Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

[Dolomite_supafly]

The problem with the country is there seems to be less tolerance for the other "team". We have become a nation of "us" and "them". We see it in our sports teams, cars models, politics and sexual preference. We forget we are all the member of the most important team, Team America (F**K Yeah!). People in America should be able to be a member of whatever "team" without fear of being ridiculed, exhiled or hurt physically.

And because this has morphed into the same thread as the "Gives a whole new meaning to, "Hey, Sailor!"" thread I will default back to my feelings about this.

As far as gay being a lifestyle I will agree to a point. For me there are varying degrees of being gay.

First we have the women who look and act like men. They have a body structure similar to most men and generally assume the role. These people I genuinely believe there is something in the DNA that makes them like this. There is no amount of societal pressure that is going to change them.

Second there are men who dress like women and most want to use surgery to correct what they feel is wrong. They are feminine and have been since they were very, very young. And these too I believe have something in their DNA that is askew.

And both of these generally want to live out a normal life without all the drama.

And then there is the final one. The "boys" that know they are men, proud to be a man yet love the attention of other men. The are the "hey look at me" types and this group I believe has nothing to do with DNA and has more to do with getting attention or for some sort of self satisfaction. They are the ones we see on television with the flamboyant mannerisms and dress. And it is these ones that are the most outspoken as well.

And being gay is something some people struggle with their entire lives. And what do you suppose the number one killed of gays is? Not AIDS or any other disease but suicide. They feel the ridicule and fear is so bad that the only way out is by taking their life. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle that could result in them taking their own lives.

The only problem I really have is public expression of over the top affection, be it between a straight couple or gay couple. That is for the bedroom and not main street. I do not want to see a couple of people kissing and groping each other in public whether it be a couple of guys or a man and a women.

And realistically, what business do we have in someone elses bedroom or business dealings unless we are invited in. If a couple want to become partners, either life or business, they should be allowed to and have the same benefits of anyone else in the same type of partnership.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

WTF? What "groups" are you talking about? Christians? I've known married couples from ALL the major religions. The group is heterosexuals, and it's just plain old discrimination.

I'm not sure where you are coming from, Mike?

I've studied world religious. most teach that homosexual activity is morally wrong. However, it's been my experience that most people who follow any of those religions don't discriminate against homosexuals...the problem comes when homosexuals DEMAND that others not just accept homosexuality but also MUST change their religious views about it. Or said another way, many (or at lest the radical) homosexuals want fairness and equality that they aren't willing to give to people with counter religious views.

At least for me, however, this outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-a had nothing to do with religion or homosexuality or anything similar...it was about the government attempting to harm a private sector business because the CEO held a firm religious belief that the government didn't like...an act that strikes at the very heart of what the first amendment, the right to freedom of expression, including religious expression that the amendment sought to protect.

Edited August 5, 2012 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

I'm not sure where you are coming from, Mike?

I've studied world religious. most teach that homosexual activity is morally wrong. However, it's been my experience that most people who follow any of those religions don't discriminate against homosexuals...the problem comes when homosexuals DEMAND that others not just accept homosexuality but also MUST change their religious views about it. Or said another way, many (or at lest the radical) homosexuals want fairness and equality that they aren't willing to give to people with counter religious views.

At least for me, however, this outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-a had nothing to do with religion or homosexuality or anything similar...it was about the government attempting to harm a private sector business because the CEO held a firm religious belief that the government didn't like...an act that strikes at the very heart of what the first amendment, the right to freedom of expression, including religious expression that the amendment sought to protect.

"take some other groups traditions". When it's everybody, it's not groups. Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Athiests get married in this country. The ONLY group is heterosexuals.

The CFA mess was liberal politics, plain and simple. Like I said, I had a couple of gay friends make Facebook posts supporting CFA. The libs need this fake outrage, 'cause they can't talk about the economy.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Mike,

You could have assumed either one.

That's why I didn't specify. It doesn't

matter.

I think I stopped the religious argument

a while back. I made my point about

religion a while back.

And I agree, it is political chicanery and

nothing more. The libs need something

to diffuse the fact they can't run on

their record.

The gays are being useful idiots for

them.

But I won't change my mind about the

word "marriage". They can set up house

some other way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

Well, a lot of gays side with liberals because they view Republicans as anti-gay. The liberals milk it for all it's worth.

I understand why things are that way, and blame the other side mostly for the distortion. Still, it not going to go away, and I have a projected winner.

[Guest seawolf138]

I really don't understand this argument, at all. I am not married, and I am not a member of the LGBT, but I fail to see how allowing the word marriage to be used affects your marriage in any way. Does it change the way you feel about your spouse, does it change the way he/she feels about you? How does it "lessen" your relationship (not saying anyone here said that, I've just heard that argument numerous times)? I also don't like the "it's traditional" argument, changing traditions build this country. "What, we can't have our own religion, screw it, I'm getting on a boat." and they landed here. "I don't want to pay taxes to England anymore," and we started a war. Slavery, blacks not being able to vote, women not being able to vote (and I'm sure I'm missing plenty more, History was never my strongest subject)...all traditions that have been systematically removed because the world has moved on. I'm not saying that this tradition should definitely go the way of slavery, but I will say that I have yet to see a good argument for keeping it. What the gays and lesbians do with their own lives isn't hurting me, or anyone else, they just want to be together, be happy, and have all the same benefits that comes with as everyone else. Sure, they can cheat the system, I know plenty of Lesbians that married gay guys, but is that really what we want? In my mind, that cheapens the word marriage far more than 2 same-sex people who truly love each other getting married.

[mikegideon]

I really don't understand this argument, at all. I am not married, and I am not a member of the LGBT, but I fail to see how allowing the word marriage to be used affects your marriage in any way. Does it change the way you feel about your spouse, does it change the way he/she feels about you? How does it "lessen" your relationship (not saying anyone here said that, I've just heard that argument numerous times)? I also don't like the "it's traditional" argument, changing traditions build this country. "What, we can't have our own religion, screw it, I'm getting on a boat." and they landed here. "I don't want to pay taxes to England anymore," and we started a war. Slavery, blacks not being able to vote, women not being able to vote (and I'm sure I'm missing plenty more, History was never my strongest subject)...all traditions that have been systematically removed because the world has moved on. I'm not saying that this tradition should definitely go the way of slavery, but I will say that I have yet to see a good argument for keeping it. What the gays and lesbians do with their own lives isn't hurting me, or anyone else, they just want to be together, be happy, and have all the same benefits that comes with as everyone else. Sure, they can cheat the system, I know plenty of Lesbians that married gay guys, but is that really what we want? In my mind, that cheapens the word marriage far more than 2 same-sex people who truly love each other getting married.

It's none of those things. It's just something republicans do to lose votes . Democrats do the same thing, yucking up stuff that the government shouldn't be envolved in to begin with.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I really don't understand this argument, at all. I am not married, and I am not a member of the LGBT, but I fail to see how allowing the word marriage to be used affects your marriage in any way. Does it change the way you feel about your spouse, does it change the way he/she feels about you? How does it "lessen" your relationship (not saying anyone here said that, I've just heard that argument numerous times)? I also don't like the "it's traditional" argument, changing traditions build this country. "What, we can't have our own religion, screw it, I'm getting on a boat." and they landed here. "I don't want to pay taxes to England anymore," and we started a war. Slavery, blacks not being able to vote, women not being able to vote (and I'm sure I'm missing plenty more, History was never my strongest subject)...all traditions that have been systematically removed because the world has moved on. I'm not saying that this tradition should definitely go the way of slavery, but I will say that I have yet to see a good argument for keeping it. What the gays and lesbians do with their own lives isn't hurting me, or anyone else, they just want to be together, be happy, and have all the same benefits that comes with as everyone else. Sure, they can cheat the system, I know plenty of Lesbians that married gay guys, but is that really what we want? In my mind, that cheapens the word marriage far more than 2 same-sex people who truly love each other getting married.

No one said you have to like it.

If you don't like someone else's opinion,

that's certainly your business. If you

wish to force this issue, what makes

you any different than me wishing to

keep it the same, especially since you

have no stake in the argument. I don't

know how you will feel if you ever get

married or even go to church, or have

religious beliefs, but the religious

argument is separate from any legal

one.

If all you are using is a non theological

argument, you are missing the point.

But I'm convinced I must be by now,

also.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobertNashville]

Odd that many people want to define "marriage" in some way that suits them when the concept of "marriage" is a religious one.

[mikegideon]

Odd that many people want to define "marriage" in some way that suits them when the concept of "marriage" is a religious one.

With lots of legal stuff attached. It's all about a word. The use of that word, in legal terms, sure does simplify things. tell me how athiests get married for religious reasons.

[Oh Shoot]

Rome ended well, too, didn't it? ..

Actually, it's still there.

- OS

[Guest seawolf138]

No one said you have to like it.

If you don't like someone else's opinion,

that's certainly your business. If you

wish to force this issue, what makes

you any different than me wishing to

keep it the same, especially since you

have no stake in the argument. I don't

know how you will feel if you ever get

married or even go to church, or have

religious beliefs, but the religious

argument is separate from any legal

one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not trying to force the issue with anyone, all I am trying to is gain understanding as to why the term marriage is being argued over so much. As I have stated, I'm am on the outside here, and I just don't understand why gays and lesbians getting married poses any threat to any marriage that already exists. I don't get how it cheapens the term, I don't understand why so many argue against it. In my mind, broken marriages (and some of them need to be, I can't argue that) is of greater detriment to the term than gay or lesbian marriage. I brought up the "it's traditional" argument, because that seems to be the only one I ever get when this discussion comes around, and it really doesn't answer anything.

As far as my religious beliefs, I find it slightly amusing that they are brought into question just because I posed an argument for gay marriage as opposed to against it. I may not be at church every week, or even regularly in the last couple years, but that has not changed my beliefs, I still believe the same things I believed when I attended church every week.

Edited August 5, 2012 by seawolf138

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't question your religious

beliefs, or if you misunderstood, I

didn't mean that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually, it's still there.

- OS

Right, but a different animal

altogether.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

Right, but a different animal

altogether.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did they get rid of butt sex? . I figured that part was still around

[RobertNashville]

With lots of legal stuff attached. It's all about a word. The use of that word, in legal terms, sure does simplify things. tell me how athiests get married for religious reasons.

And there shouldn't be legal stuff attached...that's my point...leave the "legal stuff" to the realm of written contracts about property, survivorship, etc. - all that can be done without every calling it "marriage". Unfortunately, the government injected itself into the process so they could tax it (licensing) and use the tax code to encourage it, etc.

Government has co-opted the word to the point that people think marriage in the eyes of government means the same thing as marriage in the eyes of a religion. It is not unusual in other countries for it to be impossible for people to marry other than through their church (which would pretty much leave out atheists).

Government defining marriage makes as much sense as government defining what communion is/how it should be conducted.

[mikegideon]

And there shouldn't be legal stuff attached...that's my point...leave the "legal stuff" to the realm of written contracts about property, survivorship, etc. - all that can be done without every calling it "marriage". Unfortunately, the government injected itself into the process so they could tax it (licensing) and use the tax code to encourage it, etc.

Government has co-opted the word to the point that people think marriage in the eyes of government means the same thing as marriage in the eyes of a religion. It is not unusual in other countries for it to be impossible for people to marry other than through their church (which would pretty much leave out atheists).

Government defining marriage makes as much sense as government defining what communion is/how it should be conducted.

That's the big snag. If the legal parts were called something else, 99% of the bitchin' would just go away, from both sides.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Did they get rid of butt sex? . I figured that part was still around

I'm sure it's still around

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's the big snag. If the legal parts were called something else, 99% of the bitchin' would just go away, from both sides.

That's the big kicker!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slpeod]

Government defining marriage makes as much sense as government defining what communion is/how it should be conducted.

Current Federal government throws in there .02 in defining much more than they should and not much can be made sense of in there opines.

[Chucktshoes]

That's the big snag. If the legal parts were called something else, 99% of the bitchin' would just go away, from both sides.

Exactly. If the .gov wants to get in the middle of things let the legal definition be called a "civil domestic partnership" and let any 2 or more adults engage in them for whatever reason regardless of romantic relationship. It would take care of all the legal bits currently attached to marriage, like inheritance or end if life decisions, next of kin status, while leaving the churches to use the word "marriage". Argument over at that point. It would also avoid the next battle that is coming after the gay thing gets sorted, legal recognition of polyamorous relationships.

[mikegideon]

Exactly. If the .gov wants to get in the middle of things let the legal definition be called a "civil domestic partnership" and let any 2 or more adults engage in them for whatever reason regardless of romantic relationship. It would take care of all the legal bits currently attached to marriage, like inheritance or end if life decisions, next of kin status, while leaving the churches to use the word "marriage". Argument over at that point. It would also avoid the next battle that is coming after the gay thing gets sorted, legal recognition of polyamorous relationships.

Oh HELL no

[Chucktshoes]

Oh HELL no

Do you have a general issue with polyamory, or just tremble at the thought of two wives bitching at you?

[mikegideon]

Do you have a general issue with polyamory, or just tremble at the thought of two wives bitching at you?

TGO threads. Gonna be some doozies

[Chucktshoes]

Always.

Though it may seem like a bit of drift, it really is very closely related to the subject at hand. We are talking about what the fundamental definition of a marriage is and the legal recognition thereof. I personally don't like having the .gov sticking its nose in my relationship. Marriage should provide no legal benefits. If the .gov is going to give legal recognition and benefit to a relationship then it must do so in a nondiscriminatory manner that is blind to the type and number of the parties involved. I see this having application for other folks than just the romantically entangled. What about a couple of elderly, widowed siblings who maintain a common house? Wouldn't a civil partnership that has the legal rights of marriage be of benefit to them if one gets sick or dies? It would be easier and less expensive than using a lawyer to draw up the multiple POAs and wills (that could be contested by children) that it would take to achieve the same effect.