# Chick-fil-A President is Against Same Sex Marriage



## LightyKD (Jul 20, 2012)

Apparently the anti Same-Sex marriage views of Chick-fil-A's president Dan Cathy were outed this week and it's causing a $#!+ storm all over he Interwebz. Feel free to read the article linked and share your reaction here. I'm surprised that people are going "ZOMG" considering this company parades around their "Christian beliefs". Personally, while I don't believe in any religion I'm torn between my spicy chicken sandwiches and my values of non discrimination amongst many other humanistic values.​Source: http://wtvr.com/2012...a-social-storm/​


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jul 20, 2012)

Chick-fil-A what?

Never heard of them (Canada).


----------



## Devante (Jul 20, 2012)

I've gotten over the whole "this is a gaming website, this isn't gaming news!" mentality a while ago when I realized there was just no fighting it.

But this is overboard.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 20, 2012)

So he, like roughly half of all americans, supports traiditional marriage? GASP!!! This is unacceptable.


----------



## frogboy (Jul 20, 2012)

Hah, think that'll stop me from devouring all their chicken?


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 20, 2012)

frogboy said:


> Hah, think that'll stop me from devouring all their chicken?




*giggle* Mmmmm! Spicy chicken sandwiches with pepper jack cheese!  But seriously, the guys personal beliefs should just stay that, personal. It's one thing to apply the general "Christian" philosophy to your stores but, that company until this controversy, had a nice middle ground. Sure they played Christian music but they had nice food so even if you didn't care about the music you could just go in, get food and go out. THIS situation is going to be damaging for a while and Cathy should have just kept his mouth shut. BAD business decision!


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 20, 2012)

Never heard of Chick-fil-A.
Also meh, at this point, this isn't news anymore.
Another old Christian dude against gay marriage? Not really news anymore.
Now an old Christian dude in favor gay marriage, that would be more interesting news in my options.


----------



## jonesman99 (Jul 20, 2012)

awww... looks like I won't be going back there anytime soon... And to think I was addicted to the lemonade there...


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 20, 2012)

Well this is a progressive nation, my guess is these idiots will crack soon enough.  The anti-gay Christians sure do love cherry picking what to follow in their precious bible.  Lord forbid you get laid, but don't worry about mixing fabrics/eating shellfish/etc.  It just makes sense.  I mean, you guys remember when God came down with his shrimp cocktail and proclaimed "that hat, those shoes, FAAABULOUS."


----------



## Fear Zoa (Jul 20, 2012)

Chic-fil-a is a christian company, they also close on Sunday for that exact reason. Does this really surprise anyone?
I may not agree with it but they can think what they want, in the end they still make some good chicken nuggets. 

Also for people who don't know chic-fil-a its a fast food restaurant, think mcdonalds but a bit more expensive and a bit higher quality, oh and everything is chicken based.


----------



## frogboy (Jul 20, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> THIS situation is going to be damaging for a while and Cathy should have just kept his mouth shut. BAD business decision!


I don't think business is their #1 concern, spreading the Word is...

If it bugs people, they don't have to eat there.


----------



## chartube12 (Jul 20, 2012)

There chicken is the nastiest food I have ever had the chance of eating.


----------



## Armadillo (Jul 20, 2012)

chartube12 said:


> 2. SSM is not only a sin but a crime against nature. If these people want to get married so badly they should either get a sex change or buy a private island.





Gotta be trolling.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 20, 2012)

chartube12 said:


> 2. SSM is not only a sin but a crime against nature. If these people want to get married so badly they should either get a sex change or buy a private island.


There is no such thing as "marriage" in nature - it's a social construct humans made up to stick with one sexual partner. Homosexuality on the other hand occurs among humans and other animals alike. Your argument is flawed.

Nobody's talking about raising children etc. - this is about marriage, a legalized relationship between humans. It's mostly for tax reasons, bragging rights and the wonderful ceremony celebrating love between two people, of course.


----------



## Jax (Jul 20, 2012)

I'm sorry, what the hell does this have to do with games?


----------



## SifJar (Jul 20, 2012)

On a rather off topic note, I have heard of Chick-fil-A many times and always wanted to try it sometime. Back on topic, I don't really think his opinion is any more important than anyone else's, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.


----------



## chartube12 (Jul 20, 2012)

Jax said:


> I'm sorry, what the hell does this have to do with games?



This isn't the game section. There is a separate news section of gaming news.


----------



## Skelletonike (Jul 20, 2012)

Personally I don't see what's wrong with what he said (well, from what I read on the source at least), all he said was that he supported the traditional family, I see no wrong with that.
Everyone is entitled to different opinions, and I find this hate towards Christianity just because of what people choose in their life, rather stupid. Also, what he said could be equally offensive to people that nowadays don't value marriage or people that have been divorced. Being entitled to one opinion doesn't define hate, for example, I'm left handed and I openly say that I prefer left hands over the right ones, does that mean I hate right handed people? It doesn't. z.z


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 20, 2012)

chartube12 said:


> 1. There chicken is the nastiest food I have ever had the chance of eating.
> 
> 2. SSM is not only a sin but a crime against nature. If these people want to get married so badly they should either get a sex change or buy a private island.


1. I think they taste pretty good. I care about their food, not their beliefs. Also long as the treating people far and not denying people, it should be fine.

2.  I'm not sure if SSM is or isn't a sin (tho you are making it seem like you never sin in your life),but even if there was marriage in
nature, there are gay animals so...

Somehow sex change isn't against nature?  Also buying a private island is so easy to do, let me go buy one right now.


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 20, 2012)

chartube12 said:


> There chicken is the nastiest food I have ever had the chance of eating.



But...but... the waffle fries are so YUMMY!


----------



## purechaos996 (Jul 20, 2012)

Why does this matter? Does this mean I can oppose something controversial and make the news? Chick-Fil-A has some dang good food though so I'm not going to stop eating there.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 20, 2012)

I think the whole premise of this thread is intended to be that not supporting same-sex marriage is irrational, foolish, and a thing of the past.

But again, America is pretty much 50/50 split on their views about marriage. Strong arguments can be presented for both sides for and against. For an example, same sex marriage of course plays a strong hand in spreading std's. Not sure if that point can even be argued against.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> I think the whole premise of this thread is intended to be that not supporting same-sex marriage is irrational, foolish, and a thing of the past.
> 
> But again, America is pretty much 50/50 split on their views about marriage. Strong arguments can be presented for both sides for and against. *For an example, same sex marriage of course plays a strong hand in spreading std's. Not sure if that point can even be argued against.*



Not sure if troll, or...


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> I think the whole premise of this thread is intended to be that not supporting same-sex marriage is irrational, foolish, and a thing of the past.
> 
> But again, America is pretty much 50/50 split on their views about marriage. Strong arguments can be presented for both sides for and against. For an example, same sex marriage of course plays a strong hand in spreading std's. Not sure if that point can even be argued against.


Could you provide some facts to back that up?  Are you just assuming that gay = aids?


----------



## rad140 (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> I think the whole premise of this thread is intended to be that not supporting same-sex marriage is irrational, foolish, and a thing of the past.
> 
> But again, America is pretty much 50/50 split on their views about marriage. Strong arguments can be presented for both sides for and against. For an example, same sex marriage of course plays a strong hand in spreading std's. Not sure if that point can even be argued against.



Source has a poll that stated 54% support gay marriage and 42% are against.
Feel free to believe whatever you want, just don't try to force it on me.

Also, for example, "regular" marriage plays a strong hand in spreading children, and our planet is becoming increasingly overpopulated, so...


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 20, 2012)

So, the CEO has every right to express his opinion. Big f***ing deal.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 20, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> So, the CEO has every right to express his opinion. Big f***ing deal.



It actually is a big deal.  People are denied the rights to visit their loved ones in hospitals because of anti-gay legislation, among many other hindrances.  No tax advantages for marrying gays, no way to share health insurance benefits, etc etc.


----------



## rad140 (Jul 20, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> So, the CEO has every right to express his opinion. Big f***ing deal.



It's more than that.  It's not just his opinion, it's the opinion of the entire company.  From what I understand, they're a very Christian company: closed on Sundays, etc.

But what do I know?  We don't even have these in Canada.


----------



## Thesolcity (Jul 20, 2012)

yuyuyup said:


> the_randomizer said:
> 
> 
> > So, the CEO has every right to express his opinion. Big f***ing deal.
> ...



He ultimately has no control over jack shit. People act like he's a big threat when he's actually not and get so uppity over quite nothing. I'll buy Kraft/Oreo/Whatever and Chick-Fil-A when I feel like it. You know why? Because its food and I don't into politics.


----------



## raybattousai (Jul 20, 2012)

This has been public knowledge for years. They have openly admitted to not hiring gay workers and other horrible practices.


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 20, 2012)

rad140 said:


> the_randomizer said:
> 
> 
> > So, the CEO has every right to express his opinion. Big f***ing deal.
> ...



OT: I want to be a Canadian citizen so badly


----------



## J-Machine (Jul 20, 2012)

Never heard of this place till now. Would still eat there if I wanted chicken and was a tourist in america. As far as I'm concerned I'd be buying a sandwich there, not a nay for prop 8.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 20, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> blahkamehameha said:
> 
> 
> > I think the whole premise of this thread is intended to be that not supporting same-sex marriage is irrational, foolish, and a thing of the past.
> ...


im a bit surprised this needed further explanation, but i'll give it a go. last tiime i checked, a same sex married couple are likely to have sex. since there are of course no vaginas invovled, they have to, ahem, stick it in the butt. Anal sex. The rectum wasn't designed (or evolved, whichever you prefer) to have a penis inserted into it. The rectum is very thin, the tears and bleeding can provide easy transmission of std's. No coincidence why std's are high among gay men.


----------



## BloodyFlame (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > blahkamehameha said:
> ...


It's not where you stick it in, it's whether you're using protection or not. And from what I can remember from Sex Ed, men have a bigger sex drive, which, because in a same-sex relationship, means that they'll have sex more often.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> Strong arguments can be presented for both sides for and against. For an example, same sex marriage of course plays a strong hand in spreading std's. Not sure if that point can even be argued against.


Last time I checked, monogamous relationships like marriage tend to help prevent the transmission of STIs.


----------



## Jakob95 (Jul 20, 2012)

I don't understand why people think that only Christians/Jews/Muslims are against same sex marriage.  I know tons of people who are either christian/jewish/muslim who don't give a shit about God and are against same sex marriage because they just simply think its disgusting.  And then I know tons of athiests that are against same sex marriage as well for the same reason.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Jul 20, 2012)

This shit doesn't belong in the USN. Plus, it's just fucking chicken. People are seriously retarded.


----------



## BloodyFlame (Jul 20, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> I don't understand why people think that only Christians/Jews/Muslims are against same sex marriage.  I know tons of people who are either christian/jewish/muslim who don't give a shit about God and are against same sex marriage because they just simply think its disgusting.  And then I know tons of athiests that are against same sex marriage as well for the same reason.


It's mainly because of how homosexuality is prohibited in their scriptures, at least, for Christianity and Judaism.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> I don't understand why people think that only Christians/Jews/Muslims are against same sex marriage.  I know tons of people who are either christian/jewish/muslim who don't give a shit about God and are against same sex marriage because they just simply think its disgusting.  And then I know tons of athiests that are against same sex marriage as well for the same reason.









http://www.economist.com/node/17227800


----------



## dickfour (Jul 20, 2012)

I think libs who support gay marriage have to learn two words tolerance and diversity. It seems to me that people that support gay marriage hate diversity of thought and they are by far the most intolerant people I know. It's really boarder line fascism they way libs try to beat people down in the media to don't tow the ideological line. It's this sort of group think crap that had made me leave liberalism and change my views on gay marriage


----------



## Skelletonike (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > blahkamehameha said:
> ...


Are you implying only men can be homosexual?
Last time I checked, there's plenty of women that are lesbians (personally I know more lesbians than gay guys). STD's can happen even for straight people, heck, all the people I've met that had STD's were straight, and then again, you don't really need sex to be in a relationship, there's some cases where people love eachother but don't have sex, among other stuff.


----------



## Dann Woolf (Jul 20, 2012)

You know, I don't really see what the big deal is is. It's not like any gay couples were planning to have their wedding reception at Chick-fil-A. Most gay people have more class than that.


----------



## tinymonkeyt (Jul 20, 2012)

SifJar said:


> On a rather off topic note, I have heard of Chick-fil-A many times and always wanted to try it sometime. Back on topic, I don't really think his opinion is any more important than anyone else's, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.





Skelletonike said:


> Personally I don't see what's wrong with what he said (well, from what I read on the source at least), all he said was that he supported the traditional family, I see no wrong with that.
> Everyone is entitled to different opinions, and I find this hate towards Christianity just because of what people choose in their life, rather stupid. Also, what he said could be equally offensive to people that nowadays don't value marriage or people that have been divorced. Being entitled to one opinion doesn't define hate, for example, I'm left handed and I openly say that I prefer left hands over the right ones, does that mean I hate right handed people? It doesn't. z.z


Quoted for truth. Why does it matter that the CEO has opinions?.. If this was the other way around (meaning that he came out saying he supports same sex marriage), would everyone pro same sex marriage be swarming to eat Chick-Fil-A? No.

And honestly, just because the President has these views, it's highly possible that not all their workers share this opinion. So just shut up and eat your chicken.


----------



## Jakob95 (Jul 20, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why people think that only Christians/Jews/Muslims are against same sex marriage.  I know tons of people who are either christian/jewish/muslim who don't give a shit about God and are against same sex marriage because they just simply think its disgusting.  And then I know tons of athiests that are against same sex marriage as well for the same reason.
> ...


How do you know that graph is true?  I don't remember being surveyed.  Plus it seems so wrong 75% of Jews accept Gay marriage?  Are you kidding me lmao.  I don't know a Jew that supports Gay marriage.


----------



## Actinopterygian Melospiza (Jul 20, 2012)

Why's everyone hating on this guy? So he has an opinion that's different from yours? It seems more like those hating on him are the intolerant ones. It's not like his comments were anti-gay, he just said he supports traditional family, those aren't the same things.

edit:





Jakob95 said:


> Plus it seems so wrong 75% of Jews accept Gay marriage?  Are you kidding me lmao.  I don't know a Jew that supports Gay marriage.


I know plenty of Jews that support same sex marriage, in fact I know know a single Jew that doesn't. See what I did there? the people you know DO NOT necessarily reflect the way the people you don't know think


----------



## BloodyFlame (Jul 20, 2012)

Actinopterygian Melospiza said:


> Why's everyone hating on this guy? So he has an opinion that's different from yours? It seems more like those hating on him are the intolerant ones. It's not like his comments were anti-gay, he just said he supports traditional family, those aren't the same things.


When dealing with same-sex marriage, bias can go both ways.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> How do you know that graph is true?


Virtually all data collected on the subject matches up with the above, and it's about what one would expect. There doesn't appear to be anything controversial about the actual support numbers I posted.



Jakob95 said:


> I don't remember being surveyed.


http://en.wikipedia....i/Random_sample



Jakob95 said:


> Plus it seems so wrong 75% of Jews accept Gay marriage?  Are you kidding me lmao.  I don't know a Jew that supports Gay marriage.


It's common knowledge that Jewish people tend to be pretty accepting of same-sex marriage. I know plenty of Jewish people who support gay marriage, but more importantly, it's what the data overwhelmingly shows.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 20, 2012)

Skelletonike said:


> blahkamehameha said:
> 
> 
> > TwinRetro said:
> ...


wait, what?!?! women can be homosexual?!?! 

point is, std's are more common in gay men, the common sexual practices among gay men are a factor. 

aside from that, there are other reasons people may be against same-sex marriage. many including myself believe it's better for a child to have a father and mother influence in their life, as opposed to two motherfly influences/two fatherly influences. there's a natural long for a mother's affection embedded into everybody. when you get a boo-boo at school, first person you want is your mom, not dad.


----------



## BloodyFlame (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> wait, what?!?! women can be homosexual?!?!
> 
> point is, std's are more common in gay men, the common sexual practices among gay men are a factor.
> 
> *aside from that, there are other reasons people may be against same-sex marriage. many including myself believe it's better for a child to have a father and mother influence in their life, as opposed to two motherfly influences/two fatherly influences. there's a natural long for a mother's affection embedded into everybody. when you get a boo-boo at school, first person you want is your mom, not dad.*


In a same-sex relationship, or at least from what I've read, there is usually a masculine male and a more feminine man, which acts like a straight relationship.

EDIT:


nando said:


> second. gay relationships aren't composed of butch and femme. that's totally retarded. in fact most masculine gay men are exclusively attacked to other masculine men. many are into femmes, but femme and butch are not characteristics a gay couples. a lot of us are attracted to other guys similar to ourselves. some of us are attracted to anything with a penis. i can't speak for lesbians, i have no idea what they see in each other.



Guess I was wrong.


----------



## wolffangalchemist (Jul 20, 2012)

Not gonna stop me from eating there,I personally think you should be allowed to marry a brick wall if you so desire.
Just because the President of the company thinks one way does not mean you shouldn't support your local company branch and the people (some of who you may know) who work there.
Besides if we all agreed about the same things the world would be a very dull and unprogressive place.


----------



## Skelletonike (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> Skelletonike said:
> 
> 
> > blahkamehameha said:
> ...


Yes, women can be homosexual... Homosexuality stands for liking the same sex, lesbian women are homosexual.
I also agree with the father and mother thing, I was commenting regarding the STD aspect.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Jul 20, 2012)

Skelletonike said:


> blahkamehameha said:
> 
> 
> > Skelletonike said:
> ...


Oh god. please tell me you got the sarcasm. at this point i can't honestly tell


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> point is, std's are more common in gay men, the common sexual practices among gay men are a factor.


Other than abstinence, mutual monogamy (such as opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage) is the best way to prevent the spread of STIs.



blahkamehameha said:


> aside from that, there are other reasons people may be against same-sex marriage. many including myself believe it's better for a child to have a father and mother influence in their life, as opposed to two motherly influences/two fatherly influences.


If that's you're reason for being against same-sex marriage, then I'm happy to inform you that children of LGBT parents are just as psychologically healthy as children of heterosexual parents. LGBT parents are no more likely to be "unfit" parents than heterosexual parents.

http://en.wikipedia..../LGBT_parenting



blahkamehameha said:


> there's a natural long for a mother's affection embedded into everybody. when you get a boo-boo at school, first person you want is your mom, not dad.


I'd like to see the data supporting this.



BloodyFlame said:


> In a same-sex relationship, or at least from what I've read, there is usually a masculine male and a more feminine man, which acts like a straight relationship.


Not necessarily.



wolffangalchemist said:


> Not gonna stop me from eating there,I personally think you should be allowed to marry a brick wall if you so desire.
> Just because the President of the company thinks one way does not mean you shouldn't support your local company branch and the people (some of who you may know) who work there.
> Besides if we all agreed about the same things the world would be a very dull and unprogressive place.


I think the controversy stems from the fact that the fast food chain donates millions to anti-gay groups. People have the right to have their views against same-sex marriage and even to donate money to anti-gay groups, but that's not exactly going to make gay people and/or supporters of gay rights want to eat there. Since Chik-Fil-A donates money to anti-gay groups, then a portion of money spent there goes to anti-gay groups. It's obviously alright if you choose to spend your money there, but that means you're okay with some of your money going to anti-gay groups.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 20, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> Skelletonike said:
> 
> 
> > blahkamehameha said:
> ...



Besides the fact that you have no evidence to back your claim aside from speculation, the simple fact that gay couples are usually in a monogamous relationship means that there will be no spread of STDs in a monogamous homosexual relationship. But let's just assume that homosexuals are more prone to STDs. Just for shits and giggles.

Consider the following:

All couples presented are in a monogamous relationship and are *gasp* married.

Man x and Man y are both clean of STDs. Man x and man y have sex. *No STDs were spread.*
Man x and man y are both HIV positive. Man x and man y have sex. *No STDs were spread.*
man x is HIV positive and man y is clean of STDs. Man x and man y have protected sex. Assuming protection didn't fail, *No STDs were spread.* Assuming that eventually protection will not be used or protection fails, ONE person has been given HIV, and for the rest of that relationship, it will not spread to anyone outside of it.

I hope I clarified a few things for you.


----------



## Jakob95 (Jul 20, 2012)

Are you guys against have sex/marrying with robots?  Probably will happen in the future.


----------



## Skelletonike (Jul 20, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Are you guys against have sex/marrying with robots?  Probably will happen in the future.


My dream is to have a smexy humanoid robot that I can play rought at night with. >3
JK jk, although it will probably become real in the future.


----------



## nando (Jul 20, 2012)

first of all. not all gay men like to have anal sex. and even if we all did, having gay marriage well cemented into society would diminish the great amounts of sex all of us extremely slutty promiscuous gay men enjoy with hundreds of partners at a time SANS protection may i add.

but lets back up for a second here. did you know you are more likely to get hiv from inserting your penis into an infected vagina than an infected butt? so anyway. stds exists and in the world there are more straight people infected then gays. i don't see how stds are even an argument against gay marriage, if anything they should be an argument for. monogamous couples will be less likely to spread stds.

second. gay relationships aren't composed of butch and femme. that's totally retarded. in fact most masculine gay men are exclusively attacked to other masculine men. many are into femmes, but femme and butch are not characteristics a gay couples. a lot of us are attracted to other guys similar to ourselves. some of us are attracted to anything with a penis. i can't speak for lesbians, i have no idea what they see in each other.

edit: i'm in a gay relationship and i have an 11 year old boy and we get nothing but compliments on how wonderful and well adjusted he is.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 20, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Man x and man y are both HIV positive. Man x and man y have sex. *No STDs were spread.*



I appreciate the underlying logic and support where you were heading with it (if there is enough of a difference between the various sexualities to be reasonably quantifiable and not insanely damaging, which it clearly is not, can something reasonably be said?) but I should note there are various strains of infections that fall under the same broad name that can be transmitted to negative effect; people can have several types of Hepatitis and I believe Hepatitis D in fact requires type B to be present to survive in a host and I am all but certain similar things exist for HIV but I am not as versed as I would want to be to call things there.

I have been in these debates in the past and do not have anything all that new to say at this point so I will bow out for now. Also although I quite supported the OP to post in USN it went off topic somewhat so it is now in general off topic.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 20, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Are you guys against have sex/marrying with robots?  Probably will happen in the future.


Assuming the robot isn't artificially intelligent, then I think people can have sex with their own robots if they want to; it's their property, after all. Marriage requires two people, so if a robot isn't an AI, then it cannot get married; that would be like someone trying to marry his or her toaster.

Assuming the robot truly has artificial intelligence, then they're essentially people. Assuming it's consensual, then people should be able to marry and/or have sex with AI robots. I don't see the issue.


----------



## thegame07 (Jul 20, 2012)

Anyone else sick of debates about being gay on Gbatemp? seems like there's a new one every few weeks and it's always the exact same. Being gay isn't a big deal these days, It's not a shocker any more and there's not need to go on about it every week. We all know Old religious people can't take society accepting gay people, What's new? It's been drilled into them because of Holy books, They will never listen. Best thing to do is laugh at them, I really can't stand people who have to announce that they are gay every 2nd post either.

I have a really close female family member that's gay and I support her, However as I said what's the big deal?

If you finding yourself announcing that your gay every few posts or going on about it, I'm afraid it's clear you're attention seeking.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 20, 2012)

thegame07 said:


> Anyone else sick of debates about being gay on Gbatemp? seems like there's a new one every few weeks and it's always the exact same. Being gay isn't a big deal these days, It's not a shocker any more and there's not need to go on about it every week. We all know Old religious people can't take society accepting gay people, What's new? It's been drilled into them because of Holy books, They will never listen. Best thing to do is laugh at them, I really can't stand people who have to announce that they are gay every 2nd post either.
> 
> I have a really close female family member that's gay and I support her, However as I said what's the big deal?
> 
> If you finding yourself announcing that your gay every few posts or going on about it, I'm afraid it's clear you're attention seeking.



If you don't like the topic of discussion, or the content within the thread, you always have the option of moving on to the other thousands of threads on the forum.


----------



## thegame07 (Jul 20, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> thegame07 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else sick of debates about being gay on Gbatemp? seems like there's a new one every few weeks and it's always the exact same. Being gay isn't a big deal these days, It's not a shocker any more and there's not need to go on about it every week. We all know Old religious people can't take society accepting gay people, What's new? It's been drilled into them because of Holy books, They will never listen. Best thing to do is laugh at them, I really can't stand people who have to announce that they are gay every 2nd post either.
> ...



I suppose you could say that about any repeated thread Gbatemp seems to be cracking down on. Double standards 

Maybe have a gay discussion sticky, seems we need one. That's how bad it is.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 20, 2012)

thegame07 said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > thegame07 said:
> ...



You're getting completely off topic. 

If you don't like the way things are handled here, no one is asking you to stay. Now discuss the topic at hand, or move onto another thread. I will only ask nicely so many times


----------



## ShadowFyre (Jul 20, 2012)

Morons who think SSM is "unnatural". Did you know monogamy is unnatural? Humans are supposed to be polygamists by nature, so why aren't people bashing monogamists all over the world?
That being said I hate how good their chicken is, so I, like some people on this thread, have mixed feelings supporting them.


----------



## Linkiboy (Jul 20, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> thegame07 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone else sick of debates about being gay on Gbatemp? seems like there's a new one every few weeks and it's always the exact same. Being gay isn't a big deal these days, It's not a shocker any more and there's not need to go on about it every week. We all know Old religious people can't take society accepting gay people, What's new? It's been drilled into them because of Holy books, They will never listen. Best thing to do is laugh at them, I really can't stand people who have to announce that they are gay every 2nd post either.
> ...


But threads and arguments such as these are way too prominent and the thousands of other threads don't nearly receive as much attention.

It's an eyesore and while I can't speak for the rest of the Tempers from the old era, it's why I stopped participating in this community.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 20, 2012)

Linkiboy said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > thegame07 said:
> ...



That's nice. If you want to make a seperate thread about it in Site Suggestions, feel free. However, this is not the place to debate it. The thread stays, unless there is an outstanding reason to close it. End of discussion.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Jul 20, 2012)

Keep it on topic. I'm not going to say it anymore. I'm just going to start trashing posts and handing out warns. If you want to talk about the old days and the decline of GBAtemp, feel free to make a blog post about it, or PM an Admin. This topic, however is not the place for that discussion.


----------



## MFDC12 (Jul 21, 2012)

Chick-fil-a has been open about their support for Focus on the family for years now, I'm surprised people are surprised about this

how about we talk about chick-fil-a announced basically the same exact thing last year and no one was outraged until today


----------



## Pleng (Jul 21, 2012)

Skelletonike said:


> I'm left handed and I openly say that I prefer left hands over the right ones,



That is certainly far more ridiculous than anything Mr Flick a Chick (or whatever the place is called) said!



blahkamehameha said:


> im a bit surprised this needed further explanation, but i'll give it a go. last tiime i checked, a same sex married couple are likely to have sex. since there are of course no vaginas invovled, they have to, ahem, stick it in the butt. Anal sex.



Well a few little flaws there... not all gay couples have anal sex and, might come as a shock to you, a lot of guys like to "stick it in the butt", as you so elegantly put it, with their female partner. I'd be willing to bet a small sum of money (only a small some, mind as I admit to not having done any research in this area) that there is a higher percentage of heterosexuals practising anal sex than homosexuals.





BloodyFlame said:


> In [some] same-sex relationship... there ...is a masculine male and a more feminine man, which acts like a straight relationship.




Even in those relationships, a 'camp' man is hardly equivalent to a straight female.


----------



## yuyuyup (Jul 21, 2012)

tinymonkeyt said:


> SifJar said:
> 
> 
> > On a rather off topic note, I have heard of Chick-fil-A many times and always wanted to try it sometime. Back on topic, I don't really think his opinion is any more important than anyone else's, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.
> ...


Hi, I heard you guys like apples.

*	Boston Mayor Vows To Block Chick-Fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay Remarks*

So how do you like them apples?

http://www.huffingto..._n_1689800.html
STR8 UP @Cock_Blocked


----------



## dgwillia (Jul 21, 2012)

I never thought i'd go against all my morals and beliefs for Waffle Fries and Chicken Strips.......dammit


----------



## BORTZ (Jul 21, 2012)

>Views on sexual orientation
>Business

I honestly dont understand this. I personally dont like same sex marriage. To be honest, the less i hear about it the better. It just annoying at this point. 

I am also a Christian. I know people dont want me parading around saying "Im a Christian, respect my views and accept me!" with every post and facebook update. 
I dont care if you are gay. If you are, great. fantastic. fabulous. Im not going to oppress you or shun you or anything, we can all get along. We just have to accept each other. 

As for Chick-fil-A, good for them. I probably would have said the same thing. 
This isnt something to get up in arms about.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 21, 2012)

For some reason I'm reminded of the episode of Community where Hawthorne Wipes goes LGBT friendly because of a sharp increase of sales, only to have Pierce's dad condemn him for endorsing it.

Also this topic looks very unpromising. If it hasn't already happened, I expect this somehow evolves into a multitude of different off topic and all too common debates until it's closed with a moderator saying "You should all feel ashamed".


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 21, 2012)

dgwillia said:


> I never thought i'd go against all my morals and beliefs for Waffle Fries and Chicken Strips.......dammit



LMFAO! That's how I feel right now. I am sooo craving Waffle Fries!


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 21, 2012)

Lacius said:


> http://www.economist.com/node/17227800




It'd be interesting to see this chart done with Muslims included. It'd make the white evangelicals look downright liberal.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 22, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> It'd be interesting to see this chart done with Muslims included. It'd make the white evangelicals look downright liberal.


American Muslims are a more diverse group than white evangelicals (you've got Arab Muslims, South Asian Muslims, etc), but it's something like 70% of American Muslims oppose gay marriage. This is off the top of my head, so I don't have any links.


----------



## Hells Malice (Jul 22, 2012)

Lacius said:


> *snip*
> 
> http://www.economist.com/node/17227800



That chart is kinda funny. Every religious group became more tolerant over the years, and atheist and agnostic dipped down.

That aside, Jewish people sure are an accepting religion. They trump the hell out of other religions for tolerance. Good on 'em.


----------



## Pleng (Jul 22, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> That aside, Jewish people sure are an accepting religion. They trump the hell out of other religions for tolerance. Good on 'em.



Dunno. I reckon Bhuddism would give them a run for their money in the tolerance department!


----------



## Gahars (Jul 23, 2012)

In related news, The Muppets have dropped Chick-Fil-A.



> The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jul 23, 2012)

I just find it funny that a business built entirely on cocks would not support gay marriage.


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 23, 2012)

Gahars said:


> In related news, The Muppets have dropped Chick-Fil-A.
> 
> 
> 
> > The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors. Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD.



_*And just like that Chick Fil-A got the "F.U."*_​


----------



## chavosaur (Jul 23, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I just find it funny that a business built entirely on cocks would not support gay marriage.





LightyKD said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > In related news, The Muppets have dropped Chick-Fil-A.
> ...


I don't know which one makes me laugh more...


----------



## nando (Jul 23, 2012)




----------



## BlueStar (Jul 23, 2012)

> “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.



So one guy and two sisters, a rapist and their victim, a king and his 300 wives, a guy and a woman he picked up and carried off, or the brother of a guy who died who is duty bound to marry his widow I guess.

Oh, and no marrying non-virgins, unless you want them to be executed.

I presume they've come out against divorce as well?


----------



## nando (Jul 23, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> > “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




well now you are just pick and choosing


----------



## SifJar (Jul 23, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> So one guy and two sisters, a rapist and their victim, a king and his 300 wives, a guy and a woman he picked up and carried off, or the brother of a guy who died who is duty bound to marry his widow I guess.
> 
> Oh, and no marrying non-virgins, unless you want them to be executed.
> 
> I presume they've come out against divorce as well?


All of the things you mention are from the Old Testament, which was written a long time ago, in a very different culture. That explains, at the very least, the 300 wives. And probably the marrying your brother's widow thing. I'll also agree strongly with nando that you are picking and choosing a few more extreme examples. There are plenty of more "conventional" families in the Bible. It's never said in the Bible that the family situations you mentioned were "right" or "good" (well, to the best of my knowledge anyway).


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Jul 23, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.economist.com/node/17227800
> ...


Lol probably not I'd say a little higher then white evangelicals.
The poll was done in America and the muslims that live in America tend to be more liberal.

EDITId some research and I still think it'd be at pretty much the same mark as White evangelical.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 23, 2012)

SifJar said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > So one guy and two sisters, a rapist and their victim, a king and his 300 wives, a guy and a woman he picked up and carried off, or the brother of a guy who died who is duty bound to marry his widow I guess.
> ...



Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out? 

Which part of the bible is this bit about gays being an abomination in again? Would that be the Old Testament? The Chik-fil-ay guy is the one picking and choosing. Rules against divorce are in the new testament, where's his vocal opposition to that?

How long come Christians can turn to the old Testament and claim it's the infallible word of God when they want to base laws on the Ten Commandments or creation stories or whatever and then try and drop it like a hot potato and claim it 'doesn't count' when people point out its full of wicked, evil shit, barbaric instructions and a petty, childish god?


----------



## SifJar (Jul 23, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out?
> 
> Which part of the bible is this bit about gays being an abomination in again? Would that be the Old Testament? The Chik-fil-ay guy is the one picking and choosing. Rules against divorce are in the new testament, where's his vocal opposition to that?
> 
> How long come Christians can turn to the old Testament and claim it's the infallible word of God when they want to base laws on the Ten Commandments or creation stories or whatever and then try and drop it like a hot potato and claim it 'doesn't count' when people point out its full of wicked, evil shit, barbaric instructions and a petty, childish god?


I never said the Old Testament was irrelevant or "doesn't count" or anything of the sort. Far from it. What I was saying is that* the culture was different back then. *By today's standards, yes polygamy (for example) seems wrong, but in those days it was perfectly acceptable. I'll be honest, there's stuff in the OT that I don't fully understand why it was acceptable back then, but not now. However, I will note that when Jesus came and formed the new covenant, He "raised the bar" so to speak on a number of OT laws. (e.g. from "don't commit adultery" to "don't look at a woman with lustful intent").

And I doubt the Chick-fil-A guy supports divorce. Divorce is a much less controversial topic. The vast majority of Christians will be opposed to divorce. Homosexuality is more controversial, some Christians say it's OK, other's disagree. He also hasn't voiced an opposition to murder that I know of - doesn't mean he supports it. He doesn't have to vocally oppose everything he disagrees with. Heck, he didn't even vocally oppose homosexuality, he just vocally supported "traditional family values" or something along those lines.


----------



## MFDC12 (Jul 24, 2012)

SifJar said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out?
> ...



actually, the old testament is mainly invalid because after jesus came he fulfilled the covenant and created a new one, which is why a lot of Christians will say that eating pork and shellfish is ok, and how wearing clothes of mixed fabric is ok. Jesus actually didn't say anything about homosexuality in the NT.


----------



## BlueStar (Jul 24, 2012)

SifJar said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > Was the old Testament written by a different god? Did he change his mind? I don't see God condemning any of those types of marriage, do you? In fact some of the people god seemed to most respect, like the wise Solomon had these arrangements. Didn't Jesus turn water into wine to help out a polygamous marriage ceremony that ran out?
> ...



Wait, most Christians are opposed to divorce?  More so than homosexuality?  Then how come so many Christian churches now marry divorcees, but hardly any marry gays?  How come proponents of Political Christianity are lobbying to make gay marriage illegal, but not make divorce illegal?

If 'culture was different back then' means stuff like polygamy was a-ok and God didn't even express the slightest concern about ti when talking to people directly involved in it, or any of the other zany 'families' in the bible, how come the same can't be said about the 'gays are an abomination' stuff?  you know "Oh, that's just how it was back then, people thought being gay was wrong, but it's a different time now"?  The Old Testament was a 'different time' so family types don't matter from back then, but if you go back to the very beginning of time in the creation myth it's all "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"?

As for Jesus overrulling/updating the old laws, as with most things in the Bible you canjust pick the bit that matches whether you believe he did that or not.  Asked pretty much this specific question, Jesus responded

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."


----------



## SifJar (Jul 24, 2012)

MFDC12 said:


> actually, the old testament is mainly invalid because after jesus came he fulfilled the covenant and created a new one, which is why a lot of Christians will say that eating pork and shellfish is ok, and how wearing clothes of mixed fabric is ok. Jesus actually didn't say anything about homosexuality in the NT.


It's not invalid. Some of the laws no longer apply, but that does not make it invalid.


----------



## MFDC12 (Jul 24, 2012)

SifJar said:


> MFDC12 said:
> 
> 
> > actually, the old testament is mainly invalid because after jesus came he fulfilled the covenant and created a new one, which is why a lot of Christians will say that eating pork and shellfish is ok, and how wearing clothes of mixed fabric is ok. Jesus actually didn't say anything about homosexuality in the NT.
> ...


My question to you then, how come some laws stayed and not the others, if Jesus fulfilled the old covenant and created a new one *you do not get to pick and choose what laws stay and what lays don't, he fulfilled it all. *I'll bring up this point again because it is very relevant, how come dietary restrictions and clothing restrictions do not apply to Christians? Invalid was probably the wrong word, anyways. There are teachings/stories that are very useful and can be relevant but the laws do not apply to us*. I am going to refer you to BlueStar's post because he explains things better than I do, and I believe we are on the same page.
*Keep in mind Leviticus even, which has the most commonly quotes the famous Leviticus 18:22 regarding homosexual *sex (not relationships, and as we all should know now, not all LGBT have sex)* was written for Jews specifically and not NT Christians.


----------



## SifJar (Jul 24, 2012)

I get where you guys are coming from, and frankly, I don't have a complete answer for you. The dietary stuff, that is because of a vision Paul had where a sheet came down from heaven containing "unclean" animals, God told him to eat, he said it was unclean, God said "don't call anything unclean I have made clean". This symbolised that the dietary requirements no longer applied. The clothing one, I don't really know tbh. There are plenty of laws which are still valid, some which aren't, some which Jesus specifically changed (e.g. making divorce only acceptable in cases of adultery). One thing I heard once is that there are three types of laws given. Moral (e.g. last 6 commandments), which are still valid. Ritual (e.g. Jewish cleansing laws and stuff), which are generally no longer followed. And cultural (e.g. polygamy, clothing etc.), some of which are still applicable and others aren't. A piece of advice I was given was to look at the purpose of the law, and translate that to modern day society. I'm trying desperately to think of an example of that, but at this exact moment I can't I'm afraid. Sorry about that. 

Obviously, I don't have all the answers. I don't know why some laws are still followed and others are completely rejected. I think Jesus summed it up best with the two commandments "love God" and "love your neighbour as yourself" (or as I hear it paraphrased often "Love God, love people, nothing else matters"). Jesus said those were the most important things. I do apologise for not being able to answer those questions you're bringing up properly.


----------



## Castiel (Jul 24, 2012)

SifJar said:


> I get where you guys are coming from, and frankly, I don't have a complete answer for you. The dietary stuff, that is because of a vision *Peter* had where a sheet came down from heaven containing "unclean" animals, God told him to eat, he said it was unclean, God said "don't call anything unclean I have made clean". This symbolised that the dietary requirements no longer applied. The clothing one, I don't really know tbh. There are plenty of laws which are still valid, some which aren't, some which Jesus specifically changed (e.g. making divorce only acceptable in cases of adultery). One thing I heard once is that there are three types of laws given. Moral (e.g. last 6 commandments), which are still valid. Ritual (e.g. Jewish cleansing laws and stuff), which are generally no longer followed. And cultural (e.g. polygamy, clothing etc.), some of which are still applicable and others aren't. A piece of advice I was given was to look at the purpose of the law, and translate that to modern day society. I'm trying desperately to think of an example of that, but at this exact moment I can't I'm afraid. Sorry about that.
> 
> Obviously, I don't have all the answers. I don't know why some laws are still followed and others are completely rejected. I think Jesus summed it up best with the two commandments "love God" and "love your neighbour as yourself" (or as I hear it paraphrased often "Love God, love people, nothing else matters"). Jesus said those were the most important things. I do apologise for not being able to answer those questions you're bringing up properly.


The clothing one (I'm thinking head-coverings) was an issue in the OT because if women had their hair down, back then it generally meant that they were a prostitute. Christian women were told to cover their hair so that they didn't get thought of or mistaken as a prostitute. We can still apply this today because, although we can now wear head-coverings, the idea that we should be counter-cultural and not get mistaken for as a non-Christian still applies. So an example of this would be to not wear overly revealing clothing, mini-mini skirts etc.

This is the best explanation I can come up with at the moment because I am in a hurry and so my mind is moving very fast...


----------



## koimayeul (Jul 25, 2012)

First of, if you are not a believer in any religious way but the average gbatemp gay friendly or hateful rebel youth browsing such thread with a passion for controversy, it may be wise to skip my post as my language might fly out of your radar and misinterpreted as homophobic. I'm an adult and i can take it anyway but trust me as i state i'm not trying to pick any fight or argue here, only expressing my honest feelings about the topic at hand, just like you, in a civil manner.
If you are open to disproval from other people and willing to know different opinions, and a person mature enough to at least consider them, then by all means read my post. Thanks.


For the record i am a fervent Christian myself and, as such, i feel the need to react about this concerning OP and people's posts cursing the Bible for homophobic values and the likes..

There is no need to argue and debate about the Bible. Holy Scriptures are here for us to learn and to know about the personality of the Abrahamic God, the one and only God of the three main monotheist religions of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Scriptures teaches us about God's Will for us, who to become and how to behave as His creatures. Even more for Christians, as His Children! Context is different but most of the depicted situations are still remarkably reliable in most cases. Read it, understand it, just believe it or not. Scriptures are Scriptures, and God's norms are the same today as they were yesterday, and to be tomorrow. They are not to be re-written by passing civilizations to soften or adapt with current flowing social norms, gaining more followers and believers that way is losing more people to their sins providing them with a fake peace of mind and a twisted freedom of act.

The Scriptures clearly state homosexuality to be a sin. I know it, you know it, we know it. No point twisting the Scriptures involved by interpreting and extrapolating like "David and Jonathan" suppositions, it will get nowhere but here, there is no changing Holy Scriptures. While homo-affective feelings are normal elements within any genuinely deep friendship, twisting it and taking it into the act of homosexuality is the sin.

While it is said a sin, it is just among many others such as lust, greed, theft, adultery, fornication etc.. None greater or lesser than the others sins, so there is no particular discrimination against homosexual people in the Scriptures.

About same sex "marriage", the Truth of the Scriptures teaches God's marriage law an Holy institution set by God Himself. "So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them, male and female he created them." So God gave marriage as the answer for Adam finding someone who is a suitable companion and partner, Eve, blessing forever and exclusively from other creatures their union to multiply and fill the Earth.

It teaches also homosexuality was severely punished by death in the times of Moses law's Israël Theocracy, and Jesus-Christ re-affirmed God's Will about marriage and divorce, and the complementarity of the man and the woman. "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

As for Christ's Two Great Commands, "Jesus, which is the great commandment in the law? and he said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind. this is the great and first commandment. and a second one is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
It is a totally wrong idea to take the love of the neighbor as homosexuality being approved.. Love as Jesus-Christ teaches us and command us to have for the neighbor is kindness, respect, compassion and charity, not romantic or sexual passions.. !! Those are exclusive to married couple and exclusive to each other as married partners. Any sex outside the Holy institution of God's marriage law is fornication, and sex with another partner than the spouse, adultery. Exclusive to straight heterosexual married couple have i to clarify, and sadly i have to in this day and age, where homosexuality is expanding at an alarmous rate, trying hard to be seen as a viable alternative to God's Will and natural, biological ways..


With that out of the way, don't LGBT already have the same social rights than straight married couples does with civil partnership, PACS and such..? So why the offense with this man's words.. ? Don't see them LGBT going much after Muslim religion and Islamic countries lapidating homosexual people on a daily basis.. Usualy common and safer to pick on Christians and criminalising the Bible as homophobic. That's really low as most of us are tolerant and keep our arms, hearts and minds open to homosexual people just the same as for any people, even more in this day and age. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Call it hypocrisy but in most cases, the compassion is real, and the will to save such people is genuine. The choice is here and ours, at anytime, anywhere as long as we're alive and breathing it is available as a grace!! But the real deal is, do we want to be saved by conforming our whole being to God's norms, and not to our own norms or social norms.. ?

Personally i don't care that much about a person's sexuality and accept people for who they are and how they behave toward others, as long as they are consenting adults involved they are free to do whatever they want in the privacy of their home, their business. As for public and social behavior, discretion is advised, but not any more or less than straight couples rules, no obvious sexual gestures in public so no discrimination here.. Are they non-Christian people, i have no word to say. Are they Christians, my part to point out their sin and to try and save them, otherwise i would silently approve their ways and commit a sin just as much, knowing what i should do and not doing so.

For myself.. The celebration and blessing of same sex "marriage" is not a civil right by any means the society affair, while i am firmly against traditional religious wedding and God's blessing for them (that might just be my zealous, bigoted feeling as i can admit it to an extent at least) my main opposition, that i have a right to fight for as a person, is about LGBT hidden/obvious goal from their push on our traditional family unit (since they already have civil partnership and such why would they go after traditions anyway.. ? For God's blessing i think few still care) namely, same sex couples adopting children in masses using civil laws, and this is not any less than totally terrifying and unacceptable for our future.. Imagine, a new world order with no other pre-requisite than "married" couples with $$$ financially stable situations granting any right to homosexual couples to take away children from their natural, real parents as it goes on... TERRIFYING!

Please read me and understand me.. Children.. Adoption.. No woman, no cry..  One does not exist without the other.. A man and a woman are clearly made for each other as the Scriptures says, as natural conscious says... A penis fits perfectly to a vagina for a reason.. In all ways, body, mind, soul a man and a woman feeds and edify on each other.. This, is the True dynamic of our human lives and needs. Affective, spiritual, sexual needs.. New lives born from it.. Whoever denying our human genders complementarity and natural, biological purposes to pefectly fit with each other as males and females correspondances is greatly in the wrong.. Such wonders of nature should be enough to actually prove God is our Creator for non-believers, if anything!! Remember, this is how you and i were born, alive and breathing right here and now, from our parents both natural and blessed union from God's Will.. This is the Truth. There is no sexual union possible with the lack of corresponding, complementary organs. The only genuine sexual encounter is between a penis and a vagina, i will get rude and crude now if you excuse me but homosexual people can cry out all they want, it wont make rectums naturally lubricate for deviant purposes and sexual toys mighty pulsating with flesh and blood. I'm sorry to come out raw on this but it has to be said once in a while to get through and now's a suitable time.. As human beings we exist as men and women, as people with distinct and complementary organic functions and affectivities for a purpose. To rejoin and edify ourselves as a family, developing our societies, our human race. How unique and undescribably rich and deep opportunity is offered to us as a precious gift, as a grace!! Such opportunity to take part through the Holy institution of heterosexual marriage to unite our will as a blessed union with God's Will of creating and promoting new lives.. The male and the female genders are simply meant for each other, in this Holy way as far the Scriptures says and as any healthy natural conscious can only bow down to as being right, and as correct truth.. Denying our genders perfect correspondance on our factual biological reality basis is just silly, but rebellion against God's Will for our human race with pushy civil rights and laws for same sex "marriages" and adoptions is way much wrong, and a lost cause with could lead to terrible consequences such as civil wars and bloodshed.

Homosexuality is indeed a threat to our traditonal family unit and values.. Now religious marriage and we all know next comes adopting children.. No biased studies diagnostics and panels matter, as it is a moral decision. Children are HUMAN BEINGS, not statistics or things to dispose of. Financially stable situation is not enough as pre-requisite, children MUST be protected and nurtured within the traditional family unit of a father and a mother. The balance of both distinct complementary role models for both genders can not be replaced and ignored.. The well being of Children are to come first, before the desire of couples to adopt regardless of their sexuality. Your life is not even your own, your fragile breath, it is God's.. Now to dispose of the lives of children.. ? NO!!
Nothing new stating it but : Majority > Minority; Mankind > Human Being; Society > Civilian. The good of the most beats the good of the few. It is a matter of survival and social order!


That said, most of people on this forum community are not even adults, and there is so much left to know and to grow, to mature at any age of life.. But the most of our principles and aspirations take its shape during the childhood and teenage.. If you are not a believer you are free to do as you wish and will probably curse me for my opinion and my preach. Consequences of homosexuality won't make a difference either way, believe me or not.. Read ambiguous relationships, shameful feelings, genders confusion, invasive thoughts etc.. If you are a believer, you will understand my message as a selfless, clever and heartful warning against dangers and temptations of the sin of homosexuality.
If my honest, inspired Christian message can help people suffering from homosexual tendencies or even people with active homosexual behaviors, as legit and healthy as they seem, to think twice about it then i have reached my goal and saved a few, if just one person... Find help in local churches, in Bible teachings, in online communities such as here, in prayers..  Homosexuality is not an illness, it is not a genetic curse, it is just a sin and we can all be saved from our sins if we confess and recognize them as they are, with the firm will to change our ways conforming our whole being to God's norms for us to become and behave as His Children.. As for any sin, temptation is the one and only root, and the only suitable response to temptation is none other but to cut it off from its roots.. So pray, don't give up to it! None is responsible for their tendencies and feelings, but one is fully responsible for his/her actions! Flee far from the risks of being tempted and watch yourself carefully on you friendships, books and mangas readings, video games, tv shows, movies, songs, internet use etc..  No one is alone as we are all linked together as one spiritual family in Christ with no discrimination for any reason... As a fellow temper and Christian, Amen!

Edit : Link to a good FAQ about homosexuality and the Bible, with no biased answers : http://www.twopaths....mosexuality.htm


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jul 25, 2012)

koimayeul said:


> The balance of both distinct complementary role models for both genders can not be replaced and ignored


Typical argument. So you are in support of outlawing divorce I presume? If one of the parents leaves the picture (arrest, military, death, etc) then shall we take the children and give them to a "whole" couple?

I would love to see your citations for the studies that show a causal link between same-sex parents and poor child outcomes. Being religious necessitates the ability to accept bold claims without evidence. I, however, will not.


----------



## koimayeul (Jul 25, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> koimayeul said:
> 
> 
> > The balance of both distinct complementary role models for both genders can not be replaced and ignored
> ...



In the case of biological parents, the death of one of them the children is legally under the responsability of the remaining biological parent. 
As for same sex parents, they can not be without the use of science and adoption which is a natural consequence of homosexuality..
I'm not favorable to divorce at all if it can be avoided. Either homo-parentality or mono-parentality through adoptions to be avoided as possible if you ask me.


----------



## LightyKD (Jul 25, 2012)

*Read THIS!*​

Sauce!: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/25/chick-fil-a-impersonates-young-girl-on-facebook-to-defend-its-biblical-morality/​


----------



## SifJar (Jul 25, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> *Read THIS!*​
> 
> Sauce!: http://www.addicting...lical-morality/​


The fact it is a fake account does not prove it was Chick-fil-A that made the fake account. It could have been anyone who agrees with their position.

Or maybe the girl from the stock photo decided to make a Facebook for herself (they do exist as real people outside of the stock photos as I understand it...), and it just so happened she made it 8 hours before this incident. She would have looked for a few pages to "like" shortly after signing up to FB, found the page of her chicken based fast food restaurant of choice and decided to post a helpful comment.

(Yeah that second scenario is a little far fetched, I'm mostly joking. But the point is, just because it's a fake account doesn't mean it was made by Chick-fil-A)


----------



## Castiel (Jul 25, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Typical argument. So you are in support of outlawing divorce I presume? If one of the parents leaves the picture (arrest, military, death, etc) then shall we take the children and give them to a "whole" couple?
> 
> I would love to see your citations for the studies that show a causal link between same-sex parents and poor child outcomes. *Being religious necessitates the ability to accept bold claims without evidence.* I, however, will not.


I would love to see your citations for the studies that show this is true. I am a religious person and I agree with you that there needs to be evidence for bold claims. Just because someone is a German, that doesn't mean they are a Nazi. Don't be so quick to assume that everyone in the same category is the same.


----------



## P-CHYLD (Jul 25, 2012)

people are dying, kids are starving,the homeless are struggling, and all people care about is ssm.
Life is bigger than 2 men or 2 women doing whatever perverted shit they do. I can't wait for Gods rapture.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jul 25, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Blood Fetish said:
> 
> 
> > Typical argument. So you are in support of outlawing divorce I presume? If one of the parents leaves the picture (arrest, military, death, etc) then shall we take the children and give them to a "whole" couple?
> ...


There is no evidence supporting the existence of any of the thousands of god figures mankind has worshipped over the years. An all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful superbeing is without a doubt the boldest claim to have ever been made. If you are religious then you accept, without evidence, that this figure exists. Ergo, a prerequisite of being religious is that you accept incredible claims without evidence.


----------



## TyBlood13 (Jul 25, 2012)

What do you expect? He's a *MORMAN! *that's their beleifs. I say keep your opinions to yourself unless asked for it.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 25, 2012)

TyBlood13 said:


> What do you expect? He's a *MORMAN! *that's their beleifs. I say keep your opinions to yourself unless asked for it.


Christian actually.


----------



## TyBlood13 (Jul 25, 2012)

JoostinOnline said:


> TyBlood13 said:
> 
> 
> > What do you expect? He's a *MORMAN! *that's their beleifs. I say keep your opinions to yourself unless asked for it.
> ...


really,now. I have always heard the company was run by mormans, which was why they were closed on sunday.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 25, 2012)

TyBlood13 said:


> JoostinOnline said:
> 
> 
> > TyBlood13 said:
> ...


Being closed on Sunday is a Christian thing.  It was adopted by the Mormon religion.


----------



## Castiel (Jul 25, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > Blood Fetish said:
> ...


You are right again. There is no existence of any of the thousands of god figures mankind has worshiped over the years. But there is evidence supporting the existence of the one God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time. The evidence is the Bible, you are just refusing to accept that it is true.

http://www.biblicals...0/schoville.htm - Top 10 Archeological discoveries of the Twentieth Century relating to the Biblical World
http://www.bible.ca/b-archeolgy.htm - Archaeology is digging up Bible stories
Casting Crowns - The Word is Alive: "The Bible was ascribed over a period of 2 thousand years, in times of war and in days of peace. By Kings, physicians, tax collectors, farmers, fisherman, singers, and shepherd. The Marvel is that a library so perfectly cohesive could have been produced by such a diverse crowd, over a period of time which staggers the imagination."

Ultimately, you are free to believe whatever you so choose. But I can tell you right now, the consequences if you are wrong will be worse than anything imaginable.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jul 26, 2012)

Castiel said:


> You are right again. There is no existence of any of the thousands of god figures mankind has worshiped over the years. But there is evidence supporting the existence of the one God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time. The evidence is the Bible, you are just refusing to accept that it is true.


Using the bible to prove the existence of god is like using a Harry Potter book to prove the existence of wizards


----------



## Castiel (Jul 26, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > You are right again. There is no existence of any of the thousands of god figures mankind has worshiped over the years. But there is evidence supporting the existence of the one God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time. The evidence is the Bible, you are just refusing to accept that it is true.
> ...


Except for the fact that Archaeologists have proof that the Bible is correct. Harry Potter is a book of fiction that has no outside proof of reality.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jul 26, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Except for the fact that Archaeologists have proof that the Bible is correct. Harry Potter is a book of fiction that has no outside proof of reality.


Do you have any credible sources for this? Not the geocities pages you linked to. I am quite sure that if strong evidence for the existence of god was found it would be covered by every major and credible publication on Earth.


----------



## Castiel (Jul 26, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > Except for the fact that Archaeologists have proof that the Bible is correct. Harry Potter is a book of fiction that has no outside proof of reality.
> ...


This depends on your definition of credibility. As far as I'm concerned, those sites are credible, and so is this one. http://www.prevailmagazine.org/how-archaeology-proves-the-bible/
But I'm tired of doing all the work for you. If you can't bother to look up anymore of the evidence yourself and keep having to get a 16 year old to do it for you, I'm not even going to bother to debate with you anymore. Also, this debate has gone way off topic as the topic was made to talk about the chick-fil-a owner and what he announced. A debate about whether God exists is not at all on topic.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jul 26, 2012)

Castiel said:


> But I'm tired of doing all the work for you. If you can't bother to look up anymore of the evidence yourself and keep having to get a 16 year old to do it for you, I'm not even going to bother to debate with you anymore.


That's how it works, Castiel. If you make an assertion then you have to support it.


----------



## Actinopterygian Melospiza (Jul 26, 2012)

Castiel said:


> You are right again. There is no existence of any of the thousands of god figures mankind has worshiped over the years. But there is evidence supporting the existence of the one God that has been worshiped since the beginning of time. The evidence is the Bible, you are just refusing to accept that it is true.
> 
> http://www.biblicals...0/schoville.htm - Top 10 Archeological discoveries of the Twentieth Century relating to the Biblical World
> http://www.bible.ca/b-archeolgy.htm - Archaeology is digging up Bible stories
> Casting Crowns - The Word is Alive: "The Bible was ascribed over a period of 2 thousand years, in times of war and in days of peace. By Kings, physicians, tax collectors, farmers, fisherman, singers, and shepherd. The Marvel is that a library so perfectly cohesive could have been produced by such a diverse crowd, over a period of time which staggers the imagination."


First of all the sites you linked to are questionable at best, but putting that aside, did you even read them? They don't "prove" the existence of god in any way, they just show that some biblical stories have some historical basis, which is not the same thing.



Castiel said:


> Ultimately, you are free to believe whatever you so choose. But I can tell you right now, the consequences if you are wrong will be worse than anything imaginable.


That's essentially Pascal's wager and is illogical and an invalid argument to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

I don't really see why I'm even bothering though, because as Carl Sagan said:
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.”

edit:





Castiel said:


> This depends on your definition of credibility. As far as I'm concerned, those sites are credible


lol, of course you think they're credible because they support what you believe.


----------



## Castiel (Jul 26, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> Castiel said:
> 
> 
> > But I'm tired of doing all the work for you. If you can't bother to look up anymore of the evidence yourself and keep having to get a 16 year old to do it for you, I'm not even going to bother to debate with you anymore.
> ...


Not to sound disrespectful or anything, but you haven't really given me anything aside from your own bias. Just as there is no "credible" evidence to support the Truth of the Bible, there is also no "credible" evidence to support that the Bible isn't Truth.


----------



## Actinopterygian Melospiza (Jul 26, 2012)

Castiel said:


> I didn't say they proved the existence of God, I said they proved the Truthfulness of the Bible, which proves the existence of God.


This is hilariously wrong. First of all, they don't prove the truthfulness of the bible. They show that some things in the bible have historical basis which, once again, is not the same thing. Also, the bible does not "prove" the existence of god, it suggests it.

Oh and another thing, the bible has been proven to be mistranslated and that things have been added to support certain views. For example the "virgin" Mary. The word in Hebrew simply meant "young woman," but when it was translated to Greek it was given the connotation that the woman was a virgin. Of course you probably won't believe me simply because you don't want to, even though there are plenty of reputable sources to back this up.



Castiel said:


> there is also no "credible" evidence to support that the Bible isn't Truth.


Not to sound disrespectful or anthing, but this is just dumb. You don't have to prove that something isn't true. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. For example if someone says I commited a murder I don't have to prove they're lying, they have to prove they aren't


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jul 26, 2012)

Castiel said:


> Just as there is no "credible" evidence to support the Truth of the Bible, there is also no "credible" evidence to support that the Bible isn't Truth.


"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


----------



## The Milkman (Jul 26, 2012)

So does this mean Gays also aren't allowed to eat his chicken?

Oh surprise, someone says an old Christian is doing something stupid and somehow a religious arguement starts up.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 26, 2012)

I've three words to say about this thread: Big F***ng Deal.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 26, 2012)

Blood Fetish said:


> "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."


So, people can dismiss that God(s) don't exist then?


----------



## Depravo (Jul 26, 2012)

Quelle surprise! A topic vaguely concerning religion has turned into _that _thread. Again.


----------

