except holding a traditional view on marriage and a traditional racist view on blacks don't relate to each other in any way. The view you mentioned is without a doubt hate filled and discriminatory and the courts have proven this.

It's not only blacks, it's jews, chinese, indians, arabs, vietnamese, pakistanis, filipinos, etc. - basically anyone who is different than me. I see interracial couples all over the place these days and it absolutely sickens me because it goes against all of my beliefs. Everyone knows that races should not mix under the traditional view of marriage. In fact, you could get killed for it in many places of the world.

But like I mentioned earlier, please don't blame or attack my religion because that has nothing to do with it. I've arrived at my beliefs independently through years and years of research on the topic. Finally, no one can question or challenge my beliefs because everyone has the right to think whatever they want. This has been proven in court time and time again.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by ercchry


so what you are saying is... black people are people... but gay people are not people... i get it now

You clearly do not, in no way shape or form do I think someone that is SSA should be treated any different or less of a person. I'm simply arguing that the instutional ceremony of a marriage should be between a man and a woman like it has always been.

A civil union between two homosexual people would have been okay with me, that way they can still enjoy the tax breaks of a marriage. I just don't think the word marriage should have been redefined.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by HuMz

A civil union between two homosexual people would have been okay with me, that way they can still enjoy the tax breaks of a marriage. I just don't think the word marriage should have been redefined.

I couldn't agree more. On a related note, it really upset me when the US definition of the word "citizen" was extended to include those of asian descent. I could care less if asians live and pay taxes in America, but they shouldn't be called "citizens" because I hold a traditional view of citizenship. Calling them "pseudo-citizens" would have been okay with me.

[faiz999]

^^^ post of the thread.

[duaner]

Food for thought, nothing more:

Nobdy is 'Born That Way' (http://barbwire.com/2014/03/22/nobody-born-way-gay-historians-say/)


Thus, if it’s proven sexual orientations are not innate, much of the scaffolding upon which today’s LGBT movement has been built would begin to crumble. Given the stakes, most gays and lesbians are dismissive or hostile toward anyone who doesn’t think being gay is an essential, natural characteristic of some members of the human race.

But a surprising group of people doesn’t think that – namely, scholars of gay history and anthropology. They’re almost all LGBT themselves, and they have decisively shown that gayness is a product of Western society originating about 150 years ago.

Using documents and field studies, these intrepid social scientists have examined the evidence of homosexuality in other times and cultures to see how the gay minority fared. But they’ve come up empty. Sure, there’s substantial evidence of both discreet and open same-sex love and sex in pre-modern times. But no society before the 19th century had a gay minority or even discernibly gay-oriented individuals.

[HuMz]

Removing laws against interracial marriage did nothing to redefine marriage. Interracial couples still consisted of one man and one woman coming together being fully able to biologically produce a child. Same sex marriage cannot produce a child naturally and two moms or two dad's don't equal a mother and father.

Since you seem to be holding on to the comparison of marriage to the mistreatment of blacks.

There is no comparison of skin color and someone that is gay. Being gay is an expression of romantic attraction and sexual behavior. And there are no laws no full fill ones attractions or desires. Skin color is outwardly recognizeable where as homosexuality is not. People aren't able to change there skin color naturally where asthere are many former SSA people who claim to have lost there same sex attractions and many others who have reversed that attraction to heterosexuality.

The hardships endured by blacks are nothing like what SSA go through today. Gay people are CEO's, movie stars, authors, scientists etc. In those days you would almost never see a prominent black person in power. And then there that whole thing called the slave trade and mob lynchings.

To quote gay journalist Charles Winecoff “Newsflash: blacks in America didn’t start out as hip-hop fashion designers; they were slaves. There’s a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice – and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.”


Simply put skin color is something that we are born with, scientifically there still isn't conclusive evidence that someone is born gay.