Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Chick-Fila
Replies
-
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...
Coke and Pepsi both support gay rights. I just prefer Pepsi. Don't tell anyone. Here in GA I could be killed for saying that.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.
I get that... but this would be my ideal... simply because marriage has always been a tool for discrimination... whether it's based on socio-economic status, "blood-line", race, religion, gender. There was a judge in Louisiana a couple of years (yes in this century) back that tried to deny a inter-racial couple a marriage license because "it wasn't right" or some such.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...
Coke and Pepsi both support gay rights. I just prefer Pepsi. Don't tell anyone. Here in GA I could be killed for saying that.
:laugh: I'm a Dr Pepper person myself... but hey, I am from Texas and all...0 -
Wait, I thought it was coke...
Oh *kitten*...it wasn't? Adrenaline and a heart needle, sta-
LOL! Now I want to watch Pulp Fiction. BTW EvanKeel, good progress on the pic.`0 -
I thought I read/heard somewhere that the reason of “traditional marriage” was instituted and woven into the fabric of our constitution was to give rights to the children that would be a subsequent product of that union? I could be wrong..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...
Coke and Pepsi both support gay rights. I just prefer Pepsi. Don't tell anyone. Here in GA I could be killed for saying that.
"You could get killed out walking your doggie!"
(As long as we are now using movie references).0 -
I thought I read/heard somewhere that the reason of “traditional marriage” was instituted and woven into the fabric of our constitution was to give rights to the children that would be a subsequent product of that union? I could be wrong..
I guess I don't know what you mean by woven into the fabric of our constitution.0 -
I think "Christians" keep forgetting one of the more important laws of religion; Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself!
Ultimately ""Why the hell does a fast food restaurant have a stance on same sex marriage?"
Someone explain this to me?
Oh I'm with you! And, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I think that the owner is a douche, not only because he gives money to hate-promoting organizations, but because he should have realized how polarizing his commentary would be, and how likely it was to create a kerfuffle. I think it was fiscally irresponsible to his franchise owners to open his trap.
Agreed! Dan Cathy is smart as whip. . .for his bottomline. Look at all of the free fookin' bucks he's making from his latest comments!! He might believe himself sincere and in that respect is delusional but he has the marketing thing down cold.
Don't employers have to abide by federal hiring laws? In that case, his company couldn't discriminate legally against sexual orientation and that's his beef. . .I mean chicken? Is this issue what started his "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage as written in the Bible" comments?
-Debra0 -
I think "Christians" keep forgetting one of the more important laws of religion; Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself!
Ultimately ""Why the hell does a fast food restaurant have a stance on same sex marriage?"
Someone explain this to me?
Oh I'm with you! And, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I think that the owner is a douche, not only because he gives money to hate-promoting organizations, but because he should have realized how polarizing his commentary would be, and how likely it was to create a kerfuffle. I think it was fiscally irresponsible to his franchise owners to open his trap.
Agreed! Dan Cathy is smart as whip. . .for his bottomline. Look at all of the free fookin' bucks he's making from his latest comments!! He might believe himself sincere and in that respect is delusional but he has the marketing thing down cold.
Don't employers have to abide by federal hiring laws? In that case, his company couldn't discriminate legally against sexual orientation and that's his beef. . .I mean chicken? Is this issue what started his "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage as written in the Bible" comments?
-Debra
Are you saying he's not hiring gays? Or that you're saying he wishes he doesn't have to hire gays? Either way, lots of gays working there in Maryland. Gotta work right? They can't discriminate either right?0 -
Agreed! Dan Cathy is smart as whip. . .for his bottomline. Look at all of the free fookin' bucks he's making from his latest comments!! He might believe himself sincere and in that respect is delusional but he has the marketing thing down cold.
Don't employers have to abide by federal hiring laws? In that case, his company couldn't discriminate legally against sexual orientation and that's his beef. . .I mean chicken? Is this issue what started his "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage as written in the Bible" comments?
-Debra
There are no federal laws that recognize anyone's sexual orientation as a protected class when it comes to hiring and firing--at least not to that level of specificity.0 -
I am way late to this thread but, what exactly are the anti-gay groups that chickfila supports?
All I could find were foundations like Winshape etc. while looking online.0 -
I don't know how homosexuals or their supporters that this isn't bigotry when anti-gay marry people are protesting gay marriage based on religion but it's legal for two satan worshipers to get married.0
-
I don't know how homosexuals or their supporters that this isn't bigotry when anti-gay marry people are protesting gay marriage based on religion but it's legal for two satan worshipers to get married.
I don't know how homosexuals or their supporters are supposed to feel that this isn't bigotry when anti-gay marry people are protesting gay marriage based on religion but it's legal for two satan worshipers to get married.
Had to fix it. That's the problem with typing on a debate forum at 2 in the morning during another bout of insomnia.0 -
Thanks for clarifying, Adrian. Based on your other posts, I thought that must be what you meant, but it's good to be sure.0
-
Thanks for clarifying, Adrian. Based on your other posts, I thought that must be what you meant, but it's good to be sure.
No problem, I didn't see that it made little sense until this morning. But doesn't anyone else find that astonishing....that in theory to gay christians are being denied the legality of marriage.....but two satan worshippers are allowed?0 -
I am way late to this thread but, what exactly are the anti-gay groups that chickfila supports?
All I could find were foundations like Winshape etc. while looking online.
Winshape is CFA's charity. Winshape gave almost $2 million dollars to anti-gay groups in 2010.
Fwiw, I'm surprised (yet glad?) that crazy 'ol Exodus only received $1,000... The link below outlines each organization.
Here's the break down:
Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500
(source: http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001)0 -
I find it ironic all of this publicity has increased Chick-Fila's sales allowing them to send even more money to anti-gay charities if they chose.
Exactly!!0 -
I find it ironic all of this publicity has increased Chick-Fila's sales allowing them to send even more money to anti-gay charities if they chose.
Exactly!!
(Yea, yea, yea I know some of those people do support real causes. I also know that most don't because if even half of them did the world would be much better off.)0 -
(Yea, yea, yea I know some of those people do support real causes. I also know that most don't because if even half of them did the world would be much better off.)
Agreed big time. If only ALL SIDES would (not just one specific one), the world would be a better place.0 -
I am way late to this thread but, what exactly are the anti-gay groups that chickfila supports?
All I could find were foundations like Winshape etc. while looking online.
Winshape is CFA's charity. Winshape gave almost $2 million dollars to anti-gay groups in 2010.
Fwiw, I'm surprised (yet glad?) that crazy 'ol Exodus only received $1,000... The link below outlines each organization.
Here's the break down:
Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500
(source: http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001)
Thank you. I had been looking for this info but kept dead ending at winshape. Some of those do sound pretty bad. I like the idea of groups that make traditional marriage better, but not at the cost of gay marriage / rights.0