Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Star)   Exec loses job after YouTube rant at Chick-fil-A drive-thru   (azstarnet.com) divider line 660
    More: Interesting, Tucson  
•       •       •

27498 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Aug 2012 at 5:58 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



660 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-03 10:40:47 AM  

indylaw: You're equating love with sex. At least under the Christian scheme, love is not about sex, nor is sex considered necessary for the full enjoyment of life in Christ. Paul endorses marriage only as a last resort, for couples that can't help themselves from having sex, so they can at least have some semblance of order and respectability around it.

Not having sex doesn't mean being alone. Ask monks or nuns, or the millions of secular people who just don't feel any sexual attraction at all (asexuals). You make it sound as if having someone else handle your genitals is the sum total of human experience.



benisawesome.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-03 10:41:39 AM  

indylaw: you have pee hands: TOSViolation: I'd like to hear your views on smokers' rights. Do you have a blog I can subscribe to?

Please provide a reasonable argument that (1) homosexual marriages affect heterosexual marriages in any way and (2) sexual orientation is a choice and your analogy might be something other than terrible.

/you's trollin

The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages. Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.


So, i have a couple of questions for you, not trolling, just want to know what a lawyer's position on this actually is...

1 - protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness Are you, as a lawyer, asserting that it is the government's business to inject themselves in both A) the private lives of two consenting adults; and B) the government's job to control it's citizens based on the religious belief of sin.

2 - acting upon one's orientation is Is this also the opinion of a lawyer, that gay US citizens should voluntarily forgo the rights and privileges granted to other US citizens and enter into celibacy because the religious majority of people consider it against their religious beliefs? What if they refuse to voluntarily give up their rights to appease the religious majority of the country?
 
2012-08-03 10:41:49 AM  

you have pee hands: indylaw: The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages.

That's both hilariously condescending and a violation of separation of church and state. It's also not the most commonly used argument, which is some malarkey about "sanctity of marriage" and "protecting the traditional family".

Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.

Ideologically, this is still an attempt to legislate old testament christian morality. From a practical standpoint, it's somewhat akin to teaching abstinence except for a person's entire life rather than just up until marriage.


Let me ask you a question: Is it possible for someone to agree that the Constitution must allow for homosexual couples to have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples and to accept that the civil law makes such marriages possible, while at the same time believing that gay sex is against the will of God, while at the same time not "hating" gay people?
 
2012-08-03 10:41:59 AM  

pisceandreamer: gimmegimme: Jesus Christ. Welcome to America, in which there is no difference between you at work and you at home. While I do NOT like what this guy did at all, I take great exception to the idea that we are representatives of Dear Company at all times. It's not like the guy said, "Hello, I'm Jerk McJerkface, here on behalf of Vante, a provider of medical manufacturing solutions..."

He's the CEO and those contracts usually have some type of morality/don't embarrass the company clause - he *clearly* embarrassed the company when he posted the video and I am betting the legal department and HR were happy to point out how he screwed himself over.


Based on the swift response I'm betting they've been wavering on getting rid of his smarmy jerk face for a while and found this a perfect opportunity.
 
2012-08-03 10:42:08 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: TOSViolation: You know Sandusky is gay, right? The gay community should be supporting him. He can't help that he's sexually attracted to young boys

You do know that "being gay" and "being attracted to young boys" are two completely different things, don't you?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you didn't, and this monumentally dumb thing you wrote was out of ignorance of that simple fact. Because the other explanation - that you knew, but went ahead and typed it anyway - that would indicate that you are a lying douchebag of colossal proportions, or simply a sad little troll.

but since I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, I'll just assume you were ignorant.


If he was attracted to young girls, it would still be wrong, but it wouldn't be gay.
 
2012-08-03 10:43:40 AM  

indylaw: fluffy2097: indylaw: protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness

Only mortal sins cannot be forgiven. Homosexuality is a venal sin at best, considering that it's not in the 10 commandments or anything. Unless you count "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass" which was really talking about a donkey and coveting things you don't have.

Also, you should protect the children of your pedophile churches first, who are raping children. Then you worry about the homosexual community.

I'm not a Catholic.


Neither is indylaw, or he'd know that mortal sins certainly are forgiven if the sinner repents.
 
2012-08-03 10:44:19 AM  

TOSViolation: Whenever you've lost a debate and realize you've failed, the only thing left is to call the winner a troll.


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I see that you don't have an argument at all, though. Carry on.
 
2012-08-03 10:45:26 AM  

CeroX: indylaw: you have pee hands: TOSViolation: I'd like to hear your views on smokers' rights. Do you have a blog I can subscribe to?

Please provide a reasonable argument that (1) homosexual marriages affect heterosexual marriages in any way and (2) sexual orientation is a choice and your analogy might be something other than terrible.

/you's trollin

The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages. Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.

So, i have a couple of questions for you, not trolling, just want to know what a lawyer's position on this actually is...

1 - protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness Are you, as a lawyer, asserting that it is the government's business to inject themselves in both A) the private lives of two consenting adults; and B) the government's job to control it's citizens based on the religious belief of sin.

2 - acting upon one's orientation is Is this also the opinion of a lawyer, that gay US citizens should voluntarily forgo the rights and privileges granted to other US citizens and enter into celibacy because the religious majority of people consider it against their religious beliefs? What if they refuse to voluntarily give up their rights to appease the religious majority of the country?


Gay people have the same rights. A gay man can marry a gay woman if he chooses to.
 
2012-08-03 10:46:53 AM  

indylaw: bbcard1:
Their brand figures don't lie, and they show that the overall perception of the brand has been badly damaged. The smug, sneering patronage by right-wingers isn't going to help Chick-fil-A among non-evangelicals; it can only hurt, as it increasingly aligns the brand with one party or political movement.


There's a slim chance that, in just a few short years, returning from lunch with a Chik-fil-a bag could be as much a faux pas in the corporate world as someone today showing up for casual Friday draped in a Confederate flag.
 
2012-08-03 10:46:58 AM  

The Homer Tax: senseofmea: Why is it if someone disagrees with gay marriage it's automatically considered hate? Too many people are too narrow minded.

When you think that someone you don't like deserves fewer rights than you, I would say you hate them. What would you call it?

"Look, all I'm saying is thy homosexuals are second-class citizens whose unions shouldn't have equal protection under the law to that of heterosexual unions...but it's not like I *hate* them or anythIng."


Some people need to look up the word hate. Disagreeing does not equal hate.
 
2012-08-03 10:47:04 AM  

indylaw: Playing "devil's" advocate:

You're equating love with sex. At least under the Christian scheme, love is not about sex, nor is sex considered necessary for the full enjoyment of life in Christ. Paul endorses marriage only as a last resort, for couples that can't help themselves from having sex, so they can at least have some semblance of order and respectability around it.

Not having sex doesn't mean being alone. Ask monks or nuns, or the millions of secular people who just don't feel any sexual attraction at all (asexuals). You make it sound as if having someone else handle your genitals is the sum total of human experience.


Sex is the physical expression of love, Christian or not. You're telling non-asexuals and people that don't necessarily have the same morals as you to not feel love. You'd be fine if two loving homosexuals marry and never have sex? Why abstain? They're in love and they want to physically express it for a multitude of reasons.
 
2012-08-03 10:47:52 AM  

TOSViolation: Lumpmoose: indylaw: you have pee hands: TOSViolation: I'd like to hear your views on smokers' rights. Do you have a blog I can subscribe to?

Please provide a reasonable argument that (1) homosexual marriages affect heterosexual marriages in any way and (2) sexual orientation is a choice and your analogy might be something other than terrible.

/you's trollin

The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages. Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.

This is the best response to "stop acting gay".

Bottom line:

When you tell a gay person to "resist" being gay, what you are really telling them - what you really mean - is for them to be celibate.

What you are truly and actually saying is that you want them to condemn themselves to a life devoid of the kind of enduring, romantic, partner-to-partner love that all people, Christians included, understand as just about the best part of being alive.

Be alone, you're demanding. Live alone. Don't hold anyone's hand. Don't snuggle on your couch with anyone. Don't cuddle up with anyone at night before you fall asleep. Don't have anyone to chat with over coffee in the morning.

Do not bind your life to that of another. Live your whole life without knowing that joy, that sharing, that peace.

Just say "no" to love.

Be alone. Live alone. Die alone.

The "sinful temptation" that Christians are forever urging LGBT people to resist is love.

Being, of course, the one thing Jesus was most clear about wanting his followers to extend to others.

You should give that speech at a NAMBLA meeting. You'd get a standing ovation.


Probably, but that still wouldn't get around that "consenting adults" sticking point that you ignored from my earlier post.
 
2012-08-03 10:48:11 AM  

you have pee hands: I see that you don't have an argument at all, though.


I saw that coming a mile away (pun possibly intentional).

It's some pretty impressive trolling though, I have to admit.
 
2012-08-03 10:48:53 AM  

fluffy2097: 1. Dan Cathy is not the CEO of Chick-Fil-A. His dad is chairman and CEO. Dan is the company's president and COO, which means he runs things, but can be overruled by Truett.


Yes, but I fail to see the difference. It's pretty well known daddy feels the same way.

fluffy2097: 2. Chick-Fil-A's charitable foundation, the Winshare Foundation, gives token amounts to anti-gay "hate" groups ($1,000 each in 2010 to the pray-the-gay-away Exodus International and the generally hateful Family Research Council). They give hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to pro-hetero-marriage charities that spend the money on marriage counseling and couples retreats, and spend most of their budget on their own camps and foster homes. Chick-Fil-A also spends a lot of money on college scholarships for its young employees.


So if it's just a little bit that makes it okay? Besides, I consider any group that opposes gay marriage to be a hate group. And they have given significantly to those groups.

fluffy2097: 3. Chick-Fil-A is headquartered in Georgia, where MANY companies are run by homophobic douchebags, and they are way more progressive than most (f'rinstance, they have a policy of not discriminating against gays in hiring, which is not requred by state law in Georgia).


Like Coca-Cola? Oh no, wait, they are pro-gay (although they have other problems). And again, just because they aren't as bad as others means we should give CFA a free pass? I don't get it.
 
2012-08-03 10:49:10 AM  

fluffy2097: mbillips: Just want to point out a few things:

2. Chick-Fil-A's charitable foundation, the Winshare Foundation, gives token amounts to anti-gay "hate" groups ($1,000 each in 2010 to the pray-the-gay-away Exodus International and the generally hateful Family Research Council). They give hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to pro-hetero-marriage charities that spend the money on marriage counseling and couples retreats, and spend most of their budget on their own camps and foster homes. Chick-Fil-A also spends a lot of money on college scholarships for its young employees.

/When you're a liberal in the South, you pick your enemies carefully, or you wind up hating just about everybody.
//That asshole deserved to be fired. Not so much for yelling at a fast-food employee for no good reason, but for being proud of it and posting it on Youtube.

Before you start an argument, make sure your only and primary source isn't an opinion blog worthy of LiveJournal.

/You cannot cite opinion pieces (BLOGS) as evidence. Present me with a financial breakdown of who they donated to if you want me to believe you shiat.


I was trying to make it easy by presenting the data in an easy-to-read format. I've already looked up the numbers elsewhere, and they're correct. Equality Matters says that those pro-marriage organizations are anti-gay, but if you look up their mission statements and where they spend their money, it seems they're concerned about divorce and kids growing up without two parents when they talk about the "decline of traditional marriage." Read this: there's no mention of "gay" or "homosexual" ANYWHERE in a long interview about what the Marriage & Family Legacy Fund does. And seriously, Equality Matters is saying you can't give money to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes without supporting homophobic hate? Really?

I'm REALLY pro-gay, I mean I'm basically gay except for being attracted to the opposite sex, but I wanted to see for myself what was up when people started saying CFA gives millions to hate groups, when they've always had a reputation of being good to their employees. They don't, and they are.

/If you're pissy when you start a conversation, you're less likely to learn anything.
 
2012-08-03 10:50:19 AM  

senseofmea: Disagreeing does not equal hate.


Can you think of another rational reason that state-sponsored marriage needs to bend to the will of religious dogma?

I can't.
 
2012-08-03 10:50:33 AM  

TOSViolation: CeroX: indylaw: you have pee hands: TOSViolation: I'd like to hear your views on smokers' rights. Do you have a blog I can subscribe to?

Please provide a reasonable argument that (1) homosexual marriages affect heterosexual marriages in any way and (2) sexual orientation is a choice and your analogy might be something other than terrible.

/you's trollin

The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages. Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.

So, i have a couple of questions for you, not trolling, just want to know what a lawyer's position on this actually is...

1 - protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness Are you, as a lawyer, asserting that it is the government's business to inject themselves in both A) the private lives of two consenting adults; and B) the government's job to control it's citizens based on the religious belief of sin.

2 - acting upon one's orientation is Is this also the opinion of a lawyer, that gay US citizens should voluntarily forgo the rights and privileges granted to other US citizens and enter into celibacy because the religious majority of people consider it against their religious beliefs? What if they refuse to voluntarily give up their rights to appease the religious majority of the country?

Gay people have the same rights. A gay man can marry a gay woman if he chooses to.


I refuse to enter a logical conversation with you, this question was directed at indylaw. you are a dick rash that does nothing mre than serve as inflammation on every thread you post in...

No thanks...

Have fun with the potatoes!
 
2012-08-03 10:51:04 AM  

TOSViolation: CeroX: indylaw: you have pee hands: TOSViolation: I'd like to hear your views on smokers' rights. Do you have a blog I can subscribe to?

Please provide a reasonable argument that (1) homosexual marriages affect heterosexual marriages in any way and (2) sexual orientation is a choice and your analogy might be something other than terrible.

/you's trollin

The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages. Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.

So, i have a couple of questions for you, not trolling, just want to know what a lawyer's position on this actually is...

1 - protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness Are you, as a lawyer, asserting that it is the government's business to inject themselves in both A) the private lives of two consenting adults; and B) the government's job to control it's citizens based on the religious belief of sin.

2 - acting upon one's orientation is Is this also the opinion of a lawyer, that gay US citizens should voluntarily forgo the rights and privileges granted to other US citizens and enter into celibacy because the religious majority of people consider it against their religious beliefs? What if they refuse to voluntarily give up their rights to appease the religious majority of the country?

Gay people have the same rights. A gay man can marry a gay woman if he chooses to.


When same-sex marriage is legal, a straight man will be able to marry another straight man. We're doing you the favor of getting you even more rights from your government. You're welcome.
 
2012-08-03 10:51:06 AM  

CeroX: So, i have a couple of questions for you, not trolling, just want to know what a lawyer's position on this actually is...

1 - protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness Are you, as a lawyer, asserting that it is the government's business to inject themselves in both A) the private lives of two consenting adults; and B) the government's job to control it's citizens based on the religious belief of sin.


A) it CAN be - we don't allow murder and cannibalism even if the "victim" consents, and we don't allow incest even between consenting adult relatives. Nor do we allow bigamy or polygamy, regardless of consent. Most law is based on a moral choice of some sort. (that doesn't mean I believe that the government must keep gays from marrying)

B) As I said, most law is based on moral choice. I don't think that the federal or state governments should base their law purely on the morality of the Baptists, or the Catholics or what have you. But we already outlaw polygamy and incest (regardless of consent) and prostitution and in many states we outlaw adultery, though the laws are rarely enforced. These are all, broadly, moral choices based ultimately on our religious culture.

2 - acting upon one's orientation is Is this also the opinion of a lawyer, that gay US citizens should voluntarily forgo the rights and privileges granted to other US citizens and enter into celibacy because the religious majority of people consider it against their religious beliefs? What if they refuse to voluntarily give up their rights to appease the religious majority of the country?

I'm not sure what that question/those questions mean(s). Do I think that gay people can choose to act consistent with religious principles even though the civil law allows them to act in some other fashion? Sure. If it's mandatory, it's not voluntary, and vice versa.
 
2012-08-03 10:51:15 AM  
fluffy2097 2012-08-03 10:24:48 AM

I just...

I just cannot care about what he did.

He yelled a zoidberg like rant at a drive through worker. He didn't throw a cup of water at the employee, he didn't assault him. He didn't swear.

He told the worker he should be ashamed of working for a corporation that promotes assholery.

And then he drove away.

/Sticks and stones may break bones
//names never hurt.




LOL
Wow. Looks like someone hasn't been watching the news for the past decade.
 
2012-08-03 10:51:21 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: He didn't deserve to be fired. In the video he says he is a nice guy.


allieiswired.com

You're a nice guy! You're a nice guy but that don't cut it when you're around like this on set.
 
2012-08-03 10:51:55 AM  

indylaw: Let me ask you a question: Is it possible for someone to agree that the Constitution must allow for homosexual couples to have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples and to accept that the civil law makes such marriages possible, while at the same time believing that gay sex is against the will of God, while at the same time not "hating" gay people?


At first blush I'd say 'yes' although I think a lot of people would disagree with me. There are lots of things that people do that I don't really approve of, but I'm not going to attempt to legislate away their ability to do, and I don't hate those people.

That's not really what's going on with Chick Fil A though. They're pretty clearly and strongly anti gay marriage and I presume that the large majority of people rallying to support them are as well.
 
2012-08-03 10:53:53 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Neither is indylaw, or he'd know that mortal sins certainly are forgiven if the sinner repents.


There is no repenting for mortal sins, but some mortal sins can actually end up being venial depending on context. Taking The Lord's name in vain for example, should be a mortal sin but actually ends up being venial these days.

Murder is a mortal sin. There is no washing that stain off your hands. You murder someone, you go to hell. Period. Doesn't matter how much you repent.

Also, repenting doesn't matter for mortal or venial sins if you continue to go on to commit them. In fact, a venial sin, done enough without action taken to stop sinning becomes a mortal sin which cannot be repented for. Even if you put a buck in the church donation plate every week and confess your sins regularly.
 
2012-08-03 10:55:02 AM  

snarfyboy: I didn't say any of that. Quote the right person please.

 
2012-08-03 10:55:16 AM  

Lumpmoose: Sex is the physical expression of love, Christian or not.


I love my parents and I've yet to bang either one.
 
2012-08-03 10:56:00 AM  

SkunkWerks: senseofmea: Disagreeing does not equal hate.

Can you think of another rational reason that state-sponsored marriage needs to bend to the will of religious dogma?

I can't.


Not Really.

Can you think of any rational reason that state-sponsored marriage needs to bend to the will of liberal dogma?
 
2012-08-03 10:56:10 AM  

TOSViolation: If he was attracted to young girls, it would still be wrong, but it wouldn't be gay.


Ah, so not just ignorance, but willful ignorance. So you're either a hardcore fundy, or, more likely, just trolling

I'll mark you in the appropriate color, douchebag
 
2012-08-03 10:56:12 AM  
I was surprised that a college professor would do something like this, then I saw he is an MBA who teaches in an MBA program. Figures.

My friend worked in the reserve room of our college library. The business school students were the only ones who approached the desk and said, "Hello, I'm a [name of prestigious business school] student and I need..."

As if name-dropping their fancy school would get them something extra. Entitled, bullying, condescending twats. A lot of whom have probably decided that being homophobic is not appropriate. But entitled, bullying, condescending twats nonetheless.
 
2012-08-03 10:56:16 AM  

Lumpmoose: Some religions find homosexuality immoral, some don't, some people interpret their religions a certain way and some people are atheists are agnostics. The bottom line is that homosexuality is not illegal as long as the 2+ people are consenting adults.


It's not just religions, lots of people find homosexuality immoral without basing their reasoning on religion. It's pretty obvious why, unless you're purposefully clinging to incorrect thinking in order to convince yourself that you're living life in a reasonable way. People who take offense are simply expressing their innate revulsion at the recent movement to convince the world that wrong is actually right. Our biological imperative is that men pair with women. The deviation from that means that something is not functioning correctly within the brain of homosexuals, and it should be treated as any other mental disorder instead of pretending they're normal to spare their feelings. People with down's syndrome and autism (if they have sufficient communication skills) are well aware that there is something wrong with them, as society doesn't shield them from the reality of their situation. I see no reason to handle gays with kid gloves if we don't do the same for other disorders.


i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-03 10:56:25 AM  

Lumpmoose: TOSViolation: Lumpmoose: indylaw: you have pee hands: TOSViolation: I'd like to hear your views on smokers' rights. Do you have a blog I can subscribe to?

Please provide a reasonable argument that (1) homosexual marriages affect heterosexual marriages in any way and (2) sexual orientation is a choice and your analogy might be something other than terrible.

/you's trollin

The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages. Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.

This is the best response to "stop acting gay".

Bottom line:

When you tell a gay person to "resist" being gay, what you are really telling them - what you really mean - is for them to be celibate.

What you are truly and actually saying is that you want them to condemn themselves to a life devoid of the kind of enduring, romantic, partner-to-partner love that all people, Christians included, understand as just about the best part of being alive.

Be alone, you're demanding. Live alone. Don't hold anyone's hand. Don't snuggle on your couch with anyone. Don't cuddle up with anyone at night before you fall asleep. Don't have anyone to chat with over coffee in the morning.

Do not bind your life to that of another. Live your whole life without knowing that joy, that sharing, that peace.

Just say "no" to love.

Be alone. Live alone. Die alone.

The "sinful temptation" that Christians are forever urging LGBT people to resist is love.

Being, of course, the one thing Jesus was most clear about wanting his followers to extend to others.

You should give that speech at a NAMBLA meeting. You'd get a standing ovation.

Probably, but that still wouldn't get around that "consenting adults" sticking point that you ignored from my earlier post.


I didn't ignore it. I just think it's hypocritical of you to think it's perfectly fine to draw a line to define what is acceptable as long as YOU are the one who gets to draw it.
 
2012-08-03 10:56:54 AM  

indylaw: you have pee hands: indylaw: The ban on gay marriage is more about protecting homosexuals from committing themselves to their own sinfulness than it is about protecting other marriages.

That's both hilariously condescending and a violation of separation of church and state. It's also not the most commonly used argument, which is some malarkey about "sanctity of marriage" and "protecting the traditional family".

Additionally, while sexual orientation may not be a choice, acting upon one's orientation is. We don't say about alcoholics that it's cruel to keep them from drinking because they're just wired that way.

Ideologically, this is still an attempt to legislate old testament christian morality. From a practical standpoint, it's somewhat akin to teaching abstinence except for a person's entire life rather than just up until marriage.

Let me ask you a question: Is it possible for someone to agree that the Constitution must allow for homosexual couples to have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples and to accept that the civil law makes such marriages possible, while at the same time believing that gay sex is against the will of God, while at the same time not "hating" gay people?


Yes. Such a position is difficult for the irreligious person to understand but it is possible, in fact I believe it's common.

I am not religious now but I was raised in an active Catholic family. I would characterize my moms position as similar to what you describe. Like many religious people I have known she is deeply loving, caring, and sympathetic towards all but also believes very strongly in the bible as the word of God. She is not, however, a deep thinker in general and the cognitive dissonance that should be troublesome is not for her.
 
2012-08-03 10:58:12 AM  

you have pee hands: That's not really what's going on with Chick Fil A though. They're pretty clearly and strongly anti gay marriage and I presume that the large majority of people rallying to support them are as well.


I'd go further and say that they hate gay people and promote causes which go far beyond any genuine concern borne out of faithfulness to the Gospel.
 
2012-08-03 10:58:35 AM  
i1137.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-03 10:58:41 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: TOSViolation: If he was attracted to young girls, it would still be wrong, but it wouldn't be gay.

Ah, so not just ignorance, but willful ignorance. So you're either a hardcore fundy, or, more likely, just trolling

I'll mark you in the appropriate color, douchebag


Douchebag? I guess that could be an appropriate slur.

Should I call you an enemabag?
 
2012-08-03 10:59:14 AM  

fluffy2097: BarkingUnicorn: Neither is indylaw, or he'd know that mortal sins certainly are forgiven if the sinner repents.

There is no repenting for mortal sins, but some mortal sins can actually end up being venial depending on context. Taking The Lord's name in vain for example, should be a mortal sin but actually ends up being venial these days.

Murder is a mortal sin. There is no washing that stain off your hands. You murder someone, you go to hell. Period. Doesn't matter how much you repent.

Also, repenting doesn't matter for mortal or venial sins if you continue to go on to commit them. In fact, a venial sin, done enough without action taken to stop sinning becomes a mortal sin which cannot be repented for. Even if you put a buck in the church donation plate every week and confess your sins regularly.


Catholic problems, LOL. Babdists can be forgiven for ANYTHING, if they're really and truly sorry and tell Jesus that before they die. Lot of death-row inmates must be in heaven if that's true.
 
2012-08-03 10:59:54 AM  

mbillips: fluffy2097: mbillips: I was trying to make it easy by presenting the data in an easy-to-read format.


Your first link directly contradicts your point, saying that they donated 2 million dollars on hate groups according to their tax forms.

Your second link is an interview that mentions nothing about homosexuality at all.

/you should try actually reading your sources.
 
2012-08-03 11:00:22 AM  

senseofmea: Can you think of any rational reason that state-sponsored marriage needs to bend to the will of liberal dogma?


faqsmedia.ign.com
 
2012-08-03 11:00:24 AM  
I wanted to show everyone how super tolerant I am, so I went into a CFA and started screaming at the Hispanic teenagers behind the counter that they were hate-spewing fundie bigots.
 
2012-08-03 11:00:35 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: I cannot f*cking STAND people who biatch at cashiers, tellers, waiters, etc because of a policy decided by someone else., a thousand miles away, and a million miles up the pay scale.

I would have fired his ass, too.


Pretty much all that needs to be said about this. Why are there so many posts in this thread?

/oh... right....
 
2012-08-03 11:01:42 AM  

TOSViolation: You should give that speech at a NAMBLA meeting. You'd get a standing ovation.

Probably, but that still wouldn't get around that "consenting adults" sticking point that you ignored from my earlier post.

I didn't ignore it. I just think it's hypocritical of you to think it's perfectly fine to draw a line to define what is acceptable as long as YOU are the one who gets to draw it.


The "acceptability" line is drawn by the law that only people that are 18+ are adults and can consent. There are a number of moral and logistical reasons for that decision, but it's that decision that reverberates through the rest of society. Until we deconstruct why 18 is the age that someone is an adult, I'm not really drawing lines anywhere. It is what it is.
 
2012-08-03 11:02:35 AM  

notatrollorami: Yes. Such a position is difficult for the irreligious person to understand but it is possible, in fact I believe it's common.

I am not religious now but I was raised in an active Catholic family. I would characterize my moms position as similar to what you describe. Like many religious people I have known she is deeply loving, caring, and sympathetic towards all but also believes very strongly in the bible as the word of God. She is not, however, a deep thinker in general and the cognitive dissonance that should be troublesome is not for her.


So the position is possible, but only so long as you don't bring logic into mix.

/makes sense.... ಠ_ಠ
 
2012-08-03 11:02:55 AM  

indylaw: Lumpmoose: Sex is the physical expression of love, Christian or not.

I love my parents and I've yet to bang either one.


There are also concepts known as one night stands and fark buddies and those are generally devoid of the love that is the married couple. What's your point?
 
2012-08-03 11:03:09 AM  

fluffy2097: Murder is a mortal sin. There is no washing that stain off your hands. You murder someone, you go to hell. Period. Doesn't matter how much you repent.


Are you trying to claim that this is Cathokic doctrine? Or is this just your own personal opinion?

Because if you're a Catholic, not only are you wrong, you are openly denying essential Church doctrine, which is heresy, and puts you in a state of mortal sin.
 
2012-08-03 11:03:30 AM  

mbillips: I'm REALLY pro-gay, I mean I'm basically gay except for being attracted to the opposite sex, but I wanted to see for myself what was up when people started saying CFA gives millions to hate groups, when they've always had a reputation of being good to their employees. They don't, and they are.


And your well-thought-out post will go ignored because YOU'RE NOT SUFFICIENTLY ANGRY!!!!
 
2012-08-03 11:03:38 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lumpmoose: Some religions find homosexuality immoral, some don't, some people interpret their religions a certain way and some people are atheists are agnostics. The bottom line is that homosexuality is not illegal as long as the 2+ people are consenting adults.

It's not just religions, lots of people find homosexuality immoral without basing their reasoning on religion. It's pretty obvious why, unless you're purposefully clinging to incorrect thinking in order to convince yourself that you're living life in a reasonable way. People who take offense are simply expressing their innate revulsion at the recent movement to convince the world that wrong is actually right. Our biological imperative is that men pair with women. The deviation from that means that something is not functioning correctly within the brain of homosexuals, and it should be treated as any other mental disorder instead of pretending they're normal to spare their feelings. People with down's syndrome and autism (if they have sufficient communication skills) are well aware that there is something wrong with them, as society doesn't shield them from the reality of their situation. I see no reason to handle gays with kid gloves if we don't do the same for other disorders.


[i46.tinypic.com image 400x300]


Holy crap that's some good work. I don't do the troll rating deal but it's good work. Should have done it earlier in the thread and you'd have landed a net full.
 
2012-08-03 11:03:57 AM  

Needlessly Complicated: Why are there so many posts in this thread?


It's the Zimmerman/Martin-style thread-of-the-moment.
 
2012-08-03 11:05:29 AM  

Lumpmoose: indylaw: Lumpmoose: Sex is the physical expression of love, Christian or not.

I love my parents and I've yet to bang either one.

There are also concepts known as one night stands and fark buddies and those are generally devoid of the love that is the married couple. What's your point?


What's my point? You tried to say that if I say "you should not have sex with someone of the same sex," I'm telling a person that he or she must die friendless, unloved and alone. I disputed that and you told me that sex is love.
 
2012-08-03 11:05:54 AM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Because if you're a Catholic, not only are you wrong, you are openly denying essential Church doctrine, which is heresy, and puts you in a state of mortal sin.


God doesn't like a liar, sir.
 
2012-08-03 11:05:59 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Lumpmoose: Some religions find homosexuality immoral, some don't, some people interpret their religions a certain way and some people are atheists are agnostics. The bottom line is that homosexuality is not illegal as long as the 2+ people are consenting adults.

It's not just religions, lots of people find homosexuality immoral without basing their reasoning on religion. It's pretty obvious why, unless you're purposefully clinging to incorrect thinking in order to convince yourself that you're living life in a reasonable way. People who take offense are simply expressing their innate revulsion at the recent movement to convince the world that wrong is actually right. Our biological imperative is that men pair with women. The deviation from that means that something is not functioning correctly within the brain of homosexuals, and it should be treated as any other mental disorder instead of pretending they're normal to spare their feelings. People with down's syndrome and autism (if they have sufficient communication skills) are well aware that there is something wrong with them, as society doesn't shield them from the reality of their situation. I see no reason to handle gays with kid gloves if we don't do the same for other disorders.


[i46.tinypic.com image 400x300]


If you're making a secular argument against homosexuality, you're going against the American Psychological Association and several branches of biology. You might be able to do it, but you have a long road ahead of you. Better start getting some grad students together and learning the inner-workings of peer review.
 
2012-08-03 11:06:04 AM  

Lumpmoose: There are also concepts known as one night stands and fark buddies and those are generally devoid of the love that is the married couple. What's your point?


Well, that's not Scripture-approved either. Unless you're a king and they're concubines, maybe, I was never totally clear on that.
 
Displayed 50 of 660 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report