Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

do you agree.

<sarcasm>Yes. Because obviously the president of a fast-food chain should get to decide who people are allowed to marry.</sarcasm>

What did he even say?(Please bring up proof, like an article where he says it)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2175587/Chick-fil-A-President-fast-food-chain-Dan-Cathy-OUTS-company-ANTI-GAY--proud-it.html

 

Thanks for the link.

Yeah, I agree with him on that homosexual "marriage" isn't a marriage at all. The Bible has told people specifically what a marriage is: Between a man and a woman, two people who are devoted to only each other in the marriage relationship. To say that homosexual marriage is the same thing is, quite frankly, wrong and a perversion of what God intended for marriage to be.

Like him, I realize that me saying this isn't popular but it is the truth.

 

And how do you feel about divorce and remarriage? Should that be illegal too? The Bible calls it adultery, and it's vastly more common than gay marriage... so why aren't more Christians campaigning against it?

Good point. Though I think adultery is "cheating" not divorce and remarriage. It's been awhile since I read any Christian literature though, so I could be wrong. In fact, if I remember correctly, adultery is one of the few reasons stated in the bible where divorce is then acceptable. 

(I'm not disagreeing with your point, just pointing out the difference between adultery and divorce, ect.)

Right... but the idea is that if you divorce for any reason but adultery, then any subsequent relationship (including marriage) is adultery. You're 'cheating' on your first marriage.

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.(NIV)

Now, personally I'm not a Christian, so I don't see why Christian beliefs about what constitutes marriage should affect me. But since Christians seem to think they should, I'm at least going to point out that plank in their own eye.

 

Hmmm I get it now. 

Not being a Christian myself either, obviously I only know so much of the Bible just bits and pieces.

I don't feel like looking up the specific verse, but if you're interested I came across a part of the bible which actually says that lust is a form of adultery as well while I was researching for a debate. If you could find that and favorite the site it comes from, it could be good ammo against the anti-adultery argument.

Oh, sure... if you're a Christian, you're basically sinning left and right. That's part of why you're not supposed to be harassing other sinners -- "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," "before you go poking at the speck in your neighbor's eye, deal with the plank in your own," etc. That there are so many Christians who think other people's homosexuality is their business... well, it's human nature, I suppose. Nosy meddlesome tribal monkeys that we are.

Just to be clear, I have nothing against Christians who don't hassle me... heck, one of my best friends is a Christian! ;)

That may be what Christianity intended, but it is wrong. Religion should have no say in government.

100% agree with you

Also, according to that logic, we should make working on Sunday a crime punishable by death.

Exodus 35:2

"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."

"The Bible has told people specifically what a marriage is"

This statement makes me want to punch people. Very honestly.

Marriage existed years before Christianity. Centuries before. So you have no idea what you're talking about. Your religion does not get to say at all what a marriage is, because your religion did not create marriage.

"Like him, I realize that me saying this isn't popular but it is the truth."

Nope. Its not truth.

It's not so much that I agree as I think everyone has a right to their own beliefs. He didn't want to endorse it because it is against his beliefs and now everyone is "boycotting". It has all been blown out of proportion and I find the whole thing ridiculous on both sides. 

He has a right to his beliefs and should not be boycotted for sticking to them.

And LGBT have a right to their beliefs and such.

But, it makes no sense to start a big fuss for someone sticking up for their beliefs because it doesn't fit inside your beliefs. That's just my view on it. 

Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Just a big fuss for the sake of it. LGBT says he is intolerant, but they are being intolerant towards him. I say LGBT leave him alone and vice versa. Agree to disagree. No harm done. 

Basically, both sides are being intolerant.

To add, I don't see why anyone really cares what a fast food chain thinks about an political issue.

Interesting that Tolerance actually means to disagree with another, (but to let it slide) - and it has nothing to do with agreeing with each other (look it up un the dictionary).

Only fools claim intolerance just because someone disagrees with them.

Very true. But, that's the word that keeps being tossed around in this whole thing. I just don't understand why anyone cares what this man believes in? It's his right to practice his beliefs just as much as it is for LGBT to practice their own.

Sooo... if the president of a company opposes my right to marry, and donates some of the money that company earns to organizations that are actively campaigning against my right to marry... I should still buy his chicken sandwiches?

Yeah, I'm not that tolerant. 

I'll cheerfully agree to disagree about various religious definitions of marriage. I'm an atheist, what do I care? But there's still an active political battle going on over the legal right to marriage. And we can't 'agree to disagree' on that. Either same-sex marriage is legal, in any given state, or it isn't. And that actually affects people's lives.

I completely agree with you. You should not buy his products if you feel that strongly about what he believes/does not believe. I certainly haven't bought from chick fi la since I heard this whole thing.

But, I can't say I hold it against him for sticking up for what he felt is right. I think he is wrong. So I don't buy food from there. 

I guess, I just don't get why boycotting them is supposed to make him stop endorsing these groups? I mean, by trying to bully him LGBT is just pushing him further away. It would be much more effective for them to just say "Very well, we think you are wrong(ect. ect.) now we will not be buying our food for you."

Boom, it's done. 

Instead since they did the "boycott" Chick fi la actually had the biggest sales increase ever. I was an hour late to work wed. morning because traffic was stopped out to the intersection from everyone lining up to their restaurant.

Err, a boycott is "now we will not be buying our food from you." That's what it means.

And yeah, this doesn't seem to be hurting their sales any. Sucks to be a minority.

I know. But, it's a big public declaration of doing so. If they did it quietly, then it would have probably been much more effective I think. 

Yes, it certainly does suck to be in the minority. :( 

Think of it as not buying his chicken but the chicken that the farmers take care of. Think of the meal that isn't his but the company's. It is not like the company's stance is gay marriage is wrong.

 

Also the people who run the company are MORMON. Do you think he would keep his job if he believed otherwise?

He is doing more than defending his opinions. It's not like he was sitting in some group on his own time mentioning that he doesn't agree with gay marriage, and then people caught wind of it and freaked out. He has been using the company to -actively- be against gays and gay marriage.

From an article on HuffPost(Canada):

"Chick-fil-A has long come under fire from activists for giving millions to groups that advocate against gay rights and even support ex-gay therapy"

If you don't think this is harm then you're naive at best. And I'm saying naive to be nice.

And how can you really say that its being intolerant of LGBT supporters to boycott Chik-Fil-A? That's honestly the MOST absurd thing I've ever read.

Let's say for a moment that there's a company owner that hates women. And has given millions of dollars to groups that thinks we shouldn't exist and shames us, bad mouths us, and more than that... forces a bunch of us to sit down and repress anything that makes us at all feminine until we either think we actually are men, or until we feel so helpless with our situation that we act like men just so we don't have to go through this anymore.

You're saying that it would be INTOLERANT of me, to decide that I am not going to give my money to someone who is then going to use that money to attack and oppress -ME- (or if I weren't a woman, then certainly members of my friends and family). Fuck that. No its fucking not.

Do you think that the black people who boycotted buses after the whole Rosa Parks incident were being intolerant? Hopefully not.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but are you serious? Of course not being tolerant of something is being intolerant. If you are not going to tolerate injustice then you are intolerant of injustice. what the heck is wrong with correctly applying the definition of the word?

Actually, intolerant is not the same as not tolerating something. They don't have the same definitions. They are both based off of the same derivative words, but are not antonyms.

So what is wrong, is -incorrectly- applying the definition of the words.


Tolerate: a) to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b) to put up with


Intolerant: a) unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b) unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights

Intolerance is not simply not tolerating something but an unwillingness to grant freedoms. What freedom or right do you think that the LGBT is restricting from Chik-Fil-A? The right to their own money??

Come on....

It's the 'equal freedom' part that makes the difference.

For instance:

Say I have a party at my house, and I have a specific bathroom I don't want anyone to use, because its mine, and its special and whatever.

So, if you try to use that washroom then I'm not going to tolerate you doing that. But I'm not being intolerant.


Now, if I let everyone use it -except-, say, a black guy. That would be intolerant. Because of the lack of equality.

No, my use of the words are supported by their definitions (cut & pasted below)

tol·er·ance

   [tol-er-uhns] Show IPA

noun

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

 

in·tol·er·ance

   [in-tol-er-uhns] Show IPA

noun

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.

3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.

4. an intolerant  act.

 

Not that it really matters if we are really that tolerant ;)

 

I agree with the chickfela president.

All the controversy it's stirring is getting them a lot of attention. I think this a publicity stunt to get more customer. Think about it. I More people disapprove  of gay marriage than those who approve. So the people who do approve are eating at chick-fela, the people who don't are standing outside of it and boycotting it. It's not going to stop the people who agree from it eating their just drawing attention for those who don't know yet. So I THINK more people agree  with him and will eat their.

Good point. You don't want to know what traffic horrors I faced all day Wednesday from all the people going to 'support' chick fi la. If it was a publicity stunt, it was a good one.(sadly)

It's been no secret that he has Christian values. I mean, how many resturaunts do you see that actually close on Sundays for the sabbath? I doubt this is just a ploy, the actual statement itself isn't what's bringing in customers, it's support for them AFTER the negative backlash and boycotts.

I don't agree with his position, nor do I respect it.

I won't pay for Chick-Fil-A just because all it means is that I'm indirectly funding something I oppose.

Buying a sandwich doesn't mean I hate gays, it means I love chicken :P I don't agree with him, but there's no way I'm gonna boycott the place (intentionally anyway, the lines have been so long lately I just generally avoid the place)

Yes but he's giving the money I give him and giving it to organizations I oppose. I don't want my money going to those organizations but I respect his right to spend the money as he pleases so I don't give him my money.

if you want to keep your money from being used for corruption...you will never be able to spend any. there are racists, bigots, thieves, sexist, communist assholes everywhere. your money is going to something you dont agree with one way or another.

nate

But that doesn't mean I can't try to stop that. Since I know where Chick-Fil-A is sending my money, I won't give them anymore of it. I'm not telling them to change their views, I'm just not paying them.

and that of course is your right. but if you decide to buy your chicken from the walmart and cook it yourself, your money is going to a company that discriminates against women. is that any better? what if you started buying KFC and found out they discriminate against blacks? that any better? my point is, no its no better. granted, those are hypothetical scenarios, but the point still remains. picking and choosing will not change anything. it will just impeed your life. Chic Fil A doesnt care if they get your $5 or not.

nate

Yes but I don't know if they do support things I oppose. If I found out they did I would stop paying them too. It's a matter of principle and I'm willing to make sacrifices. If they don't want my five dollars then I won't give it to them.

The problem with this stance is that it probably hurts more gays than it actually helps. Take the money for a sandwich and take out the anti-gay president's %. Of that profit, he pays taxes then spends it on whatever he wants. Even if it is all on an anti-gay campaign, the actual % of the cost of the sandwich that goes to anti-gay is far less than the % that goes to pay for overhead and all the employees. So some gay person gets laid off because sandwich sales are down? Not helping the gay person by refusing to buy sandwiches... Even the anti-gay stuff needs to be voted on. It's not like the president gets to say what the results will be - that is (and should be) for the voice of the people to decide.

Once I learn that Chick-fil-a's been directly firing gay people or otherwise descriminating I'll start boycotting, but for now I'm gonna keep enjoying their sandwiches. What money he does keep (it's not exactly a small amount) is his to do with. 

People are ridiculous. I am religious and I don't believe in gay marriage. That doesn't mean I need to tell every gay/lesbian person I meet that they are on a path to hell. I am tolerant of others even gays and lesbians because I believe in the treat your neighbor as you wish to be treated. What they do in their private life is their business just don't make me say it is right or a good thing.

I even have a lesbian friend.

 

That being said I have enjoyed a meal at chick fela recently, and the line was out the door at 9:00pm.

I know what you mean man. I don't believe in the moon, as I was told at a young age it was fake, but I don't go around drop-kicking everyone who does. I even have a friend who believes in the moon, but I still like him, because I'm a very tolerant person

Sometimes you can be an ass.

Would a cow be more suitable? :p

ha, but I'll still eat KFC

While I believe your views are a little absurd, I really respect that you're not hateful because of it. If more people shared your view ("What they do in their private life is their business just don't make me say it is right or a good thing.") the world would be a better place.

Agreed. Also I was exaggerating on the Hell part.

Close enough

this is a good argument 3j mind putting your thoughts in this.

I don't agree with his personal views, but I agree with his right to voice them.The president did nothing besides voice his opinion, and the various city-wide bans on chick-fil-a are extremely unlawful. To paraphrase Jon Stewart "To ban a person's business based on their president's beliefs is unconstitutional. I'm not sure, but I think that right's in the top ONE." I hope common sense will eventually prevail before they have to bring in something like the Supreme Court to intervene.

And to those who say that they oppose gay marriage because they're following the Bible's definition of marriage... no you're not. If you wanted to advocate it because of what the Biblical version of marriage is, you'd be advocating selling our daughters for the foreskins of our enemies as well ([1 Samuel 18:20-25 ) and other items. I really don't care if you oppose it, but don't claim religious support and only pick out the parts of the Bible that sound good to back you up. Growing up around Southern Baptists, I've learned to hate it :P 

Bo, you're really taking that verse out of context.(In fact, your doing what you said religious people do by picking out a specific verse in the Bible, taking it out of context, just to use for their own agenda, though you've used it to try to critic the Bible.)

If we look back at 17 in that chapter we would see that Saul wanted to kill David. He was jealous of him and wanted him gone because people loved him more than he and that David was a brave, valiant, and successful warrior.

Also, in verse 20, we found that Michal, the woman David loved and wanted to marry, also equally love him back.(So she wasn't being forced into it and in fact wanted it.) So they went together and told Saul their desire to marry. This made Saul happy because he saw the perfect opportunity to kill David.(In fact, in verse 21 he says, "I will give her to him, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." 

So in verse 25, knowing that David would do it, Saul said that he could marry Michal but only if he killed a large number of Philistines. An important thing to note about that though, is that him saying that was done out of the evil in his heart to murder David, not a Biblical rule or standard. He knew that if David attempted this, which he did and succeeded in, that he would most likely die, his ultimate goal. This was his way of getting rid of David without getting his hands dirty. 

A thing to not is, nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to pay something to marry a bride. It does not advocate that anywhere. Now, customs over time have appeared that the groom will give something to the brides family to show he is dedicated to that woman, but it is not a requirement in the Bible.

Bo, you didn't look at the context of the verse. Now I'm not trying to be a know-it-all or to bad mouth you in any way. I'm just pointing out that you misinterpreted the verse and that needs to be said.

I'm not going to comment in this thread again. 

I made my point and how I felt about the issue. To say anymore is going to start a meaningless argument. I'm am not going to change my views on homosexual marriage and neither are people who may disagree with me. So to stay here and to debate and argue endlessley serves no purpose.

I thought the fact that I picked a verse about trading foreskins for a daughter was enough to show that was supposed to be sub-comical, but I guess it was a little hard to pick out once you get defensive about your religion. At any rate, the point is that we cannot use the Bible to govern politics or else we'll be condoning rape, murder, slavery, and so on (including selling your daughter for foreskins), even though people avoid those parts for the better verses. It's a bit of a dry read, but the Bible can be used for a lot of things. Inspiration, unification, cheerification (Ok, that's a rediculously fake words, but I ran out of "ations"), but not politics. Not by a long shot.

And btw, you don't write a post that long if you don't want to argue. Whether you want me to reply is another question, but you definately wanted to argue.

Well, my personal view is...yes. I support Chick-Fil-A.

Do not reply to me.

I'm a Rebel

I Won't.

Why not? What's a little reply between forumites?

Besides - "It's not gay as long as a woman shows up eventually."

(Quoted during a discussion of 'cabin boys' on a Stygian sailing ship during a game of Conan The Barbarian.)

Something worse than that is that I've heard a RL discussion about how it's not gay to be into transvestites, even though you know full well they have a penis. He was even theorizing either, he legitimately wanted to sleep with transvestites. I tried to use the logic that no matter what dress they have on, you still want his dick but apparently it didn't work...

I just heard John Stewart's comment about the president's quote, and I laughed. Thought I'd share it.

"Really? That's ?what's going to invoke God's judgement on this country? So Indian genocide, slavery, and the 9 Polica Academy movies are ok with him?