Chick-fil-A

[sd'sker]

It's his thug attitude that got him elected in Boston. He should have threatened to kill the guy. He could claim free speech rights...right?

yes, absolutely. there is no difference between threatening murder and threatening a fast food restaurant because you find its owner's values objectionable.

[Yossarian]

It's his thug attitude that got him elected in Boston. He should have threatened to kill the guy. He could claim free speech rights...right?

yes, absolutely. there is no difference between threatening murder and threatening a fast food restaurant because you find its owner's values objectionable.

I figured you'd agree.

[huKSer]

Question for both sides:

 

Would it be okay with you if gays would be allowed all legal rights of a marriage, but reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals?

 

Gays would get the legal protection, right to a ceromony (sp) if their church allows, etc

 

Those opposed (typically fundamentalist Christians) get "the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman"

[sd'sker]

Question for both sides:

 

Would it be okay with you if gays would be allowed all legal rights of a marriage, but reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals?

 

Gays would get the legal protection, right to a ceromony (sp) if their church allows, etc

 

Those opposed (typically fundamentalist Christians) get "the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman"

personally, i do not think the term 'marriage' has any place in the gov't as it is a sacrament. the gov't should allow two consenting adults to enter into civil unions and let the churches marry whoever the hell they want or don't want.

 

separate is inherently unequal, but this way the gov't avoids that problem and puts a wall up between church and state.

[Whistlebritches]

Question for both sides:

 

Would it be okay with you if gays would be allowed all legal rights of a marriage, but reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals?

 

Gays would get the legal protection, right to a ceromony (sp) if their church allows, etc

 

Those opposed (typically fundamentalist Christians) get "the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman"

personally, i do not think the term 'marriage' has any place in the gov't as it is a sacrament. the gov't should allow two consenting adults to enter into civil unions and let the churches marry whoever the hell they want or don't want.

 

separate is inherently unequal, but this way the gov't avoids that problem and puts a wall up between church and state.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

[bennychico11]

Question for both sides:

 

Would it be okay with you if gays would be allowed all legal rights of a marriage, but reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals?

 

Gays would get the legal protection, right to a ceromony (sp) if their church allows, etc

 

Those opposed (typically fundamentalist Christians) get "the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman"

 

We already have a word for that. It's "marriage." Little girls aren't dreaming of the day they can grow up and have a civil union. Christianity does not have ownership of the word "marriage." Every culture in every period of history defines it the way they see fit. There's no such thing as a "traditional marriage" or this "sanctity of marriage" that Christians think so many gay people are set out to ruin.

[Chimpsmack]

Question for both sides:

 

Would it be okay with you if gays would be allowed all legal rights of a marriage, but reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals?

 

Gays would get the legal protection, right to a ceromony (sp) if their church allows, etc

 

Those opposed (typically fundamentalist Christians) get "the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman"

 

Personally, I would not find that acceptable. I have no interest in seeing the government provide the religious with any additional privileges, or set further restrictions on the rest of society, based on what is acceptable according to Christian religious dogma.

[Sam Spade]

Question for both sides:

 

Would it be okay with you if gays would be allowed all legal rights of a marriage, but reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals?

 

Gays would get the legal protection, right to a ceromony (sp) if their church allows, etc

 

Those opposed (typically fundamentalist Christians) get "the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman"

 

Only if we take the marriage term away from multiracial couples and any man or woman who have been divorced. Then yes, it's "fair.". It's time to face the fact that, because of heterosexual people rushing to divorce to much there is no sanctity left in the term. No reason to hog it.

[gobiggergoredder]

Last time I checked it was against the law to vandalize a building. Score another one for the 'ultra tolerant'.

 

[Yossarian]

Last time I checked it was against the law to vandalize a building. Score another one for the 'ultra tolerant'.

 

 

Well, actually, this is a excellent opportunity to examine the difference between "good" hate and "bad" hate. Now when the head man at Chick-fil-A said that he was a Christian and that he believed in traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman, that was an example of the "bad" hate. This ultra-tolerant graffiti you have spotted is an example of the "good" hate. It's really simple once you raise your consciousness.

[Yossarian]

Question for both sides:

 

Would it be okay with you if gays would be allowed all legal rights of a marriage, but reserve the word "marriage" for heterosexuals?

 

Gays would get the legal protection, right to a ceromony (sp) if their church allows, etc

 

Those opposed (typically fundamentalist Christians) get "the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman"

 

Only if we take the marriage term away from multiracial couples and any man or woman who have been divorced. Then yes, it's "fair.". It's time to face the fact that, because of heterosexual people rushing to divorce to much there is no sanctity left in the term. No reason to hog it.

 

This really has nothing to do with what we consider marriage as much as it does with the benefits or penalties granted//levied upon "married" couples by the Government - things like tax benefits or penalties or simply the rights a person has to see his/her "partner" in the hospital intensive care unit. Also, there are limits to having a spouse testify against their counterparts in court..or at least there used to be. As far as holy matrimony, that has become a quaint phrase these days. One of the original reasons for marriage, to provide a secure partnership (with the man working and the women staying home) for raising children, is no longer valid. Nowadays, both spouses work and they usually postpone having children. Meanwhile, the underclass has no need for marriage - the Government provides all the support they need and having more children means having more money. Having a man around will just decrease the money from Uncle Sam. It's the old adage: if you want something to increase, subsidize it. We are subsidizing children having children and marriage is not even considered.

[The Dude]

Now when the head man at Chick-fil-A said that he was a Christian and that he believed in traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman, that was an example of the "bad" hate.

Right, because that's what the hullabaloo is all about. It has nothing to do with the company donating millions of dollars to hate groups.

[Yossarian]

Now when the head man at Chick-fil-A said that he was a Christian and that he believed in traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman, that was an example of the "bad" hate.

Right, because that's what the hullabaloo is all about. It has nothing to do with the company donating millions of dollars to hate groups.

 

So, that's the "bad" hate, right?

 

Who cares what they do with their money. If you don't like it, don't line their pockets. All this is doing is generating a backlash against LGBT groups. And Chick-fil-A doesn't have a monopoly on hate. We saw a lot of it on the other side the past few days. When you drive up to the window and belittle the person working the window, that's the good hate, right? It's only bad when it gets your butt fired.

[The Dude]

Now when the head man at Chick-fil-A said that he was a Christian and that he believed in traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman, that was an example of the "bad" hate.

Right, because that's what the hullabaloo is all about. It has nothing to do with the company donating millions of dollars to hate groups.

 

So, that's the "bad" hate, right?

 

Who cares what they do with their money. If you don't like it, don't line their pockets. All this is doing is generating a backlash against LGBT groups. And Chick-fil-A doesn't have a monopoly on hate. We saw a lot of it on the other side the past few days. When you drive up to the window and belittle the person working the window, that's the good hate, right? It's only bad when it gets your butt fired.

Hate is hate. I don't see the point in trying to give it some arbitrary good-to-bad ranking. Unless you're trying to justify your own intolerance, then I could see how it could come in handy.

[gobiggergoredder]

Now when the head man at Chick-fil-A said that he was a Christian and that he believed in traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman, that was an example of the "bad" hate.

Right, because that's what the hullabaloo is all about. It has nothing to do with the company donating millions of dollars to hate groups.

 

What is a hate group? What kinds of things do hate groups do?