It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

page: 18
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by manna2

Poligamy is next. And then Billybob, or sanchez, or chung gets to marry their goat.



Not the lame marry an animal rant again




posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Wow, this discussion is still going on?

Hey have you heard? Huffington Post has sold out to AOL, when is Huff going to give money to the collective!?



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The concept of Love in marriage is very new (relatively). Maybe only 100 to 200 years old.

Marriages were contractual obligations for various reasons. Today legal marriage is about tax breaks - insurance - medical - pensions - etc.

That's the reality of it.


...your version of reality, as stated above, is a preposterous generalization...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


As i sit here eating my chick fila sandmich and coleslaw well thats it nothing more on this subject just got some slaw in the company keyboard



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Annee
The concept of Love in marriage is very new (relatively). Maybe only 100 to 200 years old.

Marriages were contractual obligations for various reasons. Today legal marriage is about tax breaks - insurance - medical - pensions - etc.

That's the reality of it.


...your version of reality, as stated above, is a preposterous generalization...


NO - its not. My hobby is cultural/social anthropology. Go research the history of marriage.

Love marriages are a modern phenomenon. Primarily marriages were arranged. At lot depended on your status level.

Anyone can be in a relationship they think is Love. Its probably more about Lust - - the chemical reaction of pheromones.

The legality of marriage - - Government License - - protection of rights and property of joining together as one - - has nothing to do with anything except protection by law.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by manna2

Poligamy is next. And then Billybob, or sanchez, or chung gets to marry their goat.



Not the lame marry an animal rant again

what?
it's about the RIGHTS to marry a goat if we love each other. think of all the legal ramifications though now that you mention it.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by manna2

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by manna2

Poligamy is next. And then Billybob, or sanchez, or chung gets to marry their goat.



Not the lame marry an animal rant again

what?
it's about the RIGHTS to marry a goat if we love each other. think of all the legal ramifications though now that you mention it.


I have had legitimate discussions in regards to.

I have no use for stupid.


edit on 8-2-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Previously posted by Wyn Hawks
...your version of reality, as stated above, is a preposterous generalization...


Originally posted by Annee
NO - its not.


...ya know, maybe you're right... its just pompous bs...



Originally posted by Annee
My hobby is cultural/social anthropology.


...your hobby?...



Originally posted by Annee
Love marriages are a modern phenomenon.

...thats not true and you had the bodacious audacity to state that love in marriage was maybe only 100 to 200 yrs old...



Originally posted by Annee
Primarily marriages were arranged. At lot depended on your status level.


...oh, now, its "primarily" since you got busted for stating your generalized bs as fact...



Originally posted by Annee
Anyone can be in a relationship they think is Love. Its probably more about Lust - - the chemical reaction of pheromones.


...now you're defining love for everyone?...




Originally posted by Annee
The legality of marriage - - Government License - - protection of rights and property of joining together as one - - has nothing to do with anything except protection by law.


...there ya go again - stating an opinion as an all emcompassing fact... tsk, tsk, tsk...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


You can believe what you want.

I always find the movie version of American Pioneer days and reality an interesting contrast.

Traveling preachers may only come around once a year - - if at all. Men and Women got together and set up households as needed. They probably had several children before ever getting married by a Preacher - - if ever.

In many cases - - the woman had to first prove she could bear children - - as children and extended family were needed to have a successful farm. A barren woman was just a burden. Men often went through 3 or 4 wives as pioneer women either died in childbirth or literally worked themselves to death.

Native Americans were not attracted to white women as they were considered weak and pampered. However - Native American wives were often preferred by Pioneer men.

History lesson over.



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


...that was not a history lesson... that was just more of your generalizations...

...even though this little discussion was off topic, it does help explain your stance on the topic of the thread... the possible consequences of your stance is that your desire to lessen his rights (the owner of chick-fil-a) could lead to your rights being lessened...



posted on Feb, 8 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Byteman
 


I love me some unnatural meat.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
reply to post by Annee
 


...that was not a history lesson... that was just more of your generalizations...

...even though this little discussion was off topic, it does help explain your stance on the topic of the thread... the possible consequences of your stance is that your desire to lessen his rights (the owner of chick-fil-a) could lead to your rights being lessened...


It wasn't a generalization - - it happens to be factual.

No it doesn't explain my stance. Point is anyone can be "married" in name only or by a religious person. "Marriage License" is a government contract. A legal contract to protect rights and property of those joining together as one household.

It is the benefits that go with the government contract that is being denied to same sex couples.

My stance is Equal Rights for all citizens. Meaning Equality to right of government contract for same benefits as straight couples.

Here's the deal. I have limited time and by choice made this one issue my focus. It is the last major discrimination of a minority. I want to progress past this last discrimination before my life ends. Twenty+ years ago I worked with a lot of gays. They are people just like anyone else - - and deserve this equality. Because I follow this subject - I know there is more going on then just one benefit dinner.

I live on the Mexican border and could have chosen immigration as my issue to focus on - - but I didn't. Marriage Equality is my chosen political focus.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
It wasn't a generalization - - it happens to be factual.


...it may have been true of some but it certainly was not true of all... therefore, it was a generalization and when its claimed to be the whole truth, its a lie...


Originally posted by Annee
No it doesn't explain my stance.


...yeah, it does...


Originally posted by Annee
My stance is Equal Rights for all citizens.


...except to the owner of chick-fil-a and probably everyone else who doesnt fit into your very narrow approval range...


Originally posted by Annee
Meaning Equality to right of government contract for same benefits as straight couples.


...this thread isnt about that...


Originally posted by Annee
Here's the deal. I have limited time


...dont we all...


Originally posted by Annee
and by choice made this one issue my focus.


...then you should focus on law and reality - not personal opinion and generalizations...


Originally posted by Annee
Marriage Equality is my chosen political focus.


...you've been on ats for 4yrs and have yet to create a thread about your chosen political focus... guess its really not all that important...

...as usual, no matter who asks you questions pertinent to this thread - you've gone out of your way to evade answering... its tiresome and dishonest...



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Reply to post by Byteman
 


Jesus was a Jew.

Let's ask Jews what their religion says about homosexuality, shall we?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Not the lame marry an animal rant again.


I agree that that that is a lame example BUT he did bring up a valid point in that post of Polygamy


My stance is Equal Rights for all citizens. Meaning Equality to right of government contract for same benefits as straight couples.


So You would be just as upset if Chik fil A had donated money to an Anti Polygamy group?



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by Annee
 


If chikfillet were burning gays at the stake, we'd have a juicy thread on our hands, but the fact is they "support" (which in this case simply means 'do business with') groups who support and advance ideas and practices which you do no agree with, so you think that they should suffer. Where does it end?


Funny isn't it? All this for that.... Anyone read animal farm?

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

We are all equal, but 'minorities' are more equal than others. Deny that and you invariably have to deal with the usual storm in the teacup, where the minority always reminds me of a spoilt kid who will scream until they get their way, everyone else be damned.

The really interesting thing here is the agenda in-play: the politics of supporting minorities to the detriment of the population as a whole is simply a ploy. For those of you who are homosexuals, you would do well to study history to see what happens to minorities once the thin veneer of civilization is stripped away as ruling dictatorial powers no longer need to disguise their intentions: you will find that the very people who were clapping you on the back, smiling broadly and promising you 'equality' will shed no tears as you are deported to FEMA camps and disposed of.

Unfortunately, you are destined to suffer the presence of those vengeful, hate-filled Christians until the very end, as they are the primary reason the camps were built in the first place and will be there in number awaiting execution.




any group that doesn't openly declare support for the gays goes to prison? anyone who thinks for themselves or believes in scriptures should be shot?


Precisely, that is exactly where we are heading, although I do believe the preferred method of execution will be the guillotine, as they will be able to cash-in on the undamaged vital organs that way.

Having said that, lets get back to which chicken one should or should not eat, ideologically, and to deciding self-righteously how people we happen to disagree with should donate their money.

Cheer up! A few years at best and you will be able to simply confiscate the property and money of such vile, inconsiderate and evil individuals who fund hatred against minorities by donating to groups who have opinions that are simply not tolerable ... as they do not agree with yours, which you have painstakingly incorporated through decades of social engineering and which you now consider your own.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Byteman
 


Jesus was a Jew.

Let's ask Jews what their religion says about homosexuality, shall we?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Jesus was not a Jew, he was a Judean, despite widespread ignorance to the contrary.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 


He was Judean, but he followed the Jewish system. If you may recall "Jesus, King of the Jews" was put above his head on the cross. Pretty much sums it up. If you're gonna argue about homosexuality and acceptance in societal structures....don't argue the history, as apparently you are trying so hard to point out the possible flaws in our logic as right wingers, which is null and void.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by IronArm
 


No, I'm afraid not. Jesus denounced everything 'jewish', which is why they hated him, crucified him, and then over the course of history whitewashed the whole affair so that today, in patently oxymoronic fashion we speak of Judeo-Christianity. The pharisees have become rabbis, and apologists for the hoax troll forums stating that history is what they say it is.

Try an etymological study of the words Jew and Judean before deciding you fully understand history and others should hesitate to contradict you.



posted on Feb, 9 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


WHY WHY WHY is it the only day I crave Chic-fil-A is on SUNDAY???? Ugh!

Murphy's Law I guess. Or is it GOD PUNISHING A SINNER LIKE ME




top topics



 
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join