The Chick-Fil-A controversy

[MeanGreenTexan]

I'm going to attempt to respond as kindly as possible, but I may come off as rude in some instances. This is not on purpose, I'm just in a very blunt mood today, and I'm probably going to put things bluntly. If I offend you with the way I say something, then I am sorry. End disclaimer

Thank you for the basic high school anatomy brush up. You're science is somewhat sound, I will give you that. And I am glad someone has actually tried to use logic and science in an argument against this, this is actually the first time I have actually seen that anywhere. But there are fundamental flaws with using this argument in general, and your astounding level of ignorance tacks on many more. I could be wrong, but to me your post wreaks of Christian bias.

The first flaw is bringing up the matter of anal sex altogether. Before your post, not a single person explicitly mentioned that; the forum was about gay marriage, not gay sex. While the two may go hand in hand with gay male marriage oftentimes, it is a blanket statement to assume this is always the case. And it is never the case with female gay marriage, you know, since they lack....an appendage to use. Regardless of the science behind the dangers of anal sex, which are very true and it is sound science, that has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage, for a couple of reasons. For one, it has nothing to do with actual marriage and relationship, since a gay male couple may exclusively perform oral sex on each other, and a gay female couple is not going to do it at all. Regardless, you can't legislate what happens in the bedroom, since it's just flat out wrong to do, and there is no way of actually enforcing that. Secondly, allowing a gay male couple to marry isn't going to make them more or less likely to have anal sex anyways. If they are a couple, and they'd get married if it were legal, then they're going to do it anyways. So, this point is completely invalid towards the argument of the legality of gay marriage.

A second fundamental flaw is that you bring up the point of nature, and how a male and female are needed to have a baby. This was probably the most laughable part of the argument. First off, no sh!t. I don't think any gay couple has sex in any capacity thinking they're going to get pregnant. That isn't the point of sex for them, and it isn't the point of sex for a large amount of heterosexual couples either. They have sex because it's the most stimulating and amazing way to show your partner how you feel about them. The majority of mainstream America does not view sex as just a way to make children. It's a beautiful and incredibly diverse part of life that people embrace regardless of their sexuality. This is again, an irrelevant argument.

Another part of that argument's laughability is how other mammals engage in homosexual activities. If it was just a conscious and irresponsible choice by the species of higher intelligence, this would not be the case. Conveniently, someone posted a list of all mammals that have exhibited homosexual behavior in some way, shape, or form (listed with legitimate sources, and the page has been up for quite some time; if it was incorrect the wikipedia mods would have edited it by now...I've experienced firsthand how quick they are). I'll link it below this paragraph. We aren't talking about a list of 3 or 4 mammals. There are well over one hundred listed mammals that have been documented to act in homosexual ways. So, clearly it is a natural phenomenon that wasn't invented by humans, considering there are countless examples of it happening in nature. Again, I sense a very strong Christian bias. Science gotten from a Christian Apologetic website is not actual science.

http://en.wikipedia....sexual_behavior

Now to go back a bit, to the subject of how anal sex is unnatural and the point of the anus is not to be penetrated, but to expose of waste. Fantastic, I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I was also convinced that my nose's secondary function was to be penetrated as well, but your point got me doing some research...never mind. Look, obviously the biological function of the ass is not a sexual function. Neither is the mouth, but I don't see anyone trying to outlaw oral sex. So why anal sex? I mean, haven't you ever heard of a man and a woman having anal sex? It really isn't that uncommon. The fact that you imply that gay couples are the only couples to do some sexual exploration is both baffling and another strong indicator of your strong Christian bias.

Now, onto your point about AIDS. I really can't believe that you think that AIDS is still exclusively in the gay community. That's honestly baffling. How sheltered are you? Have you ever watched the world news and seen that AIDS is a major issue in some of the poorer parts of Africa? AIDS has nothing to do with the gay community; it is where it first appeared in the US, but AIDS and gay are not something that goes hand in hand. Due to the fact that no one knew about it when it was first surfacing, blood transfusions were one of the biggest spreaders of the disease, and it is in the general population. Magic Johnson has AIDS, and he is not gay. Obviously that is just one example, but you get my point. Being sexually "responsible" does not reduce your chance of AIDS. Your partner could have been born with the disease due to his mother unknowingly having it, and he could be a virgin when you guys first have sex, and there you go, now you have AIDS. Now yes, admittedly, there are more gay people than straight people with AIDS, especially in the United States. But that is merely due to the fact that it was introduced in the gay population for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are gay, and worldwide this is not the case. Being gay does not cause AIDS, as you insinuate. Your point is both ignorant and bigoted.

Please point me in the direction of a non Christian scientist who is against gay marriage. Please do. I am calling your bluff here. I have never heard a non Christian scientist come out against gay marriage. But, if you can give me a link, a name, something, to point me in that direction, I'll accept your point. Regardless, even if they are any, they aren't the majority. Not even close. They are random statistical outliers, who in the scheme of things, are meaningless. But that is even if you can point me in the direction of just one, which I doubt you can. That being said, there literally is no reason other than religion to outlaw gay marriage. Not one. Science is not a reason, as everything you pointed out is easily shown to be flawed as an argument against gay marriage, namely because marriage or no marriage, gays are going to have sex. So if science is ruled out, what else is there? Any other argument has to do with religion. If religion is taken out of the argument, there is literally no reason to tell gays they cannot get married.

I agree with you that anal sex is not a safe thing. I disagree with you that that is a good reason to outlaw gay marriage. To go with my reasoning from earlier, gays are going to do it anyways, it doesn't apply to all of them, and you cannot enforce a law against anal sex anyways...let alone that legislating the bedroom is just disgustingly immoral. But, to take that a step further, if you're going to use the argument that allowing gays to have anal sex should be against the law because it costs us unnecessary money in health costs, then fine. As you put it:

"...as well as costing the health care system billions and causing R&D in the pharmaceutical industry to divert time and money away from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices."

Okay. Then, in order to be fair, we need to outlaw every other activity that will divert time and money from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices. It is now illegal drive a car, ride a bike, go outside for long enough to get a sunburn without globbing on tons of sunscreen, play sports, run, go swimming, go on a plane, go on a train, drink alcohol, work any kind of blue collar job like construction, etc. The government now needs to enact legislation to prevent the companies that process food using chemicals that have been known and documented to cause cancer. Coal mines need to stop, because they're too dirty and cause too much bodily harm to the workers. Minor injuries, such as broken bones, concussions, fairly bad cuts, muscle pulls and tears, need to go untreated because we need to focus all our attention on people that have fallen victim to a tragic disease, so in order to maintain the safety of society without basic medical care, the government has put many bans into effect to prevent them from hurting themselves, including but not limited to everything listed. Basically, the only thing that is allowed is to grow food that isn't too dangerous to maintain, on your property, without using pesticides or other potentially harmful chemicals, using and drinking water that comes from your faucet that uses a government mandated water purification system, and then sleeping. Have fun with that life. While you try to legislate what others do in the bedroom, think of the potential consequences of ensuring that this group of people does not get equal rights. That opens a pandora's box, your group may be next.

I like you kid, but...

Brevity is key on GMG.com.

Also, just to chime in on the topic, I think anyone who professes to be atheist or agnostic should not try to quote the Bible as if they are Theologians. TFLF's post early in this thread (page 1) is probably overly-simplistic in his Old VS. New Testament breakdown, but the overall concept is there. Thanks to Christ, we aren't under that law anymore. After His death and resurrection, we are in a period of GRACE. Hence, there is no reason to stone anyone for breaking OT law... Christ already took that punishment. Gay or straight. Kosher or delicious Pork. Long hair or short... Jesus loves us all, and although the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as sin, Romans 5:8 tells Christians (or, Christ followers) that we are to love the sinner, because, after all, we all were once mired in sin ourselves, and I'm not sure about you all, but I am still in need of His grace DAILY.

It appears that most logical people on this issue share the same thoughts: As long as the company does not treat any homosexual employees/customers differently, then people can have their differences of opinion.

[yyz28]

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, everyone take a breath. Stop the name calling. If you can't argue your point without belittling the other person's point by resorting to name-calling (either the person OR the point) then do us all a favor... and STFU.

...now, having said that, let me jump in here with two feet.

There is really no basis to move forward here unless we can all AGREE on some basic, fundamental points.

1. The first of which is that marriage is NOT A RIGHT. Not for straight people. Not for gay people. Marriage, at least in this country, consists of one part social (which may have a religious undertone) and one part legal. There is no enumerated call for marriage as a right in the constitution or any of its amendments. If we can't all agree on this, we can't carry this discussion further.

2. Churches, at their discretion and as they make peace with their particular God and as guaranteed by the first amendment, may choose to marry who they wish under the social side of the marriage definition. As such, while not all churches may be willing to recognize this social contract many do. ...so from a social point of view, homosexual couples can get married today. ...in fact, I know several who have and consider themselves "married" even in the state of Texas.

3. Same sex couples don't want equality, they want a broadened definition of what equal is. ...let me explain. Today, all people are treated exactly the same regarding existing marriage laws. (I'm going to discuss Texas as that's where most of us are, and at present this is still a state's issue). Every man in this nation, regardless of sexual orientation may marry a woman. Conversely, every woman in this nation may marry a man. ...so, the very definition of equality is met right here. The truth is that proponents of same sex marriage aren't fighting to be able to get "married", they are fighting to change what "married" (from a legal point of view) means.

See, this is why I and many argue that you can't compare this to the civil rights movement or even the suffrage movement. There is a constitutional right to vote which was being violated on the basis of skin color and sex. There is a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law was was being violated on the basis of skin color and sex. There are no "gay sections" on busses nor airplanes. No homosexuals are denied the right to vote. Nope. None of this exists. Homosexuals aren't fighting for a "right".

So, as we sit here today, the only part of this that should be a debate is do we expand the LEGAL definition of marriage to recognize a different kind of social contract that people may already enter into on their own? They are fighting for a legal status, not a right. As with all legal questions, we may all have our own ideas and thoughts on the subject, but in the end, we are all bound by the will of the majority as the voting public. (unless you live in the People's Republic of California where the will one the voters is regularly overturned by the courts) So far, the people have spoken and in 28 states where laws or constitutional amendments have been proposed, they have all passed. in other states, like California (though theirs were court mandated), Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Washington (State and DC) have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

I think in all the rhetoric and emotion and political score-boarding we all lose sight of what is really being debated here. Based on the meltdown that had become this thread, I thought now was a good time for this post.

Regarding Chick-Fil-A, I support, 100% the rights of the President and CEO to voice his opinion, and the charities that CFA gives to were certainly not secret before he was asked the question and made the statement. I also support 100% the rights of any PRIVATE CITIZEN to decide not to do business with CFA due to their stand (though again, I question how they didn't know this was CFA's stance in the first place). What I don't agree with is any action taken by a Government official, Local, State or Federal, to attempt to bully or use their power to block a company from opening locations or engage in fair business simply for voicing their opinion, particularly when the opinion AND the voicing it are both protected by the 1st Amendment.

[GreenMachine]

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, everyone take a breath. Stop the name calling. If you can't argue your point without belittling the other person's point by resorting to name-calling (either the person OR the point) then do us all a favor... and STFU.

Wow, you don't like name calling but don't mind telling people to shut the f*ck up. To each their own I suppose.

[UNTstormchaser]

Your arrogance is annoying and your generalizations are laughable. I find it stunning that you choose to speak for the entire gay population of the world because in fact, you are wrong. I have a female friend that was treated like crap by guys time and time again and made a conscious choice to go the gay route. She met a lesbian, fell in love with her, and they have been together for almost 8 years. I also have a male friend that was crapped on by several women and made a choice to go the gay route. After numerous relationships, he has been with his partner for over 5 years. I think its safe to say they aren't the only 2 in the world to make that decision. What about all the homosexuals in prison, gotta believe that was a choice mainly due to the lack of availabilty of females.

I find your lack of understanding on what actually happened with your friends laughable. One cannot choose to start being attracted to something they aren't. I hate to break it to you...but you're friends are either bisexual or were closet gays. It's pretty simple.

[GreenMachine]

I find your lack of understanding on what actually happened with your friends laughable. One cannot choose to start being attracted to something they aren't. I hate to break it to you...but you're friends are either bisexual or were closet gays. It's pretty simple.

You trying to make it a simple matter just shows you don't have a clue. Of course it's always easy to dismiss something with a wave of the hand. As expected, you don't mention the prison scenario but that's fine. I am done with this topic because quite frankly, you bore me.

[UNTstormchaser]

Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, everyone take a breath. Stop the name calling. If you can't argue your point without belittling the other person's point by resorting to name-calling (either the person OR the point) then do us all a favor... and STFU.

...now, having said that, let me jump in here with two feet.

There is really no basis to move forward here unless we can all AGREE on some basic, fundamental points.

1. The first of which is that marriage is NOT A RIGHT. Not for straight people. Not for gay people. Marriage, at least in this country, consists of one part social (which may have a religious undertone) and one part legal. There is no enumerated call for marriage as a right in the constitution or any of its amendments. If we can't all agree on this, we can't carry this discussion further.

2. Churches, at their discretion and as they make peace with their particular God and as guaranteed by the first amendment, may choose to marry who they wish under the social side of the marriage definition. As such, while not all churches may be willing to recognize this social contract many do. ...so from a social point of view, homosexual couples can get married today. ...in fact, I know several who have and consider themselves "married" even in the state of Texas.

3. Same sex couples don't want equality, they want a broadened definition of what equal is. ...let me explain. Today, all people are treated exactly the same regarding existing marriage laws. (I'm going to discuss Texas as that's where most of us are, and at present this is still a state's issue). Every man in this nation, regardless of sexual orientation may marry a woman. Conversely, every woman in this nation may marry a man. ...so, the very definition of equality is met right here. The truth is that proponents of same sex marriage aren't fighting to be able to get "married", they are fighting to change what "married" (from a legal point of view) means.

See, this is why I and many argue that you can't compare this to the civil rights movement or even the suffrage movement. There is a constitutional right to vote which was being violated on the basis of skin color and sex. There is a constitutional right to equal treatment under the law was was being violated on the basis of skin color and sex. There are no "gay sections" on busses nor airplanes. No homosexuals are denied the right to vote. Nope. None of this exists. Homosexuals aren't fighting for a "right".

So, as we sit here today, the only part of this that should be a debate is do we expand the LEGAL definition of marriage to recognize a different kind of social contract that people may already enter into on their own? They are fighting for a legal status, not a right. As with all legal questions, we may all have our own ideas and thoughts on the subject, but in the end, we are all bound by the will of the majority as the voting public. (unless you live in the People's Republic of California where the will one the voters is regularly overturned by the courts) So far, the people have spoken and in 28 states where laws or constitutional amendments have been proposed, they have all passed. in other states, like California (though theirs were court mandated), Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Washington (State and DC) have created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage under the laws of those jurisdictions.

I think in all the rhetoric and emotion and political score-boarding we all lose sight of what is really being debated here. Based on the meltdown that had become this thread, I thought now was a good time for this post.

Regarding Chick-Fil-A, I support, 100% the rights of the President and CEO to voice his opinion, and the charities that CFA gives to were certainly not secret before he was asked the question and made the statement. I also support 100% the rights of any PRIVATE CITIZEN to decide not to do business with CFA due to their stand (though again, I question how they didn't know this was CFA's stance in the first place). What I don't agree with is any action taken by a Government official, Local, State or Federal, to attempt to bully or use their power to block a company from opening locations or engage in fair business simply for voicing their opinion, particularly when the opinion AND the voicing it are both protected by the 1st Amendment.

This is actually a great post. While I disagree with some of it, you actually made fair and intelligent arguments using reason and logic. For that, I say: THANK YOU.

I'm going to respond to your three points.

1. While you are correct that it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that marriage is a right, that isn't an argument against gay marriage. If you use that argument towards gay marriage, you must make it so marriage of any kind holds no legal standing. In fact, that's probably the way it should be anyways. Why should the government give a crap if I am married and to who it is? That's my business. But, since it isn't that way, and straight marriage holds legal benefits that cannot be extended to homosexual couples, that's an unfair and does not demonstrate equality.

2. I completely agree, and any gay marriage activist that doesn't agree needs their mental health checked. I have no problem with a church denying a gay couple, or a straight couple for that matter if there were to be a Church of Gay, the right to be married in that church. Personally, I don't understand why a gay couple would want to get married in an anti-gay church anyways, but if one did, and the church denies them, that's fine. And yes, I am aware that many gay couples consider themselves married. Straight ones do that to before they are married. A good friend of mine considers his girlfriend of 5 years his wife, even though they are not legally married. That's all well and good....but considering yourselves married doesn't give you the same rights as being legally married, obviously. That's where the issue arises. What about the situation where a dying gay man's partner is not allowed to visit him on his deathbed, or have any authority on how he is treated or whether or not he is taken off life support, among other things? It's kind of unfair where that happens, and in the same situation in a heterosexual married couple, the healthy partner has the right to visit, and has all the authority on what happens. Not to mention tax breaks that legally married couples get, whereas a gay couple that views themselves as married does not get any tax break. It's unfair and not equal.

3. That's a great way of twisting words to make it seem like there is equality. But, there's another way (a fairer way) to look at that statement. Every heterosexual person in the country has the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to, while every homosexual person in the country does not have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to. That doesn't sound very equal to me. If expanding the legal definition of marriage is what achieves the equality (which it is), then so be it. That's the way it should be.

Again, great post. I'm glad that someone posted using logic and reason rather than posting out of ignorance and bias. As for your last statement about CFA, I agree 100%. I support his right to say whatever he wants as long as he continues to treat people fairly. And I'm also equally confused at how most people didn't know about CFA's views, but in their defense, CFA is a typically southern thing and a lot of the country had no idea what CFA even was before this. I also get where the mayors of cities are coming from, as illegal as it may be. They have external motivation for doing this: it's election year. If a mayor in a prominent gay community (Boston, San Francisco, etc.) speaks out against CFA, guess who the gays are going to vote for? Besides, they can't actually block CFA anyways, so no harm no foul. They have a right to spew blabber as well.

[UNTstormchaser]

You trying to make it a simple matter just shows you don't have a clue. Of course it's always easy to dismiss something with a wave of the hand. As expected, you don't mention the prison scenario but that's fine. I am done with this topic because quite frankly, you bore me.

My apologies, I actually missed the prison part. I'm really not feeling well today but I'm sorry for missing a part of your all important post. My response to that is that psychology is a changeable thing. Just like when you read the books of "reformed gays", they find a way to convince themselves to be attracted to something else, although the other attractions do not go away. It was ignorant of me to actually exclude the possibility that your friends were so fed up with the opposite sex, and it was such an intense psychological reaction, that they were able to convince themselves that they were attracted to the same sex. It can happen. Although, bisexuality is another option, especially considering psychologists agree that sexuality isn't accurately described by the 3 titles, but on a 6 point scale. 0 being completely straight, 6 being completely gay, 3 being perfectly bisexual and indifferent between the two sexes. Most people fall between 1 and 5. So applying that to the prison part, it isn't a stretch to believe that prisoners could be so psychologically strained by the fact that they're not going to see another person of the opposite sex for years, or even forever, that they might convince themselves to be attracted to the same sex, especially if they were not a 0 on the scale. I think this can be summed of very generally and crudely by this sentence: A hole is a hole, and better than no hole at all.

[Green Mean]

Still love me some Chick-Fil-A.

[yyz28]

Wow, you don't like name calling but don't mind telling people to shut the f*ck up. To each their own I suppose.

You've got it. ...because to folks who resort to name calling in political discussions, strong language is the only thing they understand? Sarcasm? Meter working? No? Anybody? Bueller?

[TIgreen01]

1. While you are correct that it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that marriage is a right, that isn't an argument against gay marriage. If you use that argument towards gay marriage, you must make it so marriage of any kind holds no legal standing. In fact, that's probably the way it should be anyways. Why should the government give a crap if I am married and to who it is? That's my business. But, since it isn't that way, and straight marriage holds legal benefits that cannot be extended to homosexual couples, that's an unfair and does not demonstrate equality.

2....What about the situation where a dying gay man's partner is not allowed to visit him on his deathbed, or have any authority on how he is treated or whether or not he is taken off life support, among other things? It's kind of unfair where that happens, and in the same situation in a heterosexual married couple, the healthy partner has the right to visit, and has all the authority on what happens. Not to mention tax breaks that legally married couples get, whereas a gay couple that views themselves as married does not get any tax break. It's unfair and not equal.

I think you should consider your own question (bolded above) a bit more deeply. Why would the government care if you were married, and (as you reference below) offer benefits to its citizens who choose to get married?? The answer goes back to TFLF's anatomical lesson post: So that we, as a nation, can procreate and carry on our way of life to a new generation--which is the most basic fundamental idea of most all of human civilization.

It's not a religious issue. Those on both sides of the argument who profess that it is are either confused or pushing an agenda.

The bit on hospital visiting rights seems like something that needs updating, and could be done so without changing marriage laws.

Edited July 30, 2012 by TIgreen01

[UNT90]

This is actually a great post. While I disagree with some of it, you actually made fair and intelligent arguments using reason and logic. For that, I say: THANK YOU.

I'm going to respond to your three points.

1. While you are correct that it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that marriage is a right, that isn't an argument against gay marriage. If you use that argument towards gay marriage, you must make it so marriage of any kind holds no legal standing. In fact, that's probably the way it should be anyways. Why should the government give a crap if I am married and to who it is? That's my business. But, since it isn't that way, and straight marriage holds legal benefits that cannot be extended to homosexual couples, that's an unfair and does not demonstrate equality.

2. I completely agree, and any gay marriage activist that doesn't agree needs their mental health checked. I have no problem with a church denying a gay couple, or a straight couple for that matter if there were to be a Church of Gay, the right to be married in that church. Personally, I don't understand why a gay couple would want to get married in an anti-gay church anyways, but if one did, and the church denies them, that's fine. And yes, I am aware that many gay couples consider themselves married. Straight ones do that to before they are married. A good friend of mine considers his girlfriend of 5 years his wife, even though they are not legally married. That's all well and good....but considering yourselves married doesn't give you the same rights as being legally married, obviously. That's where the issue arises. What about the situation where a dying gay man's partner is not allowed to visit him on his deathbed, or have any authority on how he is treated or whether or not he is taken off life support, among other things? It's kind of unfair where that happens, and in the same situation in a heterosexual married couple, the healthy partner has the right to visit, and has all the authority on what happens. Not to mention tax breaks that legally married couples get, whereas a gay couple that views themselves as married does not get any tax break. It's unfair and not equal.

3. That's a great way of twisting words to make it seem like there is equality. But, there's another way (a fairer way) to look at that statement. Every heterosexual person in the country has the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to, while every homosexual person in the country does not have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to. That doesn't sound very equal to me. If expanding the legal definition of marriage is what achieves the equality (which it is), then so be it. That's the way it should be.

Again, great post. I'm glad that someone posted using logic and reason rather than posting out of ignorance and bias. As for your last statement about CFA, I agree 100%. I support his right to say whatever he wants as long as he continues to treat people fairly. And I'm also equally confused at how most people didn't know about CFA's views, but in their defense, CFA is a typically southern thing and a lot of the country had no idea what CFA even was before this. I also get where the mayors of cities are coming from, as illegal as it may be. They have external motivation for doing this: it's election year. If a mayor in a prominent gay community (Boston, San Francisco, etc.) speaks out against CFA, guess who the gays are going to vote for? Besides, they can't actually block CFA anyways, so no harm no foul. They have a right to spew blabber as well.

For a guy calling for internet peace, you sure pick a strange forum and subject matter (a polarized one) to wade in on with an unyeilding opinion.

That is all. Back to the Olympics.

[UNTstormchaser]

I think you should consider your own question (bolded above) a bit more deeply. Why would the government care if you were married, and (as you reference below) offer benefits to its citizens who choose to get married?? The answer goes back to TFLF's anatomical lesson post: So that we, as a nation, can procreate and carry on our way of life to a new generation--which is the most basic fundamental idea of most all of human civilization.

It's not a religious issue. Those on both sides of the argument who profess that it is are either confused or pushing an agenda.

The bit on hospital visiting rights seems like something that needs updating, and could be done so without changing marriage laws.

I really want you to do some hard thinking about that statement. Do you really think people get married and, especially this, have kids for a tax break? You're out of your mind if you think that.

You're also out of your mind if you think that either legalizing or outlawing gay marriage is going to change the number of straight marriages or gay relationships. I don't know what kind of world you think we live in, but it isn't all about the money (though it may seem that way a lot of the time). If tax breaks are given to straight couples, they should be given to gay couples. Or, they should be given to neither. People are going to get married, bone, and have kids regardless of tax breaks. And yes, the hospital visiting rights, and the right to having authority over what happens to your partner when he/she is ill and incapable of deciding for themselves, are something that should be edited. But, if done so without changing the marriage laws, how does one know if the person claiming to be that person's partner is being truthful? And, do we change the laws for straights as well, so that a heterosexual couple who has been together for a very long time but is not legally married, has the same rights in that situation? Where do we put the cut-off for how long one has to be dating someone before they have that authority? You know what prevents these issues? A marriage license.

[UNTstormchaser]

I'd like to add that I'm retiring from this thread as of this post, for a number of reasons. I feel I've said everything I had to say on the subject, and then some. I also don't see any point in continuing an argument where both sides have stated their points, lots of back and forth occurred, and no movement was made on either's position. We're all hard headed here in Mean Green nation it seems I've also got some major stresses going on in my personal life, and outside added stress from an online debate doesn't help that.

If I legitimately offended any one of you with anything I said, I apologize. I'd also like to encourage you to PM me, and show me what exactly I said that was offensive to you. I'll explain where I was coming from, possibly rephrase to a less offensive manner, and personally apologize if I have legitimately crossed a line. Hopefully in the process we can get to know each other a bit better, and understand where we are both coming from. I certainly didn't set out to offend, and I don't think anyone gave enough of a damn about what I said to be offended, but things happen, and it wouldn't surprise me.

Opinions are opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own, and I'd like to point out that I don't think any less of any one of you for anything you guys posted, and I hope no one thinks less of me for anything I said. We are one. Cheers everyone, happy almost August! One more month! GMG.

Edited July 31, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[cwb]

I'd like to add that I'm retiring from this thread as of this post, for a number of reasons. I feel I've said everything I had to say on the subject, and then some. I also don't see any point in continuing an argument where both sides have stated their points, lots of back and forth occurred, and nomovement was made on either's position. We're all hard headed here in Mean Green nation it seems I've also got some major stresses going on in my personal life, and outside added stress from an online debate doesn't help that.

If I legitimately offended any one of you with anything I said, I apologize. I'd also like to encourage you to PM me, and show me what exactly I said that was offensive to you. I'll explain where I was coming from, possibly rephrase to a less offensive manner, and personally apologize if I have legitimately crossed a line. Hopefully in the process we can get to know each other a bit better, and understand where we are both coming from. I certainly didn't set out to offend, and I don't think anyone gave enough of a damn about what I said to be offended, but things happen, and it wouldn't surprise me.

Opinions are opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own, and I'd like to point out that I don't think any less of any one of you for anything you guys posted, and I hope no one thinks less of me for anything I said. We are one. Cheers everyone, happy almost August! One more month! GMG.

Welcome to the world of pie.

[Censored by Laurie]

Welcome to the world of pie.

I like pie.

[oldguystudent]

I believe Burguesa should be open on Sunday, because last time I checked, there is no connection between any religious agenda and a bean tostada in the middle of my burger.

I also refuse to spend money at Rooster Roadhouse because they have apparently chosen me at random three times to shit on me and not serve me. As far as I'm aware, there is no Jesus or gay marriage related to this either.

Chick-fil-a? I choose not to eat there because I disagree with the organizations they fund, but I otherwise could not care less where they operate or who eats there.

As a blatant tree hugger living in North Texas, there are just some battles that aren't at all worth my time.

Bottom line. Don't panic and never forget your towel.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Stormchaser, you are interesting and longwinded, and also young. You have done nothing to refute the three truths presented:

(1) There were no Christians in the Old Testament because Christ hadn't come to earth yet; so, anyone making arguments from the Old Testament - as the gal in the video did - about what Christians should think and do are lost Biblically.

(2) Homosexuality makes no sense physiologically. Whether married or single, a digestive system organ is not meant for sexual activity; therefore, disease from misuse.

(3) Homosexuality makes no sense biologically. Neither two males of the specie nor two females of the specie can procreate and reproduce.

These are not opinions, these are facts. And, I fully understand that many grown people don't like facts, and so they live their lives in the realm of opinion and feeling. Opinions and feelings are nice. But, as we know from gravity, whatever your opinion of it might be, what goes up must come down.

As far as the AIDs scare, facts are also facts. The majority of cases - the vast majority of cases - are still born of men who have sex with men.

Following is the CDC's little sysnopsis of HIV. Note the * which says "Subpopulations representing 2 percent or less of the overall U.S. epidemic are not reflected in this piece:

http://www.cdc.gov/n...INAL508COMP.pdf

And, so by way of deduction, you will note that "White Heterosexual Male" is not listed on the chart. Gee, I wonder why. But, in reality, I don't have to wonder because science easily fills in the blanks - White Heterosexual Males are not en masse trying to use digestive system organs as sexual playthings.

HIV/AIDs is an epidemic for homosexual males, junkies, and the men and women who have sex with them. It isn't an epidemic for people who marry and keep monogamous. It isn't even an epidemic for unmarried white males who keep it with the opposite sex, away from junkies, and in the parts of the body meant for sex...scientifically speaking, of course.

This isn't difficult. It's humorous to watch the CDC tiptoe around homosexuality; though, it still can't avoid putting abstaining from sex as the #1 way to avoid the spread of AIDs. It then goes to #2, monogamy with an non-HIV/AIDs infected partner (gee...this sound pretty similar to what that Chik-Fil-A guy says...but, without all the silly trappings of God and Jesus. Hard to believe this guy is on the side of science! I mean, the American Left thinks he's a backward, chicken picken hick!). Then, goes into the ridiculous #3 which is 'use a condom...even though it's not 100% effective' route.

(I always love the condom fallback for everything - and, so do condom manufacturers. What other product can be sold where you can use it for its intended purpose, and yet they can't be liable to it not working? Those guys laugh all the way to the bank! They've got these science-ignoring sex dopes out there pushing their product for them.)

It is only by coincidence that the Christian lifestyle is in synch with the science of sex and reproduction. Those masses of backward Christians would say God's design is at work within all things. But, just ignore the Christians. Rubes. They're just lucky that what they believe coincides with science.

This is where Chik-Fil-A guy, by hewing to that coincidence, has those with Leftward political proclivities getting their panties in a wad. Let them do so. They already ignore science, anyway; so, what practical use could they have of the Bible. How bothersome the Bible is when it coincides with science.

In HIV/AIDs, the only real victims are those who are exposed by blood transfusion, women who unknowingly contract it from bisexual men, and the very few heterosexual men who might have sex with those women. And, as you can see from that statistic, that subset is miniscule.

The HIV/AIDs problem is, was, and always will be homosexual men engaged in homosexual sex. Even the CDC can't lie about that.

So, let the Left fume at a Christian man with a Christian business whose point of view makes sense Biblically; and, coincidentally, by way of science as well. God and Science...a powerful combination indeed.

Chik-Fil-A tomorrow. Bring your science books along; Bibles, if you are of that bent, optional.

Edited July 31, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[oldguystudent]

Whether married or single, a digestive system organ is not meant for sexual activity; therefore, disease from misuse.

No BJs for you, buddy!

[Censored by Laurie]

No BJs for you, buddy!

Based on that rant, I'm pretty sure this dude keeps a sheet with a hole in between bodies and never makes eye contact.

[GreenMachine]

Based on that rant, I'm pretty sure this dude keeps a sheet with a hole in between bodies and never makes eye contact.

based on the pic in your signature, I hope your partner does too

[GreenMachine]

Is he the dude in the middle?

[Censored by Laurie]

Is he the dude in the middle?

The next funny thing you post will be your first.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Is he the dude in the middle?

Not cool.

[GreenMachine]

The next funny thing you post will be your first.

Settle down Francis.

Does that mean I'll be one up on you for funny posts?

[GreenMachine]

Not cool.

Hit close to home? Sorry