Chik-Fil-A
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8121
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
CFA is already expensive, with that you're paying twice as much for it.TPRJones wrote:I'm getting Chik-Fil-A for lunch tomorrow. I can't stay away.
But I'll also be donating the same amount spent to Equality Texas, so it'll be a wash.
Still worth it!
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
TPRJones wrote:I'm getting Chik-Fil-A for lunch tomorrow. I can't stay away.
But I'll also be donating the same amount spent to Equality Texas, so it'll be a wash.
LOL - Well, if it makes you feel better, I'm guessing only about $0.01 per sandwich/order goes to hating gay people. So you probably don't need to donate very much.
Math: Chick-Fil-A makes $4 billion in revenue per year.
People are complaining about $5 million given over SEVERAL years.
Let's say Chic-Fil-A grows about 10% per year, so over the past 5 years they've made 4 + 3.6 + 3.2 + 2.9 + 2.6 = $16B (roughly). Of which, they've donated 0.03% to hating gay people.
Edited By TheCatt on 1343999810
It's not me, it's someone else.
They will tell you they hate the sin and not the sinner. But that's a bullshit stance. It's like saying about blacks that you hate the skin color but not the skin. It's part of who they are and the way they were born, so if you hate it you hate a part of them. Period.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
So.... you're saying that you can't disagree with a particular issue without being filled with hate for it?TPRJones wrote:They will tell you they hate the sin and not the sinner. But that's a bullshit stance. It's like saying about blacks that you hate the skin color but not the skin. It's part of who they are and the way they were born, so if you hate it you hate a part of them. Period.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Not at all! I'm saying if you hate something that is ingrained at birth and cannot be changed, then you hate a part of that person. Like gender, race, sexual orientation, birth defects, etc.
Political views, religious beliefs, and other such things that are something you can choose are a completely different matter. While some of these may sometimes be brainwashed into kids at an early age, they aren't even then something that can't be changed later on in life without excessively major surgery or skin bleaching to do so.
Political views, religious beliefs, and other such things that are something you can choose are a completely different matter. While some of these may sometimes be brainwashed into kids at an early age, they aren't even then something that can't be changed later on in life without excessively major surgery or skin bleaching to do so.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
It was my understanding that the peeps who run CFA made some sort of statement that they prefer traditional marriage. They have no policies or stated opinions about homosexuals that I have ever heard.
I think an argument can be made for traditional marriage that has nothing to do with the bible, or disliking gay people.
I think an argument can be made for traditional marriage that has nothing to do with the bible, or disliking gay people.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
GORDON wrote:I think an argument can be made for traditional marriage that has nothing to do with the bible, or disliking gay people.
If so I have yet to hear one, and I've been paying attention and looking around trying to find one. If you find one, please let me know. So far every argument I've ever seen involve either 1) a religious basis, 2) appeals to traditional marriage that are simply incorrect regarding the actual history of traditional marriage, or 3) because it's "icky".
It was my understanding that the peeps who run CFA made some sort of statement that they prefer traditional marriage. They have no policies or stated opinions about homosexuals that I have ever heard.
Sort of. It was something about how we shouldn't be trying to tell God what marriage should be like, with a hint of how God's going to fuck up the USA if we keep defying him. Not in those words, of course, but that was the essence.
Edited By TPRJones on 1344006745
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Ok, here you go:TPRJones wrote:If so I have yet to hear one, and I've been paying attention and looking around trying to find one. If you find one, please let me know. So far every argument I've ever seen involve either 1) a religious basis, 2) appeals to traditional marriage that are simply incorrect regarding the actual history of traditional marriage, or 3) because it's "icky".GORDON wrote:I think an argument can be made for traditional marriage that has nothing to do with the bible, or disliking gay people.
This is not my personal belief, I am just saying this argument could be made and as good scientists we need to consider its validity until data can be collected.
I am not a sociologist, a neurologist, or a child development expert, but I would like to pose this question:
As a great man once said, "We are trying to have a society, here." To achieve great things, perhaps a society needs, as underpinnings, shared values and beliefs and goals. People like to argue, "Well the 50's weren't as great as you old people remember because racism and sexism," but every data set available confirms that 1946-late 20th century was a time for great growth and expansion in American history. Every generation had a better quality of life than the previous.
Yaddah yaddah yaddah, just laying the foundation for my argument.... social structures might be there for a reason, and maybe they are for the greater good.
Maybe children develop with a greater sense of "common good" when they learn the frame into which society is built. Maybe growing up with no restrictions, no borders, is a bad thing. Maybe things like ANYONE CAN MARRY ANYONE, EVEN THOUGH TRADITIONALLY THAT HAS MEANT ONE BOY AND ONE GIRL undermines the fabric upon which society is imprinted.
Maybe these people grow up with an inflated sense of self. Maybe they can't understand why the world isn't giving them a long, continuous blowjob, and they decide that is unfair, and they rebel against the very system which gave them the luxury of free time and comfort and plenty for that rebellion.
Otherwise intelligent people decide their personal happiness is way more important than propagating the species, and suddenly birth rates are down below sustaining levels, and a first world society begins to wind down. People begin to think that everyone with a different opinion is full of hate, and people stop listening to anyone else outside of their personal echo chamber.
Everyone should be treated equally by the government, which is why I don't think even hetero marriages should be recognized, but to say there is no difference in a society between homo and hetero marriage is just silly, and to imply there are no ramifications in supporting or denying it has never heard of Chic Fil A.
++++++++++
So there, nothing to do with the bible or hating gay people.
And yes, I just suggested that perfect liberty could lead to the fall of a civilization.
But just throwing that out there. It is possible to have a different opinion without it being due to hate or fear or ignorance.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I'm not sure that really qualifies as an argument. It's more of a mass of speculation.
However, I will point out that your argument is rooted on the idea that traditionally marriage has meant one man and one woman. That's item #2 on my prior list, and is simply not historically accurate. Throughout most of history, marriage means one family (or tribe) selling a daughter to another family (or tribe). Or one man collecting many women. The details vary from place to place and era to era, and one man one woman is common through it, but it is not in the majority there historically speaking.
Plus you add in a "for the children" argument about how traditionally kids are raised in a one man one women household, but the idea of the nuclear family of one man and one woman raising the kids is pretty much limited to the last hundred years or so. If you want to argue that tradition is best for children, then we need to make sure that all the aunts and uncles and grandparents live on the same piece of land or are part of the same close-knit tribe and raise the kids all together, because that has been tradition when it comes to raising kids.
And lastly, there has actually been some science starting to be done on these issues. There are now enough adult children of homosexual families that some studies have been done here and there. There's still a long way to go, but early results indicate that on the whole children raised by homosexual couples are much happier and more successful in adult life than those raised by heterosexual couples on average. Which makes since when you consider that the number of homosexual couples having kids on accident or for the welfare checks is pretty much exactly zero. Because they have to plan for and fight to have kids, the average result is much better.
Unfortunately most of them are also Democrats, but one can only hope they will grow up to be better than their parents were.
EDITED to add: also, it seems your lines about what can and can't be allowed in order to avoid too much liberty leading to the end of civilization are pretty arbitrary. You could use the same argument to justify the Amish being the best way to live. Or to argue that men and women should never live together at all and only meet under controlled conditions for breeding. Or any old thing, depending on where you decided you would draw that arbitrary line.
Edited By TPRJones on 1344009966
However, I will point out that your argument is rooted on the idea that traditionally marriage has meant one man and one woman. That's item #2 on my prior list, and is simply not historically accurate. Throughout most of history, marriage means one family (or tribe) selling a daughter to another family (or tribe). Or one man collecting many women. The details vary from place to place and era to era, and one man one woman is common through it, but it is not in the majority there historically speaking.
Plus you add in a "for the children" argument about how traditionally kids are raised in a one man one women household, but the idea of the nuclear family of one man and one woman raising the kids is pretty much limited to the last hundred years or so. If you want to argue that tradition is best for children, then we need to make sure that all the aunts and uncles and grandparents live on the same piece of land or are part of the same close-knit tribe and raise the kids all together, because that has been tradition when it comes to raising kids.
And lastly, there has actually been some science starting to be done on these issues. There are now enough adult children of homosexual families that some studies have been done here and there. There's still a long way to go, but early results indicate that on the whole children raised by homosexual couples are much happier and more successful in adult life than those raised by heterosexual couples on average. Which makes since when you consider that the number of homosexual couples having kids on accident or for the welfare checks is pretty much exactly zero. Because they have to plan for and fight to have kids, the average result is much better.
Unfortunately most of them are also Democrats, but one can only hope they will grow up to be better than their parents were.
EDITED to add: also, it seems your lines about what can and can't be allowed in order to avoid too much liberty leading to the end of civilization are pretty arbitrary. You could use the same argument to justify the Amish being the best way to live. Or to argue that men and women should never live together at all and only meet under controlled conditions for breeding. Or any old thing, depending on where you decided you would draw that arbitrary line.
Edited By TPRJones on 1344009966
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
You say a lot "throughout history," and I say that only the last 100 years ago, since America rose to be arguably the greatest, most prosperous society on the planet, marriage has been a boy/girl thing. Perhaps there is a reason for that besides dumb luck.
But anyway, do you at least concur that there can be a difference of opinion on this matter that has nothing to do with the bible, or hate?
Edited By GORDON on 1344014546
But anyway, do you at least concur that there can be a difference of opinion on this matter that has nothing to do with the bible, or hate?
Edited By GORDON on 1344014546
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
And lastly, there has actually been some science starting to be done on these issues. There are now enough adult children of homosexual families that some studies have been done here and there. There's still a long way to go, but early results indicate that on the whole children raised by homosexual couples are much happier and more successful in adult life than those raised by heterosexual couples on average.
I've seen the studies, and I think they're bullshit.
Which makes since when you consider that the number of homosexual couples having kids on accident or for the welfare checks is pretty much exactly zero. Because they have to plan for and fight to have kids, the average result is much better.
That's part of the reason why...
Look, I've stated before that I'm pro-gay marriage, and I also don't think gay parents are going to be any better or worse than straight parents.
However, these studies are horseshit.
The sample for straight people is MUCH bigger than the sample for gay people. The researchers don't have to try very hard to cheat the results.
I don't know a ton of gay people who are unemployed drug addicts sucking their way to a meal who also happen to be married and have a kid.
Why? Is it because there are no shitty gay people strung out on drugs or into crime? No! It's because gay marriage hasn't been legal in most places, and adopting kids is more difficult for gay people. Thus, the ones who have kids are obviously going to be in a MUCH better place than straight folks who just have to breathe...
I think the whole gay marriage issue is yet ANOTHER distraction to get us talking about it, and not about the actual issues that are hurting our society.
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
CFA Kiss In.
Because nothing cures "hatred" like forcing your beliefs upon people.
How do they not see the hypocrisy?
Because nothing cures "hatred" like forcing your beliefs upon people.
How do they not see the hypocrisy?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
I have a small suspicion that this CFA thing, and the backlash, has been so huge is because regular people are tired of being told, day after day, that they are homophobic and full of hate if they dont support gay marriage. Supporting CFA is now like a cathartic "fuck you" to the people with the mission who are always up your ass.Leisher wrote:CFA Kiss In.
Because nothing cures "hatred" like forcing your beliefs upon people.
How do they not see the hypocrisy?
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
I've seen the studies, and I think they're bullshit.
Well, yeah, to a large extent, for exactly the reasons you state. Given two otherwise identical families at the same socio-economic level would a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple produce pretty much the same kids? I think so, but have no evidence. But it remains true that kids are better off with a homosexual couple than in the average shitty foster home. Yet states that don't allow gay couples to adopt have no problem handing them off to shitty foster homes. This makes me question if they are really making that decision based off of what is best for the child or off of their own prejudices.
But anyway, do you at least concur that there can be a difference of opinion on this matter that has nothing to do with the bible, or hate?
Well, yes. There's also ignorance and prejudice and cowardice. There's plenty of reasons. I just don't think any of them are good reasons that anyone should be proud of.
The bottom line for me is I just can't see any difference between being opposed to gay marriage and being opposed to interracial marriage. Both are based on the idea that the opinions of one person should allow them to curtail the freedoms of another person just because they were born different. If it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that gay marriage will cause intense and irreparable harm to society, then I can maybe start to consider it being something to be avoided, but even then I would hesitate. But there isn't even a hint of proof to that sort of effect, just wild and rampant speculation based on wrong-headed ideas about history, religion, and personal prejudice. And in the meantime there's a hell of a lot of harm being done to some homosexual couples in bad situations that could be mitigated if they actually had the freedoms and powers given to heterosexual couples.
Either we are a nation where people can be free from being forced to do what other people's religion tell them to do or we aren't. Right now in some ways we aren't.
EDITED TO ADD: There's one point I just realized I've never clarified. I have no problem with people that dislike gay marriage for whatever reason. I think it's a little unfortunate but sometimes can't be helped, much like someone being a bit uncomfortable around people of another race aren't necessarily automatically evil racists. It's when they materialize that prejudice into action against that other group - whether it's direct action like a lynching or indirect action like legislating against that specific group in some way - that it becomes despicable.
Edited By TPRJones on 1344036789
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"