Chick-fil-a

[rwh11385]

Don't a lot of people buy from certain brands because of groups or charities they support? Why wouldn't others not buy from certain brands because of what they are against?

http://www.newser.com/article/da09fgo01/big-brands-take-public-stands-in-gay-marriage-debate-amazons-bezos-donates-25m-in-wash.html

Big brands take public stands in gay marriage debate; Amazon's Bezos donates $2.5M in Wash.

[FunfGan]

I believe you are wrongly assuming that saying that people who are gay are born "messed up" is not harmful, nor extremely disrespectful.

Asian cultures who negatively look down on left-handed children, whether or not they force convert them, negatively impact their lives from not respecting their individual differences.

How would YOU feel if I said that you were defective because of your eye color? That you didn't deserve the same freedoms or rights because of how you were born? That you were somehow an inferior person because of it? Would that not be harmful? Do you have zero ability to empathize?

Maybe I was a bit too loose with my language. I do not believe they are messed up, or weird. Are they different, yes. Are they "normal"? No. My apologies for being vague and offensive. But yes, I do find it abnormal and unnatural. Again, not in the sense that all who have those feelings are faking it, but in the sense that, looking at nature, it doesn't exactly make sense.

As I may or may not have already said earlier, I have at least a few friends who are gay, whom I have hung out with at car meets, etc. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. Do I judge them? To be honest, I may subconsciously. But I don't treat them any different, I don't insult or isolate them? No. They are humans as the rest of us are, despite their differences.

When have I not empathized? This whole thread I have made it clear that while I disagree and think it is wrong, I don't(or at least strive not to) treat them any differently. The best way to treat anyone is to treat them with equality.


Lastly, I still, and will always believe that legalizing gay marriage will( at least in this country) always be wrong. Partially because of my opinions, and half of because the Constitution of the US, and of the many individual states themselves whose constitutions exclusively describes marriage as between a man and female.

[frankenbeemer]

Great thread, but I wish Kershaw hadn't put in that denial at the end. What a tease.

[squidmaster]

So... you're saying that people that are gay are born "messed up" or not "normal"... And that it's wrong.

if they are born that way, and that's how they naturally progress through life, what's "wrong" about it? That's like calling just being a girl "wrong" because they're not "normal" (a man).

Do you even think about the things that you say? I mean, really, think about it. Homosexuality is completely normal for humans and all other animals, and has been (recorded) for thousands of years, yet you're just so superior to everything else that we should bow down to your illogical fallacies?

[Farbin Kaiber]

So being born with a birth defect is "normal"?


(Note: I am not calling homosexuality a birth defect...)

[FunfGan]

When have I said I was superior hahaha? Many times I have insulted myself, and acknowledged my short comings. Yes, not normal. A normal natural progression would be a pairing of two individual objects who are able and capable of reproducing life. Look at plants, animals, etc.

[frankenbeemer]

So being born with a birth defect is "normal"?


(Note: I am not calling homosexuality a birth defect...)

It's ok, we'll just redefine normal....eventually.

[Kershaw]

Are they "normal"? No.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know something about normative behaviors, sociology and homosexuality that I don't (highly unlikely though.)

please explain to me several things. please give scientific definitions and references when applicable.

1. what is normal behavior in humans? please define what constitutes normal behavior.
1a. what is sexually normal for humans, specifically?
1b. how does homosexuality fall in normal or abnormal behaviors?

2. how many species on earth have members that display homosexual behaviors?
2a. do any of these species mate for life?
2b. do any of these species exhibit the same lesbian, gay, bisexual tendencies that humans do?
2c. would homosexuality in animals be blamed on upbringing, environment, or a want to be different?

[squidmaster]

So being born with a birth defect is "normal"?


(Note: I am not calling homosexuality a birth defect...)

Then please, what are you calling it? Because it appears that you are....

When have I said I was superior hahaha? Many times I have insulted myself, and acknowledged my short comings. Yes, not normal. A normal natural progression would be a pairing of two individual objects who are able and capable of reproducing life. Look at plants, animals, etc.

So everyone has to reproduce all the time? And you can't use plants as an analogy, that's ridiculous; plenty of plants are capable of reproducing a-sexually, or by being cloned (have you never heard of cutting off a branch of something and planting it and it growing??). Obviously you really have no idea what's going on. People are going to do what make them happy, and they're not harming ANYONE in doing so, so being against them filing their taxes together is a bit ridiculous.

Again, with the animals, they're all gay (bi-sexual). They don't care. Do you know what dogs are? What about cats?

In fact there's an entire fucking wikipedia page dedicated to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Honestly now, all of you arguments are flawed and based on nothing-- no facts, no logic, no reason.

[rwh11385]

Maybe I was a bit too loose with my language. I do not believe they are messed up, or weird. Are they different, yes. Are they "normal"? No. My apologies for being vague and offensive. But yes, I do find it abnormal and unnatural. Again, not in the sense that all who have those feelings are faking it, but in the sense that, looking at nature, it doesn't exactly make sense.

As I may or may not have already said earlier, I have at least a few friends who are gay, whom I have hung out with at car meets, etc. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. Do I judge them? To be honest, I may subconsciously. But I don't treat them any different, I don't insult or isolate them? No. They are humans as the rest of us are, despite their differences.

When have I not empathized? This whole thread I have made it clear that while I disagree and think it is wrong, I don't(or at least strive not to) treat them any differently. The best way to treat anyone is to treat them with equality.


Lastly, I still, and will always believe that legalizing gay marriage will( at least in this country) always be wrong. Partially because of my opinions, and half of because the Constitution of the US, and of the many individual states themselves whose constitutions exclusively describes marriage as between a man and female.

Funny how you were comparing them to serial killers before and claiming that they were broken or messed up in the head, somehow flawed... and now you say you don't. Just that their existence is morally wrong...

I also know some racist people with some black friends. . . and I'm sure they two-face think differently about them while saying they aren't racist because they have black friends.

You're not empathetic because you don't understand that denying people rights is harmful. For some reason, that is not processing in your mind.

Let me point out your ignorance:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#marr

marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.

And add to that:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Old Normal: Conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.


New Normal: The accurate average of all involved items, parties, or thoughts.

[Farbin Kaiber]

omg.

[frankenbeemer]

Old Normal: Conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.


New Normal: The accurate average of all involved items, parties, or thoughts.

That was quicker than I thought.

[Farbin Kaiber]

You said...

So... you're saying that people that are gay are born "messed up" or not "normal"... And that it's wrong.

if they are born that way, and that's how they naturally progress through life, what's "wrong" about it? That's like calling just being a girl "wrong" because they're not "normal" (a man).

Speaking of things being either "wrong", or, "normal". So by your standpoint, if it's "normal" it isn't "wrong", and if it's "wrong" it isn't "normal".

So, a birth defect, lets just say any congenital disorder, something an individual is born with, outside of their own choice, isn't "wrong", by your thought process, it's "normal". So if it's normal, it isn't a defect, and they shouldn't have special treatment in society, they shouldn't get different nomenclatures, they are just normal, right?

[Kershaw]

New Normal: The accurate average of all involved items, parties, or thoughts.

what a concise sentence of complete bullshit.

please expand on what "accurate average" entails in regards to human behavior.