Chick-fil-a

[Farbin Kaiber]

What would happen if the other half of America acknowledges that marriage can include same-sex couples?

Then nothing changes, we are where we are now, a nation divided in opinion.

[FunfGan]

Could you post that picture again tho?

[Cliche Guevara]

Then nothing changes, we are where we are now, a nation divided in opinion.

Um... what? No.. I'm asking what would happen if everyone acknowledged that there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. 50% do now. If the the other half did then everyone would. Understand the question now?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Well, that's a fucking stupid question, it's obvious, gay marriage goes through, gets amended into the Constitution, and I come up with a new word to define a union between a man and a woman, and start a PAC to make it so. :rofl:

This whole thing is such a distraction to what's really going on, and it's the way to pull a Kansas City Shuffle. It's really sad that everyone is so occupied with the opinions of a family that owns a restaurant chain, and not the shit condition our country and financial well being is in.

More people are knowledgeable about Mariah Carey being the new judge on American Idol than knowing about our Executive Branch of government being tied up in Gun Running scandals.

[Cliche Guevara]

You're arguing that by allowing gays to marry each other the concept of marriage loses its meaning. I'm asking you to justify that assertion. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Farbin Kaiber]

You're arguing that by allowing gays to marry each other the concept of marriage loses its meaning. I'm asking you to justify that assertion. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I did, quite a ways back. You just used the word. Gay no longer means happy.

[Cliche Guevara]

I did, quite a ways back. You just used the word. Gay no longer means happy.

I just want to be clear here. You're saying that by allowing gays to marry the concept of marriage will transform into something entirely different. Is that an accurate assessment of your argument?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Where is heeter tearing apart your spelling errors?

Not the concept of marriage initially, but eventually. Just like the word gay. In sixty years, or a generation or two, marriage will mean two parties choosing to contractually exist together. So, theoretically, someone could marry Apple, or a robotic entity, or anything considered a "party" in a legal terminology basis.

You are not seeing the bigger, long term picture, this becomes a precedent.

[Cliche Guevara]

Where is heeter tearing apart your spelling errors?

I'm not seeing a spelling error...

Not the concept of marriage initially, but eventually. Just like the word gay. In sixty years, or a generation or two, marriage will mean two parties choosing to contractually exist together. So, theoretically, someone could marry Apple, or a robotic entity, or anything considered a "party" in a legal terminology basis.

You are not seeing the bigger, long term picture, this becomes a precedent.

It only becomes a precedent if those next steps follow logically. There is absolutely no reason that allowing two men to marry will result in people clamoring for the right to marry an object. I've already explained to you what sepparates homosexuality from those other sorts of attractions you listed, one occurs naturally while the other is a choice.

[delatlanta1281]

Hey, I was talking about this the other day over a #8 and a side of waffle fries w/ unsweetened tea.

-Farbin The Lesbian

The fact that you order un-sweet tea from Chick-fil-a makes anything you say concerning this subject off base.
Sorry lesbo. You lose.
By the way, who gives a shit? 90% of the people who work there don't, so fuck it. We pay them to provide a service. Good chicken. They do so. What the company supports or doesn't support shouldn't matter. People of the same sex can still co-exist. And if they don't like it, they can eat KFC. Which they won't b/c it's terrible.
I don't eat CFA b/c I am against gay marriage, I eat it b/c it's good. I don't drink Starbucks b/c they give health insurance to same sex couples, I drink it b/c it's good.
That should be it.

[Cliche Guevara]

And if they don't like it, they can eat KFC. Which they won't b/c it's terrible.

Eh? I don't know what KFC is like in Georgia, but over here it's fucking delicious.

[delatlanta1281]

Eh? I don't know what KFC is like in Georgia, but over here it's fucking delicious.

Really? Really.
Wow. You're right. I am waaaaay off base. I bet the grits up there are swell.

[SpeicherBimmer]

The fact that you order un-sweet tea from Chick-fil-a makes anything you say concerning this subject off base.
Sorry lesbo. You lose.
By the way, who gives a shit? 90% of the people who work there don't, so fuck it. We pay them to provide a service. Good chicken. They do so. What the company supports or doesn't support shouldn't matter. People of the same sex can still co-exist. And if they don't like it, they can eat KFC. Which they won't b/c it's terrible.
I don't eat CFA b/c I am against gay marriage, I eat it b/c it's good. I don't drink Starbucks b/c they give health insurance to same sex couples, I drink it b/c it's good.
That should be it.

Exactly right. We as a nation get too wrapped up in entirely inconsequential "crises". It's no different than if a person stated they don't like homosexuals; if you disagreed with them you just wouldn't associated with them. Why is it different for a business? Just because an organization of people called a business or a government comes together doesn't mean that the sum is better than the individual parts that make it up. The Founders knew very well that no matter how much the Government might be held in esteem or expected to carry itself differently it never would since it is made up of fallible people. People are the same everywhere. We, as Americans, ( and this is MY opinion, so take it with a grain of free-range, organically grown free-trade salt) are so prosperous and so bored that we have to try and occupy our collectives selves with dribble like this.

As for Farbin the Lesbian, i see what you're talking about. TRADITIONALLY the term marriage applied to only men and women forming a union. There have, of course, been a few exceptions throughout history as there are with anything.With changing morals ( or lack thereof) and ideals word will take on new meanings, as they always have done. I don't think Homogenous Unions use the term marriage in an attempt to feel like everyone else; just that that word is easily understood by all and much easier than trying to get a new word in the common vernacular.

Cliche Guevara- There will never be a time in any State in the world where everyone will agree on everything. Unless of course those is power decide to eliminate anyone with an opposing view point ( though try as they might, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, etc just never seemed to be able to kill them all....)

tttoon- I hardly think wikipedia is a credible source of information. It is easily possible to present history in whatever light you might want to to support a theory. Also, this entry was written in modern language; i makes little to no reference to what these "unions" were actually referred to back in the day. A modern literal translation of Shakespeare ( of Homer or Goethe ad infinitum....)would lose some of its meaning if the translators don't take the time to "modify" the text to fit modern semantics.

Anyway, GLBT can go through the pangs of marriage if they so choose if it were up to me.I don't really care as long as it isn't in my face type of gayness.IF Chic-Fil-A doesn't agree with it, so what. Eat there or don't, there aren't enough truly principled ( or informed) Americans that would rather give up delicious chicken than prove a point to no one but themselves to put it out of business. End rant.

( sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors. Unbelievably, I am actually a human and make many,many mistakes very often)

[rwh11385]

Not the concept of marriage initially, but eventually. Just like the word gay. In sixty years, or a generation or two, marriage will mean two parties choosing to contractually exist together. So, theoretically, someone could marry Apple, or a robotic entity, or anything considered a "party" in a legal terminology basis.

You are not seeing the bigger, long term picture, this becomes a precedent.

I really hope this is just you trolling, or else you have seriously gotten ridiculous since moving to Idaho. The spud has gotten to your head like bud did in CA?

This is nothing but a bad slippery slope argument which is a logical fallacy, although it is commonly abused by those who stand in the way of other's freedoms for the purpose of "tradition".

I'm sure that some people felt the same way about Loving v. Virginia, but now that just seems second nature - that two humans who love each other should be allowed to marriage. Do we still have a split opinion on interracial marriage?? There was a lot of grief about dating on TV in the 90s but today, it's pretty much commonplace. But traditionally in America, black people were treated like a horse and likewise had no rights... so does that mean that allowing them to vote or marry who they want would let people marry horses?? No.

Just like a slave is no longer an object of property, nor is a wife considered property, marriage will remain just a contractual commitment between two people. It was the religious influence in America that got in the way of the separation of church and state and defined marriage culturally as between a man and a woman - other nations don't seem to have an issue with it. It's just love and marriage, and allowing people to be happy. Who knows what makes people want to limit the rights of others, especially for something as ridiculous of keeping tradition.

[ethrtyiS]

In contrast, 38% of Americans support gay marriage, a number that has a consistent upward trend, and just about everyone is familiar with gay marriage as a concept.

this is because the public school system is instilling each and every student that being gay is perfectly fine when in reality that shouldn't be a subject that is taught in school. teachers need to focus on doing their jobs and not bring their political and or religious beliefs into the lives of other students.