Chick-Fil-A

[Trim]

When the cows light up the lights in a building and it says "eat mor chikin" we could add "and cok"

To steal from the tv shows thread, "... and vag"

[8manpick]

Boy, this thread got Aurora-ed up pretty quickly.

To be fair, it is in the D-K Dome...

C-F-G needs its own thread, perhaps its own board.

[Trim]

Boy, this thread got Aurora-ed up pretty quickly.

To be fair, it is in the D-K Dome...

C-F-G needs its own thread, perhaps its own board.

C-F-G planted its rainbow flag here first.  All the people trying to Pit it up and can go elsewhere.

[Dugout DickStone]

When the cows light up the lights in a building and it says "eat mor chikin" we could add "and cok"

To steal from the tv shows thread, "... and vag"

to cover both put "and azz"

[EMAWmeister]

[Cartierfor3]

you probably think "the gays" choose their "lifestlye"

I don't actually. 

there is a laundry list of rights provided to married couples ranging from tax benefits to property rights,

I'm for anyone and everyone having these benefits. 

There's also the chance they are opposed to the government being involved in ANY marriage or civil union, but I'm not sure those people really exist.

I'm not TOO far from this actually.

I think marriage is best a function of religious (and/or secular, depending on one's beliefs) communities, and the gov. should stay out.  If a couple wants to have a union that allows for legal benefits to be given (hospital rights, tax benefits, etc.), then have at it.  If two non-romantic friends want to have those benefits, then sure, have at it.  But don't call it marriage.  If a baptist church decides to marry one couple, but not another, great, that's their 1st amendment right.  If another church wants to marry only gay people, go for it, that's their 1st amendment right.

All I was saying was I don't think everyone opposed to gay marriage is a hateful bigot.

[Dugout DickStone]

you probably think "the gays" choose their "lifestlye"

I don't actually. 

there is a laundry list of rights provided to married couples ranging from tax benefits to property rights,

I'm for anyone and everyone having these benefits. 

There's also the chance they are opposed to the government being involved in ANY marriage or civil union, but I'm not sure those people really exist.

I'm not TOO far from this actually.

I think marriage is best a function of religious (and/or secular, depending on one's beliefs) communities, and the gov. should stay out.  If a couple wants to have a union that allows for legal benefits to be given (hospital rights, tax benefits, etc.), then have at it.  If two non-romantic friends want to have those benefits, then sure, have at it.  But don't call it marriage.  If a baptist church decides to marry one couple, but not another, great, that's their 1st amendment right.  If another church wants to marry only gay people, go for it, that's their 1st amendment right.

All I was saying was I don't think everyone opposed to gay marriage is a hateful bigot.

Why, is that word reserved for only heterosexuals? 

[Rage Against the McKee]

If two non-romantic friends want to have those benefits, then sure, have at it.  But don't call it marriage.

If another church wants to marry only gay people, go for it, that's their 1st amendment right.

But can they call it marriage?

[Cire]

you probably think "the gays" choose their "lifestlye"

I don't actually. 

there is a laundry list of rights provided to married couples ranging from tax benefits to property rights,

I'm for anyone and everyone having these benefits. 

There's also the chance they are opposed to the government being involved in ANY marriage or civil union, but I'm not sure those people really exist.

I'm not TOO far from this actually.

I think marriage is best a function of religious (and/or secular, depending on one's beliefs) communities, and the gov. should stay out.  If a couple wants to have a union that allows for legal benefits to be given (hospital rights, tax benefits, etc.), then have at it.  If two non-romantic friends want to have those benefits, then sure, have at it.  But don't call it marriage.  If a baptist church decides to marry one couple, but not another, great, that's their 1st amendment right.  If another church wants to marry only gay people, go for it, that's their 1st amendment right.

All I was saying was I don't think everyone opposed to gay marriage is a hateful bigot.

I get what you are saying, A lot of people in their 80's and 90's feel the same way about negros and whites mixing.

[Cartierfor3]

Why, is that word reserved for only heterosexuals?

Not what I meant. 

I meant don't call ANY of the gov. unions marriage.  Call it marriage because your church or religious institution married you.  I would prefer the gov. not designate ANYONE as married.  Just unions for legal purposes.  Leave marriage as a function of religious communities etc. 

And if one church wants to marry gay people, go for it.  If another doesn't want to, that's their 1st amendment right.

[Cire]

not allowing someone to call marriage, marriage because of who they love is pretty hateful IMO.

[michigancat]

I meant don't call ANY of the gov. unions marriage.  Call it marriage because your church or religious institution married you.  I would prefer the gov. not designate ANYONE as married.  Just unions for legal purposes.  Leave marriage as a function of religious communities etc. 

You would fight for governments no longer calling anything "marriage" if that's what you really cared about. But we all know it's not.

[8manpick]

Why, is that word reserved for only heterosexuals?

Not what I meant. 

I meant don't call ANY of the gov. unions marriage.  Call it marriage because your church or religious institution married you.  I would prefer the gov. not designate ANYONE as married.  Just unions for legal purposes.  Leave marriage as a function of religious communities etc. 

Historically, in several different unrelated cultures and societies they had marriages that had nothing to do with a church or religion.

[Dugout DickStone]

Why, is that word reserved for only heterosexuals?

Not what I meant. 

I meant don't call ANY of the gov. unions marriage.  Call it marriage because your church or religious institution married you.  I would prefer the gov. not designate ANYONE as married.  Just unions for legal purposes.  Leave marriage as a function of religious communities etc.

So we agree the Chik Fil A guy is pretty mumped out.  Cool, I thought we didn't agree.

[The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep]

Boy, this thread got Aurora-ed up pretty quickly.

To be fair, it is in the D-K Dome...

C-F-G needs its own thread, perhaps its own board.

C-F-G planted its rainbow flag here first.  All the people trying to Pit it up and can go elsewhere.

Ok, I've had it. Let's compile this list of ideas and take it somewhere where we don't have to be judged. I doubt when that dude wanted to open that restaraunt "The Patio" in Manhattan he had a bunch of people arguing about sexuality in the background of his gay idea.

  <--- Mods, can we make them grind?

[Dugout DickStone]

And FTR, the Chik Fil A guy and company can say whatever on earth he wants.  And people who agree can go eat his food, and people who don't can avoid the place.  Or they can still go there because they like the food regardless of his anti-gay marriage position.  And the city of Boston or Chicago should have no role in treating their businesses differently. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

And FTR, the Chik Fil A guy and company can say whatever on earth he wants.  And people who agree can go eat his food, and people who don't can avoid the place.  Or they can still go there because they like the food regardless of his anti-gay marriage position.  And the city of Boston or Chicago should have no role in treating their businesses differently.

Yeah

[Cartierfor3]

Historically, in several different unrelated cultures and societies they had marriages that had nothing to do with a church or religion.

Probably.  My plan probably has holes I'd need to think about. 

You would fight for governments no longer calling anything "marriage" if that's what you really cared about. But we all know it's not.

If you're indicating I don't actively do anything to get the government to change their marriage policies, you are 100% correct.

If you're indicating I'm using this as a cover to save face here on goEMAW, that's incorrect.  I voted NO on this FWIW.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Proposed_Amendment_1_(2005)

[felix rex]

Bullshit.  The bigots would still find a reason to hate, they'd cook up a new excuse/misinterpreted bible verse while at the same time turning a blind eye to all the other sins the don't pressure the government to legislate.  Bigots gonna bigot.

So, is anyone who is against gay marriage a bigot and hateful?

I suppose some of the bigots could be more ignorant than hateful. Dumb or mean. Take your pick.

There's also the chance they are opposed to the government being involved in ANY marriage or civil union, but I'm not sure those people really exist.

lol. My dad is in this camp. Thought of him while writing that post. He's not anti-gay marriage at all. He just thinks there's no good reason for the government to be involved in it in the first place.

[Dugout DickStone]

Historically, in several different unrelated cultures and societies they had marriages that had nothing to do with a church or religion.

Probably.  My plan probably has holes I'd need to think about. 

You would fight for governments no longer calling anything "marriage" if that's what you really cared about. But we all know it's not.

If you're indicating I don't actively do anything to get the government to change their marriage policies, you are 100% correct.

If you're indicating I'm using this as a cover to save face here on goEMAW, that's incorrect.  I voted NO on this FWIW.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Proposed_Amendment_1_(2005)

Geez, than what on earth are we discussing?  If you shot down a Constitutional amendment we seem to be pretty eye-to-eye

[Cartierfor3]

Geez, than what on earth are we discussing?  If you shot down a Constitutional amendment we seem to be pretty eye-to-eye

Hate the name calling.  Hate it.  Hate the "he's a bigot!  he's hateful!" accusations made to anyone who disagrees with them.  It is so counter productive to shaping the opinions of others.  That was my original point.



EMAW, FTB ect.

[felix rex]

Why, is that word reserved for only heterosexuals?

Not what I meant. 

I meant don't call ANY of the gov. unions marriage.  Call it marriage because your church or religious institution married you.  I would prefer the gov. not designate ANYONE as married.  Just unions for legal purposes.  Leave marriage as a function of religious communities etc. 

And if one church wants to marry gay people, go for it.  If another doesn't want to, that's their 1st amendment right.

Why do you care what someone calls their relationship?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Geez, than what on earth are we discussing?  If you shot down a Constitutional amendment we seem to be pretty eye-to-eye

Hate the name calling.  Hate it.  Hate the "he's a bigot!  he's hateful!" accusations made to anyone who disagrees with them.  It is so counter productive to shaping the opinions of others.  That was my original point.



EMAW, FTB ect.

Well, can you give one reason not related to being a bigot that a person could reasonably want the government to give gay people less rights than straight people?

[Cartierfor3]

Why, is that word reserved for only heterosexuals?

Not what I meant. 

I meant don't call ANY of the gov. unions marriage.  Call it marriage because your church or religious institution married you.  I would prefer the gov. not designate ANYONE as married.  Just unions for legal purposes.  Leave marriage as a function of religious communities etc. 

And if one church wants to marry gay people, go for it.  If another doesn't want to, that's their 1st amendment right.

Why do you care what someone calls their relationship?

I don't.  Call your relationship whatever you want.

[Dugout DickStone]

Geez, than what on earth are we discussing?  If you shot down a Constitutional amendment we seem to be pretty eye-to-eye

Hate the name calling.  Hate it.  Hate the "he's a bigot!  he's hateful!" accusations made to anyone who disagrees with them.  It is so counter productive to shaping the opinions of others.  That was my original point.



EMAW, FTB ect.

I suppose, but sometimes you gotta jar people out of their cover.  It's like flushing a pheasant.  Not referring to you in particular, just closeted bigots who use the bible or some other semantics to explain why they believe the government should get involved in preventing one class of people from doing something that another large class of people can do, (multiple times for horrible reasons) totally legally.