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

lol at the "kiss in" at Chick Fil A today. not even close to Wednesday's show of support

 

My friend said that the one on Kirby at 59. He said there was a dancing cow and the Drive Thru was blaring The Village People. When I stopped for lunch an hour later, it was over.

Must've been too hot today.

 

Modern (and historic) conservative thinking.

 

Wow, that's surprising!

Oh, wait.. no it's not.

 

A lot more fat rednecks than gay people in the US. Just sayin'.

Personally, I think that anyone that had time to french their boyfriend in front of a restaurant on a weekday afternoon should probably find something better to do.

Still, if you eat chik fil a simply as a political statement to express your feelings that gays are second class citizens, then you are hopeless ignorant and shamelessly bigoted.

Bigtexx -- you never answered my question as to how exactly gay marriage is "completely" different than interracial marriage. I know you like to troll and name call, but it's a serious question and I'm curious as to your thoughts. You cited Obama, but somehow I don't think you're being genuine invoking his name.

 

Are you meaning to say that everyone who disagrees with you is a fat redneck? Talk about myopic.

I think we are all forgetting the timeline:

July 16 - Cathy gives his honest answer to a polarizing question.

July 19 - Ed Helms, Jane Lynch, Deepak Chopra, Miley Cyrus, Lindsey Lohan Kim Kardashian, etc. etc. say they are boycotting Chick Fil A from now on and suggest that others do same.

July 23 - The Jim Henson Company pulls their toys from Chick Fil A over his answer to the question - one that he had long held, and that the Henson company should have been aware of.

July 25 - Boston Mayor comes out with his ridiculous statement, and other mayors join in.

Aug. 1 - Folks that disagreed with this completely unnecessary outrage decided to eat lunch at Chick Fil A.

Aug 1-present - haters still hatin.

 

Interracial marriage I'm fine with. It's a man and woman.

Gay marriage is different in that it's two men marrying each other, or two women marrying each other.

That's my serious answer to your serious question, homey.

 

Yeah, that's pretty obvious.

It's still two consenting adults that don't in any way affect you, right? And you think they shouldn't have the right to marry becaaaause...?

The issue of people wanting the same legal protections for their consenting relationships is the same, black/white/gay/etc. For a party of liberty and limited government, how do you justify that?

 

The Boston mayors statement was ridiculous. I agree.

But people weren't lining up as a free speech issue. Mike Huckabee wasn't calling for defense of the first amendment (which prohibits congress from laws respecting an establishment of religion, but whatever...), he was calling for "appreciation" of an anti-gay stance.

Maybe they're not all fat rednecks, but were you seriously reading that literally?

People that think bigotry has no place in politics are "haters," but people who contribute to groups that support the execution of gays in Uganda and denying them legal rights in America are practicing a religion of love and tolerance. Or something.

 

why can't you marry your sister if she consented? Two consenting adults, right?

 

To prevent nearly certain birth defects - Something you never have to worry about with gay couples!

 

Because people have stupid restrictions placed on them by a system of Abrahamic values that is sometimes right, but is often times, hopelessly outdated.

However, one should note that in-breeding in the family is very bad from a scientific point of view---a la Habsburg. So perhaps the taboo here (like the Muslim restriction on pork due to its' wastefulness and inefficiency) is based on some reason.

 

BTW, I have 2 recommendations:

1) Never image search vasectomy
2) More importantly, never image search tubes tied on Google. Probably won't see a vagina the same for a while.

 

Relationships are peoples own business but why should everyone else compromise their defenition of marriage?
Marriage is contract between a man and a woman.

That being said im completely against discrimination of gay people. We have the right to freedom and the persuit of happiness. Not being able to call tje relationship "marriage" certainly wont stop you from doing what you want.


As far as the chick fill a thing goesits freedom of speech and those are just their views and they have the right to have them. Just like you do of not going there.


The place does seem to be more crowded then ever in college station.

 

Here we go with the slippery slope again.

So you're against any redefinition of marriage? Interracial marriage falls under that, too.

Honestly, incest happens. It's pretty unfortunate for the child, but just like gay marriage, I don't think making incest legal would make more people inbreeders, so if you're asking me if I'd eat at a Chik Fil A to show my support for stopping it? Nah, probably not. It's not a threat to me, live and let live.

The overlap percentage of gay marriage opponents and inbreeders is probably astronomical, though. They both seem to be deeply rooted in the south.

 

Were people compromising their definition of marriage when interracial couples were allowed to marry?

The fact is, homosexuality doesn't threaten any straight person. The current generation of young people understand that more and more, and the position that gays are any different than us will be relegated to the annals (no pun intended) of history, along with other past examples of race, nationality, and sexual bigotry.

 

This is what you and others who are crying about being victimized by being called bigots don't understand. Free speech is a right and one that should be protected as much as possible but it isn't a protection from criticism.

You are very entitled to voice your opinion and others are just as entitled to call your opinion and you bigoted.

Now this is just plain ignorance. If marriage conferred no benefit then pretty much no one gay or straight would bother getting a marriage license. They would just have a ceremony and a party but nothing more. Marriage confers several benefits regarding inheritance, insurance, guardianship and division of territory. There are also several tax benefits that vary from state to state. Marriage is political and social institution that has been set up by the government and bought into by pretty much the rest of society so yes getting legally married will change a lot of things for gays.

 

And no matter how much we debate the topic and try to win the Internet battles nothing is going to change that fact, people will always do what they want, try to get what they want, love who they want, have different opinions and not agree.

I believe that everyone should have equal human rights, but you can't achieve that by simply changing the definition of a word.

In the words of Rodney King...can't we all just get along?

...now because we don't have Chik-Fil-A in Australia, I'm going to make a chicken sandwich, and grab a ginger beer, because these pretzels are making me thirsty.




/Thread

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KSrXpFb7jFo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

This silly and horrible comparison has been shown up many times. There isn't one group allowed to marry with in their own family. So it's a poor analogy.

In addition there are the health risks joined with offspring from such a union that doesn't exist in regards to same sex marriage.

You've failed, and what's worse you've failed at something that's already been shown to be a failure in this thread and many others before it.

Good god, I'm amazed at how pathetically lame this attempt was. I hope you take a moment and really put a little more effort into future posts.