That really comes as no surprise, at least to me, because she is female. About a decade ago, The Advocate published the results of a study on male and female sexuality that, to srummarize it, showed that male sexuality tends to be more "either/or" (eg. you're either gay or straight with very little "in between," whereas female sexuality tends to be more fluid (moving from male to female partners/attraction and back again, sometimes many times). For the life of me I can't find it anymore. (I remember it well, because at the time I was doing sexuality education).
Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
That really comes as no surprise, at least to me, because she is female. About a decade ago, The Advocate published the results of a study on male and female sexuality that, to srummarize it, showed that male sexuality tends to be more "either/or" (eg. you're either gay or straight with very little "in between," whereas female sexuality tends to be more fluid (moving from male to female partners/attraction and back again, sometimes many times). For the life of me I can't find it anymore. (I remember it well, because at the time I was doing sexuality education).
Knight Templar
Commodore
I'll make a point of eating at Chick-fil-A twice as often now.
Nice to see a business stand up for traditional values and not bow to political correctness.
Nice to see a business stand up for traditional values and not bow to political correctness.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Peacemaker;6706007 Unfortunately said:
Yes, that was really well done.
I'll also add that there's probably a lot of arguments going around in circles over tolerance and bigotry because of the confusing fact that you can't be tolerant of everything or you'd have to tolerate intolerance. Being intolerant might mean you're tolerant - of something else. Hating people who eat at Chick-Fil-A because they're bigots is bigotry, but since "bigot" is a pejorative insult, nobody wants to think of their views as bigoted.
Well, sometimes it's okay to be a bigot, depending in which definition you go with.
Bigoted:
1. Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
I'm bigoted against people who think the Koran commands them to put bags over women's heads. I'm bigoted against people who think the men should wear the bags on their heads and burn crosses on black people's lawns. And of course both those bigoted groups are probably bigoted against me and would call me a bigot, which in their case I am.
Maybe that will help clarify some of this threads arguments over who is being a bigot. Almost everybody is.
The question isn't whether you're a bigot. If you're pounding out strong opinions on a message board over this topic, you probably are. The question is what kind of bigot, why, to what degree, and how justified you are in choosing which bigoted hill to stand on.
It's like asking yourself if you are tolerant of Muslims, if you are tolerant of Islam - then of fundamentalist Islam - then of the views of Islamic fundamentalists, then that those views should be respected, then that those views should be enforced (which is of course their view). Unless you're an Islamic fundamentalist, at some point you're "Yes, I'm tolerant" has to become a "No, I'm not tolerant of that, because I'm tolerant."
Being aware of the logical trap can keep you from tripping over it during a debate.
Yes, "as a company", they definitely ARE anti-gay.
The COMPANY donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations whose very reason for existence is to promote denying civil rights to a large segment of American citizens.
It is evil, when the corporation itself supports denying American citizens civil right.
And I DO boycott Walmart and Dominos and Cinemark.
And if you saw me, you would know I don't even need to boycott a gym. I'm already in shape.
Round is a shape, isn't it?
Last edited:
Unless the civil right is listed in the 2nd Amendment.
Or the civil right is smoking.
Or the civil right is toplessness.
Or the civil right is barefooted freedom.
Treating Americans equally is not "political correctness." In point of fact, it's supposed to be one of the things Americans pride themselves on.
And I can't imagine Jesus would want you to gloat by bragging about eating there more often. Doesn't really seem like his style.
Have you talked to gay people here about some of their parents?!
Mine are fantastic. Phenomenal. They new I was gay before I did, and told me more than once that they would always love and support me.
They've been together for 35 years. I've seen them go through life as a team. They raised their three kids with love, and are my favorite people in the world.
I don't think about getting married because I want to attack religion or force others to acknowledge me, I think about it because my parents form the basis of what I think a long-term relationship should look like. I can only hope to find myself in a relationship half as good as theirs.
And there's no reason to suspect that my brother and sister half gleaned some special knowledge or birthright that should allow them to enter into a union similar to my parent's that I should not.
Others beat me to this, but please let me say it again: Can you conceive of the idea that being told what one can do in their most intimate of relationships -on the basis of what I believe to be a work of fiction- is more offensive than being called a name? And a lot more important?
You're free to believe what you wish, but what part of the Bible tells you to *legislate* your religion? What good is God giving us free will if you take choices away from me?
So, you're okay with them on (a) gluttony (Chick-Fil-A's classic has 26 grams of fat ), and (b) lying (see above).
The Bible says that God hates liars and lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.
Your support of "traditional values" with respect to CFA comes at the singular expense of your support of what God says with respect elsewhere. CFA - good on marriage and family - but on treating your body like a temple (Romans 12), gluttony (Proverbs 12) and lying (Proverbs 12), they're a little "iffy" at best.
Knights Templar: Supporter of Lying and Gluttony. Thou Hypocrite.
Of course, that's not what I stated - so you're violating the 9th Commandment alleging that I did.
Every time you say, as you yourself have repeatedly to me, KT, that homosexuality is a sin and that I am in sin simply because I am gay without making reference to any act or acts (and you have, in fact, done that to me on this BBS), you are saying that very thing. So spare me the duplicity of your statements. You really should do a better job of keeping track of what you say. It's a pity I still have to do it for you.
But talking about lying to you is "meaningless" if I invoke Proverbs, because, according to you, that's in the Old Testament and, according to your eccentric views of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, only the NT is binding and the OT is just full of useful wisdom but not really binding. This, of course, is one of the dumbest things you've ever said to me or anybody else - for the New Testament doesn't teach that. What the NT actually teaches is the Old Covenant has passed away because of the New, it never says that the OT is no longer applicable or any of the other nonsense you try to pass off. I would have thought by now, that, despite the end of our regular interaction elsewhere, you would realize you have no hope whatsoever of gaining any traction in an exegetical or theological argument with me. I advise you now to meet a hasty retreat.
Last edited:
Exactly, I honestly don't know where people are getting this idea that the boycott is simply because of the views of the ownership or Cathy's statements. No, no, no, no. It's the active disempowerment of gays by the company through its charitable contributions that is in view. It's the taking of gays' money and channeling it into anti-gay poltiical and social organizations that's in view, and so on.
Have you talked to gay people here about some of their parents?!
Mine are fantastic. Phenomenal. They new I was gay before I did, and told me more than once that they would always love and support me.
They've been together for 35 years. I've seen them go through life as a team. They raised their three kids with love, and are my favorite people in the world.
I'm so glad.
There are more than a few here who some major issues, usually with their dad.
<voice = Baptist_preacher_3>
Now see there. Start talkin' bout gay marriage and the next thing ya know they's wantin' brothers marryin' sisters. Next it'll be gay penguins at the zoo!
</voice>
Had to go there. The setup was too perfect.
Well, as a sudden Baptist convert, I, for one, am very uncomfortable eating at a place run by a man named Cathy. It ain't right.
^ The idea that swine refers to a cloven-hoofed pig was a serious error corrected by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
As Jesus taught it, dogs and swine are people who totally suck. "Pearls before swine" specifically refers to having your jewelry appraised by Chumley.
The passage from Leviticus means that swine are unclean to you, but unclean is always relative, so you should strive to be cleaner than they are. You shouldn't eat them, nor touch their dead bodies, which is a warning that wouldn't be needed if they weren't dead. So a proper reading of Leviticus is "Bathe more than the stinking hippies, and when you meet them, kill them, but don't eat them or poke at their rotting corpses." It's an injunction against cannibalism, and an admonition to run over OWS protesters with your SUV. It obviously wouldn't make a lick of sense for the Bible to say you can't eat pigs but forget to say you shouldn't eat people. God didn't even bother to tell us not to eat spiders. He made us want to puke just from thinking it.
I'm always amazed at people who don't understand the Bible because they haven't given its words sufficient thought.
As Jesus taught it, dogs and swine are people who totally suck. "Pearls before swine" specifically refers to having your jewelry appraised by Chumley.
The passage from Leviticus means that swine are unclean to you, but unclean is always relative, so you should strive to be cleaner than they are. You shouldn't eat them, nor touch their dead bodies, which is a warning that wouldn't be needed if they weren't dead. So a proper reading of Leviticus is "Bathe more than the stinking hippies, and when you meet them, kill them, but don't eat them or poke at their rotting corpses." It's an injunction against cannibalism, and an admonition to run over OWS protesters with your SUV. It obviously wouldn't make a lick of sense for the Bible to say you can't eat pigs but forget to say you shouldn't eat people. God didn't even bother to tell us not to eat spiders. He made us want to puke just from thinking it.
I'm always amazed at people who don't understand the Bible because they haven't given its words sufficient thought.
Funny how you interpret that passage of Leviticus when you (inclusive you) leave no room for interpretation concerning that so-called homosexuality passage from Leviticus...
Well, as I pointed out up above, being a bigot isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm bigoted against people who think gays should be executed.
But back to the topic, in which the mayors of Boston and Chicago said a franchise can't open in their cities because of the founder's opinions on gay marriage. Ignoring the Constitutional violations, is this the rule we want to go with? Because if it is, for the vast majority of this country's history it would've meant that the government could have banned gays from opening any business, and would still mean that any mayor could ban any gay owned business of any kind, or any business whose owner supports gay marriage.
It doesn't matter if gays and gay supporters think they'll win most of the time, or that most mayors would support them. It means that gay or gay supporters anywhere could lose his business because of his sexual orientation or opinions. You can score easy points in some of the games, like Chicago and Boston, but everyone else has to play too, and everyone has to take their livelihood onto the field and stand to lose it.
Does that sound like a step forward? Does that sound like tolerance? Both mayors should be dragged out to the woodshed and beaten with a stick before they set a precedent for the summary execution of unpopular minorities while they're on this sanctimonious sugar rush from their culturally enlightened superiority.
We limit government for a good reason, because throughout human history people in power are invariably convinced that they're right on all the issues and show few innate qualms about cleansing, punishing, or re-educating those who aren't on board with the ruler's latest brilliant insight that just happens to ape the latest trend. And usually when they do it, the majority agrees with their position, because otherwise the politician wouldn't have done it.
Brilliant insights oddly come hard on the heels of polling, for some strange reason, which is why Democrats are suddenly all for gay marriage (which even Obama didn't support in 2008), but won't touch gun control with a stick (which they all supported not long ago).
Political winds shift back and forth, and we have tried to keep government officials from overtly punishing the lives and livelihoods of their political or cultural opponents in ways completely unrelated to the political and cultural questions in dispute. Chicken sandwiches have absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage.
If you go for the cheap win in one game by throwing out the rule book, be prepared for heavy losses in other ones, and bear in mind that the losses devastate the lives of those who lose in a game that all of us had long ago decided not to play because the victories are hollow and the losses are real.
