The Chick-Fil-A controversy

[Censored by Laurie]

Settle down Francis.

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

0 for 1,484...

[GreenMachine]

0 for 1,484...

does that count as your funny one?

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, sorry. You really do look darling in that pic.

[UNTstormchaser]

does that count as your funny one?

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, sorry. You really do look darling in that pic.

I'm coming out of thread retirement and pulling a Brett Favre for this one post. You sir, are an unfunny douchebag. For someone who complained about namecalling and insults, you sure do seem to enjoy being a dick.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Shut it doooown! Let's go hoooome!

[UNTstormchaser]

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.

Brett Favre 2.0, I didn't wanna just leave you hanging there (: I don't have the energy to go on one of my trademarked epic posts, so I'm just going to make 3 quick points in regards to your 3 points.

1) I actually didn't even watch the video, I just chimed in with my opinion and then debated. If you read all of my comments, I agree with this, and have said this. Funny thing is, the OT is the only place that mentions homosexuality as an abomination. Most mainstream Christians ignore this and make this the exception to their POV that the OT is to be disregarded. If the girl in the video is ignoring the fact that the OT isn't where Christians get their views and morals from, then she's ignorant and should be disregarded.

2) Again, I have actually addressed this. That is a valid point, however has nothing to do with marriage. Regardless of the legality of marriage, people are going to engage in gay sex in many different ways. Outlawing gay marriage does not make a gay person any less likely to give/receive anal or a BJ.

3) Once again, I did address this. And, again, this has nothing to do with marriage. You don't tell a heterosexual couple in which either person is infertile that they cannot get married, so what's the difference with gays? Given the number of children in the foster program, that are homeless, that are in orphanages, or in terrible but undocumented home situations, I don't think that a married couple being able to have children is a big concern. Besides, wouldn't it be nice if a nice married gay couple could have the same rights as a heterosexual married couple, and then in turn have a better situation in which to raise adopted children? I like how you neglected to address the incredible number of mammals who have been observed to naturally exhibit homosexual qualities, including actually engaging in very sexual gay activities.

As I said before, you state true science. But that science has nothing to do with marriage, nor the right to marry.

I'm legitimately done after this post though, the argument has hit a standstill and I see no point in continuing it. Peace out, my friends.

[UNTLifer]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

New International Version (NIV)

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men^{[a] 10} nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

[UNTstormchaser]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

New International Version (NIV)

⁹ Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men^{[a] 10} nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

Well, I stand corrected then. Always open to new knowledge, thanks for the post.

[UNTLifer]

I think the whole arguement in this case is ridiculous. People would probably be shocked if they researched where different corporations donate or invest money. Honestly, they are private companies and can choose to do as they see fit which is what makes our country great.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I think the whole arguement in this case is ridiculous. People would probably be shocked if they researched where different corporations donate or invest money. Honestly, they are private companies and can choose to do as they see fit which is what makes our country great.

Amen on this...and the New Testament quotes. Christians who understand the Bible - and, there are very few - recognize Paul as the source of the gospel beyond the Jews. The letters he wrote were to Gentiles living in cultures far different than the Jewish culture within which Jesus delivered the gospel. Homosexuality wasn't a issue among Jews of the day. It was certainly an issue among Gentiles, and so Paul addressed it several times.

[FirefightnRick]

You can't even get in the parking lot here the Weatherford Chic-Fil-A this morning.

Rick

[Grant.UNT]

stormchaser is wearing me out with these long replies. Go to class young man!

I used to be just like you, but then I graduated college. Then, I hit the real world. I pay taxes and health insurance for a family. I have a mortgage, and 2 car payments. I work M-F, 9-5.

It's a fact, you become more conservative with age. Just ask Winston Churchill. You'll want to solve all the problems in the world today. 10 years from now you'll just want to eliminate the cause of the problem whether it be crime, high gas prices, home market crumbling, etc. Don't force your young views on everyone else. You believe what you want and let us, more experienced in life, think what we want.

For goodness sakes, STOP WITH THE 3 PAGE RESPONSES. THIS IS A FORUM NOT A PERSONAL BLOG

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

You can't even get in the parking lot here the Weatherford Chic-Fil-A this morning.

Rick

Same in Frisco this morning. We'll try it for dinner, though. My guess is Chik-Fil-A will have it's largest one day gross sales numbers.

Amazing that there have been commentators thinking Chik-Fil-A would be hurt by their CEO's comments. Got to keep in mind that the national political spin cycle originates in D.C./East Coast...which is far removed from the reality of the every day Americans.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

stormchaser is wearing me out with these long replies. Go to class young man!

I used to be just like you, but then I graduated college. Then, I hit the real world. I pay taxes and health insurance for a family. I have a mortgage, and 2 car payments. I work M-F, 9-5.

It's a fact, you become more conservative with age. Just ask Winston Churchill. You'll want to solve all the problems in the world today. 10 years from now you'll just want to eliminate the cause of the problem whether it be crime, high gas prices, home market crumbling, etc. Don't force your young views on everyone else. You believe what you want and let us, more experienced in life, think what we want.

For goodness sakes, STOP WITH THE 3 PAGE RESPONSES. THIS IS A FORUM NOT A PERSONAL BLOG

He's also East Coast. They have a different political philosophy regarding homosexuality than we do down in these here parts. They're so smart that they ignore God and science to push their agenda.

[Censored by Laurie]

Got to keep in mind that the national political spin cycle originates in D.C./East Coast...which is far removed from the reality of the every day Americans.

Do you have a "everyday" ranking system for Americans by region? Care to share?

[HoustonEagle]

He's also East Coast. They have a different political philosophy regarding homosexuality than we do down in these here parts. They're so smart that they ignore God and science to push their agenda.

I agree TFLF, their bigotry towards our bigotry just makes me sick.

[Censored by Laurie]

I agree TFLF, their bigotry towards our bigotry just makes me sick.

Genius.

[Quoner]

None of you will get this because you've chosen to specifically avoid an entire population to feel safe. It's cool - I did it too for years. This whole Quoner bit was a giant experiement because of the way a few of you drooling objectified female athletes and spoke creepily of a certain all-time great WR at the same time. This was going to be a couple of cheap jokes and move on - but then the funniest thing happened. The same people who loved golf cart girls and big fat tittays were so damn offended by this absurdist push that they complained everywhere they could. They bitched at Harry. They sent me threats. They started other forums. THINK OF THE CHILDREN and MY KIDS READ THIS BOARD and LOOK AT THAT DUMB FAG all became okay responses from the same people who cherished the perfect shot of a 19 year-old dancer arching her back perfectly at the end of her routine.

Reading this thread, no one wants a conversation - they want to lecture, pander for +1s from the same 5 people who agree and shut down debate. We have to all be dumb kids to disagree -- let alone that there is an entire group now in their late 20s/early 30s that pays taxes, works in decent jobs and donates the same amount as many of you to the program. Sadly, these are just dumb, irresponsible kids that will never have the biblical acumen of noted Frisco scholar or reporductive biologist TFLF. If the government was demanding churches force gay marriages, I would completely agree with any an all opposition, but this is simply a public union. Listening to several divorced conservatives preach the sanctity of marriage is just absurd at this point. Shit happens on all fronts, but I just can't picture the God I believe in and worship every Sunday saying "wait, wait, those people over there, let's hang back and hope they go away if we aren't nice to them."

If you have a problem with homosexuality, totally cool. As tolerant as I like to think I am, aspects of it still weird me out. Boycotting or supporting a company over it is insanely stupid and we will all forget about CFA soon, but everyone will remain distracted another few weeks as the election gets closer. However, I wonder what would Jesus do about all of this? He'd probably, you know, associate with homosexuals, Christians and other sinners alike. He'd befriend them, He'd support them, He'd likely learn about their pain, their joy and their hopes. It's that whole love your neighbor thing again. The man stopped the stoning of a women doing things he very much disagreed with and, without being a dick about it, said go and sin no more. He didn't demand anything of her and didn't put any conditions on that love. I'm not saying go out and hug the nearest gay dude, but since we've had students, posters and even scholarship athletes roll through this school having to treat this as a shameful secret, maybe trying a little tolerance in the rhetoric might be a good thing?

I don't know - at the very least I'm hoping Greenmachine will call me a queer and make fun of any girls I know.

[FirefightnRick]

Over half a million expected to turn out in support of a nation wide Chic-Fil-A appreciation day.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-supporters-to-turn-out-for-appreciation-day/

Rick

[Grant.UNT]

to Quoner:

"This whole Quoner bit was a giant experiement because of the way a few of you drooling objectified female athletes and spoke creepily of a certain all-time great WR at the same time."

I'm confused. Can you fill me in on what you are talking about here, please?

For the record, my favorite relative is my Aunt that is married to a woman. I don't agree with it, but I don't exude that behavior. I don't love her less, or spend less time with her. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Grant.UNT

[FirefightnRick]

to Quoner:

"This whole Quoner bit was a giant experiement because of the way a few of you drooling objectified female athletes and spoke creepily of a certain all-time great WR at the same time."

I'm confused. Can you fill me in on what you are talking about here, please?

For the record, my favorite relitive is my Aunt that is married to a woman. I don't agree with it, but I don't exude that behavior. I don't love her less, or spend less time with her. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

And if your aunt was mayor of a major city, that you had a business in, she would probably RESPECT your personal opinion on traditional

marriage being between a man and woman and ignore your personal views, not attack you and encourage others to do the same, with attempts to destroy your livelihood?

Rick

Edited August 1, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[Grant.UNT]

And if your aunt was mayor of a major city, that you had a business in, she would probably RESPECT your personal opinion on traditional

marriage being between a man and woman and ignore your personal views, not attack you and encourage others to do the same, with attempts to destroy your livelihood?

Rick

I agree completely. I'm all for going to CFA today. I'm certainly not a proponet of boycotting. Look at my posts on this topic. I'm not liberal at all on this topic.

[Censored by Laurie]

None of you will get this because you've chosen to specifically avoid an entire population to feel safe. It's cool - I did it too for years. This whole Quoner bit was a giant experiement because of the way a few of you drooling objectified female athletes and spoke creepily of a certain all-time great WR at the same time. This was going to be a couple of cheap jokes and move on - but then the funniest thing happened. The same people who loved golf cart girls and big fat tittays were so damn offended by this absurdist push that they complained everywhere they could. They bitched at Harry. They sent me threats. They started other forums. THINK OF THE CHILDREN and MY KIDS READ THIS BOARD and LOOK AT THAT DUMB FAG all became okay responses from the same people who cherished the perfect shot of a 19 year-old dancer arching her back perfectly at the end of her routine.

Reading this thread, no one wants a conversation - they want to lecture, pander for +1s from the same 5 people who agree and shut down debate. We have to all be dumb kids to disagree -- let alone that there is an entire group now in their late 20s/early 30s that pays taxes, works in decent jobs and donates the same amount as many of you to the program. Sadly, these are just dumb, irresponsible kids that will never have the biblical acumen of noted Frisco scholar or reporductive biologist TFLF. If the government was demanding churches force gay marriages, I would completely agree with any an all opposition, but this is simply a public union. Listening to several divorced conservatives preach the sanctity of marriage is just absurd at this point. Shit happens on all fronts, but I just can't picture the God I believe in and worship every Sunday saying "wait, wait, those people over there, let's hang back and hope they go away if we aren't nice to them."

If you have a problem with homosexuality, totally cool. As tolerant as I like to think I am, aspects of it still weird me out. Boycotting or supporting a company over it is insanely stupid and we will all forget about CFA soon, but everyone will remain distracted another few weeks as the election gets closer. However, I wonder what would Jesus do about all of this? He'd probably, you know, associate with homosexuals, Christians and other sinners alike. He'd befriend them, He'd support them, He'd likely learn about their pain, their joy and their hopes. It's that whole love your neighbor thing again. The man stopped the stoning of a women doing things he very much disagreed with and, without being a dick about it, said go and sin no more. He didn't demand anything of her and didn't put any conditions on that love. I'm not saying go out and hug the nearest gay dude, but since we've had students, posters and even scholarship athletes roll through this school having to treat this as a shameful secret, maybe trying a little tolerance in the rhetoric might be a good thing?

I don't know - at the very least I'm hoping Greenmachine will call me a queer and make fun of any girls I know.

You know...typically on one's birthday, one should receive presents, not give them out.

Well said.

[yyz28]

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.

Thanks, we aim to please...

I'm going to respond to your three points.

Please do, but they really aren't points meant for response nor to promote one view or the other here...

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.

First, let me just point out that I didn't say it was an argument against gay marriage. I simply stated it as fact. Second, Marriage is not a right. However, many gay marriage advocates use the term RIGHT to further their cause. ...the only point I'm making is that it is a "right" that is being pulled out of thin air. THAT is what I was trying to get across.

I neither agree nor disagree with the rest of your point.

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.

We're on the same page here... again, my point isn't to discuss "fairness" simply to lay the groundwork for the debate. Make sure that the starting point in terms of what is actually being discussed here starts from the same point. Obviously, what is fair, right etc is going to be shaped by individual persons's opinions.

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.

I didn't "twist" any words. First, your base statement "every heterosexual person in the country has the right to marry they love and are attracted do…" is simply incorrect. As established in point number 1, there is NO RIGHT to marry. There simply isn't. Heterosexual men are free to marry a heterosexual woman who consents to marriage, but there is also certainty that love nor attraction exist. Additionally, while you many not consider treatment equal, it is by any objective measure - we can objectify if someone is male or female, we can't objectify love, affection, commitment, etc. As such from a strictly objective and logical point of view, everyone is treated absolutely equally when it comes to marriage. …again, as I said before, we can debate the subjective, and we may all have differing OPINIONS about what is "fair" or "the way is should be", but you can't objectively call the treatment as "unequal".

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.

…with ya' so far…

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.

…agh, nice form, but a little rough on the landing… you may have to settle for the bronze.

When a private citizen exercises his first amendment rights, he, as you say, is doing no harm, no foul. When an elected official goes beyond stating his disagreement with someone's stand, but rather takes the next step of threatening or using political effluence or pressure to block someone who has exercised their first amendment rights from engaging in commerce is damaging. Legally, they may not be able to block Chick-Fil-A. …but they can inform contractors who work on the Chick-Fil-A building that they won't be considered for government contracts if they do that job. They can modify tax agreements with developers to try and make it unattractive to do business with CFA. …they may not be able to block CFA through the legal process, but throwing around political weight and capital can absolutely be damaging. THAT is my objection to the Mayors getting involved. …Had they simply made statements of disagreement, then I have no problem. …but when they state their intent is to do what is within their power to keep CFA out, then they have crossed a line that I'm FAR more concerned with than I am the issue of Gay Marriage.

[UNTstormchaser]

stormchaser is wearing me out with these long replies. Go to class young man!

I used to be just like you, but then I graduated college. Then, I hit the real world. I pay taxes and health insurance for a family. I have a mortgage, and 2 car payments. I work M-F, 9-5.

It's a fact, you become more conservative with age. Just ask Winston Churchill. You'll want to solve all the problems in the world today. 10 years from now you'll just want to eliminate the cause of the problem whether it be crime, high gas prices, home market crumbling, etc. Don't force your young views on everyone else. You believe what you want and let us, more experienced in life, think what we want.

For goodness sakes, STOP WITH THE 3 PAGE RESPONSES. THIS IS A FORUM NOT A PERSONAL BLOG

It's summer man! I don't have to worry about classes until 4 weeks from today. I don't like that you're insinuating naivety is the cause for my views, but I'm not going to start a war over that. I've worked part time while going to school full time, been a rock for my father when it should be the other way around, have a car payment, and have spent all 19 of my years in poverty. I'm young, but not stupid I'm not forcing any views, this is an open discussion and any and all viewpoints are welcome. That's America for ya my friend. Oh and, I'm attempting to cut down on the length. Any of my posts in any other topic have been and will be much shorter; I have a hard time being brief when it comes to civil rights. Perhaps Geography is the wrong major and I should become a writer haha.

Edited August 1, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[FirefightnRick]

When a private citizen exercises his first amendment rights, he, as you say, is doing no harm, no foul. When an elected official goes beyond stating his disagreement with someone's stand, but rather takes the next step of threatening or using political effluence or pressure to block someone who has exercised their first amendment rights from engaging in commerce is damaging. Legally, they may not be able to block Chick-Fil-A. …but they can inform contractors who work on the Chick-Fil-A building that they won't be considered for government contracts if they do that job. They can modify tax agreements with developers to try and make it unattractive to do business with CFA. …they may not be able to block CFA through the legal process, but throwing around political weight and capital can absolutely be damaging. THAT is my objection to the Mayors getting involved. …Had they simply made statements of disagreement, then I have no problem. …but when they state their intent is to do what is within their power to keep CFA out, then they have crossed a line that I'm FAR more concerned with than I am the issue of Gay Marriage.

There ya go!

Rick