NY1635 Posted August 5, 2012 Share #51 Posted August 5, 2012 Dan Cathy won this round because more people showed up to support Chick-Fil-A than boycott it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted August 5, 2012 Share #52 Posted August 5, 2012 These LGBT rights activists historically have been taking things to the absolute extreme. And today it is getting even more out of hand. They need to respect those who may out of religious faith (Christianity, Islam and the like) or simply out of non-religious free will not support same sex marriage. People have a right to live their lives as they choose. Being heterosexual is not a crime, like some of those advocating for same sex marriage would secretly like the public to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shortline Bus Posted August 5, 2012 Share #53 Posted August 5, 2012 These LGBT rights activists historically have been taking things to the absolute extreme. And today it is getting even more out of hand. They need to respect those who may out of religious faith (Christianity, Islam and the like) or simply out of non-religious free will not support same sex marriage. People have a right to live their lives as they choose. Being heterosexual is not a crime, like some of those advocating for same sex marriage would like the public to think. Agree my friend. This is a great message for our current NYC Jr. Mayor(mayor in waiting if she elected in 2013 lol)Christine Quinn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY1635 Posted August 5, 2012 Share #54 Posted August 5, 2012 These LGBT rights activists historically have been taking things to the absolute extreme. And today it is getting even more out of hand. They need to respect those who may out of religious faith (Christianity, Islam and the like) or simply out of non-religious free will not support same sex marriage. People have a right to live their lives as they choose. Being heterosexual is not a crime, like some of those advocating for same sex marriage would secretly like the public to think. LGBT rights activists are mad at Dan Cathy for donating some money to organizations against gay marriage. They could've countered this by encouraging people to donate their money to organizations that support gay marriage, but it wouldn't have gotten the same amount of publicity and media exposure as calling for a boycott of his restaurant. These activists want to be the face of the movement and their 15 minutes of fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTS CNG Command Posted August 6, 2012 Share #55 Posted August 6, 2012 Dan Cathy won this round because more people showed up to support Chick-Fil-A than boycott it. The lone reason why is this: Folks are very gullible and instead of researching the company's rep, they blindly supported Chick-Fil-A. If they spent some time looking up the anti-gay foundations CFA donates to, particularly the one who pled congress to not condemn Uganda's policy to execute people just for their sexuality, then maybe some of their opinions will differ. I, for one, will never eat there because my money will get donated to some of those vile "churches." LGBT rights activists are mad at Dan Cathy for donating some money to organizations against gay marriage. They could've countered this by encouraging people to donate their money to organizations that support gay marriage, but it wouldn't have gotten the same amount of publicity and media exposure as calling for a boycott of his restaurant. These activists want to be the face of the movement and their 15 minutes of fame. The LGBT did not have to show donations to gay rights charties because they've repeatedly done so in the past AND during CFA's PR nightmare, and the LGBT has never hid this. On the other hand, Chick-Fil-A's donations to the anti-gay/bi charaties were mostly speculated. Cathy's recent interview basically verified these rumors. Currently, I have yet to hear or see one good reason why same sex marriage should be illegal. And, no, this fallacy of "gay marriage violates the marriage tradition" is NOT one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share #56 Posted August 6, 2012 Currently, I have yet to hear or see one good reason why same sex marriage should be illegal. And, no, this fallacy of "gay marriage violates the marriage tradition" is NOT one of them. Why? Esp since it isn't a fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted August 6, 2012 Share #57 Posted August 6, 2012 Currently, I have yet to hear or see one good reason why same sex marriage should be illegal. And, no, this fallacy of "gay marriage violates the marriage tradition" is NOT one of them. The whole argument over the definition of marriage is only concerning the legal definition. If marriage were uniquely defined for different groups of people who kept their definitions to themselves, there wouldn't be a problem. But since marriage is also defined by law you run into the problem where one group tries to define it one way and another group tries to define it another way and whatever happens, the result is applied to everyone. Here's my position on the issue: the legal definition should not exclude homosexual unions. It should include both heterosexual and homosexual unions. Why should fundamentalist religious groups throw a fit over this? They don't have ownership of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share #58 Posted August 6, 2012 In Canada most same-sex couples use the term "civil-union" anyway even though "marriage" is legally allowed for them. Really I see it as a stupid semantics argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted August 6, 2012 Share #59 Posted August 6, 2012 forcing religious organisations to do things that violate their faith. the street goes both ways You're both right and wrong (depending on what you really meant). The public has a right to pressure churches or shame them into accepting homosexuality, but religious individuals groups have an equal right to exclude people or practices as they wish. Don't like gay people? Don't associate with them. Don't like homosexuality? Refuse to marry them. What anyone does it pretty much their own business as long as their actions don't simply violate other people's rights. If I were the head of a homophobic church, it sure as hell is my right to refuse to marry a pair of fags; and it's not their right to make me marry them. Churches, however, do not have a right to extend the limitations of their faith to everyone. Extending the word marriage to cover homosexual unions doesn't hurt anyone in any way and churches should keep to themselves regarding the law. Also, if a church consumes public money to deliver services, it must not apply limitations of its faith to how the money can be spent. Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, … are all taxpayers too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanfortitude Posted August 7, 2012 Share #60 Posted August 7, 2012 Weird. I'm gay and I don't give two shits about this issue. It's probably because I see enough issues within the community that need fixing first. I don't even wanna go into that right now. You're not gonna be able to get everybody to accept who you are. That's just a fact of life. What's boycotting a fast food chain going to do to move the CEO's POV? I doubt much if anything at all. As long as the level of customer service I receive isn't lower than the person next to me because of my orientation I have no reason to care. If this is the case then by all means have your boycott. But I feel this is one of those things the community is wasting its time on while other issues that could use the attention go untouched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share #61 Posted August 7, 2012 So I finally got to go to Chick-Fil-A today at King of Prussia, and it seemed like there were more people sitting in the food court with Chick-Fil-A cups and bags than ANY other brand. Coincidence? Or has all this publicity made people want that glorious chicken even more? No matter one's beliefs, you have to admit that their friendly service, fast service, and good food make people come back again and again. I have always had my meal in about a minute, no longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.