Page 3 of 4
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:17 pm
by GORDON
Well... if you can discount any opposing argument by saying "ignorance, prejudice, cowardice, and for the children" then pretty much no one can debate anything.
Until then, I will continue enjoying the CFA counter-protest, in spite of believing gay marriages should be recognized by the government, because I am tired of being told my opinions are based on hate and ignorance.
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:15 pm
by TheCatt
I'm going to CFA tomorrow.
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:14 pm
by TheCatt
TPRJones wrote:Indeed. So it'll be a net positive for gay rights, and I get to get my face in between those golden brown buns and gobble down some hot juicy cock. Win win!
Daily Show thief.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:21 am
by Leisher
This political cartoon is making the rounds on Facebook this morning:
I don't get it.
The liberals I know think it's hilarious. I think it proves their ignorance.
The president of Chick-Fil-A didn't say he hates gays. CFA doesn't have a hiring policy against gays. They don't refuse service to gays. He simply said he believes in a tradition marriage.
The cartoon isn't about that, but rather, about how his words have been twisted into portraying him as someone who hates gays.
Taking the logic of this cartoon a step farther, should we assume that if you're pro-gay marriage, you want to sleep with someone of the same sex?
Edited By Leisher on 1344264725
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:04 am
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:Well... if you can discount any opposing argument by saying "ignorance, prejudice, cowardice, and for the children" then pretty much no one can debate anything.
Admittedly my last reply on this was a bit flippant. But I will still be happy to entertain an argument that is more than simple ignorance, prejudice, or religious zeal if anyone can present one.
I'm afraid your prior attempt doesn't really count, because as I first said it's not really an argument. Or if you insist that it is then it is a completely circular one. The entirety of the logic behind it sums up as "let's say for the sake of argument that gay marriage is bad for society, therefor we shouldn't allow gay marriage." Unless there's more to it than that, it doesn't really serve any purpose. Saying something for the sake of argument is supposed to then lead to tying that quasi-premise to several other more concrete items, not just turn around and use it to assert the point all by itself.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:15 am
by GORDON
yeah ok
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:30 am
by TPRJones
Look, I know I'm a little rabid on this issue. And I can feel that I'm maybe not entirely rational about it. But that's only because it seems to be so completely and fundamentally driven by the core American values of individual liberty and freedom from religious tyranny that I can't understand how anyone who really cares about those core values could possibly be opposed to it. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It boggles my mind that more people aren't more irate about it. Do Americans still hold those ideals sacred or not?
It's not the first time that someone has come along that some people don't care for but fought for anyway. "I don't agree with anything you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it" is a pretty fundamental example. This is exactly the same thing, except "I don't agree with who you want to marry, but will fight to the death for your right to marry them" is suddenly way too icky for some people.
Maybe I just take the idea of individual liberty too seriously. Maybe it was only ever intended to be limited to what your neighbors liked for you to do, not what you wanted to do as long as you didn't hurt anyone else doing it. I don't know.
Edited By TPRJones on 1344267100
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:37 am
by Leisher
I'm pro-gay marriage, but I know at some point in the future I'll be against some new form of "marriage". I'm not sure I'm down with 50 people getting married to each other or a woman marrying her cats, etc.
I guess anywhere people are blatantly taking advantage of the system for economic or social benefits are where I'll draw the line. And where someone isn't consenting, obviously.
In fact, I think it could be argued that polygamy should be legal since it's all consenting adults (AND involves religion), yet I know gay marriage proponents who would scoff at that notion.
Edited By Leisher on 1344267467
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:08 pm
by TheCatt
I support gay marriage as well. But the voters are the one going against gay marriage, not Chick-Fil-A. Sure, it contributes a tiny bit of money to people who rally other, but at the end of the day: Either courts will legalize it, or people will. And chick-fil-a will still be yummy.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:29 pm
by GORDON
My own sister told me yesterday that republicans are evil and racist and just want to hurt people.
Rabid about the issue or not, I've decided that I am tired of that and from here on out will do anything I can to annoy liberals, even if it is contrary to my personal beliefs. Consider it consequences for the actions of not being civil, and being incapable of comprehending that someone else might have a different point of view.
Liberals must be thwarted at all costs.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:37 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:My own sister told me yesterday that republicans are evil and racist and just want to hurt people.
I believe the appropriate response is, "Quiet, honky." Damn, I miss George Jefferson already.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:38 pm
by TPRJones
Liberals must be thwarted at all costs.
This sounds promising. Will there be posts to document these adventures?
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:40 pm
by GORDON
I did get a little satisfaction late last night when she posted a Ronald Reagan quote about "You can't help everybody, but everybody can help somebody" (or something like that), and I got to tell her that Reagan was a republican and therefore evil and just wanted to hurt people. She never responded.
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:55 pm
by Leisher
My own sister told me yesterday that republicans are evil and racist and just want to hurt people.
It's impossible to reason with that sort of attitude.
She has clearly made up her mind, and now pride will not allow her to admit that she might be wrong.
Oh! Remind her who freed the slaves!
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:07 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:Oh! Remind her who freed the slaves!
Robert E. Lee when he signed the articles of surrender?
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:30 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:Leisher wrote:Oh! Remind her who freed the slaves!
Robert E. Lee when he signed the articles of surrender?
Closer than saying "Abe Lincoln."
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:33 pm
by Leisher
Actually, I was just referring to the politics at the time, which saw the Repubs as anti-slavery, and the Dems as pro-slavery.
Some would say that's still the case...
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:55 am
by TheCatt
According to my facebook, Chick-fil-a caved.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:01 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:According to my facebook, Chick-fil-a caved.
I imagine it is a situation where:
1. CFA the corporation will give X-less to charity.
2. CFA will give their owners X amount of extra money
3. Owners will give the same charity X amount of money.
X is constant.
That's what I'd do.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:14 pm
by TPRJones
It looks like I never posted this here. Here's my personal solution:
