Username [Register?]: | Password [Lost Password?]: Save Password?
Bottom of Page
INTL v5.0 > Discussion Forums > The "Song A Day" Thread Forum > Chick-fil-A (also some stuff about same-sex marriage) > Viewing Thread
Also Here: 1 guest. Moderated by: D drahnier
Page: [ 1 2 ] [ Thread Views: 2016 | Total Posts: 30 ]
Rate This Thread: Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
Air Bud
Internet Superstar

Some plants even masturbate into their own vaginas in order to reproduce.

Ballkicks: (+918 / -56)
Posts: 6785 (0.988)
Reg. Date: Sep 2001
Location: TEH INTARNET!
Gender: Male
(Originally posted on: 08-03-12 09:01:30 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

So here's a brief overview of what's been going on for those of you too lazy to care or too busy to pay much attention.

It all "started" with a statement made to the Baptist Press where Don Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, announced that when it comes to his opposition of same-sex marriage, he was "guilty as charged." He continued to say that
Quote:
I think we are 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'...I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

This was a little over a week ago.

In the meantime, people have lobbed intense criticism toward Chick-fil-A, citing the fact that in 2010 they donated nearly two million dollars to organizations, many of which have a history of (or directly) opposing same-sex marriage. While Chick-fil-A did not directly donate money to these organizations, they instead donated this money to the WinShape Foundation, which was founded by the Cathy family in 1984. It was then WinShape that made the donations to these organizations. The distinction, however, is virtually meaningless.

While Chick-fil-A has drawn intense criticism, it has also managed to garner intense support. Most recently in their self-reported record-setting sales this past Wednesday, which was dubbed Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day by Mike Huckabee. Thousands of people lined up across the country in support. In fact, a Texas Chick-fil-A had to close early because they sold out of food.

The fallout of this controversy has caused companies to sever ties with Chick-fil-A, while also prompting at least three big city mayors to openly vow to do everything they can to keep Chick-fil-A out of their city. Of course, these kinds of threats are meaningless and reek of political posturing. There is even an attempt to counter the Appreciation Day with a "kiss in" protest.



Personally, I feel as if the criticism of Chick-fil-A is a bit overblown. I find that the criteria for which people are willing to abstain from patronizing a business is prone to popular trends and emotional manipulation, and is almost impossible to adhere to in a consistent manner.

I've never eaten at Chick-fil-A and I probably never will at this point, but I'm not going to pretend as if my inaction makes me a warrior in the fight for same-sex marriage. It doesn't. While I wholeheartedly support same-sex marriage, I think far too many people mistakenly equate their inaction in the marketplace for actual protest. It's this kind of false equivalence that I feel actually damages the cause for marriage equality.

At the same time, I find the fervor in which people are willing to participate in the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day troubling. I've seen a lot of people saying that they support Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day because they support freedom of speech. But does it? To me, I have a hard time accepting the idea that "money is speech" with things like, oh, let's go with Citizens United.

So I guess my questions are: Are we at a point where we feel compelled to participate in the marketplace in order to voice our support of the First Amendment? Is the marketplace a valid means in which to voice our opinions? To what extent can the marketplace solve problems in society?
Trash Mod
Administrator
I wish I were dead.

i'm nick and i'm too stupid to read so i make unnecessary posts

Ballkicks: (+573 / -34)
Posts: 4454 (0.776)
Reg. Date: Oct 2004
Location: Trash
Gender: Male
Reply 1 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-03-12 10:02:39 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I agree that the claims are overblown however, I think it's important that we choose to do business with people who we agree with about fundamental things so while the political posturing and the facebook status updating is a bit much, I certainly won't be patronizing them.

Of course, take that with a grain of salt. I think their food sucks anyway.
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18502 (2.771)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 2 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-03-12 01:12:48 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

I've eaten there a few times, but infrequently enough that I once had a free sandwich coupon in my car for a full year and never used it before it expired. I never loved their food, honestly as far as fast food goes i'd sooner go to McDonalds or Wendy's for chicken. I thought their christian heavy personality was a little weird but at the same time kind of unique that a big corporation had some personality.

Not to sound cliche, but I totally support gay rights (for lack of better phrasing). As someone who has only heard the headlines of this story, it seems like a battle that wasn't worth fighting. I think the "company" is allowed to have any backward opinion they want to have (even though the idea of a giant company having any uniform opinion is absurd), and as far as I can tell it doesn't change how they treat their customers any. On the same note I think it's cool for other corporate partners to sort of make their own stand (even though, again, it's absurd that either company can have a political stance - but it seems to makes more sense for one to have a reactionary response, even if in most cases it's probably a hollow and motivated by what position they think will earn them more business) and cut ties.

Everything that happened/is happening after that is just a long string of reactions by two sides that have now gotten energized off of the original string of back and forth reactionary moves, all stemming from a company being able to use their profits to support political issues. All the pro/anti gay marriage stuff is just a symptom of that problem. I don't think the CEO is a terrible person for it - I think his opinion is dumb, sure - but he believes in a political issue and there is nothing stopping him or anyone else (with his kind of power) from using the power he has to try and influence politics. He's just working within the flawed system for his beliefs, because he knows there are people doing the same against them. He's not the bad guy, the system which allows this is bad. I think what i'm trying to say is, don't hate the player, hate the game. Now we're all mad at each other instead of the thing that really sucks.

Again, I know this story mostly from headlines so I'm sure I could be way off about some things.
This reply was last edited on 08-03-12 01:19:44 PM by D.
Muzta
Lord of the Dance
Negative Association was the name of my hot tub

Ballkicks: (+140 / -19)
Posts: 1993 (0.299)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Gender: Male
Reply 3 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-03-12 08:31:09 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
while also prompting at least three big city mayors to openly vow to do everything they can to keep Chick-fil-A out of their city.


I think this is inexcusable
"Nice guys finish last, then we sleep in" - Duk's Sig
Trash Mod
Administrator
I wish I were dead.

i'm nick and i'm too stupid to read so i make unnecessary posts

Ballkicks: (+573 / -34)
Posts: 4454 (0.776)
Reg. Date: Oct 2004
Location: Trash
Gender: Male
Reply 4 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-04-12 09:28:49 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Muzta:
Quote:
while also prompting at least three big city mayors to openly vow to do everything they can to keep Chick-fil-A out of their city.


I think this is inexcusable


I don't think this is even possible, HTH.
Muzta
Lord of the Dance
Negative Association was the name of my hot tub

Ballkicks: (+140 / -19)
Posts: 1993 (0.299)
Reg. Date: Apr 2002
Location: New Hampshire
Gender: Male
Reply 5 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-04-12 12:22:41 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

http://goo.by/wTs1On/bighouse
"Nice guys finish last, then we sleep in" - Duk's Sig
emtilt

the cow of horses

Ballkicks: (+486 / -41)
Posts: 5238 (0.785)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location: Last Week
Gender: Male
Reply 6 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-04-12 01:40:58 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from It Wasn't Me:
I never loved their food, honestly as far as fast food goes i'd sooner go to McDonalds or Wendy's for chicken.


You are insane. Chick-fil-a is like fried crack.
this is where i write about alcohol these are restaurants i like
this is my music i hope you like it
this is music i listen to these are movies i like these are books i like
Wandering Idiot
INTL Premium Member

Surely something dumber has come up since my apparent forgetfulness for STDs and doctor visits.

Ballkicks: (+257 / -16)
Posts: 2130 (0.344)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arms' reach of my wifes' bitchslap
Gender: Male
Reply 7 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 12:18:27 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Chick-fil-a is not like fried crack. It's on par with truck stop Chester's Chicken.

Popeye's is where it's at. And they're open on sundays.

E: I didn't give a shit about Chick-fil-a before Cathy started flapping his lips in the breeze. I've eaten there maybe half a dozen times in the last four years. It's not that good and it's overpriced. When Dan Cathy started yammering, that just sealed the deal on me not eating there again. The simple summation for me is that it's average chicken for an above average price and there are plenty of places in the south that do chicken better for less that don't give a fuck about your sexual preference or religion, they just want cash in the till.

The people perpetuating this media circus aren't going to solve anything. Dan Cathy is still going to run his company as he pleases, and probably expand faster now that they're doing record sales from all this politicized free advertising. Not that those increased revenues will continue forever, but there are plenty of people out there that will continue to eat at Chick-fil-a, knowingly or not of Cathy's ideas or who he chooses to throw money at.

Besides, with Americans being as dumb as we are, Dan Cathy could probably support a foundation for the slaughter of mexican babies and there would still be a sect of morons defending and supporting him. Nothing will change but the size of Chick-fil-a's revenues.
Too lazy to reply properly.
This reply was last edited on 08-05-12 12:40:43 PM by Wandering Idiot.
Trash Mod
Administrator
I wish I were dead.

i'm nick and i'm too stupid to read so i make unnecessary posts

Ballkicks: (+573 / -34)
Posts: 4454 (0.776)
Reg. Date: Oct 2004
Location: Trash
Gender: Male
Reply 8 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 12:24:47 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

All of you are fucking nuts. Fast food fried chicken is all the worst shit. All of it.
Wandering Idiot
INTL Premium Member

Surely something dumber has come up since my apparent forgetfulness for STDs and doctor visits.

Ballkicks: (+257 / -16)
Posts: 2130 (0.344)
Reg. Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arms' reach of my wifes' bitchslap
Gender: Male
Reply 9 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 12:52:34 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Fast food chicken is delicious as all fuck but requires restraint.

I work in a corporate chicken slinging shack (BWW, it pays decent). It looks good, it smells good, and is handled in completely safe and legal ways, but I'm not going to eat it. Can't remember the last time I actually ate at a BWW, but I've been working for them for a month and still haven't taken an employee meal and don't graze but maybe a half dozen fries every other shift. It is an amazingly efficient and clean place, but there's no soul to their food, no skill.

A manager looked at me like I was a crazy person when I turned down a shift meal. I told him I once put on 40-50 pounds working in a kitchen (true, about 3.5 years ago) and have just learned never to eat from where I cook. Dude look baffled.
Too lazy to reply properly.
Vissario
jerks off to
Can't tell if reincarnated Red Chimp or just Troll

Ballkicks: (+3 / -487612)
Posts: 122 (0.042)
Reg. Date: Jun 2012
Location: online
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 10 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 01:30:59 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

If more CEOs had the backbone to believe in something more than money and courting political correctness, America would be a far better place than it is today.

Seneca wrote that the man who has learned how to die has unlearned how to be a slave. While it might be obnoxious to equate having a minority opinion in polite society with death, it is fair to say that he is above the influence of all the talking heads who would threaten his livelihood over his opinion. That is something you won't often see, a corporate figure staying true to their words in the face of losing money.

Edit:

As for my own opinion, I don't support homosexual marriage "equality" and frankly, I don't give a shit for people that do. "Marriage", as defined in any legal court system prior to this new age (starting conveniently enough in the past 20 years) of political correctness and liberal brainwashing by cultural marxists around the country, is the union between a man and a woman. The prospects for marriage, as an institution in this country, are already fairly dim with a 50% divorce rate within two years, and debasing it even further by allowing homosexuals to "marry" each other will only be more kindling in the fire. Before you know it, the very notion of marriage will become just a big joke when people can marry whatever the hell they choose: from dogs, cats, children, to whatever else they think should suit their alternative lifestyle. That is, after all, the goal here: to gradually reduce to absurdity all permanents ties humans beings make with each other until we are just consumers living for the next new iProduct, scarfing down McShit on our way home in our tiny econocar to our government-subsidized house so that we can watch AmericanRetard contestants sing and dance for us.

We'll be the Eloi living in our paradise domes.
This reply was last edited on 08-05-12 01:48:25 PM by Vissario.
Air Bud
Internet Superstar

Some plants even masturbate into their own vaginas in order to reproduce.

Ballkicks: (+918 / -56)
Posts: 6785 (0.988)
Reg. Date: Sep 2001
Location: TEH INTARNET!
Gender: Male
Reply 11 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 02:42:08 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
"Marriage", as defined in any legal court system...is the union between a man and a woman.
See "heteronormativity".
Quote:
Before you know it, the very notion of marriage will become just a big joke when people can marry whatever the hell they choose: from dogs, cats, children, to whatever else they think should suit their alternative lifestyle.
See "false equivalence" and "slippery slope" fallacies.
Quote:
That is, after all, the goal here: to gradually reduce to absurdity all permanents ties humans beings make with each other until we are just consumers living for the next new iProduct, scarfing down McShit on our way home in our tiny econocar to our government-subsidized house so that we can watch AmericanRetard contestants sing and dance for us.
See "gay capitalist illuminati conspiracy" and "gay socialist illuminati conspiracy" fallacies.
Vissario
jerks off to
Can't tell if reincarnated Red Chimp or just Troll

Ballkicks: (+3 / -487612)
Posts: 122 (0.042)
Reg. Date: Jun 2012
Location: online
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 12 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 03:50:46 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
See "heteronormativity".


I've never heard that term before (it sounds like a made-up neologism), but according to wikipedia:

'Heteronormativity is a term used to describe any of a set of lifestyle norms that hold that people fall into distinct and complementary genders (man and woman) with natural roles in life. It also holds that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation, and states that sexual and marital relations are most (or only) fitting between a man and a woman. Consequently, a "heteronormative" view is one that involves alignment of biological sex, sexuality, gender identity, and gender roles.'

What are you trying to dispute here, Sandman? Are you attempting to say that it is not a natural extension of human physiology and psychology that a man is meant to be wed to a woman?

Quote:
See "false equivalence" and "slippery slope" fallacies.


Why?

If you were to go back in time to the 1940s and tell people that over half of the states the in the union were contemplating legalizing gay marriage, they would think you were out of your mind. If you went back to the 1970s and told them, they would think that a pretty absurd idea, but not all untenable. If you went back to the late 1990s and told people that, they'd tell you that it was just a matter of time. The point is that in the span of a fairly small amount of time of 40 years, we've managed to go from no one taking homosexual marriage seriously to a huge amount of the mainstream population not only accepting gay marriage, but openly embracing it even though they won't participate in it.

Given enough time, how absurd would it be that in 50 years from now, marriage to any "consenting" couple could not be granted?

Quote:
See "gay capitalist illuminati conspiracy" and "gay socialist illuminati conspiracy" fallacies.


That's right sandman, keep on drinking the Kool-Aid. It's all a huge impossibility until you suddenly realize you are living in a trivial society.
Air Bud
Internet Superstar

Some plants even masturbate into their own vaginas in order to reproduce.

Ballkicks: (+918 / -56)
Posts: 6785 (0.988)
Reg. Date: Sep 2001
Location: TEH INTARNET!
Gender: Male
Reply 13 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 04:32:13 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
If you were to go back in time to the 1940s and tell people that over half of the states the in the union were contemplating legalizing gay marriage, they would think you were out of your mind. If you went back to the 1970s and told them, they would think that a pretty absurd idea, but not all untenable. If you went back to the late 1990s and told people that, they'd tell you that it was just a matter of time. The point is that in the span of a fairly small amount of time of 40 years, we've managed to go from no one taking homosexual marriage seriously to a huge amount of the mainstream population not only accepting gay marriage, but openly embracing it even though they won't participate in it.
If you were to go back in time to the 1940s and tell people that multiple motorized vehicle will be flown to Mars and controlled via remote control, they would laugh at you. If you went back to the 1970s and told people that almost everyone would own a personal computer, they would think the idea absurd. If you went back to the 1990s and told people that they would be able to fit all the music they've ever heard on a device the size of their thumb, they'd fall over laughing.

The point is that in a span of a fairly small amount of time, we've managed to expand technology to the extent that the same people that would've laughed at you in the 1940s are now sporting the same devices their grandchildren thought impossible 20 years ago.

My point is that things will continue to move forward with or without you. Things you think absurd now, whether you like it or not, will become the standard in the future. People either accept that or they're left in the dust, bitter, old, and barely able to recognize the world around them. Clinging onto the norms of the past may be comfortable and convenient, but unfortunately for your ilk, the gild is starting to flake and people are starting to rebel (and win) against the arbitrary structures that have been at the forefront of resisting progression and preserving the status quo. I'm sorry that you'll have to live through the death throes, as I'm sure it won't be enjoyable.

I'm not even going to lend your "GAY MARRIAGE WILL LEAD TO MEN MARRYING TACOS AND WOMEN MARRYING ALPACAS AND THEN OUR EXTINCTION" argument credibility by responding to it. I'm sure you'll take that as implied victory, but just as you don't really care about people who support gay marriage, I will extend you the same courtesy.




So anyway, vissario, as much as I enjoy playing into your little fantasy troll scenario, I would actually like to have a serious conversation, if you can ever shed your protective layer of troll fat and actually treat a topic with seriousness. I really hope you realize that I don't truly believe what you're saying is sincere. I know you're too smart and savvy to believe half of this shit. Just let me know when you want to actually really engage in legitimate conversation. It'd be way more interesting than these half-hearted attempts at one-upping each other. <3
Vissario
jerks off to
Can't tell if reincarnated Red Chimp or just Troll

Ballkicks: (+3 / -487612)
Posts: 122 (0.042)
Reg. Date: Jun 2012
Location: online
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 14 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 05:22:30 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
My point is that things will continue to move forward with or without you. Things you think absurd now, whether you like it or not, will become the standard in the future. People either accept that or they're left in the dust, bitter, old, and barely able to recognize the world around them. Clinging onto the norms of the past may be comfortable and convenient, but unfortunately for your ilk, the gild is starting to flake and people are starting to rebel (and win) against the arbitrary structures that have been at the forefront of resisting progression and preserving the status quo. I'm sorry that you'll have to live through the death throes, as I'm sure it won't be enjoyable.


What exactly is being rebelled against? Some 'heterosexual traditionalist proletarian conspiracy'?

Joke aside, I don't get your accusation about the status quo being against homosexuals. If anything, the establishment is very much fighting the cause of homosexuals against the traditional culture of this country. The military, of all places, recently reversed its policy on homosexuality and now actively recruits from that demographic.

I suppose you're right that change is coming. Although, I wouldn't characterize it as a positive one. I'd liken it to an invasion from the sea. First it takes the outer periphery. Then it solidifies its position and moves strategically inland, claiming critical junctions, key resources, et cetera.

Next, it surrounds and envelops elements it identifies as counter to its aims. This is what bothers me the most. Like the invading army, supporters of the homosexual agenda in this country are going to liquidate their opposition once they have enough political economy to do so. It's not going to be enough that we all simply tolerate homosexuals living around us, we are going to have to acknowledge that their lifestyle can be taught to our children as either on par or better than the heterosexual one currently instituted. I know you probably think what is progressive is good, but can you honestly say that you'd be comfortable with schools indoctrinating kids into homosexuality? That's what it would come down to, and if you doubt me, just look at all the training our schools give on equal opportunity, race relations, et cetera, all stemming from the civil rights movement.

So, sandman, my question for you is this; why exactly do you support homosexual marriage?
Air Bud
Internet Superstar

Some plants even masturbate into their own vaginas in order to reproduce.

Ballkicks: (+918 / -56)
Posts: 6785 (0.988)
Reg. Date: Sep 2001
Location: TEH INTARNET!
Gender: Male
Reply 15 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 06:10:04 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
Joke aside, I don't get your accusation about the status quo being against homosexuals. If anything, the establishment is very much fighting the cause of homosexuals against the traditional culture of this country. The military, of all places, recently reversed its policy on homosexuality and now actively recruits from that demographic.
Partial credit. Yes, the establishment is just now starting to support the cause of same-sex marriage. HOWEVER, we both know that they're not supporting same-sex marriage out of altruism; they're supporting it because they are just now beginning to realize that very soon opposition of same-sex marriage will be political suicide. This is a huge distinction to make. If it weren't for the looming political threat, they would continue marginalizing homosexuals, business as usual, provided their advisers told them that they'd gain more votes than lose.

As for the military repealing DADT, I believe that's a step in the right direction, and I wish I had been around when it was implemented. I knew two homosexuals (one female, one male) during my service and I would have liked to have been able to see them openly acknowledge themselves as such without fear of destroying their careers.

Quote:
I'd liken it to an invasion from the sea.
As much as I disagree with your analogy, this made me smile. You're sooo a Navy man now.

Your analogy bothers me. Mostly because it equates homosexuals to an enemy force, hellbent on destroying the heterosexual way of life. I feel like this unfairly portrays homosexuals and causes me to believe that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals of the LGBT community (big surprise, right?). It's as if you think that once people accept homosexuality via legalization of same-sex marriage (which is inevitable once it ends up at the Supreme Court), this will open up the flood gates for the homosexual agenda to begin their Orwellian takeover of the world.

I don't know how many homosexuals you know, but most everyone I've ever known that was homosexual just wanted to be accepted for who they were. They weren't interested in other peoples' sexuality, nor were they interested in forcing their sexuality on anyone else. They were merely frustrated that they had to conform to inflexible, increasingly outdated social structures, all the while pretending they were someone they were not. The "homosexual agenda", if such a thing exists, is to reconstruct these inflexible structures, effectively allowing people the freedom to be themselves, to be in love with someone else openly, and to live their lives as they see fit without fear of socially- and politically-sanctioned retribution and/or restriction (see "marriage equality").

If you want to know why I support same-sex marriage, I refer you back to my mention of the two people I knew in the military that were homosexual. One of them was a black female I met while in Korea, and the other was a guy I met at Fort Hood. The guy at Fort Hood was absolutely terrified that people would find out. He only confided in me weeks before I left the military and AFTER I had repeatedly expressed my support of the repeal of DADT (unbeknownst to me he was homosexual). He confessed to me in tears and explained to me what it was like growing up in a family that openly bashed homosexuals as virtually subhuman. When he joined the military, he wasn't sure if he was homosexual, and figured that in the military, he didn't have a choice and this would turn him straight. As early as the end of basic training, he knew he was homosexual. At that point, it was too late. After telling me all of this, he begged me repeatedly not to tell anyone, "please oh please don't tell anyone, if anyone here suspected, I'd get kicked out, and then it'd get back to my family, they'd disown me." I assured him, and once I got out of the military, we lost contact with each other. I don't know if he's still in the military or not, but if he is, I'm sure he still hasn't come out, because even though the military may accept him as homosexual, his family sure as hell won't.

So when you ask me why I support same-sex marriage, it's really, really simple: I don't want people to have to live in fear for who they are, the choices they make, and the people they love. Is that a satisfactory enough answer?


edit:
Quote:
can you honestly say that you'd be comfortable with schools indoctrinating kids into homosexuality?
See, this is why we can't have nice things. There is a difference between educating children to accept people for who they are, whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, black, white, gray, purple, boy, or girl, and "indoctrinating kids into homosexuality" as you so delicately put it. I can't tell whether your failure to make this distinction betrays your sincerity, or whether it suggests the belief that once you give someone the option to be homosexual, they will BE homosexual.

To answer your question: no, I would not be comfortable with that kind of indoctrination. Fortunately, it will never come to that. Taking your comparison at face value, it would seem to suggest that the EO training you mention was indoctrinating little white children to believe that little black children were somehow superior, a notion entirely antithetical to its purpose: to instill the idea that, hey guess what, people are people, regardless of skin. What a novel idea!
This reply was last edited on 08-05-12 06:47:46 PM by Air Bud.
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18502 (2.771)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 16 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-05-12 06:38:29 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
"Marriage", as defined in any legal court system prior to this new age (starting conveniently enough in the past 20 years) of political correctness and liberal brainwashing by cultural marxists around the country, is the union between a man and a woman.


Don't cite historical precedence for a vague, fluid institution that has been around since before human history and has never followed any consistent rules. If modern times have the capability of being bullshit as you say they are, then so do the times before that and all other times in history. Marriage has always been whatever people say it is, and through most of human history has included a whole lot of polygamy (for example). Clearly this institution just suits itself to whatever society it's being used in, so the idea that it has some inviolable structure is a really lacking one, as the cited structure is pretty young itself.
Vissario
jerks off to
Can't tell if reincarnated Red Chimp or just Troll

Ballkicks: (+3 / -487612)
Posts: 122 (0.042)
Reg. Date: Jun 2012
Location: online
Gender: Unspecified
Reply 17 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 10:39:35 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
So when you ask me why I support same-sex marriage, it's really, really simple: I don't want people to have to live in fear for who they are, the choices they make, and the people they love. Is that a satisfactory enough answer?


Do you honestly believe that the average homosexual lives in perpetual fear of being strung up for his "lifestyle choice"? I could definitely see impressionable teenagers living in fear of their "backward" parents finding out that they are gay, but in today's 'progressive' society, no one even blinks an eye at it in most cities.

Quote:
I knew two homosexuals (one female, one male) during my service and I would have liked to have been able to see them openly acknowledge themselves as such without fear of destroying their careers.


This is a very perplexing statement to me. Why exactly is it anyone's business other than your own that you are gay? Is there something really important about a person being gay that I need to know about and have in my face while I'm around them? I don't think there is, and quite honestly, the only people who think that there is are the politicians and talking heads who want to make a name for themselves by pushing it. You're right that most homosexuals aren't hellbent on pushing their homosexuality onto others, but their political leaders are amongst the most aggressive, amoral, double-dealing cut throats that you'll find on capitol hill. Even worse, they all feel like they have some mandate to inject their venom into every public institution in this country. They are the invading army, and the legions of do-gooders and moderates around this country are all their pawns in this kulturkampf.

If somebody wants to be themselves, how is modern American life prohibiting them from doing it? This country is so unbelievably lenient and accommodating to people with alternate lifestyles that it is a threadbare argument to say that homosexuals can't be themselves. The political establishment doesn't suppress them, general society doesn't shun them, and they can enjoy a quality of life on par with anyone else. So, moving on, what exactly is attempting to be gained here by allowing gay marriage, sandman? Is this the final demand that homosexuals are going to make before they declare that they are free and equal in America?

Something tells me that it won't be.

Quote:
To answer your question: no, I would not be comfortable with that kind of indoctrination. Fortunately, it will never come to that. Taking your comparison at face value, it would seem to suggest that the EO training you mention was indoctrinating little white children to believe that little black children were somehow superior, a notion entirely antithetical to its purpose: to instill the idea that, hey guess what, people are people, regardless of skin. What a novel idea!


Would you agree that what you're exposed to in your early life has a great deal of importance on how you view it later on? If you can, how could you not conclude that teaching kids about homosexuality will not have the net effect of promoting its per cent expansion?
poop
$$~~~Crips~~~$$
slooooooooooooots

i'd expect more sorcery in a place called mana pools

Ballkicks: (+731 / -71)
Posts: 7914 (1.192)
Reg. Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Reply 18 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 11:42:54 AM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from Red_Banana:
Quote:
To answer your question: no, I would not be comfortable with that kind of indoctrination. Fortunately, it will never come to that. Taking your comparison at face value, it would seem to suggest that the EO training you mention was indoctrinating little white children to believe that little black children were somehow superior, a notion entirely antithetical to its purpose: to instill the idea that, hey guess what, people are people, regardless of skin. What a novel idea!


Would you agree that what you're exposed to in your early life has a great deal of importance on how you view it later on? If you can, how could you not conclude that teaching kids about homosexuality will not have the net effect of promoting its per cent expansion?

They aren't going to "teach kids about homosexuality". They won't be taking kindergartens aside and teaching 5-year-olds about buttsex. They don't even do that now about heterosexuality (until grade 9 where sex-education is more just about "wear condoms, don't get syphillis"). I think that is sandamnits point...you seem to think that same-sex marriage would mean that primary school teachers are going to encourage boys to be gay or girls to be lesbians. That's asinine.


Quote:
Do you honestly believe that the average homosexual lives in perpetual fear of being strung up for his "lifestyle choice"? I could definitely see impressionable teenagers living in fear of their "backward" parents finding out that they are gay, but in today's 'progressive' society, no one even blinks an eye at it in most cities.

Gay bashing is still VERY common, both verbally and physically. Yes, there are gay villages in New York, Chicago, LA, Toronto, etc. etc., but what about Farmington Illinois? Jackson Tennesee? Rochester Minnesota? Flint Michigan? Thunder Bay Ontario? Rimouski Quebec? The vast majority of rural environments are not "gay friendly" and I'd even go as far as surmising that most homosexuals in rural areas DO live in fear of violent repercussions.
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18502 (2.771)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 19 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 02:01:06 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
what exactly is attempting to be gained here by allowing gay marriage, sandman?


What is gained by forbidding it?
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18502 (2.771)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 20 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 02:07:11 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

With regards to your other implication that political figures are using this issue as a way to get attention and support, you're absolutely right but the other side is doing that too. The only reason it works for either side is because we fall into their trap and get all energized about it, and hate each other over it. Politics is dirty, politicians use populist issues for selfish gains, none of this is new, it's one of the major reasons the Roman Republic fell apart. You can't use that as a point against the issue being "used." A bad guy supporting a good thing does not inherently stain the good thing.
poop
$$~~~Crips~~~$$
slooooooooooooots

i'd expect more sorcery in a place called mana pools

Ballkicks: (+731 / -71)
Posts: 7914 (1.192)
Reg. Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Reply 21 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 02:27:03 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Also,
Quote:

Quote:
I knew two homosexuals (one female, one male) during my service and I would have liked to have been able to see them openly acknowledge themselves as such without fear of destroying their careers.


This is a very perplexing statement to me. Why exactly is it anyone's business other than your own that you are gay? Is there something really important about a person being gay that I need to know about and have in my face while I'm around them? I don't think there is, and quite honestly, the only people who think that there is are the politicians and talking heads who want to make a name for themselves by pushing it.

Isn't that the point of allowing them to be married? There is nothing important about being gay, which is exactly why they should be allowed the same marriage rights as heterosexual. The politics issue isn't something I'll chime in on, but it's the basic essence of humanity which should grant them the same freedoms as their heterosexual counterparts.

The argument that you had earlier that Sandamnit pointed out as false equivalence and slippery slope fallacy makes you seem stupider than we know you are. There is an obvious difference between a legalized union between two consenting adult humans and a union between a man and a donkey or whatever else you suggest. Homosexual marriage requires a change of "a man and woman" to "two consenting adults". There are no laws that I know of that formally forbid homosexual relationships. Allowing animals and children to be wed would require denouncing laws about pederasty and beastiality...laws that are obviously there for a reason.


Furthermore, an earlier argument you made about how it's not biologically or evolutionary sound for a species to engage in same-sex relationships is also irrelevant. First of all, there have been well documented cases of homosexuality in animals, along with documented cases of same-sex relationships in humans before the advent of modern politics (ie. Two-Spirit Natives). There are many scholars that suggest homosexuality is a natural occurence within a population. Secondly, is mankind in danger at ALL of extinction by lack of breeding? Even if 50% of the population was homosexual and committed to homosexual relationships without breeding, the exponential birth rate of humans would still continue and the human population would still be unmanageable on the global scale.
Trash Mod
Administrator
I wish I were dead.

i'm nick and i'm too stupid to read so i make unnecessary posts

Ballkicks: (+573 / -34)
Posts: 4454 (0.776)
Reg. Date: Oct 2004
Location: Trash
Gender: Male
Reply 22 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 04:20:27 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quote:
cultural marxists


Better than cultural fascists I would assume.
D
Administrator

i didn't have the strength to get it all the way off

Ballkicks: (+1950 / -91)
Posts: 18502 (2.771)
Reg. Date: Mar 2002
Location:
Gender: Male
Reply 23 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 04:27:06 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

If you listen to Rick Santorum and his pals, people shouldn't be allowed contraceptives or abortions or sex education and no one should be homosexual. I've gotta say, the dude must really love babies.
poop
$$~~~Crips~~~$$
slooooooooooooots

i'd expect more sorcery in a place called mana pools

Ballkicks: (+731 / -71)
Posts: 7914 (1.192)
Reg. Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Reply 24 of 30 (Originally posted on: 08-07-12 04:29:22 PM)
Edit Post | Edit History | Send PM | Change Title | Reply w/Quote | Report Post | Ignore | Show All Posts

Quoted from It Wasn't Me:
If you listen to Rick Santorum and his pals, people shouldn't be allowed contraceptives or abortions or sex education and no one should be homosexual. I've gotta say, the dude must really love babies.


Loving babies like the ancient greeks, no doubt! big grin
Quick Reply
Page: [ 1 2 ] Reply to Thread | Create New Thread | Create New Poll | Convert To Poll | Subscribe To Thread
[ Thread Views: 2016 | Total Posts: 30 ]