NATION

PASSWORD

Muppets dump Chick-fil-a

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Adafdfadfasdf
Diplomat
 
Posts: 598
Founded: May 06, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Adafdfadfasdf » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:30 pm

Abatael wrote:
Adafdfadfasdf wrote:
1. So, you're arguing nobody got married before Jesus came along?

2. Do you even know what you're talking about?


1. No.
2. Yes. It would be, technically, a civil institution.


What part of "instituted" do you need explained to you, then?
Bucky Katt- Hey, I’ll tolerate ‘em when they stop being freaks and act like me.

User avatar
Abatael
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6608
Founded: Mar 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abatael » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:33 pm

Adafdfadfasdf wrote:
Abatael wrote:


1. No.
2. Yes. It would be, technically, a civil institution.


What part of "instituted" do you need explained to you, then?


I don't need anything explained to me.
IMPERIVM·NOVVM·VENOLIÆ.
PAX·PER·BELLVM.
ROMVLVS·AVRELIVS·SECVNDVS.
DEVS·VENOLIAM·BENEDICAT.

Second Best Factbook (UNDERGOING MAJOR REVISIONS)| Factbook Rankings | Embassy Program

User avatar
Adafdfadfasdf
Diplomat
 
Posts: 598
Founded: May 06, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Adafdfadfasdf » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:35 pm

Abatael wrote:
Adafdfadfasdf wrote:
What part of "instituted" do you need explained to you, then?


I don't need anything explained to me.


Well, you claimed that Christ instituted something that had existed for millennia before he existed. I thought you might need some help.
Bucky Katt- Hey, I’ll tolerate ‘em when they stop being freaks and act like me.

User avatar
Lialoth
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lialoth » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:35 pm

Abatael wrote:Legally it won't be valid. Religiously, however, it would be valid, and that is what I care about the most, when I get married.

Good for you, but that still gives you no right to reduce the religious freedoms and civil rights of others.
I'm RPing a distant past tech nation populated nearly exclusively by three foot tall bipedal mice who are undergoing subtle speciation due to long lasting social policies.
If this is too ridiculous for you, you might want to opt out of RPing with me.
Abatael wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Or, do logical thing and stop protecting child rapists.


That seems rather illogical.

User avatar
Chalkfarm
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Jun 19, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Chalkfarm » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:35 pm

I used to believe in the BS line of "hate the sin but love the sinner" but I quickly learned it was just a nice way to feel good about treating others bad.

Is it really impossible now days to tell somone off without hating them? a sad state of affairs.

User avatar
Yuktova
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11882
Founded: Feb 09, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Yuktova » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:35 pm

"Chick-fil-A in a statement said it has a history of applying biblically-based principles to its business, and that it strives to treat everyone with honor, dignity and respect."
If CFA actually cared about being "Christian" then they would be for gay marriage, not against.
I'm Morrissey... Nice to meet you.
Goldsaver said: This is murder, not a romantic date!

User avatar
Abatael
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6608
Founded: Mar 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abatael » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:38 pm

Adafdfadfasdf wrote:
Abatael wrote:
I don't need anything explained to me.


Well, you claimed that Christ instituted something that had existed for millennia before he existed. I thought you might need some help.


Yes, a religiously Christian matrimony, because that is what I am talking about.
IMPERIVM·NOVVM·VENOLIÆ.
PAX·PER·BELLVM.
ROMVLVS·AVRELIVS·SECVNDVS.
DEVS·VENOLIAM·BENEDICAT.

Second Best Factbook (UNDERGOING MAJOR REVISIONS)| Factbook Rankings | Embassy Program

User avatar
Abatael
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6608
Founded: Mar 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abatael » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:39 pm

Lialoth wrote:
Abatael wrote:Legally it won't be valid. Religiously, however, it would be valid, and that is what I care about the most, when I get married.

Good for you, but that still gives you no right to reduce the religious freedoms and civil rights of others.


You seem to be trying to change this from a discussion about what type of institution marriage is to something about same-sex marriage.
IMPERIVM·NOVVM·VENOLIÆ.
PAX·PER·BELLVM.
ROMVLVS·AVRELIVS·SECVNDVS.
DEVS·VENOLIAM·BENEDICAT.

Second Best Factbook (UNDERGOING MAJOR REVISIONS)| Factbook Rankings | Embassy Program

User avatar
Revolutopia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5741
Founded: May 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Revolutopia » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:40 pm

Yuktova wrote:"Chick-fil-A in a statement said it has a history of applying biblically-based principles to its business, and that it strives to treat everyone with honor, dignity and respect."
If CFA actually cared about being "Christian" then they would be for gay marriage, not against.


I enjoy how they serve cheese on their chicken, despite God firmly declaring that one should not mix dairy with meat. I guess they skipped that page on accident, someone should contact them about that mistake.
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.-FDR

Economic Left/Right: -3.12|Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49

Who is Tom Joad?

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:40 pm

Abatael wrote:
Lialoth wrote:Good for you, but that still gives you no right to reduce the religious freedoms and civil rights of others.


You seem to be trying to change this from a discussion about what type of institution marriage is to something about same-sex marriage.

On a thread about same sex marriage rights?
How dare he!

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 53383
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Greed and Death » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:42 pm

Abatael wrote:
Cromarty wrote:Wouldn't be a real marriage though.


Legally it won't be valid. Religiously, however, it would be valid, and that is what I care about the most, when I get married.


Many states recognize it.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Abatael
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6608
Founded: Mar 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abatael » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:44 pm

Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Abatael wrote:
You seem to be trying to change this from a discussion about what type of institution marriage is to something about same-sex marriage.

On a thread about same sex marriage rights?
How dare he!


Okay, my discussion is off-topic, but it isn't on that topic about same-sex marriage; it's about the type of institution marriage is.

And, this thread is about the Muppets "dum[ing]" Chick-fil-a.
IMPERIVM·NOVVM·VENOLIÆ.
PAX·PER·BELLVM.
ROMVLVS·AVRELIVS·SECVNDVS.
DEVS·VENOLIAM·BENEDICAT.

Second Best Factbook (UNDERGOING MAJOR REVISIONS)| Factbook Rankings | Embassy Program

User avatar
Yuktova
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11882
Founded: Feb 09, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Yuktova » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:45 pm

Abatael wrote:
Lialoth wrote:Good for you, but that still gives you no right to reduce the religious freedoms and civil rights of others.


You seem to be trying to change this from a discussion about what type of institution marriage is to something about same-sex marriage.

There are several definitions of "classical, religious, or traditional marriage" which one do you mean? Do you mean the one where you can marry four women, plus concubines, plus sex slaves? Do you mean the one where you can marry slaves? What is a traditional viewpoint of a wedding?
I'm Morrissey... Nice to meet you.
Goldsaver said: This is murder, not a romantic date!

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:46 pm

Abatael wrote:And, this thread is about the Muppets "dum[ing]" Chick-fil-a.

... for their position on same sex marriage.

User avatar
Abatael
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6608
Founded: Mar 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abatael » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:47 pm

Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Abatael wrote:And, this thread is about the Muppets "dum[ing]" Chick-fil-a.

... for their position on same sex marriage.


Yes, but this thread is about the act made, because of a belief.
IMPERIVM·NOVVM·VENOLIÆ.
PAX·PER·BELLVM.
ROMVLVS·AVRELIVS·SECVNDVS.
DEVS·VENOLIAM·BENEDICAT.

Second Best Factbook (UNDERGOING MAJOR REVISIONS)| Factbook Rankings | Embassy Program

User avatar
Abatael
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6608
Founded: Mar 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abatael » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:48 pm

Yuktova wrote:
Abatael wrote:
You seem to be trying to change this from a discussion about what type of institution marriage is to something about same-sex marriage.

There are several definitions of "classical, religious, or traditional marriage" which one do you mean? Do you mean the one where you can marry four women, plus concubines, plus sex slaves? Do you mean the one where you can marry slaves? What is a traditional viewpoint of a wedding?


I am currently talking about a religious marriage.
IMPERIVM·NOVVM·VENOLIÆ.
PAX·PER·BELLVM.
ROMVLVS·AVRELIVS·SECVNDVS.
DEVS·VENOLIAM·BENEDICAT.

Second Best Factbook (UNDERGOING MAJOR REVISIONS)| Factbook Rankings | Embassy Program

User avatar
Lialoth
Diplomat
 
Posts: 677
Founded: Apr 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Lialoth » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:48 pm

Abatael wrote:You seem to be trying to change this from a discussion about what type of institution marriage is to something about same-sex marriage.

Religion is a government-run institution that is also provided, as service, by some religions (The religious service it is). Some churches want to allow same-sex marriage and others don't.

Why should the churches against allowing same-sex marriage get to dictate to the others what they can or cannot perform?

Again, have your little "religious marriage". Just don't try to keep marriage away from me, or people like me.
I'm RPing a distant past tech nation populated nearly exclusively by three foot tall bipedal mice who are undergoing subtle speciation due to long lasting social policies.
If this is too ridiculous for you, you might want to opt out of RPing with me.
Abatael wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:Or, do logical thing and stop protecting child rapists.


That seems rather illogical.

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:48 pm

Abatael wrote:
Yuktova wrote:There are several definitions of "classical, religious, or traditional marriage" which one do you mean? Do you mean the one where you can marry four women, plus concubines, plus sex slaves? Do you mean the one where you can marry slaves? What is a traditional viewpoint of a wedding?


I am currently talking about a religious marriage.

The point is that, at various times, those have all been examples of religious marriage.

User avatar
Adafdfadfasdf
Diplomat
 
Posts: 598
Founded: May 06, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Adafdfadfasdf » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:50 pm

Abatael wrote:
Adafdfadfasdf wrote:
Well, you claimed that Christ instituted something that had existed for millennia before he existed. I thought you might need some help.


Yes, a religiously Christian matrimony, because that is what I am talking about.


Well, everyone else is talking about regular marriage. You know, the kind available to everyone, except same sex couples. Whether or not your cute little church recognizes it is moot.
Bucky Katt- Hey, I’ll tolerate ‘em when they stop being freaks and act like me.

User avatar
Raeyh
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6275
Founded: Feb 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Raeyh » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:51 pm

Revolutopia wrote:
Yuktova wrote:"Chick-fil-A in a statement said it has a history of applying biblically-based principles to its business, and that it strives to treat everyone with honor, dignity and respect."
If CFA actually cared about being "Christian" then they would be for gay marriage, not against.


I enjoy how they serve cheese on their chicken, despite God firmly declaring that one should not mix dairy with meat. I guess they skipped that page on accident, someone should contact them about that mistake.


Saint Peter got rid of that law along with not eating pork. So it doesn't apply to Christians.
Last edited by Raeyh on Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vitius
Minister
 
Posts: 2709
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Vitius » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:53 pm

Ah, I'm glad that they made the decision to drop Chick-fil-a as a partner.

Still, they should've given the money back to Chick-fil-a. That's just slapping someone in the face because you don't agree with their beliefs.
Bambi Praxis wrote:
4years wrote:Hitler was worse, but I hate stalin more.

Maintain the rage! Spell the bastard's name without a capital letter, that will settle the score!
Proud Reform Jew

User avatar
Unchecked Expansion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5599
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unchecked Expansion » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:54 pm

Vitius wrote:Ah, I'm glad that they made the decision to drop Chick-fil-a as a partner.

Still, they should've given the money back to Chick-fil-a. That's just slapping someone in the face because you don't agree with their beliefs.

Why? Once given it was theirs to use - especially if it was payment for an endorsement already given

User avatar
Revolutopia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5741
Founded: May 25, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Revolutopia » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:55 pm

Raeyh wrote:
Revolutopia wrote:
I enjoy how they serve cheese on their chicken, despite God firmly declaring that one should not mix dairy with meat. I guess they skipped that page on accident, someone should contact them about that mistake.


Saint Peter got rid of that law along with not eating pork. So it doesn't apply to Christians.


Must have forgotten how Saint Peter > God.
The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.-FDR

Economic Left/Right: -3.12|Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49

Who is Tom Joad?

User avatar
Abatael
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6608
Founded: Mar 03, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Abatael » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:55 pm

Lialoth wrote:
Abatael wrote:You seem to be trying to change this from a discussion about what type of institution marriage is to something about same-sex marriage.

Religion is a government-run institution that is also provided, as service, by some religions (The religious service it is). Some churches want to allow same-sex marriage and others don't.

Why should the churches against allowing same-sex marriage get to dictate to the others what they can or cannot perform?

Again, have your little "religious marriage". Just don't try to keep marriage away from me, or people like me.


You do know that I am talking about the type of institution marriage is, and not same-sex marriage, right?

Unchecked Expansion wrote:
Abatael wrote:
I am currently talking about a religious marriage.

The point is that, at various times, those have all been examples of religious marriage.


What exactly is "the point" trying to prove?

Adafdfadfasdf wrote:
Abatael wrote:
Yes, a religiously Christian matrimony, because that is what I am talking about.


Well, everyone else is talking about regular marriage. You know, the kind available to everyone, except same sex couples. Whether or not your cute little church recognizes it is moot.


It's "moot" to you, but I don't care what it is to you.
IMPERIVM·NOVVM·VENOLIÆ.
PAX·PER·BELLVM.
ROMVLVS·AVRELIVS·SECVNDVS.
DEVS·VENOLIAM·BENEDICAT.

Second Best Factbook (UNDERGOING MAJOR REVISIONS)| Factbook Rankings | Embassy Program

User avatar
R Ev0lution
Diplomat
 
Posts: 850
Founded: Feb 29, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby R Ev0lution » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:56 pm

Raeyh wrote:
Revolutopia wrote:
I enjoy how they serve cheese on their chicken, despite God firmly declaring that one should not mix dairy with meat. I guess they skipped that page on accident, someone should contact them about that mistake.


Saint Peter got rid of that law along with not eating pork. So it doesn't apply to Christians.

Protestants (who make up 65% of the Christians in the U.S.) don't acknowledge the Pope's authority. Hence, Protestants, as in Christians who protested against the Catholic Church and its leadership (read: The Pope).

So, actually, it applies to about two-thirds of the Christians in America.
Last edited by R Ev0lution on Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Canarsia, Eahland, EuroStralia, Great Nelson, Gregandua, Riviere Renard, Teremara Caretaker, Torisakia, Washington Resistance Army, Xi Jinping Thought

Advertisement

Remove ads