Chick Fil-A Day!

[Veladio]

But I'm not claiming that my opinions were conclusively SHOWN IN THIS THREAD, when all that has happened has been opinion spouting. Anyway, why am I arguing with you? You're always right, anyhow. Just like Mavorpen.

Well...I guess, thank you for comparing me to one of the more intelligent posters on NSG. I appreciate the compliment.

[Adventus Secundus]

Yes, as has been conclusively shown by the resident experts of NS That's funny.

And their sources.

Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions... ...These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It would be nice if you actually read your beloved source, the eminently scholarly and trustworthy Wikipedia:
"While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world."

And marriage is still a sacrament, in my religion and in many others. Your point?

[Tlaceceyaya]

And their sources.

It would be nice if you actually read your beloved source, the eminently scholarly and trustworthy Wikipedia:
"While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world."

And marriage is still a sacrament, in my religion and in many others. Your point?

It would be nice if you read it, too.
Same sex unions have existed in religious societies. Guess what? In that same time, women were almost always put in arranged marriages for the good of the family. Now they have equal rights. Why not do the same for homosexuals?

[The Black Forrest]

Oh, that's cute. You think you own marriage.

Nope, just the right to express my own views without getting trampled on by the 'majority consensus.'

Awww that is sweet. You do think you own marriage.

[Greed and Death]

I know what we should do, we should record videos of ourselves being asses to Chick-fil-a employees and post them on the internet.

http://now.msn.com/executive-loses-job- ... hick-fil-a

[Greed and Death]

It would be nice if you actually read your beloved source, the eminently scholarly and trustworthy Wikipedia:
"While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world."

And marriage is still a sacrament, in my religion and in many others. Your point?

It would be nice if you read it, too.
Same sex unions have existed in religious societies. Guess what? In that same time, women were almost always put in arranged marriages for the good of the family. Now they have equal rights. Why not do the same for homosexuals?

I supposed first we need to start with arranged same sex marriages first.

[Natair]

It would be nice if you read it, too.
Same sex unions have existed in religious societies. Guess what? In that same time, women were almost always put in arranged marriages for the good of the family. Now they have equal rights. Why not do the same fr homosexuals?

I supposed first we need to start with arranged same sex marriages first.

Seems legit

[The Black Forrest]

I know what we should do, we should record videos of ourselves being asses to Chick-fil-a employees and post them on the internet.

http://now.msn.com/executive-loses-job- ... hick-fil-a

I wonder if the ass running Chick-fil-a will speak to his employees about it?

[Farnhamia]

It would be nice if you read it, too.
Same sex unions have existed in religious societies. Guess what? In that same time, women were almost always put in arranged marriages for the good of the family. Now they have equal rights. Why not do the same for homosexuals?

I supposed first we need to start with arranged same sex marriages first.

Excellent idea. We'll arrange for heterosexuals to marry homosexuals, and let them see how if feels to be told that they can marry anyone they like, just not the person they want to marry. Do you imagine the various churches that oppose same-sex marriage will help?

[Tekania]

I supposed first we need to start with arranged same sex marriages first.

Excellent idea. We'll arrange for heterosexuals to marry homosexuals, and let them see how if feels to be told that they can marry anyone they like, just not the person they want to marry. Do you imagine the various churches that oppose same-sex marriage will help?

WE'll only arrange it so they can choose their marital partner from an available set of homosexuals. So their marriage rights will remain intact (as they are allowed to marry anyone they want out of that assigned set).

[Farnhamia]

Excellent idea. We'll arrange for heterosexuals to marry homosexuals, and let them see how if feels to be told that they can marry anyone they like, just not the person they want to marry. Do you imagine the various churches that oppose same-sex marriage will help?

WE'll only arrange it so they can choose their marital partner from an available set of homosexuals. So their marriage rights will remain intact (as they are allowed to marry anyone they want out of that assigned set).

Yes, good idea. So many details to work out.

[Greed and Death]

Excellent idea. We'll arrange for heterosexuals to marry homosexuals, and let them see how if feels to be told that they can marry anyone they like, just not the person they want to marry. Do you imagine the various churches that oppose same-sex marriage will help?

WE'll only arrange it so they can choose their marital partner from an available set of homosexuals. So their marriage rights will remain intact (as they are allowed to marry anyone they want out of that assigned set).

I like where this is going, but only for those currently opposed to same sex marriage.

Quick hope in the Greed mobile we have a trip to congress to make I have dirt on all the congressmen, they will pass any law I say no matter how crazy.

[Adventus Secundus]

It would be nice if you actually read your beloved source, the eminently scholarly and trustworthy Wikipedia:
"While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world."

And marriage is still a sacrament, in my religion and in many others. Your point?

It would be nice if you read it, too.
Same sex unions have existed in religious societies. Guess what? In that same time, women were almost always put in arranged marriages for the good of the family. Now they have equal rights. Why not do the same for homosexuals?

"Same sex unions have existed in religious societies." Not on par with heterosexual marriages, which were recognized as having a distinct status even in Greece and Rome, according to your 'evidence'.

Nope, just the right to express my own views without getting trampled on by the 'majority consensus.'

Awww that is sweet. You do think you own marriage.

Prove it, boyo.

[Samuraikoku]

Prove it, boyo.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=193435&p=10427140#p10427140

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Tekania]

Prove it, boyo.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=193435&p=10427140#p10427140

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I'm shocked that Dan Cathy, a southern baptist would support the sacrament of marriage....especially given the fact that baptist theology recognizes no sacraments. Few protestants do, in fact, and those that do it's typically just Baptism and the Lord's Supper (Communion).

[JuNii]

Prove it, boyo.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=193435&p=10427140#p10427140

Quod erat demonstrandum.

your evidence is a quote from another poster in this very thread?

[Farnhamia]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=193435&p=10427140#p10427140

Quod erat demonstrandum.

your evidence is a quote from another poster in this very thread?

It's Adventus Secundus "fixing" someone else's post to say that marriage is a religious sacrament, thus proving that he thinks religion owns "marriage."

[Tekania]

your evidence is a quote from another poster in this very thread?

It's Adventus Secundus "fixing" someone else's post to say that marriage is a religious sacrament, thus proving that he thinks religion owns "marriage."

I wonder where that leaves those of us whose religion doesn't view marriage as a sacrament.

[Farnhamia]

It's Adventus Secundus "fixing" someone else's post to say that marriage is a religious sacrament, thus proving that he thinks religion owns "marriage."

I wonder where that leaves those of us whose religion doesn't view marriage as a sacrament.

Howling in the wilderness without God? Obviously you're not religion-ing it right.

[JuNii]

your evidence is a quote from another poster in this very thread?

It's Adventus Secundus "fixing" someone else's post to say that marriage is a religious sacrament, thus proving that he thinks religion owns "marriage."

I guess then he thinks religion 'owns' divorce... since you can't have a divorce without marriage...

[Dempublicents1]

Implying sexual orientation is a choice.

Monozygotic twins, where one is straight and one is gay, prove one is definitively not born gay.

No, actually, they don't. It would demonstrate that sexuality is not 100% genetic. It does not, however, rule out epigenetic or environmental components - even pre-birth. Multiple experiments have shown that the levels of hormones a developing fetus is exposed to in utero can affect the sexual behavior of the offspring. It is possible and even likely that twins would have been exposed to different levels of hormones, as most biological molecules exist in a gradient, rather than at a constant concentration throughout a given tissue.

Isn't biology cool?

As per the 1st Amendment, people have a right to their opinion. It may be unpopular, stupid, and even completely ridiculous, however, each citizen is entitled to have an opinion. This issue started with the Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy admitting to being "guilty as charged" when it comes to supporting traditional marriage. From there we've witnessed it erupt into a media firestorm.

No, that isn't when it started at all. Try again.

[Dempublicents1]

Luckily, we homosexuals are not the only ones who will never be eating there again. And it's not like we're going to start eating there again once this fades from the spotlight, whereas the bigots are going to go back to eating there however often they were eating there before they knew about this.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Some unhappy college students and silly "activists" will probably stop eating there, too!

That will cause such a horrific loss in profits for Chick Fil-A.

In truth, individuals aren't going to be their main problem. The losses they sustain in catering, might, though. A lot of other companies aren't going to want to be associated with them, which means that they are going to lose out on corporate deals - any one of which would make more than a group of individuals who eat there occasionally. If they lose profits because of their anti-LGBT stance, that's where I'd expect to see it happening.

In my own opinion, the government should be completely out of marriage (when did it ever get involved in the first place) and screw the benefits for everybody. Why should being married give you benefits?

Most of marriage law isn't really "benefits" so much as protections to keep the couple and other people they interact with from getting screwed over. But then, that's not really the topic of this thread.

I'm totally fine with fags shoving their genitals into each-other. It doesn't really have anything to do with me. However, I don't quite get why this guy recieved so much flack for saying "no i don't like fags shoving their genitals into eachother".

He didn't. He's received a great deal of flack for pumping millions of dollars into organizations that lobby in favor of discrimination against the LGBT community in this country and go as far as pushing for the death penalty in other countries - organizations that psychologically abuse people in a quest to "cure the gay."

[Dempublicents1]

Governmentally boycotting a restaurant (and moving to prevent its expansion in your city, as the mayors of Chicago and Boston and San Francisico have done) based on the privately held beliefs of its owner (however publicly they may have been expressed) constitutes a violation of freedom of speech in my book. And in most people's.

So mayors don't have the right to express their opinions? They can't say, "I really don't want this corporation that pumps millions of dollars into anti-LGBT causes to come here"? Because that's all they did - talk. No one has blocked CFA from expanding. The only person who actually said anything and has the legal authority to block said expansion has said that he will approve their permit if they provide a written nondiscrimination policy. Simple enough.

Also, just to clarify one more time - this is not about anyone's "privately held beliefs". It is about a corporation that dumps millions of dollars a year into the promotion of anti-LGBT causes.

[Wamitoria]

Governmentally boycotting a restaurant (and moving to prevent its expansion in your city, as the mayors of Chicago and Boston and San Francisico have done) based on the privately held beliefs of its owner (however publicly they may have been expressed) constitutes a violation of freedom of speech in my book. And in most people's.

So mayors don't have the right to express their opinions? They can't say, "I really don't want this corporation that pumps millions of dollars into anti-LGBT causes to come here"? Because that's all they did - talk. No one has blocked CFA from expanding. The only person who actually said anything and has the legal authority to block said expansion has said that he will approve their permit if they provide a written nondiscrimination policy. Simple enough.

Also, just to clarify one more time - this is not about anyone's "privately held beliefs". It is about a corporation that dumps millions of dollars a year into the promotion of anti-LGBT causes.

And not just typical anti-LGBT causes. They donate to groups that lobby in favor of "kill the gays" legislation in Africa.

[Cannot think of a name]

I know what we should do, we should record videos of ourselves being asses to Chick-fil-a employees and post them on the internet.

http://now.msn.com/executive-loses-job- ... hick-fil-a

Well...he certainly showed that low wage drive-through attendant who has literally no say in any policy whatsoever what's what.

That's one of those stories that makes you embarrassed for the person, like some sort of Universal sense of balance, "Clearly, if this person had been properly embarrassed for himself, he wouldn't have done it. I must feel embarrassed for him lest the universe be left with an imbalance of unassigned embarrassment..."