Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

[analog_kidd]

If you look back say 50 or 60 years ago, living together was looked upon by the majority of society as wrong. Because of the immoral stigma attached to it, there were very few couples who shacked up. It's a very similar situation as we have right now with gays.

Fast forward to today where living together is common practice, and hardly an eyelash is batted when couples do it. In my mind, this is just another part of the moral decay of society. I don't have proof, but my gut tells me that this has led to having kids out of wedlock, which leads to a lot more broken families since it is even easier for one partner to leave the other. It also led us to accept promiscuity among adults, which led to promiscuity among teens, which is responsible for a lot of teen pregnancy. It also has caused the increase of the spread of certain diseases.

I'm not a prude, and I'm not condemning anyone for living together. Heck, my wife and I did it. But the older I get the more differently I see things. All I'm saying is that these morality concepts, whether they come from the bible or where ever, protect us as a society. When one crumbles and the opposite of it is allowed to flourish, there may be unintended results.

[sigmtnman]

It's all Murphy Browns fault....

Seriously though, there is a reason they call it TV "programming".

[tnhawk]

Hey! I like Starbucks too and I'm not a lib, LOL. Plus, they made an unpopular decision with some of their customers not to adopt a corporate "no gun" policy not long ago. So, despite all the smelly hippies in Birkenstocks and cut-off shorts, I appreciate Starbucks and will support them as well....

Fact is, you can say what you want and if enough people agree (Dan Cathy) you are a hero. If too few agree (Dixie Chicks), you become a trivia question answer and disappear. This is NOT the same as discrimination, because we get to choose whether to punish or reward the speaker with our wallets....THAT'S THE WAY CAPITALISM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!

I occassionally visit Starbucks for two reasons, to show support of their gun policy and to make the libs feel uncomfortable.

[TMF]

I'm not a prude, and I'm not condemning anyone for living together. Heck, my wife and I did it. But the older I get the more differently I see things. All I'm saying is that these morality concepts, whether they come from the bible or where ever, protect us as a society. When one crumbles and the opposite of it is allowed to flourish, there may be unintended results.

The only way to change it would be to use the law to enforce an ideology of what is "moral". Dangerous game that is.

Besides, there were folks screwing out of wedlock all through the "roaring" twenties. My Grandpa has stories of when he was a young GI back in the '40s that make me look like a friggin' Chaplain. I'm not convinced things used to be different in the minds of folks, I think the only difference was the presence of shame, and that shame only existed in the public eye. Now, people don't feel as if they have to give the appearance of living up to certain expectations of society. Some would say that's a bad thing, and some would say it's a good thing.

The thing is, there are still good responsible people out there that don't need to use the judgement of others as their moral compass. Their moral compass gets its bearings from within, whether that be good parents, religion or a conscious effort to do the right thing. The folks that don't have that, well, we allow it to happen by being lax about laws they break and allowing the government to be the nanny of the millions of welfare puppies that are squirted out each year.

[Mark@Sea]

The only way to change it would be to use the law to enforce an ideology of what is "moral". Dangerous game that is.

YES. Keep the Govt. out of it.

At one time, unwed mothers were shunned, looked down upon. With probably the best of intentions, some idiot got the govt into it. The result? Look on any street corner in a large city. That gang you see? NOT products of a traditional family. Welfare? Exploded is too mild a term. There are several generations of unwed mothers living in the same house, using men as sperm donors and child supporters but NOT welcoming them into the 'family', 'cause it would endanger that government mailbox love.

Rome fell to barbarians outside the borders. We're raising our own crop, no outside help needed.

Promiscuity and permissiveness have given us the aids epidemic and new strains of VD that laugh at our pharmaceuticals. Welfare 'entitlements' have added trillions to our national debt. The destruction of the traditional family brings higher crime, lower property values, a wrecked educational system.

None of these improve the survivability of our country, our way of life, and in the long run, our race. Theres' your moral argument right there. You don't need a purgatory after death - we're building our own hell right here.

If you want to build something, you need a carpenter. The only hammer the government has is the size of a wrecking ball.

[R_Bert]

The only way to change it would be to use the law to enforce an ideology of what is "moral".

Actually the only way to change morals is a individual change within the heart.

[TMF]

Actually the only way to change morals is a individual change within the heart.

You can't expect that change in the unwilling.

Edited August 4, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Definitely keep the government out of it.

The attitude seems to be nothing but an attack on one's faith in a higher being and allowing moral

relativism to take such a hold that anything goes, nowadays.

I'm beginning to understand my own limitations on this discussion and see where others misunderstand. Those who

know me know I'm not a religious zealot and don't wish to interfere with their lives whatsoever, but I do have strong

feelings towards letting a class run roughshod in others' beliefs about topics like marriage.

Politicians have been involved with their agendas and have used bad actors to take down society, for their own

power and control over what's left of society. The issue of gay marriage is just that, to me. It's my belief that if a

gay wants to get married to another, he or she needs to deal with the church, because the government doesn't

have the moral authority to speak for God and the government only is in place to settle legal issues.

The problems of marriage: divorce, infidelity, etc, don't make any argument to destroy or allow the inclusion of

other groups. They are only symptoms of weak morality and a further breakdown of societal values.

Take your government sanctioned union of two homosexuals, but don't try to force God into it. God will last a long time

after the government is placed in the ash bin of history. And so far, history has shown that to be true.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You can't expect that change in the unwilling.

No, you can't, but that's because people have a brain and some use it differently from others. Forcing from a

government would only force people to change their behavior and attitudes towards that government. In the end,

one fails after the other has fallen because one can't exist without the other if the morality is wrong.

Libertarians want government to stay out of the individuals' way and do only what this government was originally

intended, not play social engineer.

[R_Bert]

You can't expect that change in the unwilling.

yeah, I know......it is the story of ages, and a sad one at that.

[strickj]

YES. Keep the Govt. out of it.

At one time, unwed mothers were shunned, looked down upon. With probably the best of intentions, some idiot got the govt into it. The result? Look on any street corner in a large city. That gang you see? NOT products of a traditional family. Welfare? Exploded is too mild a term. There are several generations of unwed mothers living in the same house, using men as sperm donors and child supporters but NOT welcoming them into the 'family', 'cause it would endanger that government mailbox love.

Rome fell to barbarians outside the borders. We're raising our own crop, no outside help needed.

Promiscuity and permissiveness have given us the aids epidemic and new strains of VD that laugh at our pharmaceuticals. Welfare 'entitlements' have added trillions to our national debt. The destruction of the traditional family brings higher crime, lower property values, a wrecked educational system.

None of these improve the survivability of our country, our way of life, and in the long run, our race. Theres' your moral argument right there. You don't need a purgatory after death - we're building our own hell right here.

If you want to build something, you need a carpenter. The only hammer the government has is the size of a wrecking ball.

I was raised by a single mother.

I find your reasoning for legislating "morality" here offensive and just flat out wrong.

Gangs are not a result of "broken families", They are a result of irresponsible parent(s).

STDs are not a result of "broken families". They are a result of irresponsible adults not using protection. (STD outbreaks were worst in middle ages...everyone was religious and shameful then, ya know)

Promiscuity is not the result of "broken families". People have been sleeping around since day one. Says so right there in the bible.

Career welfare recipients are not a result of "broken families". They are the result of lazy adults that have learned how to work the system.

[TMF]

Anyone that is familiar with the two oldest and most enduring professions in the history of mankind should know that "morality" is a concept that was shirked from the moment that word existed. The only difference is people just don't pretend as much nowadays.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

strickj,

Where did Mark say he wanted to legislate morality?

There's not much difference between broken families and irresponsible parents.

They didn't have protection for STD's back in the middle ages. Technology wasn't that far along.

Survival was based on moral behavior more than technology. Somehow or another we survived.

Promiscuity is a symptom that can be a cause of broken families. The Bible says it and says not to be

promiscuous.

Career welfare recipients cause broken families and breed lazy people to become lazier. Working the system

is a substitute of some perversion of achievement to lazy people. I call it institutional slavery.

He didn't say one thing that slanders your mother or anyone else. Aren't you being a little over sensitive?

Edited August 4, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[R_Bert]

Anyone that is familiar with the two oldest and most enduring professions in the history of mankind should know that "morality" is a concept that was shirked from the moment that word existed. The only difference is people just don't pretend as much nowadays.

hmmm....

need clarification.

Ornamental Horticulture, landscape design and zoology (Adam), ranching (Abel), and farming (Cain).....nah..

OK, which two one (I'll assume I know one of them) ? - lawyering, moonshining, gambling ? Any one of these can result in the assumed profession....

Edited August 4, 2012 by R_Bert

[Guest Lester Weevils]

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.

Yep I bought a fine pistol made by moonies, but doesn't mean I support the moonie religion. Live and let live on most all things folks say or believe. Live and let live on most behavior as long as I'm not expected to watch or participate.

Now if a company was donating megabucks to causes which could negatively impact me, I'd maybe boycott. For instance I'd have to want a product pretty bad to buy from a company with Al Gore sitting on the board or "substantially involved" in the biz. Or George Soros. Maybe that is narrow minded and bigoted as well, dunno.

Main thing that would make me mad about the chickfila thing, assuming I know enough of the "whole scoop"-- Sounds like a pressure group practicing the patented Jesse Jackson shakedown business plan. That practice should be extinguished with extreme prejudice regardless whether practiced by commies, pentacostals or neocons. But I take things with a grain of salt because even if a news source is telling the truth, doesn't mean they are telling the whole truth, and from my little life in an obscure little burg I can't definitively determine such things. There is always a shadow of doubt.

Anyone that is familiar with the two oldest and most enduring professions in the history of mankind should know that "morality" is a concept that was shirked from the moment that word existed. The only difference is people just don't pretend as much nowadays.

Dunno much about prostitutes but at least they provide a legitimate service. Which is more than you can say about politicians.

[Oh Shoot]

....

OK, which two one (I'll assume I know one of them) ? - lawyering, moonshining, gambling ? Any one of these can result in the assumed profession....

Don't forget the first shaman who discovered if he conned the tribe that he was in tune with the spirit world, didn't have to go out and risk his life killing the mammoth to get fed.

- OS

Edited August 4, 2012 by OhShoot

[R_Bert]

Don't forget the first shaman who discovered if he conned the tribe that he was in tune with the spirit world, didn't have to go out and risk his life killing the mammoth to get fed.

- OS

See above reference to politician

[Oh Shoot]

See above reference to politician

No, shaman = priest/preacher

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Anyone that is familiar with the two oldest and most enduring professions in the history of mankind should know that "morality" is a concept that was shirked from the moment that word existed. The only difference is people just don't pretend as much nowadays.

It may have been shirked from that moment, but is a component needed in a surviving society. The ones holding on to

a system of morals usually tend to survive, based on what set of morals are used.

Now, if you're referring to throwing out all morals, think about how long your society might last, and how productive it is.

I would rather live independently with a good set of morals to guide me than live by another man's rule.

[mikegideon]

No, shaman = priest/preacher

- OS

Yep. The politicians stole the idea.

[daddyo]

I'll bet there were some other morons just like this one who just couldn't stand the fact that there were a whole lotta folks who support and agree with the stand taken by Chick-Fil-A for the traditional family, and got their panties all twisted and made asses outta themselves as well.

If they were as classless and rude as this dippety doo was, I hope some of them got what they deserved too.

Edited August 4, 2012 by DaddyO

[R_Bert]

Yep. The politicians stole the idea.

So where do the insurance and car salesmen fit in ?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll bet there were some other morons just like this one who just couldn't stand the fact that there were a whole lotta folks who support and agree with the stand taken by Chick-Fil-A for the traditional family, and got their panties all twisted and made asses outta themselves as well.

If they were as classless and rude as this dippety doo was, I hope some of them got what they deserved too.

Well, they at least expose themselves for what they are, don't they?

[sigmtnman]

So, what ever happened with the gay-in?

Edited August 4, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Oh Shoot]

So where do the insurance and car salesmen fit in ?

Well, it did take at least 50,000 years to reach the sophistication of all the current charlatans. More professions added all along the way.

- OS