Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe


What are you on about? I'm married because I love my wife. I married her because I love her and as far as i'm aware, she loves me. It wasn't for financial gain, or for the benefit or children, or for convenience.

You are changing definitions to suit your argument. If you want to believe love is not a valid reason for marriage then that's fine, but don't expect other people to simply accept your crackpot view.

Gay people - as far as I can see - simply want the opportunity to be recognised as a couple in the same way that a man and woman can become recognised. That does not involve the creation of a new right or the bringing forward of a previously unrecognised right. It involves the extension of an existing right that has to date only been denied on the basis of bigotry, ignorance and dislike of a same sex couple's beliefs and actions.

*Facepalm* Correction: "Love" is not considered a valid legal reason for marriage. I.e. there is no "right to marry the person you love," as far as I can tell. (I completely agree that love is a perfectly good reason to get married; thanks for catching me on that; I should probably edit that post for clarity.) There is a universal (in the U.S., anyway) right to marry a member of the opposite gender within the boundaries discussed above. I think what I meant by the recognition of a previously unrecognized right and what you mean by the extension of an existing right are more or less the same thing.

Did that make more sense? I'm heading off to fix that post now...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

ohhh, snap, you got called out here.

Essentially, what do gay people need a marriage certificate for?

Your "equal rights' argument falls here if you are not inline with what Cynic said - the single mother struggles for the same "rights" as gay people do because she's not married.

Or is it really just semantics and needing a cause?

Take your snap and shove it.

All having the right to the same thing is Equal.

What does a single mom have to do with everyone having the same right to marry?

I was a single mom. I got married.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

So equal rights is more about everyone having to swallow that gay people are married, not actually about their legal rights?

So all the hullabalou is just about forcing people to accepting something they dont agree with?

Some years ago I posted on this issue. I said that the movement for gay marriage was going the wrong direction by being antagonistic, judgmental, and hypocritical in their positions. I also said I supported the rights of anyone to live free from open oppression by governments and powers that be.

I was labelled a "homophobe" and a "bigot". I was even at one point accused of "harassing" a member because I was presenting an argument she could not refute.

So I pretty much shut up on the issue. I posted a few times, but that was less than 10% of what I wanted to post. The reason I shut up was that sometimes you have to let people fall flat on their face before they will believe the ground is hard. Besides, the outcome was already determined by the actions going on; without anyone in the fray paying me heed, my opinions meant nothing.

We just saw Round One. As a whole, the nation has spoken out in its support of the right of a person, even a businessman, to speak his beliefs freely. When he was threatened for speaking his beliefs, the nation rallied around him... not some faceless "churches", but a nation of people who saw what was happening.

When a young child touches something hot and burns themselves, they typically learn rather quickly not to touch that. When livestock encounters an electric fence, they fairly expeditiously realize that they are better off to not touch that fence. Yet, when activists are handed their hindparts on a silver platter, they typically run back into the same situation with ever more determination. Eventually, they manage to accomplish the exact opposite of their stated goals, much as a child who refuses to stop burning themselves or an animal that continually charges an electric fence. This is intelligence?

References have been made to the black civil rights movement. However, when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, it wasn't because she was trying to tell others to sit with her; she was a true victim who quietly took an empty seat. When blacks could not use the same restaurants as whites, they didn't urinate in the restaurants they were left out of. When they staged a demonstration, they presented themselves as normal people who were being denied rights others had because of nothing more than their skin color. And as time went on, those watching came to see them as normal people and stood with them until the situation was resolved.

The gay rights issue wants an "equal right to marriage" when there is no right to marriage. They claim to wish equality when the only inequality is that they prefer someone others do not; heterosexuals cannot marry within genders in many places as well. They want to be treated like "normal" people when their parades consist of abnormal extravagance: some big hairy guy with a green mohawk wearing a bright pink tutu and earrings the size of dinner plates doing ballet steps down Main Street is not normal, nor will it ever be seen as such by the majority.

Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere in the USA. Cohabitation is not illegal anywhere in the USA. Being gay is not illegal anywhere in the USA. There are no legal restrictions on the activities of gays specifically anywhere in the USA. The issue is about official governmental recognition of a marriage agreement that does not meet societal norms. That, and trying to force individual actions by government decree... something that is specifically abnormal in American historical society. We tried that via Constitutional Amendment Prohibition; we got bootleggers. We tried it with the Federal 55 mph speed limit; we slowed commerce. We are trying it with Obamacare; we will promote poverty and depression.

Round two, now that we have the attention of the majority, will either be a Constitutional Amendment or a demand for some sort of anti-discrimination bill that will actually elevate homosexuals above others. It will meet with such massive opposition that it will cause a huge political power shift towards those who are indeed homophobic and openly bigoted, or it will result in a new and increased wave of violence toward any effeminate male or "butch"-looking female. Neither of those potential outcomes will be pleasant.

But, as usual, I will sit here and be branded "homophobic"... when indeed I am more "homoapathetic". I fear no human, but I really, truly, honestly do not care who you are sleeping with. I only care when someone, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, black, white, red, yellow, purple, green, short, tall, fat, skinny, smart, dumb, old, young, fast, slow, rich, poor, or middle-class are abused by a government entity.

That apparently makes me a bigot. Flame away!

TheRedneck

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by Annee

 

WOW annie.

Protected status will earn you more hate. Do you think Affirmative Action= equality??.

i mean, logically, "protected status" leaves out those "unprotected"--so, do you see the inconsistency there?

Do you know what Fabian Socialism is?

Protected status protects minorities from majority bullies.

Do I care that the bullies feel offended? NOPE

reply to post by grey580

I've been around enough bible believers who don't pity gays. They want to smash their faces in.

Well that's odd, who are you hanging out with?

I been around Christians too, for 62 years, and never once heard one say anything like that.

Let's get something straight. This is not a Free Speech issue.

LGBT were boycotting Chick-fil-A - - - - long before this recent event sensationalized by the media.

LGBT boycott Chick-fil-A - - - - because of the million dollars their charity donates to anti-gay groups.

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by gncnew

 

Can a lesbian or gay guy be as `saved` as your fine self sir..................?
Can they already be a Christian?
God , Im living in a world of morons it seems..........
(please dont take this as a personal dig , I am just making a point)

not a dig, but to answer ->

Yes and Yes... and sadly, yes.

Being "gay" is a behavior pattern no different than other sexual preferences. Christianity does not condone sex out of wedlock, homosexual sex, and per the Catholics - sex for anything other than having babies is a bit risky I think.

THAT has nothing to do with Christ and the relationship with a person. Sin is sin, thus says the bible. There are a lot of Christians that try to ignore that because it makes them uncomfortable, but homosexuals that practice are no more "sinful" than teen moms, "good" people who lie, those who can offer help but don't....

We're all "sinners", so the Christian aspect of this is sooooo tired.

reply to post by gncnew


She can support one boycott and not the other, simply because both companies are not doing the same thing. Oreo put out an advertisement that celebrated gay pride month. They did nothing else. Dan Cathy came out and said that he does not support gay marriage. Upon investigation it is found that he donates money to anti-gay organizations. Most of them just operate within the US government but a couple of them have ties to the Uganda "Kill the Gays" legislation. So, yes, she and I can support one boycott when it's about people boycotting a company that is trying to oppress a group of people. We can also condemn a boycott by people when the company is not attempting to take away rights but merely saying "Happy Gay Pride Month". It's not the same thing.

I can appreciate that you aren't the bigot you're making yourself out to be, here, but Annee has valid points that you are constantly just throwing out because you don't want to actually discuss the issues. Instead, you keep looking for logical fallacies in an attempt to avoid addressing her legitimate points.

reply to post by Annee


you should care, because what you want isnt equality, judging by your comment

reply to post by AM47240


Logical Fallacies show the truth, not the opposite.

do you know what fabian socialism is?

Originally posted by TheRedneck

The gay rights issue wants an "equal right to marriage" when there is no right to marriage. They claim to wish equality when the only inequality is that they prefer someone others do not; heterosexuals cannot marry within genders in many places as well.

I find the argument "there is no right to marriage" very misleading.

I will keep this as simple as possible.

There is a Government License called Marriage. It affords privileges not available by any other means.

It is discrimination to deny these privileges to consenting couples who want them (and are of legal age).

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by Annee

 

you should care, because what you want isnt equality, judging by your comment

Not really interested in your point of argument.

reply to post by gncnew


OP I have to say you really missed the mark with this thread because you didn't research it.

There is no agenda by the LGBT community (at least not in the way you relate). There are huge differences between Oreo and Chic fil a that you clearly aren't aware of. This whole ordeal has very little to do with what Chic fil a ceo/spokesperson said. That was just the icing on top of the cake.

Chic fil a has a real agenda. One they pour money into. The gay community is upset because Chic fil a actively gives money in order to stop the LGBT community from gaining the right to marry. They donate huge sums to anti gay groups. That is why people are upset. It had nothing to do really with what was said.

Read about it here

reply to post by Annee


so, its not good enough that some states gays can marry , you want the Federal Govt to handle the enforcement across all 50 States? or what. whats the problem gays are having?

im ignorant

reply to post by Annee


LOL, good one!

you must be a favorite on this forum!

Originally posted by gncnew

So equal rights is more about everyone having to swallow that gay people are married, not actually about their legal rights?

So all the hullabalou is just about forcing people to accepting something they dont agree with?

Civil Rights was forced.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by Annee

 

LOL, good one!

you must be a favorite on this forum!

I have no interest in those who try to sway the focus.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


really, this sounds like a win-win for both parties.

One right to donate to whoever
Other right to protest and boycott

whats the problem?

there MUST be something else

Liberals are only taking up the issue because it creates targets.

They could care less about gay marriage, it's all about vilifying the other side and now that Obama has shown them the light, they get to create moral high ground for their messiah by spreading the hate.

Anyone remember beauty pageant contestants getting dumped on for their answers to this same issue? They love it when people have a different point of view and they know they will find lots of easy targets, so they can smear smear smear. People are suffering because they use their right to free speech then get attacked, but nobody seems to care, they can't see past the cardboard issue of gay marriage.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by Annee

 

so, its not good enough that some states gays can marry , you want the Federal Govt to handle the enforcement across all 50 States? or what. whats the problem gays are having?

im ignorant

Absolutely! Federal Marriage Equality.

Ever bothered to check why states have marriage rights? It was for the purpose of discrimination. States were given marriage rights to keep undesirables out.