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  
•       •       •

27489 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Aug 2012 at 5:58 AM (1 year 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 11:07:51 AM

fluffy2097: snarfyboy: I didn't say any of that. Quote the right person please.


Whoops! Terribly sorry. That's the first time I have made that mistake.
 
2012-08-03 11:08:18 AM

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: 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!!!!


His well thought out post will go ignored because his evidence is a opinion piece, a website that contradicts his own statements via publicly available tax returns, and his third source is a fluff interview which has no mention of homosexuality or being gay.
 
2012-08-03 11:09:08 AM

snarfyboy: fluffy2097: snarfyboy: I didn't say any of that. Quote the right person please.

Whoops! Terribly sorry. That's the first time I have made that mistake.


We're cool. I'm good enough at making an ass of myself. I don't need help ;)
 
2012-08-03 11:09:51 AM

indylaw: 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.


I said that sex is the physical expression of love. I can amend that to say that sex is the physical expression of love of the type that generally occurs between people that fall in love. I don't understand the confusion of terminology.
 
2012-08-03 11:10:01 AM

Lumpmoose: If you're making a secular argument against homosexuality, you're going against the American Psychological Association and several branches of biology.


Culture also.
 
2012-08-03 11:12:16 AM

fluffy2097: 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


Yes, precisely my point. It is not possible to hold consistent views and believe in the bible in its entirety. But millions upon millions of people, in their own minds, do so all the time. They chalk up any inconsistencies to our inability to understand the complexities of God or various other things.

I'm very strongly for any consenting adults who want to marry doing so. But I am capable of recognizing that a large portion of humanity do not have hatred in their hearts for gay people but believe being gay is sinful because their preacher/pastor/priest/momma told them so and that's the end of their thought process on the matter.
 
2012-08-03 11:12:48 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?


My take on it is that hate comes first, and the scriptural justification comes later. These people would hate gays even if Christ had never been born, the Jews never got out of Egypt, Moses dropped all three tablets, etc. etc. In other words, they don't really care whether or not gay sex is against the will of God. Bible passages that support that viewpoint are just sprinkles on their ice cream cones. And based on that, they will never agree that any interpretation of Constitution (which is just an extension of their Bible, as far as they're concerned) allows homosexuals ANY rights other than to "go be gay somewhere else."
 
2012-08-03 11:12:59 AM
All YOU need is Love!


/The Beatles said it first.
 
2012-08-03 11:14:44 AM

fluffy2097: 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.


Actually, you might benefit from actually reading the sources. The first link shows where the money went. I disagree with the source that those are hate groups. The second link backs my opinion because it shows that the largest donation went to a "hate group" that doesn't seem to give a crap about gays or gay marriage. If you really are curious, you can get the IRS form that the Equality Matters "hate group" release was based on, and look up more info about the groups listed as hate groups. I'm not going to do it for you; I'm satisfied that they're not.

I did neglect to mention $12,500 given to Focus on the Family and $5,000 to the Eagle Forum, which are anti-gay wingnut organizations. But my point is, out of the $2 million supposedly given to "hate groups," only $19,500, less than 1 percent, went to actual "hate groups." Those other organizations are mainstream charities that do good work, even if (like Chick-Fil-A) they have wrong opinions about gays.

/I put "hate groups" in quotes because even the Family Research Council doesn't spend ALL of its time hating; they actually are in favor of a few things that aren't awful (religious liberty and strong families), even if they promote them in awful ways. The Klan is a hate group.
 
2012-08-03 11:15:04 AM
Ég tala ekki íslensku
 
2012-08-03 11:16:35 AM

Lumpmoose: I can amend that to say that sex is the physical expression of love of the type that generally occurs between people that fall in love.


Ah, OK. Thanks for clarifying. There are many expressions of love, even romantic love, and sex is but one of those. Thought experiment: If you were deeply in love with a person and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them, and they one day got in a horrible accident which caused their crotch plumbing to stop working, would you no longer love them?

My position is this. It's a free country. Generally, if the conduct you're engaged in doesn't hurt another person, it should be none of the government's business as far as I'm concerned. But acknowledging and respecting that freedom is not the same as me saying "It's OK to do X." It's legal to buy several bottles of wine everyday and drink yourself unconscious every night (as long as you're not driving or in charge of the well being of small children). But I don't think it's a good idea.
 
2012-08-03 11:17:14 AM

SilentStrider: Good. Disagree with their stupid ass policies all you want, but there's no excuse for yelling at a scared/bired teenager working a fast food window.


I read this as scared bird and it still worked. Especially when some jerk is taking out their frustrations on the employee. it can be terrifying until you learn how to deal with that kind of abuse. As others have no doubt said, disagree with the corporate philosophy all you want. That's your right. Tormenting the workers isn't part of the deal.

You're not helping your cause, You're only giving cover to those who claim their support isn't about discriminating against gays but about "free speech." You're validating their persecution complex, and you're an idiot for uploading the video yourself. If you want to fight against Chick-fil-A, support the pro-gay marriage campaigns and for God's sake get out and vote. That's how we act in civilized society, and our good behavior is supposed to shame the opposition.

Giving them talking points is not the way to win. Moran.
 
2012-08-03 11:18:02 AM

Mugato: Good, fark him.


Agreed. A whole lot a agreed.
 
2012-08-03 11:21:10 AM

mrsirjojo: The most annoying thing about it was his telling her he was a nice guy.

I find this all to common these days, people telling you something about themselves like it's fact.


My pet peeve is with organizations, philosophies, and agendas that do something similar by using a name for themselves that yells you how wonderful they are. Objectivism, Bright, Scientology. Like "I was just about to dismiss Ayn Rand's notions as puerile Narcissism, but then that name "Objectivism" made me decide she was right after all!" Or "How could anyone disagree with Scientology? It's got 'science; and '-ology' right there in the name!"
 
2012-08-03 11:24:10 AM
Would it help if the DSM would define "Chik-fil-a Syndrome" as a mental disorder?

OK, let's give it a go, shall we?

Chik-fil-a Syndrome: one of the increasing number of incidents that become borderline psychoses masquerading as social issues with the impulse multipliers of both legacy and social media. More likely to occur in the six months preceding a presidential election. Symptomatic of and tending toward other, more serious disorders (cf. The Tribe That Lost Its Head- itis).

/If this works for you, set a good example and keep it to yourself. Also if it doesn't.
 
2012-08-03 11:24:25 AM

fluffy2097: 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.


Boo hoo. Take it up with the Vatican - they're the ones who made the rules, not me. If you're too damned ignorant to actually know the essential doctrines of the faith you claim to follow, that's your problem, not mine, moran
 
2012-08-03 11:24:57 AM

Lumpmoose: 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.


So...you're not challenging that law, because it doesn't impact you, but you want everyone else to challenge one that does?

Your views on tolerance and acceptance are intriguing...
 
2012-08-03 11:25:17 AM
I'd like to know what he seriously hoped to accomplish by being an asshole to a drive-thru employee.

It's not about her. It's about a typically arrogant liberal.

Then, make a video of it, and show the world what a crusader you are. Cue the applause.

I wish we had the video of him being fired.
 
2012-08-03 11:27:35 AM

rico567: OK, let's give it a go, shall we?


The illness you describe is nothing more than foot-in-mouth disease in the context of instant widespread social media communication, comorbid with the Internet Dickwad Theorem.
 
2012-08-03 11:27:42 AM

cowsspinach: All YOU need is Love!


/The Beatles said it first.


Right after they recorded the song by each appearing in the studio separately because they couldn't stand to be with each other.
 
2012-08-03 11:27:43 AM

Kurmudgeon: durbnpoisn: There are so many places where so many worse things are happening (to both gays and christians)

Gays can be Christian, the terms are not mutually exclusive.


I think you quoted from within my quote. Because I never said anything of that sort.
 
2012-08-03 11:28:34 AM

indylaw: Lumpmoose: I can amend that to say that sex is the physical expression of love of the type that generally occurs between people that fall in love.

Ah, OK. Thanks for clarifying. There are many expressions of love, even romantic love, and sex is but one of those. Thought experiment: If you were deeply in love with a person and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them, and they one day got in a horrible accident which caused their crotch plumbing to stop working, would you no longer love them?

My position is this. It's a free country. Generally, if the conduct you're engaged in doesn't hurt another person, it should be none of the government's business as far as I'm concerned. But acknowledging and respecting that freedom is not the same as me saying "It's OK to do X." It's legal to buy several bottles of wine everyday and drink yourself unconscious every night (as long as you're not driving or in charge of the well being of small children). But I don't think it's a good idea.


I'm already deeply in love with someone and a busted crotch wouldn't disrupt our love at all. I imagine many straight couples would have a similar answer--but they'll nevertheless be farking like bunnies in the interim. It's amazing how many hundreds or thousands of times straight married couples have sex compared to their number of children, no? Almost makes it seem like sex for humans is a little more than just about reproduction.

Your position is fine. Reposted from me:

Someone can believe in a religion that's anti-homosexuality and go to a church that refuses to perform same-sex marriages. That's not hateful. But when that person decides to impose their will on everyone else so that EVERY church and the secular government cannot perform same-sex marriages, that's hateful. It'd be like the Catholic Church telling synagogues that they can't marry Jews and then exerting political will to change laws to that effect. It's anti-American, offensive and indefensible.

The same goes for sodomy. I'm looking for freedom, which is the freedom of people to make their own choices regarding their own orientation, regardless of what that choice is--even if it's something personally destructive, like an ex-gay ministry. It's their choice, or should be.
 
2012-08-03 11:28:49 AM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Boo hoo. Take it up with the Vatican - they're the ones who made the rules, not me. If you're too damned ignorant to actually know the essential doctrines of the faith you claim to follow, that's your problem, not mine, moran


Stop taking the lords name in vain, sinner.
 
2012-08-03 11:29:03 AM

Lumpmoose: you're going against the American Psychological Association


They really only reversed their position because gays couldn't handle the stigma as well as people with down's can (that's kind of telling). The vote to pass the change didn't put opponents of the measure into a minuscule minority as you probably imagine in your fantasy world. Considering the fact that the APA members faced harassment and pressure from protesters to vote in favor of gays, it's likely that a majority still think homosexuality is a mental illness. As it stood, roughly 40% opposed the measure despite harassment. You might call the reversal of a scientific position due to widespread protest scientifically valid, but I don't. But go ahead and keep up that delusional thinking if it gets you through the day.
 
2012-08-03 11:29:04 AM

Lumpmoose: indylaw: 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.

I said that sex is the physical expression of love. I can amend that to say that sex is the physical expression of love of the type that generally occurs between people that fall in love. I don't understand the confusion of terminology.


Sex is THE physical expression of love?! My, what an ignorant asshat you've shown yourself to be.

There are many people who, for various reasons, are incapable of the physical sex act. Are you saying they cannot express love.

I don't hate gay people, but I REALLY. don't like YOU.
 
2012-08-03 11:30:35 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Pocket Ninja: I'm wondering how much time was spent by various stores preparing their employees for how to deal with situations like this.

Next to none.


The behaviour of the customers noted in that post disgusts me.
 
2012-08-03 11:31:30 AM

ciberido: It's got 'science; and '-ology' right there in the name!"


Best of both worlds, actually. Since it also got itself declared a religion.
 
2012-08-03 11:32:02 AM
I wish he had pulled up to the drive through and saw this guy

sidesalad.net

/hot like waffle fries
 
2012-08-03 11:32:09 AM

soporific: and for God's sake get out and vote. That's how we act in civilized society, and our good behavior is supposed to shame the opposition.


Lol. Tell that to Afghanistan. The US voting process is what makes is a civilized society, and the US behaves well.
 
2012-08-03 11:33:13 AM

TOSViolation: So...you're not challenging that law, because it doesn't impact you, but you want everyone else to challenge one that does?

Your views on tolerance and acceptance are intriguing...


There are many valid, secular arguments for the age of consent. There are none for the ban on same-sex marriage. In a liberal country, that matters.
 
2012-08-03 11:34:25 AM

Lumpmoose: I'm looking for freedom, which is the freedom of people to make their own choices regarding their own orientation, regardless of what that choice is--even if it's something personally destructive, like an ex-gay ministry. It's their choice, or should be.


So um, about those Neo Nazi folks and the Klan....
 
2012-08-03 11:35:30 AM

CeroX: TheMysticS: penthesilea: If the guy was marching outside the place with a sign or participating in a sit-in I'd be mad he was fired. This is not the case. This was purely dickish behavior.

I wouldn't want someone that stupid to be in charge of a company. Guy doesn't make good decisions.

That right there.
You're a CEO, and you feel EMPOWERED by yelling at teenagers in a drive-thru.


Problem is, that guy isn't a CEO, he's a CFO, and companies have multiple CFOs. There's usually CFO of Technology, one for Marketing, one for Accounting, etc...

CFO is upper management, but not the tip of the pyramid... And CFO's act like this douche all the time. It's seriously how they got where they are. They just don't go around posting it on an internationally popular website...

I talk to CFO's, CIO's VP's and AVP's all day at my job, and most of them talk down at the little people. I've never spoken to the CEO of the company, he has his own personal IT guru.

I USED to talk to those sort of people from rather large investment company from new york that sank during the bailout years. They were worse by far... New York execs make talking down and berating people a primary dialect of the English language.


I'd agree with your assessment of the type.
And, yeah, I see now the article says CFO. Way different position.
Still, like you said, upper management and such.
So, thanks for the clarification and antecdote- kinda confirms what I said in a roundabout way. Douchey guy acts like douche.
I was going to add that as a service worker, you can find yourself getting verbally abused quite often. Frequently I find those that have limited power elsewhere feel the need to abuse others- and what better places than where folks are paid to take your order, ring your purchase up, etc.

I guess we could have avoided all of this conversation if I had just said the guy obviously has a small penis.
But, I'm not here to avoid. I'm here to snark.
All of the above, then.
 
2012-08-03 11:35:50 AM

chewielouie: "And I'm totally heterosexual. Not a gay in me."

Methinks thou dost protest too much.


Or, he was hitting on the drive-thru girl.
 
2012-08-03 11:36:02 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: But go ahead and keep up that delusional thinking if it gets you through the day.


Seems to work for you, after all.

The APA dropped the classification because there was absolutely no pathology for it. There does remain a single disorder in the DSM related to homosexuality. That would be Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality.

It remains because such individuals actually do pose a danger- to themselves, in this case.
 
2012-08-03 11:36:20 AM

Lumpmoose: I'm already deeply in love with someone and a busted crotch wouldn't disrupt our love at all. I imagine many straight couples would have a similar answer--but they'll nevertheless be farking like bunnies in the interim. It's amazing how many hundreds or thousands of times straight married couples have sex compared to their number of children, no? Almost makes it seem like sex for humans is a little more than just about reproduction.

Your position is fine. Reposted from me:

Someone can believe in a religion that's anti-homosexuality and go to a church that refuses to perform same-sex marriages. That's not hateful. But when that person decides to impose their will on everyone else so that EVERY church and the secular government cannot perform same-sex marriages, that's hateful. It'd be like the Catholic Church telling synagogues that they can't marry Jews and then exerting political will to change laws to that effect. It's anti-American, offensive and indefensible.

The same goes for sodomy. I'm looking for freedom, which is the freedom of people to make their own choices regarding their own orientation, regardless of what that choice is--even if it's something personally destructive, like an ex-gay ministry. It's their choice, or should be.


I agree with almost everything you said. I'd amend your statement that a voter who wishes to vote based on his religious values by opposing extension of marriage to same-sex couples is necessarily hateful. I know numerous people that believe that a person who engages in gay sex without repenting is an unrepentant sinner in danger of an eternity apart from God. They believe that it is their Christian duty, born out of love for the sinner, to dissuade the sinner from a life of sin and encourage him to repent of that sin and accept God. For some, I agree with you, it's based on hate or a deep prejudice that gays are icky or they're out to get our kids. For others, it is born out of a feeling of religious conviction. I think they're wrong about the nature of American law and liberty, but I don't think they're hateful. They feel that they are fighting for The Truth out of concern for their fellow humans.
 
2012-08-03 11:37:22 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.


And you make it sound as if love, sex, and marriage were about as important to the human experience as sneezing.

A blind person can live a rich and rewarding life without sight. That doesn't make vision not a fundamental part of human experience. Nor would it excuse a religion that required it members to blind themselves.


And, really, "Ask monks or nuns"? Seriously? We call them "nuns" and "monks" precisely because we DON'T expect laypeople to live by the same rules.

Lastly, Paul was a freak, and his teachings on marriage contradict what Jesus said about marriage (Matthew Matthew 19:8-12, for example), so I wouldn't bang that particular drum.
 
2012-08-03 11:37:27 AM

TOSViolation: Sex is THE physical expression of love?! My, what an ignorant asshat you've shown yourself to be.

There are many people who, for various reasons, are incapable of the physical sex act. Are you saying they cannot express love.

I don't hate gay people, but I REALLY. don't like YOU.


It was a point of debate against someone who diminished sex as being separate from love. They're intertwined, especially when we're debating laws related to both.
 
2012-08-03 11:39:44 AM

fluffy2097: Lumpmoose: I'm looking for freedom, which is the freedom of people to make their own choices regarding their own orientation, regardless of what that choice is--even if it's something personally destructive, like an ex-gay ministry. It's their choice, or should be.

So um, about those Neo Nazi folks and the Klan....


Hasn't the ACLU traditionally defended Klan marches in this country? There's argument that they should be allowed as long as no one gets hurt but that's a whole different can of worms.
 
2012-08-03 11:39:48 AM
i860.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-03 11:42:40 AM

MythDragon: I have nothing useful to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said, so here is a cute ginger girl from a random GIS
[24.media.tumblr.com image 467x700]


I presume GIS means Ginger Image Search.

thechive.files.wordpress.com

It's one thing to yell at the peons for the actions of the executives, but maybe if a few major companies said "We don't want anyone who worked in CFA management because that indicates a probable support of disreputable corporate dogma" I wonder how the shiat would hit the fan.
 
2012-08-03 11:43:45 AM

SkunkWerks: BraveNewCheneyWorld: But go ahead and keep up that delusional thinking if it gets you through the day.

Seems to work for you, after all.

The APA dropped the classification because there was absolutely no pathology for it. There does remain a single disorder in the DSM related to homosexuality. That would be Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality.

It remains because such individuals actually do pose a danger- to themselves, in this case.


Only 32 percent of the APA voted for the change. Roughly 40% who voted, voted against it. Sorry, but when you consider the level of harassment they received due to their addresses being made public by gay activists, you can't seriously count the vote as a credible, science based change. The change was pure politics and zero science.
 
2012-08-03 11:43:54 AM

Lumpmoose: TOSViolation: So...you're not challenging that law, because it doesn't impact you, but you want everyone else to challenge one that does?

Your views on tolerance and acceptance are intriguing...

There are many valid, secular arguments for the age of consent. There are none for the ban on same-sex marriage. In a liberal country, that matters.


Yeah. People should be free to do whatever they desire. You have a nice house, I think I'll just go live there. You have a purty dog. I think she needs a physical expression of love. I like to bang on my drums all night. Who are you to tell me not to?

I want to put my neighbor's kids on my own health insurance. I should be able to do that, right.
 
2012-08-03 11:44:24 AM
When I first saw this clip, it was so bad and obviously unhelpful I honestly thought it was fake. Like this was some conservative asshole trying to act how they think "liberals" behave. Seriously, I couldn't believe anyone who is on the right side of this issue would be so astoundingly rude to someone and so obviously counterproductive. But I was wrong.
 
2012-08-03 11:44:26 AM

indylaw: They feel that they are fighting for The Truth out of concern for their fellow humans.


You know what the road to hell is paved with though, eh?

It's true though, villains rarely view themselves as such. And honestly that's where I'd put the matter of whether or not to perceive them as "hateful". It's a point of view, less than it would be a matter of fact.

From my point of view, it's misguided and for lack of anything else that a placing of dogmatic priority over human decency could be, it's hateful. But you're welcome to disagree, of course.
 
2012-08-03 11:45:39 AM

ciberido: Lastly, Paul was a freak, and his teachings on marriage contradict what Jesus said about marriage (Matthew Matthew 19:8-12, for example), so I wouldn't bang that particular drum.


Paul has some problems, but my purpose in quoting him was to explain widespread Christian thought on sex and marriage. Matthew 19 talks about how divorce is discouraged and remarriage after divorce is a form of adultery - I don't see how that passage contradicts Paul. In fact, verse 12 talks about people who are asexual for the purpose of religious devotion, which is more or less what Paul talks about preferably.
 
2012-08-03 11:46:39 AM

Lumpmoose: TOSViolation: Sex is THE physical expression of love?! My, what an ignorant asshat you've shown yourself to be.

There are many people who, for various reasons, are incapable of the physical sex act. Are you saying they cannot express love.

I don't hate gay people, but I REALLY. don't like YOU.

It was a point of debate against someone who diminished sex as being separate from love. They're intertwined, especially when we're debating laws related to both.


They aren't. There are plenty of people, in sexual relationships, where no love is involved.

I will enter rampant prostitution as exhibit A.
 
2012-08-03 11:46:56 AM

MoeSzyslak: So first of all this guy, a CFO thinks that wasting a bunch of gas while waiting in line in order to cost the company money (price of a cup, lid, and straw) by ordering a free water is accomplishing something? Maybe if he did it a thousand times a day for a week he'd cost the company something in the order of $17.00. Great farking plan! With wits like that I'm sure he was a great CFO and they'll regret letting him go.

Secondly I wish I could have seen the look on his face when he realized this didn't work out quite the way he thought it would. I'll bet he got up this morning fully expecting to read a Huff-Po piece about a video they found of some brave guy standing to the hate mongers at chick-fil-a and gays everywhere rejoiced. Instead he's going to have to try and find another high paying job with a company that's never heard of the internet. He sure showed them.


This form of protest isn't a good idea. Not if you have to wait in line at all BEFORE ordering. Because unless you just finished a BBQ buffet, it's gonna be hard to sit in line and NOT order anything. Then all you'll be able to say is "do you know why I only ordered the chicken sandwich, and NOT your value meal? It's because of your position on gay rights!" and it kinda loses any impact it might ever have had.
 
2012-08-03 11:47:01 AM

Lumpmoose: 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.


Might be able to do it? I'm sorry, and which branches of biology support the notion that anal sex is natural? Seriously, penises and vaginas were designed to accommodate one another for the primary purpose of procreation. I can't believe this has to be explained to some of you, but the primary function and design of the anus is to expel feces and other bodily waste. I won't even get into all the different ways on how anal sex can be detrimental to one's heath, you can look that up for yourself. The fact that some people enjoy anal sex or other butthole pleasures is irrelevant, and certainly does not make it natural. There isn't even a need to get into whether it is immoral or sinful.

If you derive pleasure from sticking your pee pee into someone else's pooper, then have at it. But please, just stop trying to convince the world that you were born with that impulse and that it is natural. I have met numerous gay individuals over the course of my lifetime who were not afraid to admit that their lifestyle was a choice, but of course, according to the G&L crowd those people are just lying to themselves. Get real.
 
2012-08-03 11:47:44 AM
fluffy2097 þú ert stærsta fjandans fáviti í heimi
 
2012-08-03 11:47:49 AM

Lumpmoose: 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.


Bullshiat. There are just as many papers and studies written that state it is a choice and/or a defect. Those papers are buried and shunned for the same reasons people dont want to hear it from religious nuts: ITS NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT.

Science is involved in politics more than you think.
 
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 closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report