Boston Mayor Letter to Chick-Fil-A bashes them over their anti-gay stance

i agree.

imo the reason people fear polygamy so much is the same reason marriage was invented in the first place - undesirable men don't want the top 10% getting all the females. :grin:

 

Umm, incest could harm someone else, namely the offspring.

 

Where was all this support for free speech when anti-gay groups were advocating boycotts of JC Penney, Amazon.com and the like for being supportive of gay rights?

 

The top 10% will leave the bottom 10% for the rest of us.

Crossing my fingers and hoping I'm in the top 10%

 

There is no government interaction in that scenario. Again, The problem people are having is Mayors suggesting barring a business because of an owner's stance on gay marriage (that's how this got started). This is deemed close to an intrusion of the owner's free speech since government is attacking/punishing him for stating his views.

 

Birth control exists.

I'm not saying it isn't wrong, or disgusting, just that I don't know why I should care.

 

Certainly a more reasonable stance than "derp, jesus," but there are issues with benefits and visitation rights, etc, where the government does need to be involved, no?

 

Tried to give rep, will try again on my pc

 

I'm waiting to meet someone who has boycotted JCPenney or Amazon for supporting gay rights. Seriously.

Of course, I would think the number of boycotters of Chick-fil-a are a relatively small group. The few openly gay people I know say they will still go to Chick-fil-a. They weren't idiots before. Chick-fil-a not supporting gay marriages is like water being wet. Only people that were extremely naive weren't aware.

 

I'm fine with polygamy being legal. Incest has health concerns with it that are different from other types of relationships.

As has been pointed out polygamy doesn't really compare and isn't the same situation. There isn't one group of polygamists that are currently allowed to marry, and a second group of polygamists that aren't.

There are pairs of loving couples allowed to marry while another group of couples isn't allowed to marry.

Yes you can draw the groups differently however you'd like, but I'm talking about what's currently under the law.

 

I'm sure there were. At the very least there were groups advocating a boycott of those vendors and I don't recall any of my conservative friends who were rallying for free speech yesterday condemning the groups who were advocating a boycott due to a company's support of gay rights.

 

Homosexuality has its health concerns as well. HIV and rectal cancers are sharply increased risks. Condoms do wonders for both.

 

I'm sure they were out there, just in fewer numbers. The uproar over this is ridiculous (Bigger overreaction to an overreaction).

Of course they weren't rallying for "free speech." I know plenty of people that went. Some were against gay marriage, others I think were just against liberals (my right-winged brother included). There certainly isn't a large enough to do anything group out there saying Chick-fil-a should be shut down for what Dan said.

 

Because they are gay and Christian. There are gay Christian pastors, and ministers. There are Christian churches that do perform gay marriage ceremonies.

They have different study and interpretation of scripture.

Does a pastor that eats shellfish or associate with women on their period have to gloss over those parts of the bible? Do pastors that don't own slaves have to gloss over the parts of the bible that talk about slaves needing to obey their masters?

I think rather than that many in the church have moved passed looking at the bible as a list of specific do's and don'ts. Instead they look at Jesus message about loving, forgiving, and Jesus specific speech when he was told that he broke the Sabbath and what Jesus had to say when asked how he could be the son of God when didn't uphold the law written in the holy texts that Jesus claimed to follow.

Jesus told them that he wasn't here to break that text but to fulfill it. In other words what they thought was the law as written wasn't really the law. They were missing the point. What Jesus was doing was actually the law. There's also the bit in there where Jesus tells them about the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

Now, you don't have to believe as those gay, shellfish eating, associating with women on their period pastors do, but it isn't your place to tell them they aren't Christian and instead like Jewish kids having a mitzvah in a mosque.

 

Hiv is also a concern for heterosexual partners and rectal concerns regarding sex isn't just a homosexual concern either. It's practiced by heterosexuals as well.

 

HIV is a much larger concern amongst homosexuals. Mostly due to it being much easier to pass things through semen, which women don't have. Lesbians are the best off. Maybe we should all be lesbians? :grin:

 

hey ike! don't skip this one.

i really want to know...do you hold your shrimp-munching pastor accountable for his actions?? or a fellow christian who dares to go to church without her head covering? they're totally not real christians, right?

no, i NEEDS TO KNOW!

 

I'm all for it!

 

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. ...

 

wow it totally fits!