Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

reply to post by humphreysjim


It's ridiculous, isn't it?

Just posted a response to him above...words almost failed me.

Don't really understand what the hooplah is all about.

If Chik-fil-a is a notoriously Christian company, why is everyone so surprised that they would come out with something like this?

How will we ever know whether or not the LGBTQ (by the way, the 'Q' stands for queer ) is a textbook "minority group" if people are too afraid of what society has to say if they were to come out and be true to who they really are?

They way it's going nowadays, we may never know.

And "obnoxious pests"? Are my human rights getting in the way of your bigotry?
My sincerest.
Even Jesus had two dads, honey.

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by rainbowbear
see, this whole gayness thing.--is wrapped up like this--

The Elitist/humanist/satinists- and they are really in control in high places--ARE ALL ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY!

What THEY want, is for them to have EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO HOMOSEXUALITY--

Are you kidding me? Do you think they give a damn if the "rights" are there or not? We already know that the elite breaks rules and do whatever they want, and their plans are much more than "homosexuality" they have more sinister plans...

I can't believe people actually think that the elite is "all about" homosexuality. They have much bigger plans then that, you need to wake up.

And even if the elite were for homosexuality, that doesn't make it evil. Is it guilty by association? Wow, you really are simple-minded..

If you'd take an hour to research, you'd find that sodomy features in the rituals of most mystery religions. You'd then maybe begin to suspect why the largest pulpit in the world - the media - indoctrinated you and your kids with the idea that sodomy is a 'human rights' issue. Sodomy is the 'back-door' to the spirit world, and tragically, the descendants of once Christian forefathers can sense the propaganda and indoctrination, but have been emasculated themselves to prevent outright rejection of such a vile practice. If you refuse to become as wise as a serpent yet as innocent as a dove, then everything will continue going over your head.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Annee

 

If it was really about equal rights, it wouldn't even be about gay marriage, but about ending the unfair legal-financial advantages that a document like that has.

NO - - Equal Rights first.

If you want to fight for change after everyone has the same Equal Rights - - as of Right Now - - then go ahead.

But not until ALL have the same Equal Right.

ohhh, snap, you got called out here.

Essentially, what do gay people need a marriage certificate for?

Your "equal rights' argument falls here if you are not inline with what Cynic said - the single mother struggles for the same "rights" as gay people do because she's not married.

Or is it really just semantics and needing a cause?

Originally posted by gncnew

ohhh, snap, you got called out here.

Essentially, what do gay people need a marriage certificate for?

Your "equal rights' argument falls here if you are not inline with what Cynic said - the single mother struggles for the same "rights" as gay people do because she's not married.

Or is it really just semantics and needing a cause?

Take your snap and shove it.

All having the right to the same thing is Equal.

What does a single mom have to do with everyone having the same right to marry?

I was a single mom. I got married.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by grey580

 

No.

Because you can not pick and choose what sounds gay (happy) from the bible and discard the rest.

You fail to understand Christians don't hate they pitty (sympathy or sarrow for another)

People on here are trying to use the bible, which ironically, they also say is a false book. Untill they find a few words that may help their argument.

God says in the bible he "loves" and he "Hates".

You do what he loves and don't do what he hates. Simple really. If you are stuck on god hating something take it up with him not his followers. They didn't say it.

You fail to understand that not everyone believes in the same thing.
And you say pity? I've been around enough bible believers who don't pity gays. They want to smash their faces in.

This is a free country to believe in what you wish or you can believe in nothing at all. And you are protected to do so by the constitution. So if you want to believe in the flying spaghetti and not christianity you can.

Some people don't want to hear someone elses brand of crazy. And quite frankly this shouldn't be about the bible. It should be about people trying to get along. Not about how your brand of religion is better than anyone elses. You're begging to alienate people that way.

I'll end this with this quote.

Dear World,

Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.

Sincerely, tired of hearing your religious guff

Originally posted by Nightwalk
reply to post by gncnew

 

Such behavior by LGBT's will merely add up to society's further disdain. Tolerance can only go so far - push it more and it will snap. Gays should smarten up and keep their frustrations to themselves and contribute positively to society rather than being obnoxious pests.

Oh poor you - - that gays don't adhere to your delicate senses - - - and behave accordingly.

reply to post by humphreysjim


I was under the impression those laws were in place because all of the above mentioned practices were notoriously unhealthy, though there are probably religious reasons, depending on when the laws were passed and by whom. It's not exactly a subject I have studied, though, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

However, I take it that we can all agree that "love" is not in and of itself, a valid reason for marriage. I think that if we understand "love" is not and has never been an acceptable reason for marriage, than it deflates the equal-rights claims of homosexual activists. (You probably saw my earlier post on that.)

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
If you truly believe that two people, who will love, covet and honour each other all their lives, who will make each other happy and support each other through the good and the bad, cannot recognise that bond in the manner they would wish because of the chromosomes they were born with, then you are mentally deficient.

I'm guessing this isn't directed at me since I didn't state ANYTHING like that at any point anywhere.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
reply to post by StalkerSolent

 

I don't know why on earth you have brought paedophilia to this table..methinks I can sense diversionary tactics.

Plenty of the anti-gay marriage advocates state marriage is for a man and a woman and there is no disclaimer of *no minors or *no relatives, because its taken for granted that the parties involved in such debates aren't going to resort to silly comparisons.

I brought it to the table because I think we should all understand that "love" is not a valid legal reason for marriage. If we can all agree on that, then perhaps we can agree that homosexuals are not actually seeking equal rights, but rather (A) the creation of a new "right" or (B) the recognition of a previously unrecognized right. (A or B depending on your perspective.) Does that make sense?

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by gncnew

To this point, I note the "outrage" that was posted everywhere about the intolerant religious right when they threatened boycotts of Kraft Foods and more specifically the Oreo brand.

Now we all knew that this would never happend because those toothless mobs need to feed on deep-fried Oreos at the local county fairs and NASCAR races, but none the less - we were all blugened to death with the outrage and condecention on these people for threatening to not purchase a food product because of the very public, very intentional PUBLIC FACEBOOK POSTING IN SUPPORT OF GAY PRIDE.

Now mind you - this was Oreo bringing the heat on themselves. They posted a picture on their facebook Fan Page knowing full well it would illicit reactions from consumers - many of whom would not share their views.

There is a very obvious difference between claiming pride in who you are, and in trying to impede the rights of others. It is not quite the same, for instance, to make a facebook page that says "I'm proud to be black!", as it is to make one that says "Black people are stupid and immoral!".

How can you not recognize the difference?

Two points - > wrong:
1. Being black is not a choice of behavior. Being gay is. Gay is a behavior you chose to partake in or not, you're born with the skin you have, regardless of what choices you make.

2. Nobody from Chick-fil-A disparaged gay people, only supported via comment what THEY believe in for a healthy family.

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee
If Equal Rights is an agenda. Currently - - Equal Right of Legal Government Marriage.

Count me in 100%.

Be alert to anti-gay hate groups trying to claim they are victims.

Chick-fil-A makes chicken sandwiches... they're not quite the "hate group" you're attempting to confer upon them.

CFA contributes large amounts of money to a group that promotes the execution of gays in Africa. Their hate filled work has contributed to not a few people being murdered. They also support a "pray away the gay" organizaion. Many of the former executives of this organization (who have left to marry their gay lovers), say it is wrong, ineffective and cruel.

I would like to suggest that you get your head out of yer keister and look around at the larger picture. These are the reasons we choose to boycott CFA, not just because their owner is a bigot and their sandwiches suck.

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee
There is no Middle in Equal Rights.

There is only Equal Rights.

So if all states, right now, offered marriage licesenses to gay or strait people - you'd be happy as pie and just a whistling dixie?

No more boogie men to kill, no more phantom bigots to attack?

or are there more "inequalities" that seem to constantly crop up to fight against?

Self licking ice-cream cone - you want a problem to fight against, therefore there is injustice that must be stamped out.... one key stroke at a time.

When there is Federal Marriage for all - - and LGBT are included on the Federal list of protected minority - - this subject will be closed.

Of course there will be individual infractions - - but the individuals will be protected by Federal law.

reply to post by gncnew


No it isn't.

More of a rhetorical statement.

reply to post by gncnew


Can a lesbian or gay guy be as `saved` as your fine self sir..................?
Can they already be a Christian?
God , Im living in a world of morons it seems..........
(please dont take this as a personal dig , I am just making a point)

reply to post by Annee


WOW annie.

Protected status will earn you more hate. Do you think Affirmative Action= equality??.

i mean, logically, "protected status" leaves out those "unprotected"--so, do you see the inconsistency there?

Do you know what Fabian Socialism is?

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

I brought it to the table because I think we should all understand that "love" is not a valid reason for marriage. If we can all agree on that, then perhaps we can agree that homosexuals are not actually seeking equal rights, but rather (A) the creation of a new "right" or (B) the recognition of a previously unrecognized right. (A or B depending on your perspective.) Does that make sense?

What are you on about? I'm married because I love my wife. I married her because I love her and as far as i'm aware, she loves me. It wasn't for financial gain, or for the benefit or children, or for convenience.

You are changing definitions to suit your argument. If you want to believe love is not a valid reason for marriage then that's fine, but don't expect other people to simply accept your crackpot view.

Gay people - as far as I can see - simply want the opportunity to be recognised as a couple in the same way that a man and woman can become recognised. That does not involve the creation of a new right or the bringing forward of a previously unrecognised right. It involves the extension of an existing right that has to date only been denied on the basis of bigotry, ignorance and dislike of a same sex couple's beliefs and actions.

reply to post by Shimri


The Q stands for "Queer". It's used to represent people who may be Intersex, Questioning, straight men who have strong feminine qualities, and straight women who have stong masculine qualities, etc. Queer used to be considered a gay slur, but now is used by lots of people who belong in this minority, also called "Gender-Queer"

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Um? Do you then support unions between a man and his sister, or between an adult and an underaged child? How far can we carry this thought?

If you understand why there are laws against intercourse between brother and sister, and adults and children, you will see why they should not be allowed to marry and it is not analogous to homosexual marriage at all.

Same goes for bestiality, which is usually the next place the anti-gay marriage crowd descends to.

edit on 7-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

Not exactly bud, the laws surrounding incest are not that old, it actually used to be common. And besides, are they as "consenting loving adults" not allowed to take those risks knowing full well what they are?

Oh wait, are you telling me that your beliefs should dictate when two loving people can be joined?

Originally posted by gncnew

1. Gay is a behavior you chose to partake in or not, you're born with the skin you have, regardless of what choices you make.

You should not be ignorant in your own thread.

Science has not proven why people are Left handed yet either - - but they do have "pinpointers".

Gays are born. Like being Left handed - - science has "pinpointers" indicating sexual attraction is hardwired.

New Theory: Sexual Orientation Determined by Brain Hemisphere Dominance

BY Sunnivie Brydum - August 06 2012

A Northern California author says he's discovered the missing link that explains the biological source of sexual orientation. While doing research for his recent book, The Whole-Brain Path to Peace, James Olson stumbled upon what he says is the direct correlation between hemispheric dominance in the brain and whether a person is gay or straight.

Olson’s theory portends that both heterosexual men and lesbians are generally dominated by the left hemisphere of the brain, which is committed to sequential, thought-oriented processes. And heterosexual women and gay men are much more likely to be dominated by the right hemisphere of the brain, which regulates feeling and cultural awareness.

Olson believes that current research looking for a “gay gene” is searching in the wrong place. Rather, Olson contends, sexual orientation is determined by brain hemisphere dominance. Most men are left-brain dominant, whereas most women are right-brain dominant. Seizing on the implication that “most” necessarily excludes some people, Olson wondered what happened when brain dominance was reversed from the standard.

If sexual orientation is determined by brain dominance as Olson contends, it’s important to note that the pathways connecting the two hemispheres of the brain and determining which side is dominant are mostly finalized before birth. As such, Olson reiterates conventional scientific wisdom that sexual orientation is predetermined and unchangeable. The author, a straight, single man originally from Oklahoma, also believes that his observation could help demystify the source of sexual orientation and thereby foster peace and understanding.

www.advocate.com...