PDA

View Full Version : Chick-fil-A Vandalized in Torrance, CA ("Tastes Like Hate")




Pages : [1] 2

RonPaulFanInGA
08-03-2012, 10:18 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016769067e89970b-640wi

jkr
08-03-2012, 10:26 AM
well, i didnt hate you b4 but i do now...

what a bunch of fucking punks!

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 10:29 AM
LoL, more intolerance from the tolerance crowd.

oyarde
08-03-2012, 10:30 AM
LoL, more intolerance from the tolerance crowd. Imagine that .

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 10:48 AM
Fil-A This, Chick

Posted by Becky Akers on August 3, 2012 10:05 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/117113.html#more-117113

In addition to dealing the corporate media a black eye on Wednesday, the kerfuffle over Chick-fil-A allowed various politicians to make even bigger fools of themselves than usual. One of the most enormous is “Powerful NYC pol,” Christine Quinn.

Prissy Chrissy is speaker of that nest of wannabees, Marxists-to-the-left-of-Mao, and tyrants known as the New York City Council. The Council exists solely to squander our sky-high taxes while making “work” for the otherwise unemployable. It has little power, as the nanny masquerading as mayor recently illustrated: Bloomberg didn’t even bother pushing his enormously unpopular restriction on sodas through the Council; rather, he skedaddled straight to the bureaucratic regime for help in tyrannizing us. Indeed, you might suppose the Council’s power-hungry morons would all jump ship for positions as bureaucrats, but intelligence has never been their strong suit.

Instead, these twits waste their days trying to differentiate themselves from the other pygmies. To that end, we luckless taxpayers regularly receive newsletters hyping the latest “crisis” our councilcritter has ginned up as well as the slew of laws he proposes to “resolve” it.

Others distinguish themselves with their peccadilloes. Prissy Chrissy falls in this camp. She’s an “out lesbian, who married [sic] her partner in May.” She also exploited the potentials for publicity in the brouhaha over Chick-fil-A. And lucky for us: she thereby furnished yet another example of the megalomania and intolerance typical of Our Rulers.

PC sent a letter to the president of New York University, whose campus boasts the City’s only Chick-fil-A. Though she later “claim[ed] she was just speaking as a private citizen” while ordering her correspondent to run Chick-fil-A off his premises, PC placed her diatribe on official letterhead and began it, "I write as the Speaker of the NYC Council…. NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity” — except, of course, diversity of opinion. And in government: there we languish under a crushing monopoly. “We do not believe in denigrating others,” unless they disagree with Our Rulers. “We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families." Yeah, we heard you the first time, Prissy. Clearly, this gal is an apt student of the Big Lie theory.

“Let me be clear,” she continued, “I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views."

Whoa! In whose city? New York is home to some 8 million residents, most of them a stunning contrast to Prissy with their productivity and virtue. They construct buildings; teach yoga, foreign languages, guitar, swimming, physics, and anything else you can imagine; cook and serve some of the world’s best cuisine; dance, sing and act; treat the sick and comfort the dying; invent new gadgets and sell them as well as older stuff; preach on Sundays; produce plays, concerts, movies, and books; etc, ad infinitum. All this despite such thugs and deviants as Prissy leeching off them while hamstringing them with absurd decrees.

It’s their city, not Prissy’s. Here's hoping they someday kick her and all her self-important comrades out on their smug butts.

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 10:49 AM
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/222/958/lib.jpg

sailingaway
08-03-2012, 10:54 AM
LoL, more intolerance from the tolerance crowd.

this. The protesters were vastly outnumbered by diners when I drove by the one in Hollywood, and if that was true in HOLLYWOOD, Torrence, which is much more conservative, would have had to have been the same. The revenge was because they couldn't muster numbers to demonstrate personal outrage of a CEO who doesn't even own the franchise, having personal opinions they disagree with.

People can boycott, people can protest (if they don't harrass) and people can attend in droves. But mayors forbidding permits based on the religious or political beliefs of the owner, and vandalism, are the evils here.

You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 11:03 AM
You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.

Great point, especially when you consider that most of the people that were up in arms and trying to shut down that Muslim center are now the same people defending Chick - Fil - A.

pcosmar
08-03-2012, 11:12 AM
But it is dominating the news and keeping Anaheim quiet.

;)

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 11:22 AM
You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.


Great point, especially when you consider that most of the people that were up in arms and trying to shut down that Muslim center are now the same people defending Chick - Fil - A.

100% correct. Don't expect consistency among libtards or wingnuts...you won't find it.

awake
08-03-2012, 11:38 AM
Why is Chick-fil-A even in the news?

IMHO every big media spin job in the election cycle is an attempt to force the candidates(parties) to make promises of protection and favor to "important groups". IMHO they are tests for the candidates rolled out one after another to see if they are friend or foe to the armies of special interests who infest Washington's pig trough.

This story is a non-story blown up into an attempt to get Obamney/Rombama to publicly spew their favor.

PaulConventionWV
08-03-2012, 11:41 AM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016769067e89970b-640wi

Isn't it so ironic that people accuse them of hate by harrassing their employees, vandalizing their buildings, and severely insulting and degrading the integrity of Dan Cathy, not to mention judging people with similar views.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 11:46 AM
Hate?? Dan Cathy forbids members of the LBGT/Homosexual community from working in his company? He advocates that gays cannot freely associate??? I didn't think so.

awake
08-03-2012, 11:48 AM
What's funny is the lopsidedness of the whole discrimination hysteria. I know of businesses, which it is stated, as serving only homosexual clientele and is openly enforced - where is the outcry, where is the injustice? You hear complete silence, nothing is said.

PaulConventionWV
08-03-2012, 11:48 AM
But it is dominating the news and keeping Anaheim quiet.

;)

I bet Anaheim just feels so safe right now.

FrankRep
08-03-2012, 11:48 AM
Chick-fil-A Day a Reminder That Boycotts Often Backfire
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/chick-fil-a-day-a-reminder-that-boycotts-often-backfire.html

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 11:54 AM
this. The protesters were vastly outnumbered by diners when I drove by the one in Hollywood, and if that was true in HOLLYWOOD, Torrence, which is much more conservative, would have had to have been the same. The revenge was because they couldn't muster numbers to demonstrate personal outrage of a CEO who doesn't even own the franchise, having personal opinions they disagree with.

People can boycott, people can protest (if they don't harrass) and people can attend in droves. But mayors forbidding permits based on the religious or political beliefs of the owner, and vandalism, are the evils here.

You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.

I totally agree. I will never eat at a Chick-Fil-A myself because I don't want my money being added to the money they donate to groups that are trying to make more laws limiting people's freedoms. But banning them is just more government tyranny. Two wrongs don't make a right. Doesn't matter what foot the shoe is on, government tyranny is wrong and evil.

And vandalizing them is beyond lame. I would actually like this if they had taken out an ad somewhere to display this message instead. But they have no right to cost them money like that. In fact the vandal probably didn't even consider the possibility that the franchise owner may not even agree with all the anti-gay activism money the company donates.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 11:56 AM
Great point, especially when you consider that most of the people that were up in arms and trying to shut down that Muslim center are now the same people defending Chick - Fil - A.

Everybody loves freedom of religion as long as it's only their own religion we're talking about.

dannno
08-03-2012, 12:03 PM
What's funny is the lopsidedness of the whole discrimination hysteria. I know of businesses, which it is stated, as serving only homosexual clientele and is openly enforced - where is the outcry, where is the injustice? You hear complete silence, nothing is said.

Handbag making schools?

awake
08-03-2012, 12:04 PM
Actually vacation and camping retreats...

dannno
08-03-2012, 12:06 PM
Ohh.

Well lets signup for a lesbian retreat and if they don't let us in then we can start a class-action lawsuit.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 12:07 PM
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/222/958/lib.jpg

I don't think it's the Christ part of Christianity that gay rights advocates hate. Jesus said lots of things about love but never said one word about homosexuality while he walked the earth as God Incarnate. (Not in any version of the Bible I've ever seen.)

What they hate is people who spend millions of dollars collectively to try to write laws infringing on their freedoms, trying to force them to observe someone else's religion they don't believe in. (i.e. "Marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says so.")

If this still doesn't make sense, consider how you would feel if Muslims were spending millions of dollars lobbying to write a law saying Christian marriages are invalid. If you got married in a Christian church, it is not valid, not legal, you are not married in the eyes of society or the government. Why? Well because the one, true, word of God, the Qu'Ran, says so. Only marriages under Islam are valid. It's God's word. (Yes, coincidentally, those Muslims think the same thing about their one and only true holy book that Christians think about theirs. It's the only true word of God.)

So these Muslims are trying to make sure they protect Traditional Marriage, and they're going to change the law to make sure everybody is on the same page. It's for the good of society and the children.

Now how would you feel about those Muslims? Would you think they are nice people? Would you think it was great they cared so much about your soul and society that they were working very hard to take away your freedom to define for yourself what marriage is? Would you think it was great they know better than you do what you should believe and how you should form your family?

I don't agree with hate when it's just unfounded hate and prejudice. But you do have to understand, for a lot of people they have very good reason to not want to put up with Christians. Nobody is trying to tell Christians who they can and can't marry, or how they must define a word, or what they must believe. But many Christians are trying to write laws to do this to everyone else.

I'm just trying to point out the other side of this. I believe in judging every individual based on their character and actions, and I try not to make assumptions about someone just because they Christian, gay, Liberal, or whatever. Those are labels, not people.

awake
08-03-2012, 12:08 PM
Ohh.

Well lets signup for a lesbian retreat and if they don't let us in then we can start a class-action lawsuit.

Actually I respect their right to discriminate, even though they try to fine and jail me for doing so. Its the proper example of liberty.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 12:09 PM
Handbag making schools?

LOL

KingNothing
08-03-2012, 12:10 PM
Though I agree with the vandalizers point, I disagree with their means of conveying it.

awake
08-03-2012, 12:12 PM
I don't think it's the Christ part of Christianity that gay rights advocates hate. Jesus said lots of things about love but never said one word about homosexuality while he walked the earth as God Incarnate. (Not in any version of the Bible I've ever seen.)

What they hate is people who spend millions of dollars collectively to try to write laws infringing on their freedoms, trying to force them to observe someone else's religion they don't believe in. (i.e. "Marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says so.")

If this still doesn't make sense, consider how you would feel if Muslims were spending millions of dollars lobbying to write a law saying Christian marriages are invalid. If you got married in a Christian church, it is not valid, not legal, you are not married in the eyes of society or the government. Why? Well because the one, true, word of God, the Qu'Ran, says so. Only marriages under Islam are valid. It's God's word. (Yes, coincidentally, those Muslims think the same thing about their one and only true holy book that Christians think about theirs. It's the only true word of God.) So these Muslims are trying to make sure they protect Traditional Marriage, and they're going to change the law to make sure everybody is on the same page. It's for the good of society and the children.

Now how would you feel about those Muslims? Would you think they are nice people? Would you think it was great they cared so much about your soul and society that they were working very hard to take away your freedom to define for yourself what marriage is? Would you think it was great they know better than you do what you should believe and how you should form your family?

I don't agree with hate when it's just unfounded hate and prejudice. But you do have to understand, for a lot of people they have very good reason to not want to put up with Christians. Nobody is trying to tell Christians who they can and can't marry, or how they must define a word, or what they must believe. But many Christians are trying to write laws to do this to everyone else.

I'm just trying to point out the other side of this. I believe in judging every individual based on their character and actions, and I try not to make assumptions about someone just because they Christian, gay, Liberal, or whatever. Those are labels, not people.

Christians who use government violence to "spread"(force) the word of God provided the very example that is now being used by the "oppressed minorities" to "spread" (force) the acceptability of certain life choices.

Both of these groups are interested in power, not the end of discrimination. Homosexuals and Christians share similar vision: they are both seeking to remove the ability to discriminate from the other while retaining the exclusive right to wield it via government violence.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 12:13 PM
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/222/958/lib.jpg

Specifically white denominated Christianity. Black congregations excluded of course. And don't forget Muslims as well. Sure, they may chop up the local homosexual and use his remains as fertilizer for their date garden, but you will never see this deluded movement utter a bad word at Mohammed for outlawing homosexuality. At their core, they are craven cowards, knowing full well that Christians aren't going to respond in kind.

sailingaway
08-03-2012, 12:17 PM
Specifically white denominated Christianity. Black congregations excluded of course. And don't forget Muslims as well. Sure, they may chop up the local homosexual and use his remains as fertilizer for their date garden, but you will never see this deluded movement utter a bad word at Mohammed for outlawing homosexuality. At their core, they are craven cowards, knowing full well that Christians aren't going to respond in kind.

but that is my point in my comment above. Rights don't depend on the content of your belief or opinion but on the fact that you are ENTITLED to your belief or opinion, whatever it is.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 12:21 PM
but that is my point in my comment above. Rights don't depend on the content of your belief or opinion but on the fact that you are ENTITLED to your belief or opinion, whatever it is.

I just wish they were ideologically consistent as opposed to selecting strategic targets of opportunity. I could respect that.
I'm shocked that Chick-Fil-A, an evangelical christian owned corporation is under attack by these folks. (sarc)

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 12:23 PM
Though I agree with the vandalizers point, I disagree with their means of conveying it.


“we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. And I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.” - Dan Cathy

I don't know that statement constitutes "hate".

awake
08-03-2012, 12:29 PM
Discrimination is essential to property rights, right wrong or indifferent. If discrimination were completely abolished there would be no property rights at all. It would take full socialism to even be attempted. Can you imagine if the discrimination in husband or wife based on physical traits were illegal? Or, who enters your home? Thieves would simply declare discrimination vs non-thieves.

The choice of the Toyota you own would be become immediately illegal - discriminatory against Ford...The government would have to manufacture one car for all called the "Uni" to prevent equally all forms of auto discrimination.

Those who wish to stop discrimination have good intentions, but posses the minds of the infantile for not seeing the full consequences of their doctrine.

brooks009
08-03-2012, 12:31 PM
This is just a perfect example of how intolerance breeds intolerance. It also shows the results of government involvement in things they should not be involved in.

DerailingDaTrain
08-03-2012, 01:25 PM
I'm not really sure what they hope to accomplish with all of this protesting. The CEO of Chick-Fil-A is 91 years old and a hardcore Christian. I'm sure a bunch of college students will be able to change his mind with a few kiss-ins, some spray paint, and some signs.
:rolleyes:

In fact he sounds like a really nice guy:


Cathy has dedicated his time and resources to many philanthropic causes, focusing on those related to the welfare of needy children. In 1984, Cathy established the WinShape Foundation, named for its mission to shape winners. WinShape Foundation consists of WinShape Homes, WinShape RetreatSM, WinShape MarriageSM, WinShape Camps, WinShape, College Program, WinShape Wilderness and WinShape International. In 2010, the foundation provided roughly $18 million to fund the development of foster homes and summer camp. Past donations from the WinShape Foundation include the funding of several college scholarships and marriage counseling programs. The foundation has awarded nearly 820 students of Berry College with scholarships of up to $32,000.


In 2008, Cathy's WinShape foundation became the winner of the William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic leadership which awarded it $250,000 towards future philanthropy, as a result of its contributions to society. The prize was created to further ideals such as personal responsibility, resourcefulness, volunteerism, scholarship, individual freedom, faith in God, and helping people who help themselves. It honors living philanthropists who have shown exemplary leadership through their charitable giving, highlights the power of philanthropy to achieve positive change, and seeks to inspire others to support charities that achieve genuine results.


Additionally, Cathy has dedicated his time and resources towards welcoming homeless children into his home and has taught in Sunday school sessions. He has fostered children for over 30 years, and has since taken in nearly 200 foster children through WinShape Homes. WinShape Homes is a long-term foster care program that includes 11 foster homes throughout Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Nickels
08-03-2012, 01:58 PM
Discrimination is essential to property rights, right wrong or indifferent. If discrimination were completely abolished there would be no property rights at all.

Those who wish to stop discrimination have good intentions, but posses the minds of the infantile for not seeing the full consequences of their doctrine.

are you equating discrimination with choice?

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 02:07 PM
He does sound like a really nice guy. So nice that he must not realize that when Chick-Fil-A's corporate charity entity WinShape donates millions of dollars to groups like Family Research Council, that he is supporting a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda.

Can't understand why anyone thinks that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting hate. :rolleyes:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes-the-gays-mad-about-Chick-fil-A

KingNothing
08-03-2012, 02:11 PM
I don't know that statement constitutes "hate".

Those arrogant, prideful gay people! Wanting to get married like the rest of us! Those heathens, shaking their fist at God! Leviticus tells us that men should not marry men! And that our male and female slaves are to come from the nations around us; from them we may buy slaves. We may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become our property. So let's not shake our fists at god! Let's go buy slaves!

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 02:16 PM
Those arrogant, prideful gay people! Wanting to get married like the rest of us! Those heathens, shaking their fist at God! Leviticus tells us that men should not marry men! And that our male and female slaves are to come from the nations around us; from them we may buy slaves. We may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become our property. So let's not shake our fists at god! Let's go buy slaves!

Your rant notwithstanding, how is what he said "hate"?

Hate is: "*****s are disgusting and should be rounded up and shot".

What he said was a differing opinion based on a religious belief.

In a free society, people are allowed to have differing opinions and should not have to suffer government retribution because of it.

Dr.3D
08-03-2012, 02:19 PM
You're rant notwithstanding, how is what he said "hate"?

Hate is: "*****s are disgusting and should be rounded up and shot".

What he said was a differing opinion based on a religious belief.

In a free society, people are allowed to have differing opinions and should not have to suffer government retribution because of it.
Yeah, it's not like he said they were ***** as a football bat.

KingNothing
08-03-2012, 02:22 PM
You're rant notwithstanding, how is what he said "hate"?

Hate is: "*****s are disgusting and should be rounded up and shot".

What he said was a differing opinion based on a religious belief.

In a free society, people are allowed to have differing opinions and should not have to suffer government retribution because of it.

When did I EVER -EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER- say he should suffer government retribution? All I've said is that his views are obscene, antiquated and stupid, and that as a society we need to better ourselves so that we grow and don't fall victim to such a silly line of thinking.

angelatc
08-03-2012, 02:23 PM
He does sound like a really nice guy. So nice that he must not realize that when Chick-Fil-A's corporate charity entity WinShape donates millions of dollars to groups like Family Research Council, that he is supporting a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda.

Can't understand why anyone thinks that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting hate. :rolleyes:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes-the-gays-mad-about-Chick-fil-A

Liberals in the movement suck. I hate liberals. Go find something on Kos about that.

angelatc
08-03-2012, 02:25 PM
Those arrogant, prideful gay people! Wanting to get married like the rest of us! Those heathens, shaking their fist at God! Leviticus tells us that men should not marry men! And that our male and female slaves are to come from the nations around us; from them we may buy slaves. We may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become our property. So let's not shake our fists at god! Let's go buy slaves!

I'm not religious, and I am opposed to gay marriage. Got anything besides "bigot?"

Brian4Liberty
08-03-2012, 02:27 PM
I'll hand it to the Democrats and the establishment. Operation Red-Herring Fil-A has been a resounding success.

KingNothing
08-03-2012, 02:31 PM
I'm not religious, and I am opposed to gay marriage. Got anything besides "bigot?"

Are you opposed to straight marriage? I understand and empathize with the "WE NEED TO GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE!" point of view. That entire concept is absurd. That's goal number one. ...it isn't, however, what many in the Religious Right want to do, though. Their goal is to keep government in marriage, and use the power of the state to prevent homosexuals from wedding one another.

I don't understand why we can't have the same set of rules for gay people as we do straight people, especially for this. It would be such a non-issue if we could just leave people alone.

KingNothing
08-03-2012, 02:32 PM
I'll hand it to the Democrats and the establishment. Operation Red-Herring Fil-A has been a resounding success.

I don't think the Democrats wanted this. It did nothing but rile up the base-element within the base of the Republican party. If they turn out to vote the way they turned out for fried food, they're going to destroy the Democrats.

DerailingDaTrain
08-03-2012, 02:37 PM
I'm not religious, and I am opposed to gay marriage. Got anything besides "bigot?"

Wouldn't that be accurate? (Not trying to start a fight. It's not really the offensive term it has come to be these days)

Bigot is defined as somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

Brian4Liberty
08-03-2012, 02:43 PM
I don't think the Democrats wanted this. It did nothing but rile up the base-element within the base of the Republican party. If they turn out to vote the way they turned out for fried food, they're going to destroy the Democrats.

It distracts from real issues, and both sides of the two-headed monster want that. Plus it riles up both sides of the aisle. Democrats were getting a little lazy. They wanted to get them excited about something.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 02:47 PM
Liberals in the movement suck. I hate liberals. Go find something on Kos about that.

I don't even know what Kos is. Never been on the website before. I simply Googled "Chick-Fil-A Family Research Council Hate" to see if I could find out why people call FRC a hate group, and this was one of the first links that came up.

But if you insist on labeling me, you should know that I think abortion is murder, people should be free to pray on the steps of a public courthouse if they choose to, affirmative action is wrong, and disliking Obama does not make me racist. But I do think gay people should be allowed to get married if they want to.

And I think atheists who think we should remove "In God We Trust" from our money are overboard zealots who have too much time on their hands and give other atheists a bad name.

Am I still a Liberal? I could use your help here because I am confused as to what collective group I should be lumped in with.

RickyJ
08-03-2012, 02:55 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef016769067e89970b-640wi

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God. These fools are messing with the creator, they won't and can't win. Go ahead call God a hater, the one who gave you life, the one who sacrificed his son for your sins, see where that will get you.

dannno
08-03-2012, 03:11 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God. These fools are messing with the creator, they won't and can't win. Go ahead call God a hater, the one who gave you life, the one who sacrificed his son for your sins, see where that will get you.

Wow, Chik-fil-a is the creator??

I think you guys are takin this a little too far..

mac_hine
08-03-2012, 03:12 PM
You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.

It's just more proof that both sides will use the force of government to pursue their separate agendas.

Redumblicans and Libtards are consistently inconsistent in matters of principle.

This situation is yet another example as to why Libertarianism is the most logically sound political philosophy.

http://i.imgur.com/gvtws.png

The Free Hornet
08-03-2012, 03:16 PM
Hate?? Dan Cathy forbids members of the LBGT/Homosexual community from working in his company? He advocates that gays cannot freely associate??? I didn't think so.

Marriage is a contract and is a form of free association. It is what DOMA/Cathy oppose if that contract is described as marriage or domestic union (see NC). Here is a commentary on the North Carolina ban (http://www.policymic.com/articles/7841/even-anti-gay-conservatives-should-oppose-north-carolina-gay-marriage-bill):


Now, whatever their beliefs about homosexuality may be, one thing every conservative considers vital to the health of a free country is freedom of contract and freedom of association (that may be the one sentence in this essay that 100% of the readers will agree on). And here we have not just a law, but a constitutional mandate, that decimates both.

Given various ordinances that might limit a dwelling to family (or limit the number of non-relative occupants), it is not unfair to state that limitations on gay marriage could be limitations on freedom to associate.


*****************



Isn't it so ironic that people accuse them of hate by harrassing their employees, vandalizing their buildings, and severely insulting and degrading the integrity of Dan Cathy, not to mention judging people with similar views.

Are you sayin it is wrong to judge anybody? Or only people who hold views similar to Dan Cathy and you?

Ayn Rand said it best, “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_judgment.html)

bunklocoempire
08-03-2012, 03:21 PM
http://s6.postimage.org/ruahdfwxd/hate_sandwich_lol.png

"...I just can't stand the hate..."

QuickZ06
08-03-2012, 03:23 PM
To bad people wont go out of their way to bring our troops back home but will raise arms over chicken to show support of our constitution and the rights we are granted, but not when it comes to unconstitutional wars. Our priorities are really messed up.

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 03:23 PM
I don't think it's the Christ part of Christianity that gay rights advocates hate. Jesus said lots of things about love but never said one word about homosexuality while he walked the earth as God Incarnate. (Not in any version of the Bible I've ever seen.)

What they hate is people who spend millions of dollars collectively to try to write laws infringing on their freedoms, trying to force them to observe someone else's religion they don't believe in. (i.e. "Marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible says so.")

If this still doesn't make sense, consider how you would feel if Muslims were spending millions of dollars lobbying to write a law saying Christian marriages are invalid. If you got married in a Christian church, it is not valid, not legal, you are not married in the eyes of society or the government. Why? Well because the one, true, word of God, the Qu'Ran, says so. Only marriages under Islam are valid. It's God's word. (Yes, coincidentally, those Muslims think the same thing about their one and only true holy book that Christians think about theirs. It's the only true word of God.)

So these Muslims are trying to make sure they protect Traditional Marriage, and they're going to change the law to make sure everybody is on the same page. It's for the good of society and the children.

Now how would you feel about those Muslims? Would you think they are nice people? Would you think it was great they cared so much about your soul and society that they were working very hard to take away your freedom to define for yourself what marriage is? Would you think it was great they know better than you do what you should believe and how you should form your family?

I don't agree with hate when it's just unfounded hate and prejudice. But you do have to understand, for a lot of people they have very good reason to not want to put up with Christians. Nobody is trying to tell Christians who they can and can't marry, or how they must define a word, or what they must believe. But many Christians are trying to write laws to do this to everyone else.

I'm just trying to point out the other side of this. I believe in judging every individual based on their character and actions, and I try not to make assumptions about someone just because they Christian, gay, Liberal, or whatever. Those are labels, not people.If government had never gotten involved in marriage, none of this would even be an issue. We wouldn't need to be writing all of these laws. Muslims could define marriage as they like, as could Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. As a Christian, it shouldn't matter to me whether a Muslim, Jew, or atheist recognizes my marriage or not.

RickyJ
08-03-2012, 03:24 PM
Wow, Chik-fil-a is the creator??

I think you guys are takin this a little too far..

You know what I meant, please.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 03:24 PM
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God. These fools are messing with the creator, they won't and can't win. Go ahead call God a hater, the one who gave you life, the one who sacrificed his son for your sins, see where that will get you.

In Genesis Chapter 16, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar and told her to return to her master and submit.

Does that mean that if my wife is infertile I should rape my female slave to get her pregnant and God is OK with it? It worked out great for Abraham and Sarai... Kind of contradicts the whole "one man one woman" model of Biblical marriage as well, just saying.

It's not my intention to be rude or insult your religious beliefs, I'm just pointing out that some things in the Old Testament were correct for society in the time and culture when they were written thousands of years ago, but today we know these things are not really what God wants, because we have become more enlightened since those days.

Which is why nobody today is advocating rebellious children be brought to the town elders to be publicly stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). And nobody today is saying we should protect traditional marriage by making laws to stone adulterers to death (Leviticus 20:10).

And nobody is protesting outside Red Lobster because eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:9-12).

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 03:27 PM
Are you opposed to straight marriage? I understand and empathize with the "WE NEED TO GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE!" point of view. That entire concept is absurd. That's goal number one. ...it isn't, however, what many in the Religious Right want to do, though. Their goal is to keep government in marriage, and use the power of the state to prevent homosexuals from wedding one another.

I don't understand why we can't have the same set of rules for gay people as we do straight people, especially for this. It would be such a non-issue if we could just leave people alone.Since when have our goals been the same as those of the Religious Right?

angelatc
08-03-2012, 03:28 PM
Are you opposed to straight marriage? I understand and empathize with the "WE NEED TO GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE!" point of view. That entire concept is absurd. That's goal number one. ...it isn't, however, what many in the Religious Right want to do, though. Their goal is to keep government in marriage, and use the power of the state to prevent homosexuals from wedding one another.

I don't understand why we can't have the same set of rules for gay people as we do straight people, especially for this. It would be such a non-issue if we could just leave people alone.

Because, as I've explained over and over and over, we're not going to win liberal allies if we give them government benefits. Expanding the government (and the entitlement base) is never the right answer, even if it gives you warm fuzzies.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 03:28 PM
If government had never gotten involved in marriage, none of this would even be an issue. We wouldn't need to be writing all of these laws. Muslims could define marriage as they like, as could Christians, Jews, atheists, etc. As a Christian, it shouldn't matter to me whether a Muslim, Jew, or atheist recognizes my marriage or not.

I agree. Government should not be involved in marriage at all. No legal definition of it, no tax benefits, no nothing. Let every person define it for him or herself.

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 03:29 PM
You're rant notwithstanding, how is what he said "hate"?

Hate is: "*****s are disgusting and should be rounded up and shot".

What he said was a differing opinion based on a religious belief.

In a free society, people are allowed to have differing opinions and should not have to suffer government retribution because of it.You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

alucard13mmfmj
08-03-2012, 03:32 PM
From Star Trek's George Takei (Sulu) Facebook

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599631_502702466425878_2012630268_n.jpg

Why the hell do we care wtf stance a fast food joint has on gay marriage. Seems like this is blown all out of proportion.

angelatc
08-03-2012, 03:32 PM
I don't even know what Kos is. Never been on the website before. I simply Googled "Chick-Fil-A Family Research Council Hate" to see if I could find out why people call FRC a hate group, and this was one of the first links that came up.

OK, for your next assignment, Google "Southern Law Poverty Center." They're the liberal entity assigned to assigning the words "Hate Group" to people who try to stand in the way of the liberal agenda. If you look, you'll see that lots of this movement's leaders are on the same list. At this juncture, it's practically a badge of honor to get that branding.

Seriously, your opinion is based on knowing nothing except something you read on one of the most liberal sites on the internet? And you consider yourself well-informed enough to opine on this issue?





But if you insist on labeling me, you should know that I think abortion is murder, people should be free to pray on the steps of a public courthouse if they choose to, affirmative action is wrong, and disliking Obama does not make me racist. But I do think gay people should be allowed to get married if they want to.

And I think atheists who think we should remove "In God We Trust" from our money are overboard zealots who have too much time on their hands and give other atheists a bad name.

Am I still a Liberal? I could use your help here because I am confused as to what collective group I should be lumped in with.

Try "Troll."

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 03:39 PM
OK, for your next assignment, Google "Southern Law Poverty Center." They're the liberal entity assigned to assigning the words "Hate Group" to people who try to stand in the way of the liberal agenda. If you look, you'll see that lots of this movement's leaders are on the same list.

Seriously, your opinion is based on knowing nothing except something you read on one of the most liberal sites on the internet? And you consider yourself well-informed enough to opine on this issue?

Try "Troll."

You quote me and say you hate Liberals (basically saying you hate me), and then when I respond to point out that you're labeling me based on an assumption and a partial understanding of my beliefs, you say I'm the one trolling for a fight? Wow. I really don't think that's fair. And I don't want to fight with you or anyone.

If you read my other posts, you'll see that my opinion is based on lots of things and I've written so much on it, it should be obvious this isn't any conclusion I just recently arrived at.

I simply was looking for something of more substance on the whole "hate" angle because I happen to agree that thinking homosexuality is a sin does not equal hating gays. So I was curious if there was any reasonable or logical basis for anyone calling Family Research Council a hate group. I was actually trying to be fair minded, whether you want to accept that or not.

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 03:40 PM
From Star Trek's George Takei (Sulu) Facebook

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599631_502702466425878_2012630268_n.jpg

Why the hell do we care wtf stance a fast food joint has on gay marriage. Seems like this is blown all out of proportion.The "fast food chain" doesn't have such a stance. The president of Chick Fil-A made his views known on a radio show, and the Left went into action (overreaction, really)....a couple of mayors (Boston and Chicago) immediately stated that CFA restaurants would not be welcomed in their cities, etc....it all went downhill from there.

Got Freedom of Speech?

Nickels
08-03-2012, 03:42 PM
Why the hell do we care wtf stance a fast food joint has on gay marriage. Seems like this is blown all out of proportion.

exactly. It's basically "We hate/love this business, and we want people to too, or at least know why we do, so they can choose"

Nickels
08-03-2012, 03:44 PM
The "fast food chain" doesn't have such a stance. The president of Chick Fil-A made his views known on a radio show, and the Left went into action (overreaction, really)....a couple of mayors (Boston and Chicago) immediately stated that CFA restaurants would not be welcomed in their cities, etc....it all went downhill from there.

Got Freedom of Speech?

yes, we definitely got freedom of speech, we also got vote with our wallet. and you are correct, its not the chain's official policy to have a stance, but when a person is asked what his views are, sometimes they just tell it like it is. Maybe they lost employees and investors due to this, maybe they have more, we don't know, we just hear about angry consumers :)

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 03:45 PM
Why the hell do we care wtf stance a fast food joint has on gay marriage. Seems like this is blown all out of proportion.


exactly. It's basically "We hate/love this business, and we want people to too, or at least know why we do, so they can choose"

That may be true for some...maybe, most.

For me, it's a First Amendment issue. I didn't care about it until the two mayors decided they would prohibit CFA from doing business in their cities due to the opinion of CFA's president. That's government overreach, IMO.

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 03:46 PM
OK, for your next assignment, Google "Southern Law Poverty Center." They're the liberal entity assigned to assigning the words "Hate Group" to people who try to stand in the way of the liberal agenda. If you look, you'll see that lots of this movement's leaders are on the same list. At this juncture, it's practically a badge of honor to get that branding. You got that right! (+rep) The SLPC is a joke.

Nickels
08-03-2012, 03:50 PM
That may be true for some...maybe, most.

For me, it's a First Amendment issue. I didn't care about it until the two mayors decided they would prohibit CFA from doing business in their cities due to the opinion of CFA's president. That's government overreach, IMO.

I totally agree that is government overreach, and that is part of the overreaction.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 03:52 PM
And you consider yourself well-informed enough to opine on this issue?

Do you personally know anyone who is gay and who has ever expressed a desire to get married? A friend, family member, even just a friend of a friend? Have you ever had a detailed conversation with anyone in that situation and heard their story, and their feelings about this issue?

As someone who has more than one friend and family member in that situation, as well as several family members who are on the "keep gay marriage illegal" side of the debate, I'm guessing I'm probably far more informed on this issue than you are. (Maybe I'm wrong and you do know people personally who simply want the same thing the rest of us take for granted. Do you?)

asurfaholic
08-03-2012, 04:09 PM
Though I agree with the vandalizers point, I disagree with their means of conveying it.

WHERE IS THE HATE?


Discrimination is essential to property rights, right wrong or indifferent. If discrimination were completely abolished there would be no property rights at all. It would take full socialism to even be attempted. Can you imagine if the discrimination in husband or wife based on physical traits were illegal? Or, who enters your home? Thieves would simply declare discrimination vs non-thieves.

The choice of the Toyota you own would be become immediately illegal - discriminatory against Ford...The government would have to manufacture one car for all called the "Uni" to prevent equally all forms of auto discrimination.

Those who wish to stop discrimination have good intentions, but posses the minds of the infantile for not seeing the full consequences of their doctrine.

What you are saying is absolutely correct, but it is also irrelevant to this situation.

Chickfila NEVER discriminated against anyone. These liberals are just butt hurt because they like to get butt hurt.. Some people say that because CFA donated to lobby the government to swing more to the right it is "hate" and "intolerant." I disagree.

The simple truth is that MARRIAGE is a BIBLICALLY defined joining of flesh, a man and woman join in marraige to become ONE. Now, why would a gay want to participate in a religious ritual, such as this? Frankly I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. It is sick and perverted. I am just part of millions who feel this way. But somehow, it consititutes HATE to disagree with the constant assault on the Christian concept of marraige? Wow. They are teaching in some schools that homosexuality is OK. They are trying to teach our kids that it is OK, and NORMAL that some kids have 2 mommies, or 2 daddies. I am not going to teach my kids that. And I don't want my schools to teach my kids that. Teach 1+1. Not moral issues.

I don't believe that gays care one bit about God and the concept of joining with your mate to become one. I would assume it has more to do with the state benefits one recieves for being married.

The problem isn't Chick-fila or religion or Christianity. The problem is the STATE's role in doling out benefits and "special rightsi" for those who are "married."

If these liberals really care about anything, they will stop protesting about a sandwich shop.

JSaindon
08-03-2012, 04:10 PM
That may be true for some...maybe, most.

For me, it's a First Amendment issue. I didn't care about it until the two mayors decided they would prohibit CFA from doing business in their cities due to the opinion of CFA's president. That's government overreach, IMO.

They both retracted their statements and said while they can't forcefully stop CFA from coming into their cities, they just do not share the owner's beliefs. Obvios damage control because I along with many others (I assume) wrote a letter to that douche Emanuel in Chicago asking him what law gives him the power to prevent a business from moving in the city. This is just another P.R. stunt gone wrong. Both do not deserve any position of power, but in places like NYC and Chicago, I think the elections are decided by the insiders. Not the people. I never hear anything good about Chicago politicians, yet the same ones always get voted in, its comical really.

BamaAla
08-03-2012, 04:32 PM
Since when is the Family Research Council a "hate group?" Disagree with a homosexual, black, Jew, or Muslim and all of a sudden you're a fucking hate group; get real.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 04:34 PM
Since when is the Family Research Council a "hate group?" Disagree with a homosexual, black, Jew, or Muslim and all of a sudden you're a fucking hate group; get real.

That's what the SPLC says. Then again the SPLC was a likely minor accomplice in the OKC bombing. LOL So they have little to no credibility.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 04:36 PM
WHERE IS THE HATE?



What you are saying is absolutely correct, but it is also irrelevant to this situation.

Chickfila NEVER discriminated against anyone. These liberals are just butt hurt because they like to get butt hurt.. Some people say that because CFA donated to lobby the government to swing more to the right it is "hate" and "intolerant." I disagree.

The simple truth is that MARRIAGE is a BIBLICALLY defined joining of flesh, a man and woman join in marraige to become ONE. Now, why would a gay want to participate in a religious ritual, such as this? Frankly I believe homosexuality is morally wrong. It is sick and perverted. I am just part of millions who feel this way. But somehow, it consititutes HATE to disagree with the constant assault on the Christian concept of marraige? Wow. They are teaching in some schools that homosexuality is OK. They are trying to teach our kids that it is OK, and NORMAL that some kids have 2 mommies, or 2 daddies. I am not going to teach my kids that. And I don't want my schools to teach my kids that. Teach 1+1. Not moral issues.

I don't believe that gays care one bit about God and the concept of joining with your mate to become one. I would assume it has more to do with the state benefits one recieves for being married.

The problem isn't Chick-fila or religion or Christianity. The problem is the STATE's role in doling out benefits and "special rightsi" for those who are "married."

If these liberals really care about anything, they will stop protesting about a sandwich shop.

But you don't object to civil unions? Right? Gays should be afforded that right? Just want to be sure you're on the right logical course here.

AGRP
08-03-2012, 04:38 PM
This makes it official. The only crime committed in this entire fiasco.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 04:39 PM
OK, for your next assignment, Google "Southern Law Poverty Center." They're the liberal entity assigned to assigning the words "Hate Group" to people who try to stand in the way of the liberal agenda. If you look, you'll see that lots of this movement's leaders are on the same list. At this juncture, it's practically a badge of honor to get that branding.

OK, I did Google them. And they have been labeled by some others as a "Left Wing Hate Group." I guess anybody who hates anybody else's position or opinion can label them as full of hate. And that's what I was trying to avoid doing myself.

I don't agree with a lot of what this SLPC says and does, and frankly I don't care whether they or anyone else labels Family Research Council a hate group. I can make up my own mind if someone hates someone or not, based on their actions.

I don't think our Congress should be passing resolutions praising or condemning politics or laws in Uganda or any other country, first of all. But when they do, and then somebody spends money lobbying to urge our Congress NOT to condemn a law to put gays to death in Uganda just for being gay, and their reason for doing so is because
--they want Congress to send a message that homosexuality is not OK, and
--it's SO not OK that they are just fine with people in Uganda being killed for it,
I'm sorry, but I have to agree, that kind of "tastes like hate" to me. Somebody over there at Family Research Council seems to hate gay people.

That doesn't make me Liberal nor does it make SLPC right about everything, nor does it mean that all people who think marriage is between a man and a woman hate gay people. It just means that I agree with SLPC on that one thing based on the content and not labels or assumptions or what someone else says about them.

I also want to reiterate that I do NOT support government sanctions against Chick-Fil-A, nor do I not want to infringe on anyone's free speech or freedom of religion. If people think gays are evil and they're going to hell and marriage is between one man and one woman and they want to scream it from the rooftops, that is their right. Believe and say whatever you want, I have no problem with that.

I just don't want to financially support a company that financially supports groups who try to write laws in order to deprive people of their own freedom of religion (i.e. their freedom to define marriage for themselves and their freedom to marry whomever makes them happy).

And I'm not going to sit silently when I think people who are supposed to be Liberty-minded are approaching this gay marriage subject with the intention of depriving gay people of their Liberties for no justifiable reason. If that makes me a Liberal, then I guess go ahead and hate me, Angela. I'm truly sorry if you feel that way.

I'm happy to listen to all the reasons why you think I'm wrong.

BamaAla
08-03-2012, 04:41 PM
That's what the SPLC says. Then again the SPLC was a likely minor accomplice in the OKC bombing. LOL So they have little to no credibility.

I'm ashamed to share a state with that group of thugs. As I said, disagree with a ****, black, JEW, or any other professional victim class and SPLC will certainly label you a hate group. F 'em.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 04:47 PM
I think we need a heterosexual/homosexual summit of some type to clear the air. Both sides should bring their legitimate grievances (because both sides have valid points) to the forefront and hammer something out. I personally don't like when tools like Rick Santorum say being gay is a choice. That's just ridiculous. And I'm not too fond of the homosexual movement pushing into the elementary schools with their provocative sex ed nonsense as well as using the federal government as their hammer of forced compliance. I really wish both sides would stop the escalation and listen to each other. There has to be an amicable solution.

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 04:51 PM
The simple truth is that MARRIAGE is a BIBLICALLY defined joining of flesh, a man and woman join in marraige to become ONE.

The simple truth is, there are many definitions of marriage, not just one.


Now, why would a gay want to participate in a religious ritual, such as this?

They don't. (Not most of them, anyway. Many Christian churches are fine with gay marriage and some gay people do get married in churches, but not most.)

Most of them want to participate in the version of marriage defined by the law, not the version defined by the Bible. And they don't want to deprive you of your right to define marriage the same way the Bible defines it. You can define it however you want for yourself; nobody has a problem with that. Nobody's trying to tell you or me or other straight people and/or Christians who they can or can't marry.

Gays just want other people to stop trying to deprive them of the freedom to define marriage for themselves and pursue their own happiness in the manner they choose for themselves. That's the simple truth. It sounds like they just want Liberty to me.

mac_hine
08-03-2012, 04:52 PM
OK, I did Google them. And they have been labeled by some others as a "Left Wing Hate Group." I guess anybody who hates anybody else's position or opinion can label them as full of hate.

Ron Paul Invites Neo-Confederate Witness to Testify in Congress http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/02/09/ron-paul-invites-witness-with-neo-confederate-ties-to-testify-in-congress/

DiLorenzo's response:

What a 'Hate Group' Hates:
A Counterintelligence Report
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo Ph.D. http://dixienet.org/rights/what_a_hate_group_hates.php

More on the SPLC:

Racial Racketeering for Fun and Profit: The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo209.html

WhistlinDave
08-03-2012, 04:52 PM
I think we need a heterosexual/homosexual summit of some type to clear the air. Both sides should bring their legitimate grievances (because both sides have valid points) to the forefront and hammer something out. I personally don't like when tools like Rick Santorum say being gay is a choice. That's just ridiculous. And I'm not too fond of the homosexual movement pushing into the elementary schools with their provocative sex ed nonsense as well as using the federal government as their hammer of forced compliance. I really wish both sides would stop the escalation and listen to each other. There has to be an amicable solution.

+REP. I agree!!!!

Maybe if everybody could lay some ground rules so everyone can understand both sides and nobody is infringing each others' rights, we could get somewhere. Excellent post.

Krzysztof Lesiak
08-03-2012, 05:18 PM
The gay lobby have some of the most intolerant and hypocritical people out there.

cajuncocoa
08-03-2012, 05:22 PM
The gay lobby have some of the most intolerant and hypocritical people out there.Leftists in general...not only the gay lobby.

RonRules
08-03-2012, 05:44 PM
Why is Chick-fil-A even in the news?

Because right now we're paying Al Qaida to take over Syria.

Shhh....

Dr.3D
08-03-2012, 05:55 PM
Because right now we're paying Al Qaida to take over Syria.

Shhh....
Bet Al Qaida is also getting arms from some covert operations from the U.S. as well.

dannno
08-03-2012, 05:55 PM
Since when is the Family Research Council a "hate group?" Disagree with a homosexual, black, Jew, or Muslim and all of a sudden you're a fucking hate group; get real.

I don't know, what are their views on sodomy and obscenity laws? Drug laws? The WTC Mosque?

I'm not a big fan of SPLC but I'm not going to align myself with a religious organization that promotes an anti-freedom agenda worse than teh gheys.

angelatc
08-03-2012, 06:53 PM
Do you personally know anyone who is gay and who has ever expressed a desire to get married? A friend, family member, even just a friend of a friend? Have you ever had a detailed conversation with anyone in that situation and heard their story, and their feelings about this issue?



Yes, but I don't believe in legislating things that will expand government just to make endlessly needy people feel good. I'm a fiscal conservative, not a liberal.

angelatc
08-03-2012, 06:54 PM
The gay lobby have some of the most intolerant and hypocritical people out there.

Absolutely. They're horrible people.

BlackTerrel
08-03-2012, 07:03 PM
I find it odd that on an issue that is just about split 50/50 it is controversial for Chick-Fil-A to come out on one side of an issue but not controversial for Oreo to go on the other side of the same issue.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 07:05 PM
Absolutely. They're horrible people.

Yet most gays by and large probably don't support their tactics. You'd be surprised how many gay folks who are reserved, low-key and respectful. They don't want to make a huge issue about their sexual preferences, which makes perfect sense. They want to be seen as people who are judged for their merits. I think the gay lobby does an incredible disservice to the gay community by portraying their peer group as militant, inflexible monsters when that is far from the case.

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 07:23 PM
Because right now we're paying Al Qaida to take over Syria.

Shhh....


Bet Al Qaida is also getting arms from some covert operations from the U.S. as well.

Bunch of conspiracy nutjobs, don't ya know yer making us look bad with your nuttery.

GTFO!

♫♫ God Bless America....♫♫

The Free Hornet
08-03-2012, 07:25 PM
Since when is the Family Research Council a "hate group?" Disagree with a homosexual, black, Jew, or Muslim and all of a sudden you're a fucking hate group; get real.

Well, they hate free speech (adult porn and regulating cable - not airwave - broadcasters) (http://www.frc.org/the-media#pornography) and they hate divorce (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04D02). How preventing, delaying, or raising the cost of divorce is a function of the government is beyond me. Maybe someone can 'splain it.

Counselors are standing by for gubblemint to mandate pre-marital counseling and pre-divorce counseling. Far be it for us to make the wrong decision without their help.

It would be preferable if they were hateful bigots that minded their own business. Likewise with Chick-Fil-A, it'd be better they kick gays out of the store so long as they didn't lobby congress to legislate so-called family values.

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 07:27 PM
When did I EVER -EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER- say he should suffer government retribution? All I've said is that his views are obscene, antiquated and stupid, and that as a society we need to better ourselves so that we grow and don't fall victim to such a silly line of thinking.

You said you agreed with the message of the person that wrote that graffito.

I'm suggesting that what he said is not "hate" by any stretch of the imagination.

And accusing a person of speaking "hate" in today's climate will, under the right circumstances, get you arrested.

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 07:33 PM
I find it odd that on an issue that is just about split 50/50 it is controversial for Chick-Fil-A to come out on one side of an issue but not controversial for Oreo to go on the other side of the same issue.

Because one side is "correct" and the other side is "incorrect".

Many, many similar issues out there.

Ford Motor Company can contribute millions to anti gun political groups and nobody says a word.

This is progressive, and "correct".

Let a Ford dealer give start giving away rifles as a purchase incentive for new pickups, and all holy hell breaks loose.

This is regressive and "incorrect".

God knows what the fickle winds of public taste, acceptance and propaganda will declare correct and incorrect in the future.

Anti Federalist
08-03-2012, 07:35 PM
To bad people wont go out of their way to bring our troops back home but will raise arms over chicken to show support of our constitution and the rights we are granted, but not when it comes to unconstitutional wars. Our priorities are really messed up.

Yes, yes they are.

AGRP
08-03-2012, 07:43 PM
This has always been a peculiar topic here. One side throws out the entire concept of liberty and starts calling the other side hateful for expressing their personal values and beliefs. There is no debate as far as the government action goes because they have no authority to get involved. If a homosexual couple wants to get married then they can find a church or organization that will do it. Then those who do not agree with the church's/organization's actions can boycott/protest/etc. Thats it. End of story unless we as self proclaimed fans of liberty want to criminalize thoughts, values, and beliefs.

pochy1776
08-03-2012, 07:46 PM
It distracts from real issues, and both sides of the two-headed monster want that. Plus it riles up both sides of the aisle. Democrats were getting a little lazy. They wanted to get them excited about something.

Here are some real issues

Drug War
The Fed
NATO and UN security council encroachments
Preserving american Sovereignty
Cutting Spending
HR 495
Liberty in out lifetime
Anaheim Martial law
Honest Money
Iran Sanction
Gun Rights
NOT
9/11 Mosque
Gay Marriage
"civil" rights

Revolution9
08-03-2012, 07:48 PM
When did I EVER -EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVER- say he should suffer government retribution? All I've said is that his views are obscene, antiquated and stupid, and that as a society we need to better ourselves so that we grow and don't fall victim to such a silly line of thinking.

I like antiques. They are often much more beautiful and well crafted for long term use than all this modern crap.

Rev9

pochy1776
08-03-2012, 07:48 PM
The gay lobby have some of the most intolerant and hypocritical people out there.
I do not like you intolerance!
Sarcasm

pochy1776
08-03-2012, 07:50 PM
I like antiques. They are often much more beautiful and well crafted for long term use than all this modern crap.

Rev9
Antique clocks, clothes, toys are better than gay marriage. I want shark attacks on the news now. Better yet, why can't everybody just have sex. its summer time in the city.

Cowlesy
08-03-2012, 07:52 PM
It appears the 2 MINUTES HATE has backfired, for now.

Cowlesy
08-03-2012, 07:54 PM
The gay lobby have some of the most intolerant and hypocritical people out there.

That's true, but they also contain some of my friends who enjoyed tasty Chick Fil-A sandwiches on Wednesday, because they are not blinded by the idiocy of people like the graffiti artist.

AuH20
08-03-2012, 07:57 PM
Take a gander. Chick-Fil-A is evil now? Yikes.

http://boycottchickfila.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=knVUEydKjTs#!

asurfaholic
08-03-2012, 08:01 PM
But you don't object to civil unions? Right? Gays should be afforded that right? Just want to be sure you're on the right logical course here.

I don't care what people do in their personal lives. But marriage should be a sacred bonding of two hearts, and husband and wife should serve each other according to principles laid out in the Bible. Unfortunately marriage has been hijacked and redefined over and over. Rarely do people allow the true definition of marriage to guide them. It is no wonder that half of all marriages fail.

It's like Christmas. Originally a celebration of Christ's birth. Then came saint nick. Now your liberals freak out if a business says "merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays!" you see? I guess that marriage and Christmas just seemed too fun, and the other kids on the playground had to come take the ball..

AuH20
08-03-2012, 08:06 PM
I don't care what people do in their personal lives. But marriage should be a sacred bonding of two hearts, and husband and wife should serve each other according to principles laid out in the Bible. Unfortunately marriage has been hijacked and redefined over and over. Rarely do people allow the true definition of marriage to guide them. It is no wonder that half of all marriages fail.

It's like Christmas. Originally a celebration of Christ's birth. Then came saint nick. Now your liberals freak out if a business says "merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays!" you see? I guess that marriage and Christmas just seemed too fun, and the other kids on the playground had to come take the ball..

It's the equivalent to telling pigs that they have wings and that they can fly. I say humor them. It doesn't hurt you or I. That's why it doesn't really bother me whether they can be married or not. What I don't like is all the indoctrination that comes with this thrust. However, the gay marriage issue by itself really doesn't bother me.

Brian4Liberty
08-03-2012, 08:14 PM
Here are some real issues

Drug War
The Fed
NATO and UN security council encroachments
Preserving american Sovereignty
Cutting Spending
HR 495
Liberty in out lifetime
Anaheim Martial law
Honest Money
Iran Sanction
Gun Rights
NOT
9/11 Mosque
Gay Marriage
"civil" rights

Pretty good list, although I'm not sure what you mean by "out" lifetime. ;) Of course everyone's lifetime needs liberty, no matter who they are. :)


That's true, but they also contain some of my friends who enjoyed tasty Chick Fil-A sandwiches on Wednesday, because they are not blinded by the idiocy of people like the graffiti artist.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecc0nbg9m-8

Pericles
08-03-2012, 10:52 PM
Since when is the Family Research Council a "hate group?" Disagree with a homosexual, black, Jew, or Muslim and all of a sudden you're a fucking hate group; get real.

You forgot us right wing militia extremists, and I'm now offended by that :)

oyarde
08-03-2012, 11:15 PM
That's what the SPLC says. Then again the SPLC was a likely minor accomplice in the OKC bombing. LOL So they have little to no credibility. Those people claim I am dangerous , they could be right about that .... but , not if they leave me the fuck alone ...

QuickZ06
08-03-2012, 11:19 PM
I don't care what people do in their personal lives. But marriage should be a sacred bonding of two hearts, and husband and wife should serve each other according to principles laid out in the Bible. Unfortunately marriage has been hijacked and redefined over and over. Rarely do people allow the true definition of marriage to guide them. It is no wonder that half of all marriages fail.

It's like Christmas. Originally a celebration of Christ's birth. Then came saint nick. Now your liberals freak out if a business says "merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays!" you see? I guess that marriage and Christmas just seemed too fun, and the other kids on the playground had to come take the ball..

I think people have the right to do whatever makes them happy and have the right to marry whomever they want if someone will do it. Just as long as the state or federal government is not involved in anyway, I could care less who marries them and how they live out their marriage.

And the christians hijacked christmas from the pagans.

oyarde
08-03-2012, 11:25 PM
That is my Christmas , I am Christian and my ancestors were Pagans.

Feeding the Abscess
08-03-2012, 11:29 PM
Since when is the Family Research Council a "hate group?" Disagree with a homosexual, black, Jew, or Muslim and all of a sudden you're a fucking hate group; get real.

Since they support legislating morality, including criminalizing divorce and pornography. Since they support the FCC banning programs that are "inappropriate". They also fully support marriage amendments and throwing people in rape cages for ingesting the wrong plant. And they completely support our extremely anti-family values foreign policy - and worse, they use the bible to justify it. Wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross, indeed.

http://www.frc.org/op-eds/marriage-protection


If, as they say, "marriage is a uniquely important institution that unites mothers and fathers to their children," then it is worth not only a unique name, but a unique set of benefits.


Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage benefits society.

Oh, and surprise! They oppose the Muslim community center in New York.

They don't want less government. They worship the state, and want government that supports them and their causes and jails those who don't. FRC and their ilk are fucking disgusting.

Revolution9
08-04-2012, 05:25 AM
That is my Christmas , I am Christian and my ancestors were Pagans.

And it is about the positions of the Sun and stars in the sky and not a specific set of religious beliefs that exclude all others.

Rev9

maskander
08-04-2012, 05:39 AM
this. The protesters were vastly outnumbered by diners when I drove by the one in Hollywood, and if that was true in HOLLYWOOD, Torrence, which is much more conservative, would have had to have been the same. The revenge was because they couldn't muster numbers to demonstrate personal outrage of a CEO who doesn't even own the franchise, having personal opinions they disagree with.

People can boycott, people can protest (if they don't harrass) and people can attend in droves. But mayors forbidding permits based on the religious or political beliefs of the owner, and vandalism, are the evils here.

You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.Hey i heard that exact same talking point on fox news.

Same old crap different day, you guys are all the same.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 06:33 AM
Christians who use government violence to "spread"(force) the word of God provided the very example that is now being used by the "oppressed minorities" to "spread" (force) the acceptability of certain life choices.

Both of these groups are interested in power, not the end of discrimination. Homosexuals and Christians share similar vision: they are both seeking to remove the ability to discriminate from the other while retaining the exclusive right to wield it via government violence.

This is actually quite true for many people. The public is totally engaged in this battle. However, the Christian libertarians on this board are not interested in government power from what I know. At least, I'm not and from what I've heard, no Christian on this thread or similar threads has ever argued such a thing. Many of the people advocating gay marriage on this and similar threads, however, are arguing for more government force because they want to add the power of the government to license marriage. Either advocate for getting rid of marriage licenses, or admit you are just a big government person. It's as simple as that. There is no way to get from here to less government power by adding government power. That's the antithesis of liberty.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 06:36 AM
Wouldn't that be accurate? (Not trying to start a fight. It's not really the offensive term it has come to be these days)

Bigot is defined as somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

That would make all of us bigots. Welcome to the club, gay "rights" advocates.

AdelaideGUy
08-04-2012, 06:37 AM
Our rights end where their feelings begin, haven't you guys learnt that yet

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 06:39 AM
I don't even know what Kos is. Never been on the website before. I simply Googled "Chick-Fil-A Family Research Council Hate" to see if I could find out why people call FRC a hate group, and this was one of the first links that came up.

But if you insist on labeling me, you should know that I think abortion is murder, people should be free to pray on the steps of a public courthouse if they choose to, affirmative action is wrong, and disliking Obama does not make me racist. But I do think gay people should be allowed to get married if they want to.

And I think atheists who think we should remove "In God We Trust" from our money are overboard zealots who have too much time on their hands and give other atheists a bad name.

Am I still a Liberal? I could use your help here because I am confused as to what collective group I should be lumped in with.

Gay people can get married. They just can't get a government license. Instead of "allowing" gay people to get a government license, which will raise taxes and lower freedom, how about we just get rid of government licenses for heterosexual couples. Sound good to you?

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 06:48 AM
From Star Trek's George Takei (Sulu) Facebook

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/599631_502702466425878_2012630268_n.jpg

Why the hell do we care wtf stance a fast food joint has on gay marriage. Seems like this is blown all out of proportion.

It really is. Dan Cathy, of course, is a significant person because he is successful, but that doesn't justify all the attention this is getting. It's such a non-issue, just like it would be if it were some Joseph Blough on the street who said it.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 06:53 AM
Do you personally know anyone who is gay and who has ever expressed a desire to get married? A friend, family member, even just a friend of a friend? Have you ever had a detailed conversation with anyone in that situation and heard their story, and their feelings about this issue?

As someone who has more than one friend and family member in that situation, as well as several family members who are on the "keep gay marriage illegal" side of the debate, I'm guessing I'm probably far more informed on this issue than you are. (Maybe I'm wrong and you do know people personally who simply want the same thing the rest of us take for granted. Do you?)

You don't get informed by listening to your family members arguing about it. Most people have very one-sided views. Having "real life experience" just doesn't fly around here.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 07:26 AM
I find it odd that on an issue that is just about split 50/50 it is controversial for Chick-Fil-A to come out on one side of an issue but not controversial for Oreo to go on the other side of the same issue.

Exactly. There's no controversy when somebody claims they love teh gayz and think the entitlement base should be expanded to include gay marriage. Nobody so much as lifts a finger when anybody says that, but when CFA says they support traditional marriage, somehow it's a national outcry and they get labeled as a hate group.

Here's the question that gay "rights" advocates need to answer. Do they really care who people hate? Do they really care if an expression of hatred is being made toward a group, or is it about labeling the people who disagree with them as haters, bigots, intolerant, etc. As far as I know, they are the ones who most vigorously label people and call them names in this whole debate. It seems to me that they are the real haters, and I don't throw that word around loosely like the gay "rights" advocates do.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 07:33 AM
This has always been a peculiar topic here. One side throws out the entire concept of liberty and starts calling the other side hateful for expressing their personal values and beliefs. There is no debate as far as the government action goes because they have no authority to get involved. If a homosexual couple wants to get married then they can find a church or organization that will do it. Then those who do not agree with the church's/organization's actions can boycott/protest/etc. Thats it. End of story unless we as self proclaimed fans of liberty want to criminalize thoughts, values, and beliefs.

Except that many people here DO want the government to be involved because they want gays to have government marriage licenses instead of taking marriage licenses away from heterosexuals and making the "marriage license" meaningless and uncontroversial. They would rather add government than subtract government. They would rather discriminate against single people by enforcing government marriage contracts than achieve equality by abolishing state-funded, state-licensed marriage.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 07:44 AM
I don't care what people do in their personal lives. But marriage should be a sacred bonding of two hearts, and husband and wife should serve each other according to principles laid out in the Bible. Unfortunately marriage has been hijacked and redefined over and over. Rarely do people allow the true definition of marriage to guide them. It is no wonder that half of all marriages fail.

It's like Christmas. Originally a celebration of Christ's birth. Then came saint nick. Now your liberals freak out if a business says "merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays!" you see? I guess that marriage and Christmas just seemed too fun, and the other kids on the playground had to come take the ball..

Do you really know how Christmas started? I'll give you a hint. All of these "holidays" with their fictional characters, such as easter (also purportedly a "Christian" holiday) and Halloween, started as pagan traditions. Christmas was never about Christ's birth. That's an excuse for Christians to celebrate it. Think about it, where in the Bible does Christ value His own birth so much? His death was a way more monumental thing to celebrate. Also, does anyone really know what Christ's birthday was? Who decided it would be December 25th?

brooks009
08-04-2012, 08:49 AM
Here's the question that gay "rights" advocates need to answer.


Do they really care who people hate? Yes.


Do they really care if an expression of hatred is being made toward a group, or is it about labeling the people who disagree with them as haters, bigots, intolerant, etc. As far as I know, they are the ones who most vigorously label people and call them names in this whole debate.Intolerance breeds intolerance.


It seems to me that they are the real haters, and I don't throw that word around loosely like the gay "rights" advocates do.See what I mean.

brooks009
08-04-2012, 08:51 AM
2 post

brooks009
08-04-2012, 08:52 AM
Except that many people here DO want the government to be involved because they want gays to have government marriage licenses instead of taking marriage licenses away from heterosexuals and making the "marriage license" meaningless and uncontroversial. They would rather add government than subtract government. They would rather discriminate against single people by enforcing government marriage contracts than achieve equality by abolishing state-funded, state-licensed marriage. Everyone here wants government out of marriage.

truelies
08-04-2012, 09:55 AM
....................................
You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.

Dick Cheney?

asurfaholic
08-04-2012, 10:16 AM
Do you really know how Christmas started? I'll give you a hint. All of these "holidays" with their fictional characters, such as easter (also purportedly a "Christian" holiday) and Halloween, started as pagan traditions. Christmas was never about Christ's birth. That's an excuse for Christians to celebrate it. Think about it, where in the Bible does Christ value His own birth so much? His death was a way more monumental thing to celebrate. Also, does anyone really know what Christ's birthday was? Who decided it would be December 25th?

Thanks, I'll try to dig deeper on the history of the holidays. I still find it obnoxious that it is now politically incorrect to say Christmas... Off topic though..

angelatc
08-04-2012, 11:23 AM
Everyone here wants government out of marriage.

Except the gay people.

sailingaway
08-04-2012, 11:44 AM
Dick Cheney?

there were stories saying a guy who funded it was a sort of in your face type, take Perez on the gay marriage issue, for example. I can think Perez is revolting without thinking government should have any say in marriage. The guy paying for the center may have had an ax to grind, but the community who wanted it just wanted a community center -- for a long time, as I understand it. None of which has bearing on what the governmental role should be.

Dr.3D
08-04-2012, 11:45 AM
Except the gay people.
Remember the last six words of this theme song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s13X66BFd8

WhistlinDave
08-04-2012, 01:53 PM
Gay people can get married. They just can't get a government license. Instead of "allowing" gay people to get a government license, which will raise taxes and lower freedom, how about we just get rid of government licenses for heterosexual couples. Sound good to you?

Actually, yes, that does sound good to me. The chances of that actually happening in our lifetime though, with the probably thousands of ways that marriage is entrenched in our laws, including the tax code, etc., are about slim to none. But yes in principle I totally agree, government shouldn't even be involved to begin with and the whole debate wouldn't even exist.

WhistlinDave
08-04-2012, 02:23 PM
You don't get informed by listening to your family members arguing about it. Most people have very one-sided views. Having "real life experience" just doesn't fly around here.

And that was my point exactly, and why I was asking Angela if she actually knew any gay people who want to get married. Because most people do have very one sided views. And because you don't get informed by never talking to someone on the other side of the issue and only immersing yourself in information and arguments that only support one side of the debate.

I don't imagine myself to be some kind of gay rights debate scholar, but I think I know a hell of a lot more about both sides of the debate than the average person. Those who have no "real life experience" are the ones who are unable to see past one side or the other and see the merits of both sides.

Part of the problem with this conflict, this "culture war" going on, is that a lot of people opposed to gays getting equal rights don't even know any gays. (Well, they probably do know some, they just aren't aware of it.) Their religious and/or political leaders often do a good job of dehumanizing the opposition--that's a critical step in fighting any successful war, get your soldiers to forget the "enemy" is human too--and so a lot of people have never tried to put themselves into someone else's shoes. They don't know what these people are going through, or why they want to get married, or what it does to them and their children, to be second class citizens, not entitled to the same thing everyone else is.

Of course gay rights lobbyists are guilty of the same thing, getting their troops riled up against those evil Christians/bigots/haters/whatever label they throw out. Labels are great for instantly stripping people of their humanity.

I think the biggest problem, and probably the main cause for all this backlash and the resulting culture war, is the ridiculous idea that somehow people's kids might CHOOSE to become gay if it becomes too acceptable. And/or that if their kid is gay, that there is anything on earth they could do to prevent it.

That misconception (the issue of choice) causes people to fight against the whole "normalization" of homosexuality in society. I think for most people who live the homosexual lifestyle--not all, but the vast majority--they do NOT have a choice about being attracted to the same sex, they are incapable of feeling any attraction for the opposite sex. They cannot change their nature no matter how many times you tell them they're going to hell and no matter how many summers they spend at Jesus camp. It's how they were created. And it's silly that some people would expect them to live their lives devoid of happiness and fulfillment because they're unable to recognize that IS their nature, and for that person, homosexuality IS natural.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 02:36 PM
Yes.
Intolerance breeds intolerance.
See what I mean.

No, I don't.

WhistlinDave
08-04-2012, 02:41 PM
So nobody ever responded on the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda in my earlier post.

Family Research Council spent a lot of money lobbying Congress, urging them to NOT condemn that.

I don't think our government should be praising or condemning laws or politics in other countries, but they did. And then FRC came along and tried to get them to change their position on it.

FRC did this because 1. Congress should not be sending a message that Homosexuality is OK, and 2. By telling the government of Uganda not to kill gay people just because they're gay, our Congress is sending the wrong message.

So what this means is, FRC apparently thinks it's OK for a government to kill gay people just for being gay if that's what it takes to stop spreading the message that homosexuality is OK.

And I really don't think I'm twisting this or taking it out of context. It is what it is.

So everybody sidestepped my post on this, conveniently getting bogged down in SPLC and whatever. So I'm asking you to forget about labels, forget who is and who isn't a "hate group," just LOOK AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.

When Chick-Fil-A donates money to Family Research Council, is it really so inaccurate to say that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting real hate?

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 02:44 PM
Actually, yes, that does sound good to me. The chances of that actually happening in our lifetime though, with the probably thousands of ways that marriage is entrenched in our laws, including the tax code, etc., are about slim to none. But yes in principle I totally agree, government shouldn't even be involved to begin with and the whole debate wouldn't even exist.

But you don't agree in practice? Is this like one of those "Communism would look good on paper" advocacies of freedom? I'll tell you what else is unlikely to be abolished in our lifetime: the Fed, many of the laws we have, the wars, the entitlement system. Saying we should give gays marriage licenses in the interest of equality is like saying we should give the Fed more control over the economy before we eliminate it. It simply doesn't make sense except from a bleeding heart perspective. However, if you agree and were just commenting that you think it won't happen soon, then I agree completely. I completely advocate getting the government out of marriage, no questions asked, first and foremost.

WhistlinDave
08-04-2012, 02:46 PM
So nobody ever responded on the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda in my earlier post.

Family Research Council spent a lot of money lobbying Congress, urging them to NOT condemn that.

I don't think our government should be praising or condemning laws or politics in other countries, but they did. And then FRC came along and tried to get them to change their position on it.

FRC did this because 1. Congress should not be sending a message that Homosexuality is OK, and 2. By telling the government of Uganda not to kill gay people just because they're gay, our Congress is sending the wrong message.

So what this means is, FRC apparently thinks it's OK for a government to kill gay people just for being gay if that's what it takes to stop spreading the message that homosexuality is OK.

And I really don't think I'm twisting this or taking it out of context. It is what it is.

So everybody sidestepped my post on this, conveniently getting bogged down in SPLC and whatever. So I'm asking you to forget about labels, forget who is and who isn't a "hate group," just LOOK AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.

When Chick-Fil-A donates money to Family Research Council, is it really so inaccurate to say that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting real hate?


Never mind, you guys are off the hook. (Although I do find it interesting no one responded to the substance of what I was saying before and we got bogged down in the whole label end of things.)

According to FRC apparently they don't think it's OK to kill the gays.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006856-503544.html

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 02:47 PM
So nobody ever responded on the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda in my earlier post.

Family Research Council spent a lot of money lobbying Congress, urging them to NOT condemn that.

I don't think our government should be praising or condemning laws or politics in other countries, but they did. And then FRC came along and tried to get them to change their position on it.

FRC did this because 1. Congress should not be sending a message that Homosexuality is OK, and 2. By telling the government of Uganda not to kill gay people just because they're gay, our Congress is sending the wrong message.

So what this means is, FRC apparently thinks it's OK for a government to kill gay people just for being gay if that's what it takes to stop spreading the message that homosexuality is OK.

And I really don't think I'm twisting this or taking it out of context. It is what it is.

So everybody sidestepped my post on this, conveniently getting bogged down in SPLC and whatever. So I'm asking you to forget about labels, forget who is and who isn't a "hate group," just LOOK AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.

When Chick-Fil-A donates money to Family Research Council, is it really so inaccurate to say that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting real hate?

You're right, but nobody here is advocating what the FRC did. They may be defending them against the SPLC, but nobody supports the FRC, per se, I'm sure. It's really not relevant to this subject, so I don't think anyone is "sidestepping."

WhistlinDave
08-04-2012, 02:53 PM
But you don't agree in practice? Is this like one of those "Communism would look good on paper" advocacies of freedom? I'll tell you what else is unlikely to be abolished in our lifetime: the Fed, many of the laws we have, the wars, the entitlement system. Saying we should give gays marriage licenses in the interest of equality is like saying we should give the Fed more control over the economy before we eliminate it. It simply doesn't make sense except from a bleeding heart perspective. However, if you agree and were just commenting that you think it won't happen soon, then I agree completely. I completely advocate getting the government out of marriage, no questions asked, first and foremost.

To be honest I'm undecided.

On the one hand, I would love to see government entirely out of marriage.

On the other hand, if that takes ten or twenty years to accomplish, is it right that gay people and their families should be denied the same thing the rest of us have?

I don't really know. I kind of lean toward saying, as long as the law recognizes marriage as a legal contract with tax benefits and other privileges, then everybody has to have equal treatment under the law. But the problem with that is, if we do that, then some people (myself included) might become complacent and not work toward the real goal of less government, getting government out of the equation entirely.

So I don't know if I can really decide. Given the time I think it would take to do the really right thing (many many years), neither option seems right.

And most people outside of this forum advocating against gay marriage are NOT doing it because they want less government. I think if half the people on this board using that argument were honest, they would admit that isn't their main reason for wanting to keep it illegal either, but it is a very convenient argument to use since it's the correct Libertarian position.

Just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. So I guess I don't have a good answer for you.

WhistlinDave
08-04-2012, 02:59 PM
You're right, but nobody here is advocating what the FRC did. They may be defending them against the SPLC, but nobody supports the FRC, per se, I'm sure. It's really not relevant to this subject, so I don't think anyone is "sidestepping."

See my post just above yours -- if I had done just a little bit more homework before posting that, I wouldn't have. Point is moot, I was wrong about FRC's intention. But thanks for answering.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 04:05 PM
To be honest I'm undecided.

On the one hand, I would love to see government entirely out of marriage.

On the other hand, if that takes ten or twenty years to accomplish, is it right that gay people and their families should be denied the same thing the rest of us have?

I don't really know. I kind of lean toward saying, as long as the law recognizes marriage as a legal contract with tax benefits and other privileges, then everybody has to have equal treatment under the law. But the problem with that is, if we do that, then some people (myself included) might become complacent and not work toward the real goal of less government, getting government out of the equation entirely.

So I don't know if I can really decide. Given the time I think it would take to do the really right thing (many many years), neither option seems right.

And most people outside of this forum advocating against gay marriage are NOT doing it because they want less government. I think if half the people on this board using that argument were honest, they would admit that isn't their main reason for wanting to keep it illegal either, but it is a very convenient argument to use since it's the correct Libertarian position.

Just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. So I guess I don't have a good answer for you.

Complacency is a very big problem, but it's not the only one. If we allow more government power to license marriages, then we have to do it for all groups to achieve equality, not just gays. Next, the bestialists and polygamists as well as others will start a public outcry and, in principle, we would have to grant it to them if we truly wanted equality. Gay marriage licenses doesn't achieve equality, it only achieves more inequality for other groups and results in more government power. Adding government power will never achieve a goal of less government power. It is completely contradictory.

WhistlinDave
08-04-2012, 04:17 PM
Complacency is a very big problem, but it's not the only one. If we allow more government power to license marriages, then we have to do it for all groups to achieve equality, not just gays. Next, the bestialists and polygamists as well as others will start a public outcry and, in principle, we would have to grant it to them if we truly wanted equality. Gay marriage licenses doesn't achieve equality, it only achieves more inequality for other groups and results in more government power. Adding government power will never achieve a goal of less government power. It is completely contradictory.

I disagree on the bestiality. If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals. An animal cannot legally express consent and therefore cannot enter into a marriage. I don't think you'll find anybody advocating for gay marriage who would disagree.

On polygamy though, you're probably right. And I personally don't have any moral problem with polygamy if all parties are consenting adults and there isn't any of that weird Warren Jeffs stuff going on with marrying kids. Should the government tell three or four or five people they can't all be married together if that's what they all agree together and they are all adults capable of making their own decisions?

And, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, if we can get government out of marriage entirely, then what will prevent polygamists from doing what they please? And what will prevent someone who is into bestiality from marrying their horse? I think it will result in the same thing, only without having to add more laws to give them that equality... Just saying.

pochy1776
08-04-2012, 06:34 PM
Pretty good list, although I'm not sure what you mean by "out" lifetime. ;) Of course everyone's lifetime needs liberty, no matter who they are. :)

Sorry Our Lifetime. I hate being a conservative with libertarian strings. I don't care whether gays are married just don't kiss or hold hands in front of me. To me I am already married to my imaginary girlfriend susan. She now lives in NYC and is an Awesome person in general. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But today, Marriage means any individual as long as human and of consenting age. I'll let them get "married", as long as they don't enforce their values on me by state power (this goes to my social conservative brothers and sisters)
May America be delivered from tyranny and shitty culture and back to strict "kosher" americana and constitutionalism. If more Orthodox Jewish people were constitutionalist, i would elect all of them. (We need "Kosher" americans)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecc0nbg9m-8
Sorry Our Lifetime. I hate being a conservative with libertarian strings. I don't care whether gays are married just don't kiss or hold hands in front of me. To me I am already married to my imaginary girlfriend susan. She now lives in NYC and is an Awesome person in general. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But today, Marriage means any individual as long as human and of consenting age. I'll let them get "married", as long as they don't enforce their values on me by state power (this goes to my social conservative brothers and sisters)
May America be delivered from tyranny and shitty culture and back to strict "kosher" americana and constitutionalism. If more Orthodox Jewish people were constitutionalist, i would elect all of them. (We need "Kosher" americans)

pochy1776
08-04-2012, 06:43 PM
Do you really know how Christmas started? I'll give you a hint. All of these "holidays" with their fictional characters, such as easter (also purportedly a "Christian" holiday) and Halloween, started as pagan traditions. Christmas was never about Christ's birth. That's an excuse for Christians to celebrate it. Think about it, where in the Bible does Christ value His own birth so much? His death was a way more monumental thing to celebrate. Also, does anyone really know what Christ's birthday was? Who decided it would be December 25th?
BiBle: No where: the catholic church justb decided it. If anything, Real Christians are actually very liberal and progressive.

pochy1776
08-04-2012, 06:44 PM
Since they support legislating morality, including criminalizing divorce and pornography. Since they support the FCC banning programs that are "inappropriate". They also fully support marriage amendments and throwing people in rape cages for ingesting the wrong plant. And they completely support our extremely anti-family values foreign policy - and worse, they use the bible to justify it. Wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross, indeed.





Oh, and surprise! They oppose the Muslim community center in New York.

They don't want less government. They worship the state, and want government that supports them and their causes and jails those who don't. FRC and their ilk are fucking disgusting.


http://www.frc.org/op-eds/marriage-protection
And The Gay Rights advocacy groups also want government power to stop discrimnation. when you read both of their dogma, they are of the same pathetic ilk.

pochy1776
08-04-2012, 06:49 PM
To bad people wont go out of their way to bring our troops back home but will raise arms over chicken to show support of our constitution and the rights we are granted, but not when it comes to unconstitutional wars. Our priorities are really messed up.
REAL ISSUES
Liberty in our lifetime
a Kosher Constitutional interpretation of ONLY the bill of rights and Constitution itself.
Getting rid of amendments 16 and 17
how to prevent the inevitable American Apocalypse (by electing Ron Paul, we extend the republic for at least another 50 years)
How to make Susan Lewis real so that she can be my girlfriend (sarcasm)

Southron
08-04-2012, 06:51 PM
If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals.

I doubt you can get everyone to agree on even this. Some would argue that animals and children can consent.

Kluge
08-04-2012, 06:52 PM
I LOVE RON PAUL, although he is quite ignorant with islam, he is the best choice for president.


Just curious how he's "ignorant with Islam."

RickyJ
08-04-2012, 06:53 PM
Complacency is a very big problem, but it's not the only one. If we allow more government power to license marriages, then we have to do it for all groups to achieve equality, not just gays. Next, the bestialists and polygamists as well as others will start a public outcry and, in principle, we would have to grant it to them if we truly wanted equality. Gay marriage licenses doesn't achieve equality, it only achieves more inequality for other groups and results in more government power. Adding government power will never achieve a goal of less government power. It is completely contradictory.

Governments shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. That being said, the only marriage recognized by the creator of marriage, God almighty, is a marriage between a man and a woman. If God does not recognize it, it does not matter who else recognizes it, and if God does recognize it, then it doesn't matter who doesn't recognize it.

Dr.3D
08-04-2012, 06:57 PM
I disagree on the bestiality. If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals. An animal cannot legally express consent and therefore cannot enter into a marriage. I don't think you'll find anybody advocating for gay marriage who would disagree.

On polygamy though, you're probably right. And I personally don't have any moral problem with polygamy if all parties are consenting adults and there isn't any of that weird Warren Jeffs stuff going on with marrying kids. Should the government tell three or four or five people they can't all be married together if that's what they all agree together and they are all adults capable of making their own decisions?

And, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, if we can get government out of marriage entirely, then what will prevent polygamists from doing what they please? And what will prevent someone who is into bestiality from marrying their horse? I think it will result in the same thing, only without having to add more laws to give them that equality... Just saying.
Actually there is polygamy on a grand scale right now. Ever hear of one man having many babies from many different women? This is the same as polygamy except, these "men" won't take any responsibility for their offspring. Seems it would be better if polygamy were legalized so these men could take personal responsibility for their actions in getting women pregnant. As it is now, they just find em, f em and forget em.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 08:29 PM
I disagree on the bestiality. If everyone can agree that marriage is only valid between consenting adults (or since the age of consent varies state to state let's say "consenting parties"), that rules out animals. An animal cannot legally express consent and therefore cannot enter into a marriage. I don't think you'll find anybody advocating for gay marriage who would disagree.

On polygamy though, you're probably right. And I personally don't have any moral problem with polygamy if all parties are consenting adults and there isn't any of that weird Warren Jeffs stuff going on with marrying kids. Should the government tell three or four or five people they can't all be married together if that's what they all agree together and they are all adults capable of making their own decisions?

And, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, if we can get government out of marriage entirely, then what will prevent polygamists from doing what they please? And what will prevent someone who is into bestiality from marrying their horse? I think it will result in the same thing, only without having to add more laws to give them that equality... Just saying.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying in your last paragraph because that is exactly what I was saying. We don't disagree. I want polygamists to be able to do what they please, it's just that, if we grant marriage licenses to gays, then that doesn't solve the problem of inequality. There are more kinds of "marriage" that would have to be given licenses, too.

On bestiality, we kill animals without their consent, so why do we need their consent for anything else?

phill4paul
08-04-2012, 08:39 PM
It would be neat if Christians got behind an initiative to end governmental licensing and benefits regarding marriage. The gauntlet is thrown. I don't think you would put half the energy as you would blocking gay marriage. In fact. I know it. You're quite happy with your shackles and your place in the masters house.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 08:42 PM
Governments shouldn't be in the marriage business at all. That being said, the only marriage recognized by the creator of marriage, God almighty, is a marriage between a man and a woman. If God does not recognize it, it does not matter who else recognizes it, and if God does recognize it, then it doesn't matter who doesn't recognize it.

I agree, but for the sake of argument, we have to let them call it marriage if they so wish. I don't think it's a valid or "real" marriage, but that's beside the point. If they want to call it such, that's fine, as long as government is not involved. That is our first and foremost top priority: no government in marriage, whatsoever.

Personally, and this is beside the point as well, but I don't see why any gays would want to be married if there were no government licenses. The only reason they want it now is for the government recognition and entitlements. If government doesn't grant licenses to anyone, then two gay people living together would achieve the same effect as if they were married.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 08:43 PM
Actually there is polygamy on a grand scale right now. Ever hear of one man having many babies from many different women? This is the same as polygamy except, these "men" won't take any responsibility for their offspring. Seems it would be better if polygamy were legalized so these men could take personal responsibility for their actions in getting women pregnant. As it is now, they just find em, f em and forget em.

That would be true, if fornication were the same thing as marriage.

PaulConventionWV
08-04-2012, 08:44 PM
It would be neat if Christians got behind an initiative to end governmental licensing and benefits regarding marriage. The gauntlet is thrown. I don't think you would put half the energy as you would blocking gay marriage. In fact. I know it. You're quite happy with your shackles and your place in the masters house.

You're wrong, because I would. Don't you think it's a little biased of you to assume we wouldn't?

In fact, ending governmental licensing and benefits is my ONLY priority. I don't care about "blocking gay marriage."

Don't believe me if you want, but you have no reason to think I'm lying. If you haven't noticed, effecting vast political change these days is very hard.

cajuncocoa
08-04-2012, 08:44 PM
It would be neat if Christians got behind an initiative to end governmental licensing and benefits regarding marriage. The gauntlet is thrown. I don't think you would put half the energy as you would blocking gay marriage. In fact. I know it. You're quite happy with your shackles and your place in the masters house.Who's you?

I am a Christian (Catholic) and I am putting exactly ZERO energy into blocking gay marriage. How much is half of ZERO?

Good grief, p4p. :rolleyes:

Dr.3D
08-04-2012, 08:50 PM
That would be true, if fornication were the same thing as marriage.
The difference is that with marriage, there is responsibility. Fornication is just that, fornication.
I'm still trying to figure out what responsibility two people can have when there is absolutely no way they can procreate. Thus if there is no need for responsibility, then there is no need for marriage.

cajuncocoa
08-04-2012, 08:52 PM
Second Chick-fil-A vandalized by ‘no hate’ crowd in Missouri (http://twitchy.com/2012/08/04/second-chick-fil-a-vandalized-by-no-hate-crowd-in-missouri/)
https://p.twimg.com/Azeq5l3CEAATU19.jpg

https://p.twimg.com/Aze_4DaCEAAuq-Z.jpg

phill4paul
08-04-2012, 08:56 PM
You're wrong, because I would. Don't you think it's a little biased of you to assume we wouldn't?

In fact, ending governmental licensing and benefits is my ONLY priority. I don't care about "blocking gay marriage."

Don't believe me if you want, but you have no reason to think I'm lying. If you haven't noticed, effecting vast political change these days is very hard.

Sorry, I guess I got on a soap box and collectivized. But Truth be told. I've yet to hear of a Christian movement to put marriage out of governments hands. Zero.



Who's you?

I am a Christian (Catholic) and I am putting exactly ZERO energy into blocking gay marriage. How much is half of ZERO?

Good grief, p4p. :rolleyes:

Again, apologies. I do wonder though...are you putting ANY effort into ending the governments licensing of marriage?

cajuncocoa
08-04-2012, 09:00 PM
Sorry, I guess I got on a soap box and collectivized. But Truth be told. I've yet to hear of a Christian movement to put marriage out of governments hands. Zero.




Again, apologies. I do wonder though...are you putting ANY effort into ending the governments licensing of marriage?Generally speaking, yes. I am part of the Liberty movement, the goal of which is to reduce the footprint of government in every aspect of our lives. What do you think?

phill4paul
08-04-2012, 09:09 PM
Generally speaking, yes. I am part of the Liberty movement, the goal of which is to reduce the footprint of government in every aspect of our lives. What do you think?

I think that's great! So you have actually pushed for your town,county or state to abolish all the marriage benefits given to traditional marriage recipients? How many churches and denominations got behind the movement?

cajuncocoa
08-04-2012, 09:17 PM
I think that's great! So you have actually pushed for your town,county or state to abolish all the marriage benefits given to traditional marriage recipients? How many churches and denominations got behind the movement?You're attributing words to me that I have not said. I said


Generally speaking, yes. I am part of the Liberty movement, the goal of which is to reduce the footprint of government in every aspect of our lives. What do you think?

I didn't say I am specifically working to abolish marriage benefits given to traditional marriage recipients. But I am not opposed to the idea. Right now, there are bigger fish for the liberty movement to fry IMO (ending unconstitutional wars, returning to sound money and free market principles, etc.)

phill4paul
08-04-2012, 09:22 PM
You're attributing words to me that I have not said. I said



I didn't say I am specifically working to abolish marriage benefits given to traditional marriage recipients. But I am not opposed to the idea. Right now, there are bigger fish for the liberty movement to fry IMO (ending unconstitutional wars, returning to sound money and free market principles, etc.)

Your not against the idea but your not working towards it. O.K.

cajuncocoa
08-04-2012, 09:48 PM
Your not against the idea but your not working towards it. O.K.Are you working towards it? It seems very important to you.

phill4paul
08-04-2012, 09:53 PM
I'm not a Christian, nor am I married nor am I gay. If you are one, two or all three of the aforementioned you have a greater vested interest than I.

cajuncocoa
08-04-2012, 10:10 PM
p4p, let's backtrack for a minute.

You originally posted:


It would be neat if Christians got behind an initiative to end governmental licensing and benefits regarding marriage. The gauntlet is thrown. I don't think you would put half the energy as you would blocking gay marriage. In fact. I know it. You're quite happy with your shackles and your place in the masters house.


Getting behind an initiative is not the same as leading one. You now seem to advocate that as a Catholic Christian I must lead the charge. Sorry, but I'm not that motivated to do so. As I said before, there are other issues that I consider more important right now (this whole Chick Fil-A thing was a major distraction more than anything else).


I don't really get the last sentence in your post above. I've been married for a very long time. Although I agree that government never should have involved itself in the business of marriage, there is only one thing I would probably notice if it were no longer the case, and that would be higher taxes as we would no longer receive a marriage tax deduction. Seems that would "shackle" me even more, so I would rather eliminate or greatly reduce income taxes before we kick government out of the marriage business. (As I said to you in previous posts, there are bigger fish to fry).


Having said all that, I will still keep my promise to get behind such an initiative if someone starts one. I'm not doing anything to block gay marriage, so it won't be difficult to put at least half of that energy into supporting your suggestion. But I'm not motivated to start one myself. I'd rather work on more important stuff like ending wars, sound money, and free markets.

phill4paul
08-04-2012, 10:22 PM
p4p, let's backtrack for a minute.

You originally posted:




Getting behind an initiative is not the same as leading one. You now seem to advocate that as a Catholic Christian I must lead the charge. Sorry, but I'm not that motivated to do so. As I said before, there are other issues that I consider more important right now (this whole Chick Fil-A thing was a major distraction more than anything else).


I don't really get the last sentence in your post above. I've been married for a very long time. Although I agree that government never should have involved itself in the business of marriage, there is only one thing I would probably notice if it were no longer the case, and that would be higher taxes as we would no longer receive a marriage tax deduction. Seems that would "shackle" me even more, so I would rather eliminate or greatly reduce income taxes before we kick government out of the marriage business. (As I said to you in previous posts, there are bigger fish to fry).


Having said all that, I will still keep my promise to get behind such an initiative if someone starts one. I'm not doing anything to block gay marriage, so it won't be difficult to put at least half of that energy into supporting your suggestion. But I'm not motivated to start one myself. I'd rather work on more important stuff like ending wars, sound money, and free markets.

I just want to know why your church/denomination ISN'T behind getting government out of marriage? Don't you? IF you believe that government has no role in church matters then why aren't the churches pushing it?

cajuncocoa
08-04-2012, 10:23 PM
I just want to know why your church/denomination ISN'T behind getting government out of marriage? Don't you? IF you believe that government has no role in church matters then why aren't the churches pushing it?I'll get their number for you; you can call them and ask. :rolleyes:

Good night!

phill4paul
08-04-2012, 10:27 PM
I'll get their number for you; you can call them and ask. :rolleyes:

Good night!

Your church. Not mine. The change starts with people like you. If you choose.

KingNothing
08-05-2012, 06:43 AM
Your church. Not mine. The change starts with people like you. If you choose.

We know those people wont bring about any change. Most religious people want marriage to stay between a man and a woman and want to use the powe rof the state to keep it that way. The religious people around here are probably principled eenough to see how silly that is,but their brothers on the outside arent so committed to liberty; hence the support for chick fil a

KingNothing
08-05-2012, 06:49 AM
Sorry, I guess I got on a soap box and collectivized. But Truth be told. I've yet to hear of a Christian movement to put marriage out of governments hands. Zero.



Again, apologies. I do wonder though...are you putting ANY effort into ending the governments licensing of marriage?

It is important to remember that the people here may wax religious against the gays, they still believe in limited government. They are not our opposition.

osan
08-05-2012, 06:56 AM
LoL, more intolerance from the tolerance crowd.

Perfect nutshell.

osan
08-05-2012, 07:03 AM
It’s their city, not Prissy’s. Here's hoping they someday kick her and all her self-important comrades out on their smug butts.

Feh - never happen. Stupidity is a staple of life in the Big-A, especially these days. Not quite as big a shit-hole as Chicago or San Francisco, but the differences approach vanishing these days. My home town is lost.

osan
08-05-2012, 07:05 AM
this. The protesters were vastly outnumbered by diners when I drove by the one in Hollywood, and if that was true in HOLLYWOOD, Torrence, which is much more conservative...

Yeah, but that's like saying the corpse on the left over there is more dead than the one on the right.

:)

osan
08-05-2012, 07:15 AM
This ridiculous nonsense is a great case in point illustrating in precise fashion why we are hosed.

When this large a proportion of a nation's population devolves to this profound a state of self-imposed and self-energizing stupidity, doom is not around the corner but rather upon us already.

osan
08-05-2012, 07:20 AM
I'm not really sure what they hope to accomplish with all of this protesting. The CEO of Chick-Fil-A is 91 years old and a hardcore Christian. I'm sure a bunch of college students will be able to change his mind with a few kiss-ins, some spray paint, and some signs.

Chanting. You forgot the chanting. Gotta have chanting.

cajuncocoa
08-05-2012, 07:25 AM
Your church. Not mine. The change starts with people like you. If you choose.

I don't choose. Bigger fish to fry. If you want it, go for it.

To me, you seem more intent on painting religious people as bigots.


We know those people wont bring about any change. Most religious people want marriage to stay between a man and a woman and want to use the powe rof the state to keep it that way. The religious people around here are probably principled eenough to see how silly that is,but their brothers on the outside arent so committed to liberty; hence the support for chick fil a

For this religious person, the support for CFA has to do with their 1st amendment right to free speech. Nothing more.

PaulConventionWV
08-05-2012, 02:13 PM
The difference is that with marriage, there is responsibility. Fornication is just that, fornication.
I'm still trying to figure out what responsibility two people can have when there is absolutely no way they can procreate. Thus if there is no need for responsibility, then there is no need for marriage.

Marriage implies a responsibility toward each other, not just the offspring.

PaulConventionWV
08-05-2012, 02:15 PM
Sorry, I guess I got on a soap box and collectivized. But Truth be told. I've yet to hear of a Christian movement to put marriage out of governments hands. Zero.




Again, apologies. I do wonder though...are you putting ANY effort into ending the governments licensing of marriage?

What do you expect us to do?

PaulConventionWV
08-05-2012, 02:18 PM
I'm not a Christian, nor am I married nor am I gay. If you are one, two or all three of the aforementioned you have a greater vested interest than I.

That's not true. You may think we have a greater responsibility, but the vested interest varies from person to person. In fact, however, you have just as much of a responsibility as us. Many people don't have relatives in a war, but does that make them less obligated to help correct the problem? In either case, we should both be working just as hard if less government is our true goal.

PaulConventionWV
08-05-2012, 02:21 PM
Your church. Not mine. The change starts with people like you. If you choose.

Why must you pin the responsibility on others? The churches have their own doctrines and cannot be swayed in one fell swoop by a single member, and there are not many churches to choose from that have that agenda. Now you're just being ridiculous.

DerailingDaTrain
08-05-2012, 02:47 PM
To me, you seem more intent on painting religious people as bigots

Bigot is defined as an intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

KingNothing
08-05-2012, 03:51 PM
Why must you pin the responsibility on others? The churches have their own doctrines and cannot be swayed in one fell swoop by a single member, and there are not many churches to choose from that have that agenda. Now you're just being ridiculous.



WRONG! Just like the people who thought interracial marriage was a sin a generation or two ago, we need to chip away, one person at a time, to change this completely ridiculous notion that being gay is immoral.

Changing people's minds will come before changing any laws. We need to convince people to become more tolerant and less judgemental of others. Wheb we do that we'll be able to get the state out of marriage completely. That change happens one person at a time. Regardless of whether or not an entire congregation realizes the absurdity of their bigotry at once or not, we need to get individuals to realize that fact.


I don't know why you think the state will get out of marriage while people still harbor insane prejudices towards gay people and polygamists. Ideas matter, and they're what we have to influence.

dawnbt
08-05-2012, 05:04 PM
Wow, Chik-fil-a is the creator??

I think you guys are takin this a little too far..

He may have been speaking to broadly for you. Let me break it down. Dan Cathy's views/beliefs are biblical. Meaning they come from the Bible, the word of God. Therefore, these beliefs are God's...the creator. Saying Cathy's beliefs are hate is saying Gods Word is hate. Big no-no.

dawnbt
08-05-2012, 05:12 PM
In Genesis Chapter 16, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar and told her to return to her master and submit.

Does that mean that if my wife is infertile I should rape my female slave to get her pregnant and God is OK with it? It worked out great for Abraham and Sarai... Kind of contradicts the whole "one man one woman" model of Biblical marriage as well, just saying.

It's not my intention to be rude or insult your religious beliefs, I'm just pointing out that some things in the Old Testament were correct for society in the time and culture when they were written thousands of years ago, but today we know these things are not really what God wants, because we have become more enlightened since those days.

Which is why nobody today is advocating rebellious children be brought to the town elders to be publicly stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). And nobody today is saying we should protect traditional marriage by making laws to stone adulterers to death (Leviticus 20:10).

And nobody is protesting outside Red Lobster because eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:9-12).

Slavery as God intended is nothing like that of modern day. It was to repay a debt. Once the debt was paid, the "slave" was free. Many chose to stay as they were treated better by their masters than on their own. Much like Israel, once freed and in the wilderness wanting to return to Egypt because they were fed more than manta. As far as "raping his slave" that was not the case at all. Show me where it said she was raped. If anything, she was boastful to Sarah because she was with Abrahams child. Regardless, Abraham and Sarah did not have faith in what God told them that Sarah would bare him a child, were human, sinned daily like the rest of us, and were punished by God for their lack of faith. If you actually studied the bible with a bit of faith, it would be clear as day.

Origanalist
08-05-2012, 05:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8G4jI3VI8U&feature=player_detailpage

Classy.

maskander
08-05-2012, 06:47 PM
Gay's can legally get married in a few different states. just went to a wedding in Indiana yesterday, the couple went to iowa for a day to get officially married and then came back and had their ceremony, Indiana has to officially recognize their marriage. :)

You guys are on the wrong side of history get with the times.

PaulConventionWV
08-05-2012, 07:12 PM
WRONG! Just like the people who thought interracial marriage was a sin a generation or two ago, we need to chip away, one person at a time, to change this completely ridiculous notion that being gay is immoral.

Changing people's minds will come before changing any laws. We need to convince people to become more tolerant and less judgemental of others. Wheb we do that we'll be able to get the state out of marriage completely. That change happens one person at a time. Regardless of whether or not an entire congregation realizes the absurdity of their bigotry at once or not, we need to get individuals to realize that fact.


I don't know why you think the state will get out of marriage while people still harbor insane prejudices towards gay people and polygamists. Ideas matter, and they're what we have to influence.

What was I wrong on? I don't believe I made a definitive statement that you challenged.

Regardless, though, why must we change other people's minds about the morality of homosexuality? Let me believe it's immoral as long as I don't force others to accept my views. Likewise, you shouldn't push yours on me if I'm not trying to enforce my views through government.

Be tolerant of people's differences of belief. To tell people to give up the idea that homosexuality is immoral would require them to give up their belief in Biblical moral character. It's okay to believe that homosexuality is immoral just like it's okay to believe that alcoholism is immoral. If I want to believe that, it's none of your business and I'm not being intolerant just by believing that. It's a personal belief and I'm not forcing you to accept it, so don't push yours on me. You can't rid society of adherence to Biblical character, so your standards for getting the government out of it are just ridiculous and can never be achieved. That means you want us to expand the government entitlement base until we finally eradicate the Biblical belief about homosexuality. If that is the case, then we will NEVER get rid of the government involvement in marriage.

It's not your place to decide how tolerant or non-judgmental people should be. We don't need to enact some widespread societal shift in belief before getting government out of it. JUST GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT. It doesn't matter what other people think, just get the government out of it. You sound a lot like some sort of totalitarian when you tell me we need to make society act a certain way before we can get rid of government regulation. That's the same excuse used for a lot of regulation that goes on. Society is never going to bend to your will, so why not just get the government out of it instead of telling us what to believe?

I don't care what kind of prejudices people have toward gays. If we can convince them that we don't need the government involved, then it DOESN'T MATTER what their prejudices are.

JUST LEAVE ME AND MY BELIEFS ALONE. Is that too much to ask?

PaulConventionWV
08-05-2012, 07:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8G4jI3VI8U&feature=player_detailpage

Classy.

As much as these people preach tolerance, it gets harder and harder to believe they hold themselves to the same standards. In fact, I don't believe they do at all. It's just becoming more and more obvious with each passing day as I see some video of a gay guy or a gay "rights" advocate harassing some poor girl or guy and passing judgment like they're not even aware of what their own message is. Tolerance is a two way street, and right now, I am only seeing it come in one direction.

TonySutton
08-05-2012, 07:28 PM
As much as these people preach tolerance, it gets harder and harder to believe they hold themselves to the same standards. In fact, I don't believe they do at all. It's just becoming more and more obvious with each passing day as I see some video of a gay guy or a gay "rights" advocate harassing some poor girl or guy and passing judgment like they're not even aware of what their own message is. Tolerance is a two way street, and right now, I am only seeing it come in one direction.

Yep, lump all them gays in one big group. They are all exactly the same. Maybe I should put up some Fred Phelps videos and talk about the tolerance of Christians.

pochy1776
08-05-2012, 08:38 PM
Just curious how he's "ignorant with Islam."

It was an old thing i used to believe, i am just tired of switching things on the internet. I am a Constitutional Conservative- one who believes in the constitution and libertarian ideals, but acts in the way of a conservative. I'm no John Stossel, and a libertarian think tank does not exist (take that david boaz and your cosmo-drinking lady friends(call me Susan!)) I personally find gay people repugnant as i find muslims, christians, Blacks, Hispanics, and people who think medicine is corrupted. But, i don't push my beliefs on them through government force and coercion. That is for me to do in my own personal life.

pochy1776
08-05-2012, 09:16 PM
I am Fed Up! The Younger ones need "tolerance" for them to even comprehend a world. The world is full of injustice. Christians have done more to kill, rape, maim, pillage and they are still held to that standard even after years of apologizing and feeding (Dan Cathy himself fathered 30 children.) And yet, Gay people had a fucking riot in 1969 and continue to call names, harass and ostracize little kids and teens that view it as wrong or abnormal. That is viewed as civil rights advancement. REAL Libertarians don't act superior or coddle minorities. REAL libertarians want the government OUT OF marriage and other personal issues and REAL Libertarians can give two S*** about black rights or gay rights or any type of "rights." You act as if you are enlightened and superior for being on "the right side of history." The very same act that comes from the pathetic social conservatives and Advocacy groups that want to use government power and coercion to force down their beliefs on others. I am beginning to think that libertarianism has been bastardized by Cosmotarians from Reason and CATO (although, Cato still has some good stuff.)

I am Sorry for this post. I am just angry, I am going to take my medication now.

PaulConventionWV
08-05-2012, 09:18 PM
Yep, lump all them gays in one big group. They are all exactly the same. Maybe I should put up some Fred Phelps videos and talk about the tolerance of Christians.

I didn't say that.

angelatc
08-05-2012, 09:58 PM
WRONG! Just like the people who thought interracial marriage was a sin a generation or two ago, we need to chip away, one person at a time, to change this completely ridiculous notion that being gay is immoral.

Great. Let's legislate morality! That always works so well.

angelatc
08-05-2012, 09:59 PM
As much as these people preach tolerance, it gets harder and harder to believe they hold themselves to the same standards. In fact, I don't believe they do at all. It's just becoming more and more obvious with each passing day as I see some video of a gay guy or a gay "rights" advocate harassing some poor girl or guy and passing judgment like they're not even aware of what their own message is. Tolerance is a two way street, and right now, I am only seeing it come in one direction.

They are entirely self absorbed.

Danke
08-05-2012, 10:06 PM
It was an old thing i used to believe, i am just tired of switching things on the internet. I am a Constitutional Conservative- one who believes in the constitution and libertarian ideals, but acts in the way of a conservative. I'm no John Stossel, and a libertarian think tank does not exist (take that david boaz and your cosmo-drinking lady friends(call me Susan!)) I personally find gay people repugnant as i find muslims, christians, Blacks, Hispanics, and people who think medicine is corrupted. But, i don't push my beliefs on them through government force and coercion. That is for me to do in my own personal life.

O.K. I'm slow, could you answer Kluge's question in simple terms for me?:

"I LOVE RON PAUL, although he is quite ignorant with islam"

angelatc
08-05-2012, 10:07 PM
The guy who tagged the Chik Fil A has stepped forward. He's quite proud of himself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html


At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest."

I (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html)f I had his address, I'd be tempted to go paint "STFU" on his house or his car. It's not much of a crime.

Kluge
08-05-2012, 10:12 PM
O.K. I'm slow, could you answer Kluge's question in simple terms for me?:

"I LOVE RON PAUL, although he is quite ignorant with islam"

Yeah...that response was as clear as mud...still not sure why he thinks Ron Paul is "ignorant with Islam."

Kluge
08-05-2012, 10:17 PM
The guy who tagged the Chik Fil A has stepped forward. He's quite proud of himself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html



I (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html)f I had his address, I'd be tempted to go paint "STFU" on his house or his car. It's not much of a crime.

These idiots must not have ever owned a home or a business--it takes so much work to build walls, maintain things and to wake up one morning and find that your house/business/whatever has been vandalized is devastating.

I completely re-did the landscaping at my mother's house and was sitting outside with the dog after the work was done and some asshole walks by and kicks all six trash cans of brush out into the street. I seriously wanted to beat the shit out of him--I almost let my dog loose on him, but he was probably too high on something to feel pain.

UpperDecker
08-05-2012, 10:20 PM
The guy who tagged the Chik Fil A has stepped forward. He's quite proud of himself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html



I (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html)f I had his address, I'd be tempted to go paint "STFU" on his house or his car. It's not much of a crime.

Ugh, the horror in those comments. I hate how people defend this as oh so noble when it is on their side, but if the shoe was on the other foot they would scream bloody murder. I have been a strong supporter of gay right, but this makes them look like assholes when they are trying to get people to accept them.

angelatc
08-05-2012, 10:32 PM
Ugh, the horror in those comments. I hate how people defend this as oh so noble when it is on their side, but if the shoe was on the other foot they would scream bloody murder. I have been a strong supporter of gay right, but this makes them look like assholes when they are trying to get people to accept them.

It doesn't make them look like assholes. It exposes who and what they really are.

pochy1776
08-06-2012, 12:18 AM
IT WASSOME THING THAT I USED TO BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I THEN READ SOME OF THE FREAKIN Qu'ran and it was even shittier than the bible. How the hell do i edit.

libertariantexas
08-06-2012, 01:16 PM
The guy who tagged the Chik Fil A has stepped forward. He's quite proud of himself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html



I (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html)f I had his address, I'd be tempted to go paint "STFU" on his house or his car. It's not much of a crime.

The vandals are wrong. The government officials trying to bar Chick Fil A from opening restaurants are wrong.

For those who oppose Chick Fil A, the right thing to do is just not buy their Filet O' Hate sandwiches.

WhistlinDave
08-06-2012, 01:30 PM
Slavery as God intended is nothing like that of modern day. It was to repay a debt. Once the debt was paid, the "slave" was free. Many chose to stay as they were treated better by their masters than on their own. Much like Israel, once freed and in the wilderness wanting to return to Egypt because they were fed more than manta. As far as "raping his slave" that was not the case at all. Show me where it said she was raped. If anything, she was boastful to Sarah because she was with Abrahams child. Regardless, Abraham and Sarah did not have faith in what God told them that Sarah would bare him a child, were human, sinned daily like the rest of us, and were punished by God for their lack of faith. If you actually studied the bible with a bit of faith, it would be clear as day.

That's interesting, how slavery worked, but are you kidding me? Where did you get that she was boastful to be carrying his child? Hagar ran away because she was upset that Abraham got her pregnant!! She was mad at Sarai for making her have sex with him.

And of course it does not say he raped her, because she was Sarai's slave, so she did not have the right to disagree. She had to have sex with him, like it or not. By today's standards we would call it rape, but at the time Genesis was written, it was not considered rape because she was their property. Hope that makes sense...

Tell me if I'm wrong... She was NOT happy he got her pregnant and ran away, and only went back because the Angel of the Lord appeared to her and told her to go back.

Actually though, the details of that are not what my post was about anyway. Some things in the Bible are simply wrong, and do NOT accurately depict what God wants. Either that, or Christians today are completely ignoring a very substantial portion of God's very specific instructions, while screaming all holy hell about this one issue. It's either one or the other. Those examples I gave are just a few of the things we conveniently ignore today; I can give you a ton more if you'd like. Are they wrong to begin with? Or are we just selectively picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we feel like observing?

Revolution9
08-06-2012, 06:14 PM
Yep, lump all them gays in one big group. They are all exactly the same. Maybe I should put up some Fred Phelps videos and talk about the tolerance of Christians.

Fred Phelps is a jewish diamond dealer. He has his own agenda. Ergo what he has to say about shit is not amusing nor cogent in the least. I may as well review Grimm's Fairy Tales. It has better symbolism.

Rev9

Revolution9
08-06-2012, 06:21 PM
Gay's can legally get married in a few different states. just went to a wedding in Indiana yesterday, the couple went to iowa for a day to get officially married and then came back and had their ceremony, Indiana has to officially recognize their marriage. :)

You guys are on the wrong side of history get with the times.

History? You mean time local trends. Don't frikkin' kid yourself. This shit is a flash in the pan. Generations make history. Fagdom is a genetic dead end./ Orgasm-orgasm-orgasm-die as opposed to orgasm-orgasm-child-orasm-child orgasm die. Tolerance/ I will offer it when I see it is reciprocal. I take no yard of lip from radical miss thangs. Other than that..if ya wanna go suck a big one then fine..but don't frikkin' tell me. I got food on my stomach. Ya wanna get married..fine..don't expect the frikkin' world to celebrate your teeny weeny peeny got itself a receptacle to slosh about in. We don't care what you got hanging in yer party pants and don't want to know what you like to do with it for shits and giggles. Seriously. it is frikkin' gross. What is so hard to understand about this??

Rev9

Revolution9
08-06-2012, 06:24 PM
That's interesting, how slavery worked, but are you kidding me? Where did you get that she was boastful to be carrying his child? Hagar ran away because she was upset that Abraham got her pregnant!! She was mad at Sarai for making her have sex with him.

And of course it does not say he raped her, because she was Sarai's slave, so she did not have the right to disagree. She had to have sex with him, like it or not. By today's standards we would call it rape, but at the time Genesis was written, it was not considered rape because she was their property. Hope that makes sense...

Tell me if I'm wrong... She was NOT happy he got her pregnant and ran away, and only went back because the Angel of the Lord appeared to her and told her to go back.

Actually though, the details of that are not what my post was about anyway. Some things in the Bible are simply wrong, and do NOT accurately depict what God wants. Either that, or Christians today are completely ignoring a very substantial portion of God's very specific instructions, while screaming all holy hell about this one issue. It's either one or the other. Those examples I gave are just a few of the things we conveniently ignore today; I can give you a ton more if you'd like. Are they wrong to begin with? Or are we just selectively picking and choosing which parts of the Bible we feel like observing?

Jesus was the teacher..not Saul nor the wandering tribe. The Universe is the reflection of the teacher. He had a consort. I reject falsehoods and refuse to accept them due to temporal trends which on this planet often do not have the best interests of it's denizens within the methodologies.

Rev9

Revolution9
08-06-2012, 06:32 PM
For those who oppose Chick Fil A, the right thing to do is just not buy their Filet O' Hate sandwiches.

And run right down to Gay Bob's Knob who has a dick on a stick sale and shove the daily blow job special combo meal down yer throat. Jeesh..what a bunch of frikkin' maroons and the halfwit bullshit they think passes for cogent points or some kind or argument for or against. I see a whole swath of knee jerk diatribe and good folk getting shuffled down dead end alley debates by gay shillage. If ya don't like something by instinct..trust it and avoid it. If ya wanna do something suffer it. You were the one that wanted to do it. Do not expect the world to applaud your choices just because mommy did or did not hang yer artwork on the fridge. It makes you come off as simply a spoiled brat that never grew up.

Rev9

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 01:58 PM
Jesus was the teacher..not Saul nor the wandering tribe. The Universe is the reflection of the teacher. He had a consort. I reject falsehoods and refuse to accept them due to temporal trends which on this planet often do not have the best interests of it's denizens within the methodologies.

Rev9

That's my point. Jesus was the teacher. Not anyone else. If one is a Christian then that means a follower of Christ.

So if someone can just provide me with a chapter and verse showing when Jesus said something about homosexuality or gays while he walked the earth as God Incarnate, then I will concede and happily agree that the proper thing to do as a Christian is to condemn homosexuality as sinful and evil.

It seems like a pretty big omission from God Incarnate for something that's supposedly such a huge abomination unto the Lord... He walked the earth for thirty-some years and said lots of stuff, and yet we have this glaring omission. You'd think in all those years he could've taken thirty seconds to utter one little measly half sentence about it to confirm how evil it is, you know, like the things he said about adultery for example, or lack of faith, or all the other things he did bother to talk about.

To me it kind of indicates God doesn't actually give a damn whether people are gay or straight, if you believe Jesus is God and came to make a new Covenant with man based on Love and Faith, not based on rules and a laundry list of violations. If he did, Jesus sure had plenty of opportunity to say something about it, and he apparently didn't.

bolil
08-07-2012, 02:05 PM
I don't know about all this marriage stuff, I just don't like the way "Chick-a-fil-a" or whatever is spelled. Never ate there, never will.

RickyJ
08-07-2012, 02:10 PM
So if someone can just provide me with a chapter and verse showing when Jesus said something about homosexuality or gays while he walked the earth as God Incarnate, then I will concede and happily agree that the proper thing to do as a Christian is to condemn homosexuality as sinful and evil.



Here is New Testament scripture for you condemning homosexuality as sinful and evil:

Romans 1:26-32

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

AuH20
08-07-2012, 02:23 PM
History? You mean time local trends. Don't frikkin' kid yourself. This shit is a flash in the pan. Generations make history. Fagdom is a genetic dead end./ Orgasm-orgasm-orgasm-die as opposed to orgasm-orgasm-child-orasm-child orgasm die. Tolerance/ I will offer it when I see it is reciprocal. I take no yard of lip from radical miss thangs. Other than that..if ya wanna go suck a big one then fine..but don't frikkin' tell me. I got food on my stomach. Ya wanna get married..fine..don't expect the frikkin' world to celebrate your teeny weeny peeny got itself a receptacle to slosh about in. We don't care what you got hanging in yer party pants and don't want to know what you like to do with it for shits and giggles. Seriously. it is frikkin' gross. What is so hard to understand about this??

Rev9

You may be crude but you're right. Homosexuality is not the future defining blueprint of what it is to be human. Rather it's a genetic anomaly that shouldn't be celebrated. With all that said, the individuals who are homosexual should be treated with some common decency. It wasn't their choice.

bolil
08-07-2012, 02:27 PM
I was unaware that the bible was a collection of direct quotes. Christians are aware that there was a committee formed to vote on the cannon right, which became the bible? So that means what? Men chose what is to be read in the bible and what is not. As far as Jesus, and this might provoke some into fits of theologic apoplexy, can't his philosophy be summed up in the golden rule? As applied to gay marriage: If you would not like other people telling you who you can marry, you aught not tell others who they can marry... Solution? GET THE F******Mother F******Mother F******Mother F******Mother F****** goverment out of MARRIAGE entirely, forever. The onlything left to do is to establish a baseline for consent, which should have nothing to do with age but with ability to understand consequence - likely administered in the form of a common sense test.

Example question: If you decide to hit a hornets nest with a baseball bat you are likely to get:
a A high five
b Stung, repeatedly
c Hugged
d Married

RickyJ
08-07-2012, 02:29 PM
That's my point. Jesus was the teacher. Not anyone else. If one is a Christian then that means a follower of Christ.

So if someone can just provide me with a chapter and verse showing when Jesus said something about homosexuality or gays while he walked the earth as God Incarnate, then I will concede and happily agree that the proper thing to do as a Christian is to condemn homosexuality as sinful and evil.



Here is Jesus talking about homosexuality himself:

Luke 17:28-30


28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

The people of Sodom were condemned just like all those that reject Jesus will be condemned.

matt0611
08-07-2012, 02:48 PM
Here is Jesus talking about homosexuality himself:

Luke 17:28-30



The people of Sodom were condemned just like all those that reject Jesus will be condemned.


Also, Matthew 19, directly from Jesus.

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Marriage was created for a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Those are not Godly relationships and are wrong and sinful.

James Madison
08-07-2012, 03:16 PM
You may be crude but you're right. Homosexuality is not the future defining blueprint of what it is to be human. Rather it's a genetic anomaly that shouldn't be celebrated. With all that said, the individuals who are homosexual should be treated with some common decency. It wasn't their choice.

Out of curiosity what does everyone think about the 'origins' of homosexuality. I have my opinions, but I'd love to hear someone else's.

ExPatPaki
08-07-2012, 03:19 PM
Fred Phelps is a jewish diamond dealer.

Curious, how do you know he is Jewish?

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:21 PM
Here is Jesus talking about homosexuality himself:

Luke 17:28-30


28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

The people of Sodom were condemned just like all those that reject Jesus will be condemned.

He didn't say they were having homosexual sex in Sodom. He gives a list of all the fun stuff they were doing, and gay sex acts are not in the list.

Sodom is referenced, but God destroyed the place because Lot couldn't find ten righteous men.

I think referencing the destruction of Sodom as an allegory to those who don't believe in Jesus, while not saying a word about homosexuality and listing all these other things, proves my point more than it does yours. He still didn't say a word about it being wrong.

ExPatPaki
08-07-2012, 03:21 PM
It was an old thing i used to believe, i am just tired of switching things on the internet. I am a Constitutional Conservative- one who believes in the constitution and libertarian ideals, but acts in the way of a conservative. I'm no John Stossel, and a libertarian think tank does not exist (take that david boaz and your cosmo-drinking lady friends(call me Susan!)) I personally find gay people repugnant as i find muslims, christians, Blacks, Hispanics, and people who think medicine is corrupted. But, i don't push my beliefs on them through government force and coercion. That is for me to do in my own personal life.
LOL!
This guy is awesome, please don't ever ban him.

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:22 PM
Also, Matthew 19, directly from Jesus.

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Marriage was created for a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Those are not Godly relationships and are wrong and sinful.

This is Jesus talking about hetero sex and marriage.

Still not Jesus saying homosexuality is a sin or abomination.

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:24 PM
Here is New Testament scripture for you condemning homosexuality as sinful and evil:

Romans 1:26-32

Letter from Paul means nothing to me. He never met Jesus in the flesh. His guess as to what Jesus thinks is as good as mine.

Can no one produce for me a Bible chapter and verse where out of Jesus mouth came the words that having gay sex is a sin?

It's a very simple statement. Would've taken him a few seconds to say. And yet he didn't.

phill4paul
08-07-2012, 03:25 PM
blah..blah blah..the Bible says...equal rights!....live and let live...Chistians rule!...Athiests rule!...blah..blah..blah...marriage is one man one woman!...the government shouldn't be involved in marriage...blah...blah..blah...America is a Christian nation!....America has a secular government!...blah...blah...blah....The founders were Christian!...The founders were part of the 'Enlightenment' movement!...blah..blah..blah...

I've been on these forums too damn long and feel like I'm living an example of Bill Murray's 'Ground Hog Day.'

matt0611
08-07-2012, 03:26 PM
This is Jesus talking about hetero sex and marriage.

Still not Jesus saying homosexuality is a sin or abomination.

You can't be serious. There is only one marriage, not "hetero marriage".

No one can read the Bible or the words of Jesus in a serious manner and not recognize homosexuality as a sin, as all sex outside of marriage is, and there is no "homosexual marriage".

RickyJ
08-07-2012, 03:26 PM
He didn't say they were having homosexual sex in Sodom. He gives a list of all the fun stuff they were doing, and gay sex acts are not in the list.

Sodom is referenced, but God destroyed the place because Lot couldn't find ten righteous men.

I think referencing the destruction of Sodom as an allegory to those who don't believe in Jesus, while not saying a word about homosexuality and listing all these other things, proves my point more than it does yours. He still didn't say a word about it being wrong.

You are completely ignoring Romans 1:26-32. No Jesus didn't say that in the flesh on Earth, but the apostles inspired by God did.

matt0611
08-07-2012, 03:28 PM
Letter from Paul means nothing to me. He never met Jesus in the flesh. His guess as to what Jesus thinks is as good as mine.

Can no one produce for me a Bible chapter and verse where out of Jesus mouth came the words that having gay sex is a sin?

It's a very simple statement. Would've taken him a few seconds to say. And yet he didn't.

Terrible argument, Jesus did not give an exhaustive list of sins for us. The law was already in existence. He didn't come to abolish the law. Jesus quoted the old testament many many times as if it was God's word itself. In fact he quotes Leviticus more than any other OT book, and Leviticus lists homosexuality as a sin.

To assert that Jesus wouldn't view homosexuality as a sin is simply ridiculous.

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:30 PM
Out of curiosity what does everyone think about the 'origins' of homosexuality. I have my opinions, but I'd love to hear someone else's.

It's been around since the beginning of recorded history. And hundreds of other animal species also do it, so it isn't just a product of man's sinful mind, or unnatural.

There are some studies that have been done with hamsters that says that if you add more hamsters in the same space, the more dense the population, the more hamsters who are gay. As they have babies and reproduce and the population grows, you get more and more gay hamsters.

My theory is it's nature's method of population control so that a species does not deplete their ecosystem of all the resources before it becomes unsustainable for them, ensuring the survival of the species. That's just my opinion though, no way to prove it of course.

And/or nature's way of providing more parents for orphaned children? I think there are about a quarter million kids in orphanages in the US at any given time, and it wasn't gay people who dumped them there. Lots of gay people do rescue them though, and give them loving homes their parents didn't. There definitely is something wrong destroying the family unit in America today but I don't think it's gay people. Just saying.

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 03:32 PM
That's my point. Jesus was the teacher. Not anyone else. If one is a Christian then that means a follower of Christ.

So if someone can just provide me with a chapter and verse showing when Jesus said something about homosexuality or gays while he walked the earth as God Incarnate, then I will concede and happily agree that the proper thing to do as a Christian is to condemn homosexuality as sinful and evil.


Straight from the mouth of Jesus.

Matthew 19:4-6

New International Version (NIV)

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Now before you respond with "Well Jesus wasn't condemning homosexuality in that passage" neither was the owner of Chick-Fil-A! Seriously, the owner said he supported traditional marriage between a man and a woman just like Jesus said He supported traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus could have said "Therefore one consenting adult shall leave the home of his or her parents and go be one with some other consenting adult"....but He didn't. Why is it okay with you for Jesus to say God made male and female distinct for the purpose of joining together in one flesh, but it's not okay for Christians to say that? :confused:

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:33 PM
Terrible argument, Jesus did not give an exhaustive list of sins for us. The law was already in existence. He didn't come to abolish the law. Jesus quoted the old testament many many times as if it was God's word itself. In fact he quotes Leviticus more than any other OT book, and Leviticus lists homosexuality as a sin.

To assert that Jesus wouldn't view homosexuality as a sin is simply ridiculous.

Right. So now we're going in circles. He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.

So back to my earlier posts. Why are people not lobbying for laws calling for adulterers to be stoned to death?

Or for rebellious children to be stoned to death?

Why aren't people protesting in front of Red Lobster because eating shellfish is an abomination?

And why did Jesus stop the crowd from stoning the adulteress to death when that was clearly defined under the law he did not come to abolish?

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 03:34 PM
This is Jesus talking about hetero sex and marriage.

Still not Jesus saying homosexuality is a sin or abomination.

Fine. So your position is that gays can't get married but homosexuality isn't a sin. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

matt0611
08-07-2012, 03:37 PM
Right. So now we're going in circles. He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.

So back to my earlier posts. Why are people not lobbying for laws calling for adulterers to be stoned to death?

Or for rebellious children to be stoned to death?

Why aren't people protesting in front of Red Lobster because eating shellfish is an abomination?

And why did Jesus stop the crowd from stoning the adulteress to death when that was clearly defined under the law he did not come to abolish?

Right, so you can't respond to the fact that Jesus had the same view of what is sinful as the old testament did.

Now your changing the subject to the *penalties* of sin, which is a different topic.

Jesus still viewed adultery as sinful.

matt0611
08-07-2012, 03:37 PM
Right. So now we're going in circles. He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.

So back to my earlier posts. Why are people not lobbying for laws calling for adulterers to be stoned to death?

Or for rebellious children to be stoned to death?

Why aren't people protesting in front of Red Lobster because eating shellfish is an abomination?

And why did Jesus stop the crowd from stoning the adulteress to death when that was clearly defined under the law he did not come to abolish?

Right, so you can't respond to the fact that Jesus had the same view of what is sinful as the old testament did.

Now your changing the subject to the *penalties* of sin, which is a different topic.

Jesus still viewed adultery and prostitution as sinful.

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:38 PM
Straight from the mouth of Jesus.

Matthew 19:4-6

New International Version (NIV)

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Now before you respond with "Well Jesus wasn't condemning homosexuality in that passage" neither was the owner of Chick-Fil-A! Seriously, the owner said he supported traditional marriage between a man and a woman just like Jesus said He supported traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus could have said "Therefore one consenting adult shall leave the home of his or her parents and go be one with some other consenting adult"....but He didn't. Why is it okay with you for Jesus to say God made male and female distinct for the purpose of joining together in one flesh, but it's not okay for Christians to say that? :confused:

It's OK for them to say it, and their right to believe it, it's their donations to groups working to pass laws making gay marriage illegal that I disagree with enough to make me not eat there.

They can do whatever they want with their money, it's their money. And we certainly don't need the government telling them they can't do business here or there. That's just more government interference and tyranny.

I just won't eat there because I don't want my money going to support lobbying for the creation of laws limiting freedom that I do not agree with. I can't speak for anyone else.

And I think the vandal was a jackass and should've taken out an ad somewhere to get his "artwork" out there, not infringe on the property owner's rights like that.

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:39 PM
Duplicate post

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:47 PM
Right, so you can't respond to the fact that Jesus had the same view of what is sinful as the old testament did.

Now your changing the subject to the *penalties* of sin, which is a different topic.

Jesus still viewed adultery and prostitution as sinful.

OK, I will grant you that, penalties vs. what is sinful.

So why is no one crusading against divorce? Or adultery? Or eating shellfish? Or shaving one's beard? Or wearing cotton polyester blends? Or planting two different seeds in the same row? Why is no one conducting bloody animal sacrifices as prescribed by the first nine chapters of Leviticus?

It's fine for Christians to take the position that something Jesus never said is still incorporated by reference to the Old Testament passages saying it's a sin, but then DO IT FOR EVERYTHING! Don't cherry pick this one sin and make a big deal about it. That's all I'm trying to say. It's inconsistent, i.e. renders the whole argument bullshit imo.

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 03:48 PM
Right. So now we're going in circles. He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.

Right. Fulfilling means "to keep".



So back to my earlier posts. Why are people not lobbying for laws calling for adulterers to be stoned to death?


Because Jesus told the woman caught in adultery "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more." For that matter nobody is lobbying for laws calling for gays to be stoned to death. Do you wish they would? There is no "Overturn Lawrence v Texas" movement in this country. Do you think there should be just so that Christians can be consistent in your eyes? Or can you see the difference between criminalizing a behavior (sodomy laws) and not sanctioning it?



Or for rebellious children to be stoned to death?


Christians today would be happy if the state quit arresting or threatening to arrest parents who spank while at the same time reserving the right to tazer toddlers and teens.



Why aren't people protesting in front of Red Lobster because eating shellfish is an abomination?


If you can't figure out on your own that you shouldn't eat this:

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2012/4/16/201241683924620734_3.jpg

that's on you.



And why did Jesus stop the crowd from stoning the adulteress to death when that was clearly defined under the law he did not come to abolish?

Did you miss the "Go and sin no more" part of what Jesus said? Christ's position was neither to condemn sinners nor to condone sin.

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:52 PM
Fine. So your position is that gays can't get married but homosexuality isn't a sin. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

LOL I didn't say that either. (Good one though.)

Jesus didn't mention gay marriage because in that day and age there was no concept of gays marrying. It simply hadn't come up for discussion yet. (Took a couple more thousand years.) So any discussion of marriage was in the context of heterosexual relationships, of course.

Of course you did have lots of gays back in those days (especially Romans) who had long term gay relationships with their slaves, etc. But the marriage discussion didn't come up until very recently.

Here's a really interesting article for you, at least I found it interesting. The author's allegation is that Jesus affirmed a gay couple when he healed a Roman soldier's gay love slave. (LOL)

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 03:53 PM
It's OK for them to say it, and their right to believe it, it's their donations to groups working to pass laws making gay marriage illegal that I disagree with enough to make me not eat there.

They can do whatever they want with their money, it's their money. And we certainly don't need the government telling them they can't do business here or there. That's just more government interference and tyranny.

I just won't eat there because I don't want my money going to support lobbying for the creation of laws limiting freedom that I do not agree with. I can't speak for anyone else.

And I think the vandal was a jackass and should've taken out an ad somewhere to get his "artwork" out there, not infringe on the property owner's rights like that.

Ummmm....how has Chick-fil-a lobbied for the creation of laws that limit freedom? My understanding is they're lobbying to protect existing laws that in their opinion protect the traditional definition of marriage. And some of us are lobbying to get rid of laws that cause people to look at marriage as a "set of rights" instead of a personal religious ceremony. It's like the government was attaching legal significance to being baptized. Bound to cause a fight even if the legal significance wasn't what people perceived it to be.

matt0611
08-07-2012, 03:53 PM
OK, I will grant you that, penalties vs. what is sinful.

So why is no one crusading against divorce? Or adultery? Or eating shellfish? Or shaving one's beard? Or wearing cotton polyester blends? Or planting two different seeds in the same row? Why is no one conducting bloody animal sacrifices as prescribed by the first nine chapters of Leviticus?

It's fine for Christians to take the position that something Jesus never said is still incorporated by reference to the Old Testament passages saying it's a sin, but then DO IT FOR EVERYTHING! Don't cherry pick this one sin and make a big deal about it. That's all I'm trying to say. It's inconsistent, i.e. renders the whole argument bullshit imo.


You're confusing the ceremonial laws of Israel (polyester blends, seeds in the same row etc) with the moral laws (murder, adultery etc). They are separate things.

We don't need to sacrifice animals because they were only done before Christ because they pointed to his ultimate sacrifice, that's why they were repeated over and over. They never actually offered the forgiveness of sin, they were only a sign of faith pointing to the coming of the messiah who would bring righteousness. This is explained in the new testament.

And people should be crusading against adultery, its a sin.

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 03:55 PM
I give you guys credit because I have to say, you debate this topic much more intelligently than Christians I have encountered anywhere else.

I think at some point we're going to have to agree to disagree because obviously I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

I wish you all peace.

phill4paul
08-07-2012, 03:59 PM
Why didn't Jesus become a Senator of Rome and change the laws the way he felt should be in line with the heavenly Father? Answer: His Kingdom was not of this world. Christians should consider this.
I'll accept the Christian B.S. that 'it isn't illegal for gays to get married' the day they take the power away from the state in regards to marriage. Otherwise, unless Christians give up the AUTOMATIC benefits granted them by the State for there 'traditional' marriage then they should just STFU.
Christians are protecting the benefits they receive, and making themselves feel 'holier than thou', by denying equal benefits to others. Plain and simple. Nothing more than that.

brooks009
08-07-2012, 04:00 PM
I give you guys credit because I have to say, you debate this topic much more intelligently than Christians I have encountered anywhere else.

I think at some point we're going to have to agree to disagree because obviously I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mind.

I wish you all peace.

It was fun and gay to watch!

WhistlinDave
08-07-2012, 04:00 PM
Ummmm....how has Chick-fil-a lobbied for the creation of laws that limit freedom? My understanding is they're lobbying to protect existing laws that in their opinion protect the traditional definition of marriage. And some of us are lobbying to get rid of laws that cause people to look at marriage as a "set of rights" instead of a personal religious ceremony. It's like the government was attaching legal significance to being baptized. Bound to cause a fight even if the legal significance wasn't what people perceived it to be.

They're not directly lobbying, but they give money to several groups who lobby for anti-gay marriage laws. Including the recent Amendment (was it amendment one?) in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to some sources Chick-Fil-A has given a few million dollars to groups who are crusading to "protect traditional marriage."

I don't want to post links because last time I did that, the source was attacked instead of the substance of what I was saying.

Anybody interested enough to find out if it's true can do some Googling and make up their own mind whether buying a chicken sandwich could be helping to write laws that are, in my opinion, designed to take Liberty away from some people.

Edit: I can't remember which group Chick Fil A donated to that was giving lots of money to the Amendment One effort, can't remember if it was Family Research Council or Exodus or who.

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 04:00 PM
LOL I didn't say that either. (Good one though.)

Glad you have a sense of humor about this. :)



Jesus didn't mention gay marriage because in that day and age there was no concept of gays marrying. It simply hadn't come up for discussion yet. (Took a couple more thousand years.) So any discussion of marriage was in the context of heterosexual relationships, of course.


That doesn't matter. Jesus made a point of pointed out that this was the reason God made them male and female. It can't get any clearer than that.



Of course you did have lots of gays back in those days (especially Romans) who had long term gay relationships with their slaves, etc. But the marriage discussion didn't come up until very recently.

Here's a really interesting article for you, at least I found it interesting. The author's allegation is that Jesus affirmed a gay couple when he healed a Roman soldier's gay love slave. (LOL)

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

Ummmm....you realize that if you go with that argument, then Jesus was endorsing gay pedophilia sex slavery? :rolleyes:

It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” (See note 18.) Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers.

To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms.

So the gay Christian lobby is reduced to saying that gays buying boys and forcing them to be their sex slaves is alright with God as long as it's part of the "cultural norm"? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 04:04 PM
They're not directly lobbying, but they give money to several groups who lobby for anti-gay marriage laws. Including the recent Amendment (was it amendment one?) in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Right. That's because the previous law in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman was under attack. So that's not "creating" law but rather protecting it. Subtle but important difference IMO. Christians are playing defense, not offense.



According to some sources Chick-Fil-A has given a few million dollars to groups who are crusading to "protect traditional marriage."


Yep. Not the same as "creating laws limiting freedom". When someone lobbies for an amendment to overturn Lawrence v. Texas let me know.

phill4paul
08-07-2012, 04:16 PM
Right. That's because the previous law in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman was under attack. So that's not "creating" law but rather protecting it. Subtle but important difference IMO. Christians are playing defense, not offense.



Yep. Not the same as "creating laws limiting freedom". When someone lobbies for an amendment to overturn Lawrence v. Texas let me know.

Oh, please. Stop with this 'it isn't illegal' nonsense. That's the 'equal but seperate' B.S. "You have a water fountain to drink from. You can't drink from ours but what are you complaining about." It denies AUTOMATIC benefits given by government to any but 'traditional' marriage.

phill4paul
08-07-2012, 04:29 PM
Right. That's because the previous law in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman was under attack. So that's not "creating" law but rather protecting it. Subtle but important difference IMO. Christians are playing defense, not offense.


No. That is creating law. An AMENDMENT to be exact. Christians are playing defense for the AUTOMATIC benefits they enjoy while creating a greater hurdle for those who wish to enjoy the same benefits.

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 04:32 PM
Oh, please. Stop with this 'it isn't illegal' nonsense. That's the 'equal but seperate' B.S. "You have a water fountain to drink from. You can't drink from ours but what are you complaining about." It denies AUTOMATIC benefits given by government to any but 'traditional' marriage.

:rolleyes: Some of those "automatic benefits" will mean higher taxes for gay couples. But really the "nonsense" is the fact that you responded to a point that I wasn't making in that post. The point I was making is that the North Carolina amendment didn't "create" new law, but preserved old ones. You're so adamant about proving that the answer is 7 that you didn't realize the question was "what is 2 + 2". Still, gay marriage isn't illegal. And the goal of a movement that says it's about reducing the size of government should be to get rid of any hint of a federal marriage "benefit" (or penalty in the case of taxes for couples with similar incomes) as opposed to expanding government by expanding the definition of marriage. But I realize (now anyway) that we don't all have the same goals.

KingNothing
08-07-2012, 04:35 PM
I give you guys credit because I have to say, you debate this topic much more intelligently than Christians I have encountered anywhere else.

I think at some point we're going to have to agree to disagree because obviously I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mind.

I wish you all peace.

These people aren't bad because they're principled and willing to tolerate those with whom they've got a disagreement. If everyone were like that, we really wouldn't have many problems to deal with.

Asking them not to disagree with a "lifestyle" is asking a lot. Obviously I think they should be ambivalent and carry absolutely no negative judgement, but if the farthest they can go is to say "I wish you wouldn't be gay," as they endorsed equal rights for everyone, that isn't so bad.

KingNothing
08-07-2012, 04:36 PM
No. That is creating law. An AMENDMENT to be exact. Christians are playing defense for the AUTOMATIC benefits they enjoy while creating a greater hurdle for those who wish to enjoy the same benefits.

Yep. The people who actively work to create laws against gay marriage are reprehensible. I don't think anyone here would do that.

jmdrake
08-07-2012, 04:37 PM
No. That is creating law. An AMENDMENT to be exact. Christians are playing defense for the AUTOMATIC benefits they enjoy while creating a greater hurdle for those who wish to enjoy the same benefits.

The point of the amendment was to protect the law that already existed since 1996. And the reason for the push for the amendment was a backlash against a national push for gay marriage. If, on the other hand, there was a push to revamp federal laws to make them marriage neutral by simplifying the tax code, privatizing social security, giving the tax benefit for health insurance to the individual and liberalizing health savings accounts, the very people pushing for the marriage amendment could very well push for essentially getting rid of all so called federal marriage "benefits".