Chick-Fila
Options
Replies
-
i liked how you picked the animal route. do you wear all american made clothing, i'm going to say... no. case closed! as long as it's your rights, you're pissed, (i get it, seriously) but if it's some poor japanese or chinese or mexican child laborer, who cares, no shirt off your back, right?
It's a fair point, and it's one I've been looking into ever since I started trying to figure out how to get my next smartphone from a company that doesn't manufacture in China--harder than it sounds when we consider where parts are made.
I've said it before, being a hypocrite doesn't make me wrong, it just means I need to look at another area of my life with more scrutiny.
I give it a 4 out of 10 on the self-righteous scale. You make a solid point, but ultimately it doesn't devalue the rest of my statements.0 -
i liked how you picked the animal route. do you wear all american made clothing, i'm going to say... no. case closed! as long as it's your rights, you're pissed, (i get it, seriously) but if it's some poor japanese or chinese or mexican child laborer, who cares, no shirt off your back, right?
It's a fair point, and it's one I've been looking into ever since I started trying to figure out how to get my next smartphone from a company that doesn't manufacture in China--harder than it sounds when we consider where parts are made.
I've said it before, being a hypocrite doesn't make me wrong, it just means I need to look at another area of my life with more scrutiny.
I give it a 4 out of 10 on the self-righteous scale. You make a solid point, but ultimately it doesn't devalue the rest of my statements.
very good! and as far as a smart phone, what the heck is that?? :noway: :smokin:0 -
i liked how you picked the animal route. do you wear all american made clothing, i'm going to say... no. case closed! as long as it's your rights, you're pissed, (i get it, seriously) but if it's some poor japanese or chinese or mexican child laborer, who cares, no shirt off your back, right?
Shocking I know that I'm more concerned with issues that have a direct impact on my family and how we choose to arrange our personal affairs than with the marginal impact of my purchases on anonymous people around the globe. I don't call it hypocrisy; I call it being human.
Similarly, I have no beef with people who aren't personally impacted by marriage equality issues eating at Chick-Fil-A because they enjoy the food. I do have a beef with people who went out of their way this week to eat at C-F-A to herald their support for Cathy's attacks on my family.0 -
Homosexual behavior won't become less sinful because the government says it's okay for them to get married, anymore than abortion is less sinful because the government permits that. A government can't redefine what God has already defined, and make no mistake about it, it is God, through His Word, who has defined marriage, not the Church, not governments, not man.
I personally don't believe the government should be in the business of saying who is married and who isn't, regardless of their sexual orientation. But no, it is not "splitting hairs" to say that it is the act that is sinful. Paul wrote about homosexuals who lived lives of celibacy in 1 Corinthians (that's the New Testament, for anyone planning to make a smart-aleck and completely ignorant remark about how the Bible also says eating shellfish is a sin punishable by death), and they were praised for it. He didn't say "Well, you're still gay, so go die in a fire." He said "You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."0 -
Homosexual behavior won't become less sinful because the government says it's okay for them to get married, anymore than abortion is less sinful because the government permits that. A government can't redefine what God has already defined, and make no mistake about it, it is God, through His Word, who has defined marriage, not the Church, not governments, not man.
I personally don't believe the government should be in the business of saying who is married and who isn't, regardless of their sexual orientation. But no, it is not "splitting hairs" to say that it is the act that is sinful. Paul wrote about homosexuals who lived lives of celibacy in 1 Corinthians (that's the New Testament, for anyone planning to make a smart-aleck and completely ignorant remark about how the Bible also says eating shellfish is a sin punishable by death), and they were praised for it. He didn't say "Well, you're still gay, so go die in a fire." He said "You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
I'm glad the 1st amendment protects your right to practice your religion and express your opinions. I'm also glad the 1st amendment protects me from you using government to impose your religion on me.0 -
Homosexual behavior won't become less sinful because the government says it's okay for them to get married, anymore than abortion is less sinful because the government permits that. A government can't redefine what God has already defined, and make no mistake about it, it is God, through His Word, who has defined marriage, not the Church, not governments, not man.
I personally don't believe the government should be in the business of saying who is married and who isn't, regardless of their sexual orientation. But no, it is not "splitting hairs" to say that it is the act that is sinful. Paul wrote about homosexuals who lived lives of celibacy in 1 Corinthians (that's the New Testament, for anyone planning to make a smart-aleck and completely ignorant remark about how the Bible also says eating shellfish is a sin punishable by death), and they were praised for it. He didn't say "Well, you're still gay, so go die in a fire." He said "You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
When we're talking about the government, your views on what's sinful are irrelevant. The government doesn't tell the Catholic church that it has to perform marriages for Jews or Atheists. Likewise the Church's idea of sin shouldn't mean anything to the government when it comes to marriage
Obviously the government has to show/designate some legal status for people who are entering into a binding contract of this type. All parties in the contract need to be treated equally. Likewise people shouldn't be barred from entering into the contract based on gender--it shows a lack of equality for unjustifiable reasons.0 -
Homosexual behavior won't become less sinful because the government says it's okay for them to get married, anymore than abortion is less sinful because the government permits that. A government can't redefine what God has already defined, and make no mistake about it, it is God, through His Word, who has defined marriage, not the Church, not governments, not man.
I personally don't believe the government should be in the business of saying who is married and who isn't, regardless of their sexual orientation. But no, it is not "splitting hairs" to say that it is the act that is sinful. Paul wrote about homosexuals who lived lives of celibacy in 1 Corinthians (that's the New Testament, for anyone planning to make a smart-aleck and completely ignorant remark about how the Bible also says eating shellfish is a sin punishable by death), and they were praised for it. He didn't say "Well, you're still gay, so go die in a fire." He said "You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
When we're talking about the government, your views on what's sinful are irrelevant. The government doesn't tell the Catholic church that it has to perform marriages for Jews or Atheists. Likewise the Church's idea of sin shouldn't mean anything to the government when it comes to marriage
Obviously the government has to show/designate some legal status for people who are entering into a binding contract of this type. All parties in the contract need to be treated equally. Likewise people shouldn't be barred from entering into the contract based on gender--it shows a lack of equality for unjustifiable reasons.
The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.0 -
The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.
Is incest legal in the USA? Seriously asking0 -
The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.
Is incest legal in the USA? Seriously asking
Incest is not legal in the USA. Not sure why you would ask unless you have ulterior motives.
Civil union is a contract. It has nothing to do with sex.0 -
That's pretty much my view too. The only issue that comes into it with your brother is then we get into the idea of siblings entering this kind of contract due to the possibility of birth defects - not that you and your brother have this issue unless one of you happens to be bearing a secret uterus. But I agree wholeheartedly that to sidestep the whole problem of this being about marriage name the license something else: civil unions, domestic partnerships, significant attachment license...whatever, but with all of the local, state and federal rights currently afforded to "married" people. I suppose those who are currently married would be grandfathered in as well.The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.
But, yeah, that's always been my position. The gov't affords the rights and responsibilities in a license and a courthouse procedure (lose the word ceremony for it too). Then anyone who wants to can go have a wedding wherever they want provided that place performs the kind of ceremony they want - it's not like you go to a rabbi and say, "So, I'd like a traditional Catholic latin mass wedding."0 -
The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.
It's a popular idea. I don't see a need for it. I would probably be more open to it if 90% (yeah I made that up, but it's my perception) of the people who suggest it weren't suggesting it because they don't like the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. To me civil unions usually represent a compromise on something that shouldn't need a compromise.
As far as siblings, or other people, taking the legal status of someone we historically think of as a spouse, goes, I don't see a problem with that either. I am curious, though, what kind of undertaking that would be. You'd have to look at all the laws on both state and federal levels to see how that would play out if you wanted to ditch all marriages and replace them with civil unions. We'd have similar questions if we wanted to legalize poly marriages as well, though that would probably be more complex.0 -
He wasn't saying he would have sex with his brother. Just he should be able to enter into into a civil union with whomever he wanted, independent of religion. Sex within that relationship is not the government's business.0
-
I am the 10%!It's a popular idea. I don't see a need for it. I would probably be more open to it if 90% (yeah I made that up, but it's my perception) of the people who suggest it weren't suggesting it because they don't like the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. To me civil unions usually represent a compromise on something that shouldn't need a compromise.0 -
I think the State should be out of the marriage business (and civil union) all together... If you want a civil contract with someone (or even multiple someones for all I care) then go to a lawyers office. You should be able to put whoever you want on your health insurance policy... you should be able to have whoever you want to make medical decisions for you in the event that you can't... you should be able to have whoever you want take care of your business when you can't.... A certificate from the State shouldn't dictate any of that.0
-
Incest is not legal in the USA. Not sure why you would ask unless you have ulterior motives.
Civil union is a contract. It has nothing to do with sex.
LMAO!!! No ulterior motives sir. I was just wondering about the civil union with a brother. I know incest is a sexual act, but I was wondering if the state would allow a civil union between brothers since they might assume that there will be some form of consumation. Just curious. But way different topic.0 -
The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.
It's a popular idea. I don't see a need for it. I would probably be more open to it if 90% (yeah I made that up, but it's my perception) of the people who suggest it weren't suggesting it because they don't like the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. To me civil unions usually represent a compromise on something that shouldn't need a compromise.
As far as siblings, or other people, taking the legal status of someone we historically think of as a spouse, goes, I don't see a problem with that either. I am curious, though, what kind of undertaking that would be. You'd have to look at all the laws on both state and federal levels to see how that would play out if you wanted to ditch all marriages and replace them with civil unions. We'd have similar questions if we wanted to legalize poly marriages as well, though that would probably be more complex.
Yes I agree with you about why people propose Civil Unions as the name instead of Marriage. It's all terminology but I guess I would feel weird marrying my brother so he could get health insurance.
Right now the only difference between my marriage and a gay couple (that say they are married) is that my wife is covered by my insurance and has rights as my wife (partner) whereas the gay couple is screwed. It's not right. To go a step further, my wife and I got married primarily so she would be covered by my insurance. We lived together for 8 years first. Been together 21 years total.
Changing the laws would be rough but well worth whatever effort is required.
All that being said, I support gay rights 100% and will vote for them if given the opportunity but I will probably still have a couple chicken biscuits from CFA this year. Allow me a guilty pleasure. I promise to consume a Pepsi to neutralize support I may contribute to organizations I disdain.0 -
The rights afforded married couples and the responsibilities required of them is too deeply embedded in the fabric of the law to simply remove it. Re-naming it might seem just as hard...actually no it doesn't. It's hitting find and replace in Word as opposed to throwing away the whole document and pretending it enver existed.I think the State should be out of the marriage business (and civil union) all together... If you want a civil contract with someone (or even multiple someones for all I care) then go to a lawyers office. You should be able to put whoever you want on your health insurance policy... you should be able to have whoever you want to make medical decisions for you in the event that you can't... you should be able to have whoever you want take care of your business when you can't.... A certificate from the State shouldn't dictate any of that.0 -
Incest is not legal in the USA. Not sure why you would ask unless you have ulterior motives.
Civil union is a contract. It has nothing to do with sex.
LMAO!!! No ulterior motives sir. I was just wondering about the civil union with a brother. I know incest is a sexual act, but I was wondering if the state would allow a civil union between brothers since they might assume that there will be some form of consumation. Just curious. But way different topic.
I don't know if there are US states that have consumation laws anymore, as such. I think there are covenant marriage laws in some places, though.0 -
The government should just replace the marriage license with a civil union license that allows any two consenting adults a civil union with all the rights afforded by the current marriage license. If I want to have a civil union with my brother in order to provide him the security currently given by a marriage license then I should be able to as long as I do not already have a civil union in effect with someone else.
It's a popular idea. I don't see a need for it. I would probably be more open to it if 90% (yeah I made that up, but it's my perception) of the people who suggest it weren't suggesting it because they don't like the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. To me civil unions usually represent a compromise on something that shouldn't need a compromise.
As far as siblings, or other people, taking the legal status of someone we historically think of as a spouse, goes, I don't see a problem with that either. I am curious, though, what kind of undertaking that would be. You'd have to look at all the laws on both state and federal levels to see how that would play out if you wanted to ditch all marriages and replace them with civil unions. We'd have similar questions if we wanted to legalize poly marriages as well, though that would probably be more complex.
Yes I agree with you about why people propose Civil Unions as the name instead of Marriage. It's all terminology but I guess I would feel weird marrying my brother so he could get health insurance.
Right now the only difference between my marriage and a gay couple (that say they are married) is that my wife is covered by my insurance and has rights as my wife (partner) whereas the gay couple is screwed. It's not right. To go a step further, my wife and I got married primarily so she would be covered by my insurance. We lived together for 8 years first. Been together 21 years total.
Changing the laws would be rough but well worth whatever effort is required.
All that being said, I support gay rights 100% and will vote for them if given the opportunity but I will probably still have a couple chicken biscuits from CFA this year. Allow me a guilty pleasure. I promise to consume a Pepsi to neutralize support I may contribute to organizations I disdain.
Wait, I thought it was Coke...0 -
*sniiiiiiiiiiiiiiffff*Wait, I thought it was coke...
Oh *kitten*...it wasn't? Adrenaline and a heart needle, sta-0
