Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

[robin48]

You are kidding or just late to the party?

That's what I get for skipping ahead.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[RobertNashville]

Guess CFA wasn't hiring when he was looking.

More likely they have higher standards that he couldn't meet...you know...like a brain with more than two neurons.

[robin48]

How abouot we just leave religion out of it, let the homosexuals have legal unions with all the benefits of traditional "married" people, and just be done with it?

The biggest issue seem to be with the definition of "married" and the term itself. I got married in a church but you know what? I could not have done so without a government issued permit. Ergo, marriage is a government sanctioned and regulated matter in this society. The religious part is just a formality.

Let the gays have "civil unions", quit worrying about what is going on in other people's lives, bedrooms and minds. There really are more important issues in this country right now than inane social distractions.

I understand what you're saying and while I don't give it a lot of thought I can't just set aside my beliefs either. Personally I don't care how someone lives their life as long as they aren't bothering me or mine. I do however have my beliefs about the morality of the lifestyle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[strickj]

Regretfully and respectfully disagree.

"I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape."

Robert Heinlein, The Pragmatics of Patriotism, 1973 speech to Annapolis graduates

Heinlein referred to survival of the species, not the individual. For those who have not read the whole speech, I strongly recommend you take five minutes to google it. I have never found a better definition of morality.

Given that absent advanced medical technology, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, same-sex marriage is immoral.

Guess that means sterile people and the old are going straight to hell... since they can't have kids and all.

Makes as much since as legislating religious opinion, suppose.

[mikegideon]

That's what I get for skipping ahead.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

Yep. You missed the part where he got killed... twice

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess you're right, strickj, if you're referring to two

sterile males or two old males.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

How abouot we just leave religion out of it, let the homosexuals have legal unions with all the benefits of traditional "married" people, and just be done with it?

The biggest issue seem to be with the definition of "married" and the term itself. I got married in a church but you know what? I could not have done so without a government issued permit. Ergo, marriage is a government sanctioned and regulated matter in this society. The religious part is just a formality.

Let the gays have "civil unions", quit worrying about what is going on in other people's lives, bedrooms and minds. There really are more important issues in this country right now than inane social distractions.

This hits it dead on..I knew there was a reason I liked ya..lol

[strickj]

I guess you're right, strickj, if you're referring to two

sterile males or two old males.

Nope. He said anyone who is unable to reproduce is immoral.

That leaves only fertile folks with kids. Must be a lot of folks downstairs, eh?

[mikegideon]

Nope. He said anyone who is unable to reproduce is immoral.

That leaves only fertile folks with kids. Must be a lot of folks downstairs, eh?

Yeah. We get all the homos. We also get all the hookers and whiskey.

[Chucktshoes]

Did someone say hookers and whisky? I'll bring the blow, it's time to party!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's not the case at all, but you can choose to

do as you wish, in your mind. There is an overwhelming

number who choose to value the term marriage

more than you. No ergos involved.

34 states have either passed laws or held referendums

that uphold the tradition of marriage without gays

inclusion.

Perhaps, before you decide to cheapen others views,

you might considering that. At this time, a majority

of Americans of various races and ethnicities

disagree with you.

[TMF]

A lot of people used to agree that the world was flat and Zeus controlled lightning.

[strickj]

Zat aimed at me, 6.8? I'm not cheapening your views or marriage. I just do not want religious opinion made law.

Ain't right. It's unconstitutional.It's discriminatory.

Far as the majority wins goes, you do realize that the majority do not want citizens carrying guns, right?

You do realize that the majority once thought slavery was ok, right?

You do realize that the majority one kept women from voting, right?

Mike; Would that be lesbian hookers? I'm there! I like warm weather anyway. Hookers and whiskey just adds to it.

Edited August 4, 2012 by strickj

[TripleDigitRide]

Zat aimed at me, 6.8? I'm not cheapening your views or marriage. I just do not want religious opinion made law.

Ain't right. It's unconstitutional.It's discriminatory.

Far as the majority wins goes, you do realize that the majority do not want citizens carrying guns, right?

You do realize that the majority once thought slavery was ok, right?

You do realize that the majority one kept women from voting, right?

Mike; Would that be lesbian hookers? I'm there! I like warm weather anyway. Hookers and whiskey just adds to it.

The fact the "the majority" voted for Obama should be enough evidence that the majority isn't what it's all cracked up to be.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Now that you seem to be the sole of the discussion,

even though I didn't mention your name, consider your

saying don't legislate it, while telling me to let it be.

A bit hypocritical, strickj.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I just love it. The lack of debate is replaced with those pesky little "-"'s. Y'all have at it.

I stand by what I said.

By the way, the religious part is a formality? Get real, people.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nope. He said anyone who is unable to reproduce is immoral.

That leaves only fertile folks with kids. Must be a lot of folks downstairs, eh?

" Given that absent advanced medical technology, a same-sex couple cannot reproduce, same-sex marriage is immoral."

I quoted what he said so you can clarify your remarks. I don't see the word "anyone". He happened to be specific.

"I now define "moral behavior" as "behavior that tends toward survival." I won't argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word "moral" to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define "behavior that tends toward extinction" as being "moral" without stretching the word "moral" all out of shape."

I guess I missed what you are referring to. Those are Heinlein's words, not mine. I don't see an infertile aged couple

mentioned.

Hell, even Darwin would say it doesn't work. If you follow this pathway of logic, and it is a non religious way of argument

for all you who think religion should not be discussed, there is a direct contradiction.

This isn't even the issue to me. I stated my problem with letting gays use the word "marriage". It infers assimilation

into a relationship of love(okay), social structure(again okay), family(is it?) and procreation(can't happen). If they adopt,

that's another issue. And all in the eyes of God(for now, that's not accepted). That is accepted as marriage. The

alternative is an attempt to modify a relationship that will destroy the concept derived from religious doctrine, and not law.

Law concerning marriage came afterwards to define a legal relationship between two people, currently a man and a woman.

Law may change, and I don't have a problem with that, but law doesn't have any business defining a religious ceremony.

I would have thought you would go with separation of church and state, following previous discussions on this topic, but

I guess there is an "expediency of the moment" for this issue.

I just see a lot of contradictions with your argument. Maybe I'm wrong.

[TMF]

Law concerning marriage came afterwards to define a legal relationship between two people, currently a man and a woman.

Law may change, and I don't have a problem with that, but law doesn't have any business defining a religious ceremony.

I think that anyone who disagrees with that statement would be suggesting infringement on your civil liberties to practice a religion. I don't think there are many folks on the opposite side of the debate that would want to force religious institutions to do anything. Remember that story about the JP who refused to issue a license to an interracial couple? He would have been fine doing so if he wasn't holding a post as a JP. I'm sure there are plenty of religious institutions out there that won't perform interracial marriages and no one cares. If gay marriage was legal I don't see how anyone could force a Church to perform a gay marriage ceremony. There isn't a precedent that I'm aware of that shows the government stepping in and forcing any religious institution to perform any ceremony in the name of civil rights.

As far as "defining" marriage and gays cheapening the word "marriage" I don't see how that has any bearing on law or would even cheapen a word that is free for anyone to use. The word "marriage" isn't trademarked and as far as I'm concerned it was cheapened long before the gays wanted it. Here are some recent examples:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1673495/kim-kardashian-kris-humphries-money.jhtml -From the morally bankrupt...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/holmes-cruise-divorce-suri-not-money-main-issue.html -...to the couch jumping cultists...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48177946/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/t/dogs-get-married-record-breaking-k-wedding/ .... to the dogs...

http://www.gayleslove.com/ .... to an already existing culture of gay/lesbos being wedded for convenience to circumvent the law....

http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divorce-statistics-and-divorce-rate-in-the-usa.html .... to the % of failed marriages amongst us non-sinners ...

http://www.bridesagency.com/russian-mail-order-brides-prices ... and the industry of purchasing women from overseas and marrying them for sex and housecleaning.

Could gays really have an impact on an institution that has historically been misused and abused? I'm married and none of the above stuff impacts my marriage in a negative way so I don't see how adding peter-puffers to the party will do any damage.

[Mark@Sea]

Priests, churches and a wedding photographer have been sued for refusal to perform or photograph a homosexual wedding. Google is your friend.

I personally feel government has no place in marriage. I personally feel this is actually about lawfare and collection of benefits, and has little or nothing to do with homosexual relationships. Like so many other leftist causes, in the end it is all about the money. True love, alright - love of the dollar.

Strickj, interesting viewpoint. Read the lecture, think about it, and get back to me. Wish they still taught logic, and the classical logical fallacies.

[bubbiesdad]

I'm guessing the Ban Hammer is capable of striking in the same place twice.

He has many products for the forum.

[TMF]

Priests, churches and a wedding photographer have been sued for refusal to perform or photograph a homosexual wedding. Google is your friend.

Believe it or not I'm not a moron. I'm familiar with a few of these cases. The photographer being sued is no different than Burger King being sued for refusing service on grounds of sexual orientation. The photog doesn't have a leg to stand on. As for the other cases out there, they haven't made it to the Supreme Court, so I don't believe what goes on in New Jersey has any bearing on states that haven't capitulated all their freedoms yet. But even the case in New Jersey didn't involve a church, but involved property that the church owned and rented out for events.

I do know this, if someone wants to make a Supreme Court issue out of it then it would open things up for all faiths and I don't think it would stand for long. For example, if you're not a Muslim you ain't getting into a Mosque during services. If you ain't a Mormon you ain't getting in to temple. A buddy of mine wasn't even allowed into his own sister's wedding because he was no longer Mormon. So, as far as I see there is no precedent where the government has stepped in and demanded that a church perform a gay ceremony. Anyone can sue anyone over anything. Suing someone proves squat.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A marriage certificate is nothing more than a contract between two individuals for the purpose of establishing a legal relationship. In the same way two businesses can "marry" each other, people should also be able to "marry" who they want. And although it is not required if you love someone it is required for it to hold up in legal matters. And that is all these people want, the same rights under the law as any married couple.

Aside from the business aspect of it people have a problem because it is a sin. If it is about the "sin" issue of it then think about this.

There are tons of families out there where the mother and father are not married and living in "sin" as a family. They share the same bed even though they are not married. People generally do not have issue with a man and a women living in "sin". And the reason why most people who do not marry and choose to have a family is for financial reasons, the same reason why same sex couple want to be legally married. As a matter of fact I have more of an issue with unwed parents than I would with gay couples that are married. At least wed gay couples would not be using all the social programs mothers, who refuse to marry, use.

Why is one "sin" better or worse than another? If we are going to chastize gay couples for wanting to be share the same bed then we need to approach anyone else living in "sin" with the same vigor including those who are not married and living like they are. Afterall two unwed parents sharing the same bed is also a sin is it not?

And I am not talking about those parents who cannot get along. I do not expect anyone to remain in a relationship against their will. I am talking about those parents who have lived together for a very, very long time yet refuse to get married for financial reasons only. I have known a few over the years and they always say that if they get married they lose benefits as well as loose that HUGE tax return every year.

In the end I think anyone should be able to enter into a contract, be it marriage or business, with anyone else and have it recognized in a court of law.

Dolomite

[TGO David]

He has many products for the forum.

Mmmm... industrial size jug of red thread locker. Nice!

[TMF]

Why is one "sin" better or worse than another? If we are going to chastize gay couples for wanting to be share the same bed then we need to approach anyone else living in "sin" with the same vigor including those who are not married and living like they are. Afterall two unwed parents sharing the same bed is also a sin is it not?

That is a good example that I can relate to in regard to the controversy over the religious beliefs of the owner. Folks were outraged and the media openly labeled him a "bigot" for believing that gays shouldn't be married. I'm certain that this man believes that it is just as much of a sin for an unwed couple to live together and share a bed. My wife and I lived together for two years before we got married. If this guy came out and said that I was a sinner or something of the like I don't see myself being offended or boycotting his company. I don't think I would care and would be in disbelief if there was national outrage over it. If I got pissed at every CEO that had an opinion contrary to mine I'd have to boycott 90% of the companies out there.

[R_Bert]

That is a good example that I can relate to in regard to the controversy over the religious beliefs of the owner. Folks were outraged and the media openly labeled him a "bigot" for believing that gays shouldn't be married. I'm certain that this man believes that it is just as much of a sin for an unwed couple to live together and share a bed. My wife and I lived together for two years before we got married. If this guy came out and said that I was a sinner or something of the like I don't see myself being offended or boycotting his company. I don't think I would care and would be in disbelief if there was national outrage over it. If I got pissed at every CEO that had an opinion contrary to mine I'd have to boycott 90% of the companies out there.

and the guy probably would not tell you his opinion on unwed couples, unless specifically asked to do so, just as he did with the other questions. And then, it would be an overall response, not directed at a specific pair of persons.

Edited August 4, 2012 by R_Bert