• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

So you only need to observe me? I'm assuming you already know how Fred Phelps eats *****?

That's not missionary, obviously god hates cunnilingus, so any ***** eating by Fred Phelps is undoubtably uninspiring and done with a great bit of self-hatred prevelant on his face. That ones easy to assume.

So I just need to confirm yours isn't uninspiring....

Also, see my post after the one I just responded to ;)



...seriously, stop talking about Fred Phelps sexually. It's making it too hard to keep that image from actually taking root in my head.
 
natural my ass...sorry still we part there

Something is "natural" when it is an inherent and immutable part of their being - meaning it's a part of who they are and they can't change it. I am naturally yellow-skinned. By the same token, homosexuals are naturally gay.

And some pedophiles molest boys and not girls because it is part of their nature (pathology). Some pedophiles molest girls and not boys because that is part if THEIR pathology and their nature. That is what is meant by "natural."

So, bottom line, what I'm saying is, variations among people's natures is natural as well. Natural variation among living things is inherent to the nature of nature.
 
Last edited:
For some reason homosexuals believe if they get in your face, get nasty, call you names somehow thats going to change your mind..lol....me thinks its going to have people get back in YOUR face, get nastier, call you worse names and only make them more steadfast in what they believe...like me

Has nothing to do with homosexuality.

If you get in peoples face, get nasty, and call them names you're almost never going to change peoples minds....regardless of the issue. And you're almost always going to just incite and inspire people to act that way back to you.

Sadly this isn't something limited to arguments about homosexuals. This is pretty common throughout politics.

The less hyperbole, exaggeration, insults, and shouting you use the more likely you are to win over people who weren't already on your side in just about any argument.

The reality is, typicall, the use of those things above are rarely in instances where the individual is actually concerned with convincing people their right and more about them wanting to vent, get adulation from those that agree with them, and enjoy the feelings they give themselves for thinking they showed the other person how dumb they think the person is.
 
Last edited:
Ok im out of this thread...I only enter these homosexual threads when some get fricken overbearing and start falsely labeling straight people that dont Get on a pedestal and shout only what they want to hear....that makes me bristle and Im compelled to them they are full of it...For some reason homosexuals believe if they get in your face, get nasty, call you names somehow thats going to change your mind..lol....me thinks its going to have people get back in YOUR face, get nastier, call you worse names and only make them more steadfast in what they believe...like me

Translation: "I'm more likely to support legalized discrimination against an entire group of Americans because I got my feelings hurt on an internet message board."

You can make me instead of just not being for gay marriage...hate you as a person...because you want to try and bogart me and call me names...wont work...you will get it back

I don't expect you to change your mind or care if you change your mind. Eventually this issue will be resolved the same way segregation was resolved: Some people truly did change their minds, but more importantly, many of the pro-disrimination people just died off and were replaced by younger generations that didn't harbor the same bigotry. Eventually, people like you will die too, and decades from now people will wonder what all the fuss was about.
 
Last edited:
That's not missionary, obviously god hates cunnilingus, so any ***** eating by Fred Phelps is undoubtably uninspiring and done with a great bit of self-hatred prevelant on his face. That ones easy to assume.

So I just need to confirm yours isn't uninspiring....

Also, see my post after the one I just responded to ;)



...seriously, stop talking about Fred Phelps sexually. It's making it too hard to keep that image from actually taking root in my head.

Yeah, he probably sucks too much dick to be good at eating ***** ;)

And with regards to your request, that's part of why it's funny
 
I can't imagine living life with such irrational thoughts and assumptions leading my opinion formation.

You are aware of the quote from Cathy that started this whole thing?

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."

What's the difference between that and "God Hates Fags"?

Answer: A few degrees.

Also, do you understand why, in their minds, WBC protests funerals of fallen soldiers? They believe every death is God's Judgement on us for tolerance towards gays.


If you weren't aware of all this, why are you posting in this thread?

People, when you don't have all the facts, stay on the sidelines, please.
 
To quote Chaz the intolerant Chick-fil-A Chicken, "Eat up, you godless sodomites!"

The amazing thing is that "Hate Chicken" with Polynesian sauce tastes as good as “Pre-everybody freaking the **** out” Chicken with Polynesian sauce.

I know…I was shocked. I could’ve swore that the political views of a companies owner and of organizations of an organization that the company gives money too would actually change how it taste when it magically changed it to “hate chicken”.

But nope…still the same wonderful chick-fil-a battered nuggets with tasty sauces.

God damnit….once again this forum is making me want to go buy chick-fil-a. I’ve actually ate more Chick-Fil-A since all this crap started…not because of some grand political stand, but because everyone keeps ****ing talking about it and I start thinking about it and there’s one 3 minute from my place of work.
 
Well, let's see what really happens. This is an election year, and given the President's statements in favor of SSM and the fact that it looks as though it may become a plank in the Democratic platform...well anything to keep voters from thinking about the economy, right?

Who knows what basis a particular voter will use to make their choice? For me, it's how much was spent on recovering our economy and what was the results. Whether they are attempting to initiate policies that are socialistic or will lead to socialistic like emplementation. If they are in office, are they fulfilling their oaths of office and acting constitutionally. Will they take strong stances that are pro-American sovreignty. And many others.

Things like same sex marriage, abortion and other fringe issues only come into play if the candidates are equal in terms of other discriminatiors. I do know that there are people who base their entire vote upon such, IMO, minor issues and don't consider other factors. I have a sister-in-law that admits that she voted for Clinton because he was "cuter" than GH Bush, while she definitly had the right to do so, really, being "cuter" should be the basis of a political decision? To each their own and God help the rest of us.
 
If people are simply talking about FRC, then I have less of an issue. However, last I checked FRC isn't running "chicken shops" which was where I first saw the attempt to compare Chick-Fil-A to Nazi's and Westboro.

With regards to the "good" things, I was listing FRC as one such group as I've heard some complaining about Chick-Fil-A as them donating to "multiple" so I imagine there are more than just the FRC. I'll be forthright in stating I don't know a ton about the FRC and all I've reliably found so far is the SPLC blurb on them which, to be fair as it's my general stance that regardless of side places that seem to have a specific agenda are ones I don't immedietely just take as 100% gospel, is largely unsourced and the few sources they have are sourcing themselves. So my comments regarding the man/some were off base, and poorly got across my actual point in my head which was that there can be a difference between giving money to a group DUE to the hateful things they do and due to other things they do despite the hateful one. Now, that's not suggesting either thing is good as ultimately you're still aiding a group doing a hateful things, and I get that...but when talking about intensity and level of culpability and the amount of hate rightfully put towards an individual or group, I think such a notion is important. When one is attempting to place hateful actions done by a group 2 or 3 steps down the line from Chick-Fil-A proper back onto Chick-Fil-A DIRECTLY...such as in the suggestion its "hate chicken"...then that to me matters a bit on the level at which such criticisms should be cast.
The argument that placing hateful actions done by a group 2 or 3 steps down line from Chik Fil A back to it directly would be valid if Chik Fil A's CEO had not already expressed rather intensely intolerant views on homosexuality and if Chik Fil A didn't donate to a variety of groups that spread intolerance of homosexuality. The fact is that the company spends a lot of money on intolerant groups whether they are linking homosexuality to pedophilia or funding groups that can "cure homosexuality" as if it's some disgusting disease.

-edit-

Thanks Khand for another link. I'm somewhat annoyed that their siting of things is done without any kind of link and without any kind of significant layout to make it simple to actually research and look up, but at least in that link rather than the first one I found they do site. However, it's all mostly the pedophile stuff (Which I view as hateful, but largely ignorant as well). The thing I'm curious about is their statement regarding their head guy claiming homosexuality should be illegal...that one is the giant red flag beyond all else to me, but the sourcing of it was ridiculous broad and has not helped one bit in actually finding the article to actuall see the real quotes.
He said that 'gay behavior' should be outlawed on Hardball with Chris Mathews. Here's the video. The statement is at 8:37.
 
The amazing thing is that "Hate Chicken" with Polynesian sauce tastes as good as “Pre-everybody freaking the **** out” Chicken with Polynesian sauce.

I know…I was shocked. I could’ve swore that the political views of a companies owner and of organizations of an organization that the company gives money too would actually change how it taste when it magically changed it to “hate chicken”.

But nope…still the same wonderful chick-fil-a battered nuggets with tasty sauces.

God damnit….once again this forum is making me want to go buy chick-fil-a. I’ve actually ate more Chick-Fil-A since all this crap started…not because of some grand political stand, but because everyone keeps ****ing talking about it and I start thinking about it and there’s one 3 minute from my place of work.

I had Chick-Fil-A last summer in Florida. I wasn't overly impressed, but then I had a toothache at the time also...
 
Reading what the Chick-fil-A head honcho said about gay marriage reminds me what I have said/typed for years:

Imo, all major religions are for the weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate.
 
Last edited:
I had Chick-Fil-A last summer in Florida. I wasn't overly impressed, but then I had a toothache at the time also...

That shouldn't have effected the experience since the chicken melts in your ****ing mouth. ;)
 
I had Chick-Fil-A last summer in Florida. I wasn't overly impressed, but then I had a toothache at the time also...

As I said in another thread...my preference to them over all other fast food could be due to the fact that I'm not a huge burger fan. I prefer nuggets or a good chicken sandwich over a burger any day when it come to fast food. Now, it is fast food. It's subject to the same issues...IE cold waffle fries or nuggets are no less crappy than cold McD's fries and McNuggets. However, I just have basically found that when actually served hot, their food is much tastier to me and more than that...over all service tends to be better on average at the ones I've gone to all across Virginia. Less likely to get cold food, more/better sauces to pick from, more likely to have friendly workers, more likely to have a clean interior, more likely to be accomodating and friendly about requests, and (a big one for me especially in northern virginia) more likely to have individuals working there that I can understand and that can understand me. Note, that's not to say non-foriegn/non-white workers...but rather people who simply can understand and speak English fluently, not brokenly. When dealing with a service industry reliant on language...this is a big plus for me.

Everyone undoubtably has a different experience as they go in...but for my money, it's the best fast food chain in my area.
 
Let me ask you this.....when you see a march of people supporting "gay rights" do you say "Nothing brings out the straight-bashing non-God-fearin' residents of Hooterville more than an opportunity to show their support for other straight bashers?" If not, you're partisan. If you can march in support of being a homo, you can eat in support of being a hetero.

This may actually win the Worst Analogy of the Year contest! I suppose you would support those white folks rallying to preserve Jim Crow laws and the rights of the KKK to terrorize black people under the same logic? Straight people don't get 'bashed' by gays. The White rulers of the South didn't get 'bashed' by blacks during the 50's and 60's.

Jesus, open up a frickin' history book and read it.
 
You are aware of the quote from Cathy that started this whole thing?



What's the difference between that and "God Hates Fags"?

Answer: A few degrees.

Also, do you understand why, in their minds, WBC protests funerals of fallen soldiers? They believe every death is God's Judgement on us for tolerance towards gays.


If you weren't aware of all this, why are you posting in this thread?

People, when you don't have all the facts, stay on the sidelines, please.

So, since ONE MAN, that happens to own a successful business, shares the views of THOUSANDS of black preachers, he and his INDEPENDENTLY owned outlets are to be singled out for special "a few degrees from hate" speech "penalties" by the annointed libtards of our nation. This is all in the name of "tollerance" and freedom of religion and freedom of speech, we are told. Yet ANY opposition to this INSANE action by the rainbow paraders is seen as "bigotry", rather than simply the common sense supporting the existing state marriage laws until they are changed by a MAJORITY vote of our elected representatives. Is only this FUTURE plank of the demorats "platform" to be treated this way, or is ANY objection to the demorats PROPOSED changes in their "evolving" positions to be met with similar bans, boycots and public tantrums? This nation neither needs nor wants mob justice, "selective" enforcement of the laws or for our elected gov't officials to threaten to use the force of law to "help" enforce their NEW positons, that lack the very backing of law that they SAY that they have "sworn" to uphold?
 
Last edited:
This may actually win the Worst Analogy of the Year contest! I suppose you would support those white folks rallying to preserve Jim Crow laws and the rights of the KKK to terrorize black people under the same logic? Straight people don't get 'bashed' by gays. The White rulers of the South didn't get 'bashed' by blacks during the 50's and 60's.

Jesus, open up a frickin' history book and read it.

The most idiotic part of that post was where DWBH seems to think that gay rights = anti-straight.
 
Why just male kids...why do other males just abuse female kids....why do some abuse both....

It makes no difference why. The point is, the problem is with children, and just as it doesn't make heterosexuality all about pedophilia, it doesn't say a thing about homosexuality.
 
So, since ONE MAN, that happens to own a successful business, shares the views of THOUSANDS of black preachers, he and his INDEPENDENTLY owned outlets are to be singled out for special "a few degrees from hate" speech "penalties" by the annointed libtards of our nation.

I know of no other national chains that overtly support discrimination in this way (which isn't to say that there aren't any). "Thousands of black preachers," on the other hand, are not an entity that can be held accountable unless you happen to be a member of their congregation. They aren't selling anything, and most of them are simply not very high profile.

Is only this FUTURE plank of the demorats "platform" to be treated this way, or is ANY objection to the demorats PROPOSED changes in their "evolving" positions to be met with similar bans, boycots and public tantrums?

Only ones relating to civil rights and discrimination.
 
The most idiotic part of that post was where DWBH seems to think that gay rights = anti-straight.

Well, haven't we all seen the mass rallies of gay people demanding that straight rights be rescinded or eliminated?

No, me either.
 
Its going to ALWAYS have a stigma and trying to shove it down peoples throats that are not homosexuals is going to get nasty responses in return....ALMOST as nasty as the homos are towards the straights that dont worship whatever they want...like me

Well, we did shove civil rights down some folks throats, so to speak, and rightly so. The same can be said here. It is dying, as noted above, but a wrong should never be called anything other whan what it is, wrong. To be allowed to discirminate with no just cause is wrong, and I see no way around that.
 
The most idiotic part of that post was where DWBH seems to think that gay rights = anti-straight.

Equally moronic is to assert that all of those FOR maintaining the current marriage laws are anti-gay or anti-polygamy. Just WHEN did these laws, that were SUPPORTED by resident Obama until May 2010, become "anti-gay" or discriminatory? It amazes me that the SSM crowd does not see polygamy as on equal footing with SSM, one seeks to remove the gender restrictions and the other seeks to expand the number of partner restrictions of "traditional" marriage, both are QUITE RARE in the world as SSM is legal ONLY in Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands and polygamy is legal in ONLY (too many to list see the following link):

Polygamy across the world | Worldfocus
 
Last edited:
Try to follow, being made sick by bigotry is not intolerance -- it's intelligence.

Clearly you have no idea what intelligence is, because intelligence is solely the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills. In short you don't appear to know what intelligence is.
 
Last edited:
Anti-Gay marriage laws are discriminatory.

As are anti-polygamy laws.

As are curfew laws.

As are drinking age laws.

As are voting age laws.

As are laws regarding felons and owning fire arms.

And on and on.

There's a **** ton of discriminatory laws. Some people like some discrimination and dislike others.

The notion that almost anyone is 100% against discrimination is bull****. There's a lot of people against CERTAIN discrimination. Now, there can definitely be arguments made for and against various types of discrimination...and nothing against doing that. But the notion of fighting against "discrimination" simply because its "discrimination" is laughable.

And I don't know why it "amazes" you that SSM crowd does'nt see them on equal footing. There are NUMEROUS arguments that are used by the SSM crowd and various ones of those arguments absolutely don't apply equally to polygamy.

For example...mine is that it's an unconstitutional level of discrimination based on gender. Gender is more highly protected from discrimination under the constitution than "amount of people" and thus has a higher level of scrutiny needed to justify allowing the government to discriminate on that category compared to the other.
 
Equally moronic is to assert that all of those FOR maintaining the current marriage laws are anti-gay or anti-polygamy.

Um, such laws as DOMA ARE in fact anti-gay and anti-polygamy.

Just WHEN did these laws, that were SUPPORTED by resident Obama until May 2010, become "anti-gay" or discriminatory?

They were anti-gay since their inception, I'm not sure I'm seeing what your point is.

It amazes me that the SSM crowd does not see polygamy as on equal footing with SSM, one seeks to remove the gender restrictions and the other seeks to expand the number of partner restrictions of "traditional" marriage, both are QUITE RARE in the world as SSM is legal ONLY in Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands and polygamy is legal in ONLY (too many to list see the following link):

Polygamy across the world | Worldfocus

:shrug: I'm not responsible for the attitudes of others. I have consistently been pro-polygamy as well as pro-incest marriage as other posters on this site can attest.
 
Anti-Gay marriage laws are discriminatory.

As are anti-polygamy laws.

As are curfew laws.

As are drinking age laws.

As are voting age laws.

As are laws regarding felons and owning fire arms.

And on and on.

There's a **** ton of discriminatory laws. Some people like some discrimination and dislike others.

The notion that almost anyone is 100% against discrimination is bull****. There's a lot of people against CERTAIN discrimination. Now, there can definitely be arguments made for and against various types of discrimination...and nothing against doing that. But the notion of fighting against "discrimination" simply because its "discrimination" is laughable.

And I don't know why it "amazes" you that SSM crowd does'nt see them on equal footing. There are NUMEROUS arguments that are used by the SSM crowd and various ones of those arguments absolutely don't apply equally to polygamy.

For example...mine is that it's an unconstitutional level of discrimination based on gender. Gender is more highly protected from discrimination under the constitution than "amount of people" and thus has a higher level of scrutiny needed to justify allowing the government to discriminate on that category compared to the other.

SSM is NOT about GENDER "discrimination" any more than title 9 or separate but unequal physical requirements for the UNISEX military jobs are. Gender partner PREFERENCE perhaps, but that is NOT different than a number of partners PREFERENCE. The ABSOLUTE argument of MAN = WOMAN is not EVER going to be made, even the olympics see this BIOLOGICAL difference as OBVIOUS and important. Any attempt to make SSM about gender (i.e. a male may be substituted for a female and vice versa) opens up a whole new can of legal worms, especially in the military and in sports.
 
Back
Top Bottom