The Proud Whopper - Burger King serves GAY Food - This is the beginning of the END

Wait, so what were BK trying to impose on us with the "Left-Handed Whopper"??

They are obviously a subversive CIA company set out to meld the minds of the burger-lover.

Is there a term for a person who like to stick the hoo-hoo dilly into a cheese burger?

Conservatives losing their marbles over a fast food chain promotion and calling it "the beginning of the END".

I love it.

a reply to: SheopleNation

That's the same mindset that restricts kids who are bullied so the bullies will not target them. Punish the bullies, not the bullied.

You said yourself that it happens to groups anyway and you don't need to be anyone special. (One reason I refuse to eat at fast food places.)

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Equality means a burger is a burger. Not wrapped one way for some, and a different way for others.

They're all wrapped the same. In a rainbow that says, "We are all the same inside"... There's not someone out there taking a survey to find out if you're gay and then serving you the rainbow wrapper.

a reply to: Leonidas

You have me quoting something I didn't say. I know you can't edit it now, but wanted to make it clear for others reading.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
If it was a burger in Red White and Blue we would praise them for being patriotic, if it was in a wrapper that had crosses on it or Scripture we would praise them for their faith and using their "Freedom" of Religion, if it was a wrapper with Guns on it we would praise them for their patriotic Freedom of the second amendment .

but if you put a Rainbow on it for Pride month (which is inclusive of Heterosexual as well) and say ‘We are all the same inside.’ meaning no matter what Color of the Rainbow we are we are all Human. it is bringing upon the end of the "Free" world, and we are asking for Special treatment, and we are Militant

Best post in the thread! Quoted for truth.

a reply to: JohnPhoenix

Bloody pathetic and I hope the burgers have poison in them.

Ridiculous catering for ridiculous people..

What next?

a reply to: khnum

Because of people like you? That's the conclusion to your sentence, right?

a reply to: wulff

In your examples the majority has those things already. They're just called Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday... January, March, April, May, June, August, September, October, November, December. And we've had what 7 or so non-white Miss America's? "But, but, but... the blacks have February and the gays have July....waaaaaaaah!"

originally posted by: [post=18113267]Benevolent Heretic
That's the same mindset that restricts kids who are bullied so the bullies will not target them. Punish the bullies, not the bullied.

What mindset? What the hell are you talking about, who is punishing who, who is bullying who, and for what?

I seriously doubt you can successfully explain that load of bs.

You said yourself that it happens to groups anyway and you don't need to be anyone special.

Atleast give yourself a fighting chance, instead of putting up red flags. Anyone who orders that burger will eventually be targeted without a doubt.

One reason I refuse to eat at fast food places.

Yeah, I rarely will ever eat fast food. Usually it's while traveling on the road when desperate times call for desperate measures. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I see that. I am at a remedial "multiple nested quotes in a thread" level. My apologies.

But the greater question is Who owns Burger King and why do they want to turn us all into Left-handed-homo's!?! And who is arming these "Militants with the Ghey".

They are trying to make Gay Marriage mandatory! Clearly the "Meh, be happy you found someone you love to spend your life with" is only making mean-spirited and dumb people afraid.

Gay Marriage Will be Mandatory if BK gets it's way!!

a reply to: KyoZero

So, if I'm reading you right, you draw the line at "harm", or presumed harm in the case of those who can't speak up to protest, and further, that harm is gauged on an individual basis, rather than a collective one - i.e. harm to an individual, rather than harm to a society, a civilization, or any other sort of collective entity. I can live with that, if I'm reading it right. I personally wouldn't go so far as to refer to those harmful folk as "sick" (because it's not for me to determine their internal state, only to deal with their external actions), but harmful and in need of being dealt with (to prevent them from bringing further harm to other individuals), I can handle.

I'm unfamiliar with the concept of a "pansexual". As I mentioned, this is no longer the planet I was born on. There we only had two genders in most species, with a few species having but one gender which combined both of the two genders found in other species, and a few other species having but one gender with no need of a combination - they reproduced asexually, through a splitting of the organism itself, creating essentially two new "clones" of what was formerly just one organism. So anyhow, how many genders ARE there among humans now? "Pansexual" could only have been a reference to "bisexual" back on my old Earth. One was either a "he" or a "she", a "sir" or a "ma'am", generally based on the way one presented one's self. If it wore a dress and heels and makeup, that human was a "she", and if it wore pants and workboots and spit and scratched a lot, that human was a "he". Now, to be fair, some "shes" had an adam's apple and whatnot, but we never checked under the hood to make sure what kind of motor was there. To be honest, we probably didn't really want to know.

Nowadays, that sort of thing is pretty much flung into our faces, on TV, on the internet, in magazines, and occasionally, believe it or not, when we're just walking down the street trying to mind our own business. We (us old guys, I guess) don't much want to mind other folks business, but there it is anyhow, just begging to be minded. Out of all the unusual (to me) things I've seen, I never identified another (third or further) gender, so I'm a bit lost on the whole pansexual concept.

Pedophilia is wrong, in moral terms (as distinct from religious terms, since I've ran across some pretty amoral "religious" folks), for precisely the reasons you state - it does harm, grievous harm, to an individual who is unable to give consent. It follows them the rest of their days, through no fault of their own, and can - and often does - poison every relationship they ever engage in thereafter... that means it not only harms THEM, but all of their future partners as well. I really can't see the sort of thing you seem to be talking about among adults doing that sort of harm, so of course the two should not be equated. They're not even in the same ballpark. Does that make pedophiles "sick"? It's not for me to say, any more than it's for me to say that gays, neocons, progressives or shoe salesmen are "sick". it's not up to me to assess their internal state, only their external actions as they impact other individuals.

What adults do amongst themselves in their own bedrooms isn't any of my business - it has no impact on ME whatsoever. What they do on the street, TRYING to impact me, however, sometimes just bugs the crap out of me, whether of a sexual nature or not. Are those people "sick"? Not for me to say, but where the rubber meets the road (sometimes literally around here), if they are forcefully TRYING to impact me, then they need to start expecting to get impacted right back, perhaps in ways they never saw coming. Do what thou wilt, but don't do it in my face unless you want me doing what I do in yours, and we're all good.

If I ask a question, then it's because I want to know - but unasked questions should never be answered just to be irritating someone into one's own way of thinking... that rarely turns out well.

Apologies for the book-length response.

a reply to: nenothtu


As a fellow "old-white-guy", you don't speak for me or any of the other old dudes I know. Whatever happened to "Live and let live"? Are you YOUNG enough to remember that? And how much sense it made to everyone? The "good old days" made it mandatory for some citizens to ride the back of the bus and drink from different water fountains. Woman's Rights weren't seen as necessary or "Lady Like".

We are living in the Better Days than the "Good Old Days".

Professing your ignorance surrounding the issue at hand does not give you a pass to say hateful and ignorant things about whole groups of people you "dont get".

If you dont "Get it", go out there and educate yourself until you DO get it. Until then, you are just repeating your fears and pining for some non-existent Rockwellian past that hid the true hate and unfairness of that time.

Either get educated on the issues or restrict your Old-White-Man-Bigotry spouting to your rocking-chair.

There are lots of Old-White-Guys out here that DO get it, you have no excuse.

originally posted by: Leonidas

originally posted by: [post=18108777]Benevolent Heretic
What ever happened to a business owners right to refuse service to anyone anytime?

That "Right" exists solely because of bigoted, sexist, racist business owners. It was always used as code for "We ain't servin' yer kind here!"

The Civil Rights Movement is largely responsible for exposing the small minded and mean spirited people behind the signs. There is a reason you don't see them very often anymore.

Negative, Leonidas.

I live in a predominantly black ghetto. I throw an average of 4 people a day out of my store, and tell them never to return. The vast majority of them are black, in keeping with the demographics of the neighborhood, and I'm not. Does that make me racist? Is my "don't come back in here - EVER" merely code for "we ain't serving yer kind 'round here"?

I still have the right to throw any damned body I want out of my store, for any reason or no reason, and never do business with them again, and I will continue to do so for as long as I'm here. They can bitch and whine about it all they want to - it's not going to change anything.

You come in my store with empty pockets and leave with full ones without benefit of going through the cashier line, you'd better leave fast - and not come back. You come into my store and get all disruptive - same story. Don't let the door bump you in the ass on the way out. I don't care whether you're right or wrong, you'd better be civil about it - civil to MY satisfaction - or yer ass hits the pavement outside.

a reply to: Leonidas

I'm just not sure what you are carrying on about.

I can't even imagine WANTING to speak for you or anyone else.

I always have, always will, and have always advocated a "live and let live" attitude, As I said in the very post that appears to have set you off, if it doesn't impact me, I don't care what you do.

Yeah, I'm an old guy, and I'll say any damned thing I want from my rocker on the porch...

... and you kids need to stay the hell off my lawn!

There are lots of Old-White-Guys out here that DO get it, you have no excuse.

I don't care what you get - it's neither any of my concern nor any of my business. For a guy professing to have a "live and let live" attitude, you sure seem to have a mighty thin skin, and do seem to have something against the "let live" part of the equation when folks come around asking questions. How in the devil am I supposed to get the education you claim to advocate without asking questions?

YOU can take things at face value and jump to conclusions all day long if you prefer - I'd rather go to the source and ask questions until I can figure it out.

And, finally, I never asked for your excuse nor your pardon. Do as you will.

a reply to: nenothtu

The world is changing - for the better - keep up. If this isn't the "planet you were born on" it is YOUR fault that you aren't keeping up. Your attempts at explaining the natural world are nothing more than a veiled attempt at hiding your hatred and fear for people that you don't understand.

"Old" is a number. It is not a valid excuse to hang onto outmoded ideas that do not accurately describe the planet we all live on today. Not just "your planet"

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: nenothtu

The world is changing - for the better - keep up. If this isn't the "planet you were born on" it is YOUR fault that you aren't keeping up. Your attempts at explaining the natural world are nothing more than a veiled attempt at hiding your hatred and fear for people that you don't understand.

"Old" is a number. It is not a valid excuse to hang onto outmoded ideas that do not accurately describe the planet we all live on today. Not just "your planet"

The world IS changing, and always has been, always will be. Whether or not it's "for the better" is a subjective opinion, and will vary from individual to individual, and indeed with the same individual, it will vary from issue to issue.

No one made you absolute arbiter of what is or is not "for the better". Your hoped for "utopia" will never be. The world consults neither you nor I whenever it decides to change something up.

"Hatred and fear of people I don't understand"? I've got references saying that you're wrong there, but think as you like.

I'm married to a Muslim.

We live in a black ghetto, and get along fairly well here. You would be aghast at my "twin brother from a separate mother".

We're going to dinner tonight at a Mexican's house - we were invited there as a sort of going away soire planned and executed by that Mexican and an immigrant from El Salvador - evidently they don't think quite as low of me as you seem to.

I have a gay friend who found himself in a situation where I was his ONLY friend - I never forsook him, nor did I back down from the inevitable censure I got for that. they could all bite me.

There's more where that came from.

Why don't you educate me on "fear and hatred of people I don't understand"?

How am I supposed to understand anything at all without asking questions, and giving my current understanding, laying it bare for correction?

Unless YOU are gay or pansexual, you have nothing at all to teach me currently, and I STILL ask neither your excuse nor your pardon.

One last thing, just to put in your file - you addressed me initially as "a fellow old white guy". that is an assumption on your part, and an incorrect one. just because I am not Black, nor Hispanic, that does not automatically make me white by default, either.

We are not the same, you and I. Celebrate that!

originally posted by: nenothtu
/snip

first off...I LOVE book length responses

I myself am trying to keep from drive-by one liners so I applaud your substance!

I'll start at the top as usual

I am finding myself lately open to redefinition. Up until very recent I was cocky and arrogant and believed my own definitions were wrote but these days I love love love when someone challenges me. Not because I think I am a great debate expert. That is hardly the case. Instead, it offers me the chance to change and adapt and become closer to truth. So for me, I guess I would have to return to the idea that harm is going to be subjective. Not so much as in an S/M relationship. I suppose if the "M" in the relationship enjoys pain then go get the whips and chains!

So, in attempt to continue this discussion, I would say harm is in the eye of the "victim." (I am going to use that term very loosely as I understand its connotations can be deep. I just need a good placeholder

If the victim is harmed, then is it not harm? If a woman is raped then I believe we do have a situation involving harm. She is a victim, and somebody, or somebodies, harm her. I don't think many will dispute that. But again I come back to, say, a nine year old who is molested. I admit that yes I feel harm in involved in such a case. I guess I broke my record player and keep coming back to the concept of consent. If some 40 year old wants to sleep with a 17 year old and the 17 year old consents, well, I might find it a bit icky but I have a hard time calling harm on that. I feel the 17 year old probably is at least a bit mature enough to understand the ramifications. But we go back to the 9 year old and we have to ask the tough questions. Did she/can she consent? And then you have to go deeper and ask at what age CAN she consent? It's an ugly quandary at best I think. But again I am not here to debate whether it's ok to be an acting pedophile. More to the point, you talked about calling someone 'sick.' I'd have to agree with you on this. Who am I to determine that someone is sick or not based on their actions? I suppose me sleeping with another guy could be seen as sick to others, and while I don't agree, I suppose I shouldn't take my own feelings of oppression out on others. Fair play to you on this one.

To your second statement, I have to again see both sides of the coin here. So a brief on pansexual is someone (regardless of gender) who is attracted to both man and woman AND transman and transwoman. So you mentioned that this isn't the planet you used to live on. I would have to ask the question to you AND myself, did the planet change or did we just not notice before? I believe the answer lies in the middle. On one hand, the internet and widespread media are indeed a force and many people have probably felt safer coming out now as opposed to say, the 50's. But at the same time, I admit I have met my fair share of LGBT who think it fashionable to be LGBT in these newer days. I'll admit that it took me years of my own soul searching to determine if I was who I am now. My experiences and comfort level with who I am have given me a positive answer and yes it is legitimately me but then there is something to be said for those who may not be as genuine. I'm sorry LGBT folks but they do exist...not very many in my opinion but it happens.

I again love your comment in paragraph three. It is wrong, but to make that value judgment on the actor is not necessarily up to you or I. So no further comment needed here as you covered it

The only area I will call into question is your final paragraph before you closed. You mention that what I or anyone else does in my bedroom is not your business and does not impact you. I agree and again kudos to your thoughts here. But I have to now ask my own genuine question. What part does affect you? Is it things like PRIDE fests/parades? Boycotts of things like Hobby Lobby? As you stated, I am not trying to trap you, I'd love to know your thoughts. Where does the business of the LGBT community begin to affect you?

Thank you

originally posted by: KyoZero

I am finding myself lately open to redefinition. Up until very recent I was cocky and arrogant and believed my own definitions were wrote but these days I love love love when someone challenges me. Not because I think I am a great debate expert. That is hardly the case. Instead, it offers me the chance to change and adapt and become closer to truth.

That's "growth", and the only alternative to growth is either death or stagnation, which I believe is itself a form of death - one just doesn't fall down is all. Throughout life we learn and we grow thereby. Nothing wrong with adjustments - it makes the machine run so much better!

I believe that some harm IS objective, rather than subjective. The case of the 9 year old - that, to me, is objective harm. A 9 year old is incapable of giving consent, because they have not seen enough of the world to formulate an opinion. The case of the rape victim is objective harm, as well. The victim didn't ask for it, or it wouldn't be rape, and so he or she is violated both in their liberty to choose and in their physical being. That total violation of the person, physically, mentally, and emotionally, is perhaps the deepest sort of harm that can be done. The case of the child is the same - it's rape, a violation of the entire being without any consent.

The case of the S+M, I suppose, is more subjective, up to the individual to set limits and lines that, when crossed, becomes an objective violation, objective harm.

But again I am not here to debate whether it's ok to be an acting pedophile. More to the point, you talked about calling someone 'sick.' I'd have to agree with you on this. Who am I to determine that someone is sick or not based on their actions? I suppose me sleeping with another guy could be seen as sick to others, and while I don't agree, I suppose I shouldn't take my own feelings of oppression out on others. Fair play to you on this one.

I think EVERYONE is oppressed at some point in their lives, some more than others. I believe it's our job to rise above that, rather than getting dragged down into the morass. "Rising above" by pushing others down is just an illusion - there is no actual rise, just a relative repositioning. To rise, in my mind, is to spread your wings and rise in actuality, leaving the oppressor in the dust of their own creation, at their own level. truly, what does it matter what they think? They are in the dust, where WE don't want to be, and we will likely never change them - change comes from within the self, and we can't do it for them, no matter what we do.

Live, be yourself, and to hell with the opinions of others. Fighting them only drags US down with them, to their level.

To your second statement, I have to again see both sides of the coin here. So a brief on pansexual is someone (regardless of gender) who is attracted to both man and woman AND transman and transwoman.

Ah, I see! I consider myself educated now! I never considered transexuals to be a separate gender. Post-op, they are who they are, pre-op, they are who they are, and during the process, I guess it could get a little iffy without concrete lines being set, by them. they are who they say they are, and generally, I think, present themselves as what they want to be recognized as. I just always considered them one or the other, never an in-between or a third.

So you mentioned that this isn't the planet you used to live on. I would have to ask the question to you AND myself, did the planet change or did we just not notice before? I believe the answer lies in the middle.

So do I. It's something of both, Actual change and mere perceptual change.

On one hand, the internet and widespread media are indeed a force and many people have probably felt safer coming out now as opposed to say, the 50's. But at the same time, I admit I have met my fair share of LGBT who think it fashionable to be LGBT in these newer days. I'll admit that it took me years of my own soul searching to determine if I was who I am now. My experiences and comfort level with who I am have given me a positive answer and yes it is legitimately me but then there is something to be said for those who may not be as genuine. I'm sorry LGBT folks but they do exist...not very many in my opinion but it happens.

Once upon a time, I had a step-daughter who was "gay" just because it was trendy. She was a lot of things just because they were trendy, and it always bothered me. Not that she was "gay", or "wiccan", or any of the other trends she adhered to, but because she never quite knew who she was without some outside "trend" setting her personhood for her. I don't think she's "gay" any more, which to me is an indicator that she never was. People don't change their entire being overnight and on a whim, and then change back when it suits them, and I think it's false of them to fashion their entire being of the moment on a simple facet or a trend.

I again love your comment in paragraph three. It is wrong, but to make that value judgment on the actor is not necessarily up to you or I. So no further comment needed here as you covered it

Their values are not my lookout, nor mine to define, but upon occasion, their exercise of those values may impact me, or mine, at which point it's my place to stand and be counted, but not before. It's the external actions, not the internal being, that occasionally need to be dealt with. The core of their being, what's inside, is inside. Not for me to have an opinion of at all. External actions cab be "wrong", but internals cannot be.

The only area I will call into question is your final paragraph before you closed. You mention that what I or anyone else does in my bedroom is not your business and does not impact you. I agree and again kudos to your thoughts here. But I have to now ask my own genuine question. What part does affect you? Is it things like PRIDE fests/parades? Boycotts of things like Hobby Lobby? As you stated, I am not trying to trap you, I'd love to know your thoughts. Where does the business of the LGBT community begin to affect you?

Thank you

It only impacts me when they, or anyone else, try to force my opinion or acceptance. Just as they are who they are on the inside, and none of my business, so am I who I am on the inside, and that's none of their concern. PRIDE festivals and parades don't affect me, because I don't go to them. Just not my cup of tea. Boycotts the same - not for me to determine who THEY do business with or shun.

Sometimes, normal "on the street" interactions can be problematic. It's mostly a matter of how badly a person wants to force me to "accept" them, but more so the way they go about that. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about gaining that acceptance, and the more forceful and blatant approach isn't it, for me.

There have been a few times where gays have tried to "pick me up", and usually, "no" means "no", and no harm done, same as in a hetero approach. A couple of times, it's been more persistent than usual, which is bothersome, and on one occasion got downright militant, which nearly ended in violence, but that's not the norm that I've experienced. Stuff happens. (Oops. Megaresponse. Hit the post wall.)

a reply to: nenothtu (continued)

I can be a friend, but I choose who I am friends with - I won't be forced into it, nor will I be forced into "liking" something. I don't generally take matters that I think are of private concern into that, including sexuality. It's only a consideration if blatantly pressed onto me, and if it is, then my decision is usually in the negative. I don't see that as being the definition of the entire person until they try to make that the definition on their own.

Someone can say "your friend Jack is gay", and I reply "no, he's a carpenter".

"But he's GAY!"

"No, he's a hell of a poker player".

"But he's GAY!"

... and on and on. It's not a problem for me unless and until JACK tries to project that as his entire being. When Jack makes that the definition of what it is to be Jack, then I'm outta there. Not my cup of tea, and it makes conversation untenable, because jack becomes a dull boy when that's the only dimension Jack presents - there's nothing left to talk about, we are no longer in each other's worlds.

I need to go get ready for my party now. I'll be back later in the evening to check in.

I don't understand this really. This is threatening morality and whatnot? Damn those gays and their terrible sick agenda, 'we are all the same on the inside'. What next, 'Love your neighbor and treat them as you would yourself'? Terrible. Tbh this is nothing more than very bored and extremely self entitled people who can't stand when things aren't the way they think they should be. The fact that it's sold for like a week or so in the middle of the gayest city ever is even more telling, if they were going to push an agenda wouldn't there be a better place for it? This is like calling someone an agenda pusher for going into the middle of Vatican city and yelling 'JESUS EXISTS AND CAN SAVE US'. Not generalising everyone, but this sort of view/rant tends to be more from the conservative side, and lots of times the same people who rant on bout government interfering in businesses and telling them how to do their thing, I've come to realize it's just so they won't have another voice to compete with and try to talk over when they feel the need to spew noise out of their face holes about a business's practices. I really cannot understand how someone could be bothered by this. Just another example of the 'anything happening within a 2000 mile radius of me counts as shoving it in my face' mindset so many children trapped in adult bodies nowadays seem to have. Should prolly (or maybe not i dunno) point out and add that i'm gay, but that's not really much to do with it, I don't support gay pride or anything, not like I worked hard to achieve being gay. Just more against whiny nonsense no matter what groups are the subject, if someone complained bout jesus burgers i'd say the same stuff just tailored to that. All of this is nothing more than people getting angry at others for using their freedom in a way they don't agree with. Although I really wish I could get a good amount of these gay whoppers, repackage them, and then serve them to people who are so desperate for stimulation that they have to pretend gay people existing effects them in any way whatsoever. Then be completely unsurprised as they go about their day likely slightly less healthy and nothing more because they ate a whopper, be it a gay one or not. In the end though, don't like it, don't buy it, there ya go problem solved. Although I have thought before the whole gay debate has a good purpose, which is keeping people who would even worry bout such nonsense from voicing their opinions about things that actually matter. a 'keeps em off the streets' sort of effect.