Chick-fil-A Vandalized in Torrance, CA ("Tastes Like Hate")

[brooks009]

I give you guys credit because I have to say, you debate this topic much more intelligently than Christians I have encountered anywhere else.

I think at some point we're going to have to agree to disagree because obviously I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mind.

I wish you all peace.

It was fun and gay to watch!

 

[WhistlinDave]

Ummmm....how has Chick-fil-a lobbied for the creation of laws that limit freedom? My understanding is they're lobbying to protect existing laws that in their opinion protect the traditional definition of marriage. And some of us are lobbying to get rid of laws that cause people to look at marriage as a "set of rights" instead of a personal religious ceremony. It's like the government was attaching legal significance to being baptized. Bound to cause a fight even if the legal significance wasn't what people perceived it to be.

They're not directly lobbying, but they give money to several groups who lobby for anti-gay marriage laws. Including the recent Amendment (was it amendment one?) in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to some sources Chick-Fil-A has given a few million dollars to groups who are crusading to "protect traditional marriage."

I don't want to post links because last time I did that, the source was attacked instead of the substance of what I was saying.

Anybody interested enough to find out if it's true can do some Googling and make up their own mind whether buying a chicken sandwich could be helping to write laws that are, in my opinion, designed to take Liberty away from some people.

Edit: I can't remember which group Chick Fil A donated to that was giving lots of money to the Amendment One effort, can't remember if it was Family Research Council or Exodus or who.

 

[jmdrake]

LOL I didn't say that either. (Good one though.)

Glad you have a sense of humor about this.

Jesus didn't mention gay marriage because in that day and age there was no concept of gays marrying. It simply hadn't come up for discussion yet. (Took a couple more thousand years.) So any discussion of marriage was in the context of heterosexual relationships, of course.

That doesn't matter. Jesus made a point of pointed out that this was the reason God made them male and female. It can't get any clearer than that.

Of course you did have lots of gays back in those days (especially Romans) who had long term gay relationships with their slaves, etc. But the marriage discussion didn't come up until very recently.

Here's a really interesting article for you, at least I found it interesting. The author's allegation is that Jesus affirmed a gay couple when he healed a Roman soldier's gay love slave. (LOL)

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

Ummmm....you realize that if you go with that argument, then Jesus was endorsing gay pedophilia sex slavery?

It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant — one who was “his master’s male lover.” (See note 18.) Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers.

To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms.

So the gay Christian lobby is reduced to saying that gays buying boys and forcing them to be their sex slaves is alright with God as long as it's part of the "cultural norm"? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[jmdrake]

They're not directly lobbying, but they give money to several groups who lobby for anti-gay marriage laws. Including the recent Amendment (was it amendment one?) in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Right. That's because the previous law in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman was under attack. So that's not "creating" law but rather protecting it. Subtle but important difference IMO. Christians are playing defense, not offense.

According to some sources Chick-Fil-A has given a few million dollars to groups who are crusading to "protect traditional marriage."

Yep. Not the same as "creating laws limiting freedom". When someone lobbies for an amendment to overturn Lawrence v. Texas let me know.

 

[phill4paul]

Right. That's because the previous law in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman was under attack. So that's not "creating" law but rather protecting it. Subtle but important difference IMO. Christians are playing defense, not offense.



Yep. Not the same as "creating laws limiting freedom". When someone lobbies for an amendment to overturn Lawrence v. Texas let me know.

Oh, please. Stop with this 'it isn't illegal' nonsense. That's the 'equal but seperate' B.S. "You have a water fountain to drink from. You can't drink from ours but what are you complaining about." It denies AUTOMATIC benefits given by government to any but 'traditional' marriage.

 

[phill4paul]

Right. That's because the previous law in North Carolina defining marriage as between a man and a woman was under attack. So that's not "creating" law but rather protecting it. Subtle but important difference IMO. Christians are playing defense, not offense.

No. That is creating law. An AMENDMENT to be exact. Christians are playing defense for the AUTOMATIC benefits they enjoy while creating a greater hurdle for those who wish to enjoy the same benefits.

 

[jmdrake]

Oh, please. Stop with this 'it isn't illegal' nonsense. That's the 'equal but seperate' B.S. "You have a water fountain to drink from. You can't drink from ours but what are you complaining about." It denies AUTOMATIC benefits given by government to any but 'traditional' marriage.

Some of those "automatic benefits" will mean higher taxes for gay couples. But really the "nonsense" is the fact that you responded to a point that I wasn't making in that post. The point I was making is that the North Carolina amendment didn't "create" new law, but preserved old ones. You're so adamant about proving that the answer is 7 that you didn't realize the question was "what is 2 + 2". Still, gay marriage isn't illegal. And the goal of a movement that says it's about reducing the size of government should be to get rid of any hint of a federal marriage "benefit" (or penalty in the case of taxes for couples with similar incomes) as opposed to expanding government by expanding the definition of marriage. But I realize (now anyway) that we don't all have the same goals.

 

[KingNothing]

I give you guys credit because I have to say, you debate this topic much more intelligently than Christians I have encountered anywhere else.

I think at some point we're going to have to agree to disagree because obviously I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mind.

I wish you all peace.

These people aren't bad because they're principled and willing to tolerate those with whom they've got a disagreement. If everyone were like that, we really wouldn't have many problems to deal with.

Asking them not to disagree with a "lifestyle" is asking a lot. Obviously I think they should be ambivalent and carry absolutely no negative judgement, but if the farthest they can go is to say "I wish you wouldn't be gay," as they endorsed equal rights for everyone, that isn't so bad.

 

[KingNothing]

No. That is creating law. An AMENDMENT to be exact. Christians are playing defense for the AUTOMATIC benefits they enjoy while creating a greater hurdle for those who wish to enjoy the same benefits.

Yep. The people who actively work to create laws against gay marriage are reprehensible. I don't think anyone here would do that.

 

[jmdrake]

No. That is creating law. An AMENDMENT to be exact. Christians are playing defense for the AUTOMATIC benefits they enjoy while creating a greater hurdle for those who wish to enjoy the same benefits.

The point of the amendment was to protect the law that already existed since 1996. And the reason for the push for the amendment was a backlash against a national push for gay marriage. If, on the other hand, there was a push to revamp federal laws to make them marriage neutral by simplifying the tax code, privatizing social security, giving the tax benefit for health insurance to the individual and liberalizing health savings accounts, the very people pushing for the marriage amendment could very well push for essentially getting rid of all so called federal marriage "benefits".

 

[phill4paul]

Some of those "automatic benefits" will mean higher taxes for gay couples. But really the "nonsense" is the fact that you responded to a point that I wasn't making in that post. The point I was making is that the North Carolina amendment didn't "create" new law, but preserved old ones. You're so adamant about proving that the answer is 7 that you didn't realize the question was "what is 2 + 2". Still, gay marriage isn't illegal. And the goal of a movement that says it's about reducing the size of government should be to get rid of any hint of a federal marriage "benefit" (or penalty in the case of taxes for couples with similar incomes) as opposed to expanding government by expanding the definition of marriage. But I realize (now anyway) that we don't all have the same goals.

My numbers add up. That is the fact that the amendment could have just as easily abolished marriage as a state institution. But, Christians want what they got and want to deny others the same AUTOMATIC benefits. That particular amendment was about maintaining a monopoly on what the Christians believed is moral superiority. Plain and simple. The vote proved it.

 

[phill4paul]

The point of the amendment was to protect the law that already existed since 1996. And the reason for the push for the amendment was a backlash against a national push for gay marriage. If, on the other hand, there was a push to revamp federal laws to make them marriage neutral by simplifying the tax code, privatizing social security, giving the tax benefit for health insurance to the individual and liberalizing health savings accounts, the very people pushing for the marriage amendment could very well push for essentially getting rid of all so called federal marriage "benefits".

As I said, how many times now?, the amendment COULD have been for abolishment. Christians instead choose to protect what they got. Proving that that was the Christian AGENDA.

 

[Revolution9]

Curious, how do you know he is Jewish?

Research. He is a plant pretending to be Catholic but never mentioning it explicitly. He was found to be a diamond dealer in the Hassidic diamond section of NYC.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

This is Jesus talking about hetero sex and marriage.

Still not Jesus saying homosexuality is a sin or abomination.

There is good reason it is called sodomy. They certainly didn't call it bethlehemy..

I remind folks. There are three kinds of sperm. Egg hunters, nook fillers and killers that can kill other sperm laid prior. Women can handle the killers. They were built to handle them. Men however will get their immune system attacked as the other males seed goes about genociding your sperm and the body it came from. That is the reason for biblical stricture..just like worms in pork if not cooked really well..and there ain't alot of firewood in the desert.

Rev9

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

There is good reason it is called sodomy. They certainly didn't call it bethlehemy..

I remind folks. There are three kinds of sperm. Egg hunters, nook fillers and killers that can kill other sperm laid prior. Women can handle the killers. They were built to handle them. Men however will get their immune system attacked as the other males seed goes about genociding your sperm and the body it came from. That is the reason for biblical stricture..just like worms in pork if not cooked really well..and there ain't alot of firewood in the desert.

Rev9

Do you have any scientific evidence of this? Links please

 

[Revolution9]

Do you have any scientific evidence of this? Links please

Dude. My ass is wore out from training a whole team how to use their apps and being on the road four hours. I have no interest in anything except writing a bit before I hit the fartsack. I learned this back in medicine 101 in the CFMSS Camp Borden. It is on the web. How do you think a killer sperm kills other sperm? It kills it's immunity. This is not a foreign substance., It knows how to hide itself amongst "safe" populations in the mitochondria..

Rev9

 

[jmdrake]

As I said, how many times now?, the amendment COULD have been for abolishment. Christians instead choose to protect what they got. Proving that that was the Christian AGENDA.

All your "proving" is a lack of logic and reason. Christian agenda? You mean the one that has a commercial run every night during the Olympics for the new NBC comedy promoting homosexuality as the "new normal"? Yeah. That Christian agenda sure is powerful. I don't know if your being obtuse or not. Assuming that you are debating in good faith (at this point I sincerely doubt that) you should realize that when I talk about stripping away the federal entanglement from marriage I'm not talking about what most Christians are pushing for but what pro liberty Christians are pushing for. Since you are clearly a collectivist you may not be able to tell the difference. Those of us who are pro liberty Christians realize we can (possibly) sell other Christians on the idea of shrinking the federal to the point where there is no entanglement with marriage. But your misdirected anger does little to help that. I'm taking the Ron Paul position. Actually my position is more moderate than Ron Paul because he came out against the Lawrence v Texas decision which struck down sodomy laws and while I agree with his reasoning, I disagree (somewhat) with his conclusion. Ron Paul also supports DOMA and would even strip the SCOTUS from hearing the issue. Is Ron Paul pushing some anti-gay "agenda"? Or is he making the wise decision that there's no reason to antagonize people that you could get to agree with you on detangling marriage from the federal government by shrinking the federal government just to placate a subset of the liberty movement who support the gay agenda?

 

[jmdrake]

My numbers add up. That is the fact that the amendment could have just as easily abolished marriage as a state institution. But, Christians want what they got and want to deny others the same AUTOMATIC benefits. That particular amendment was about maintaining a monopoly on what the Christians believed is moral superiority. Plain and simple. The vote proved it.

Key word in bold. So you admit that your numbers don't add up. Well, you would if you were honest. The point I was making is that the NC law wasn't about "creating" law but maintaining it. And here you go proving my point. Thank you.

 

[jmdrake]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea

by Ron Paul




Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.

While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not with receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the state.

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that the proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the states' power. The division of power between the federal government and the states is one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal judges wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the marriage licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to consider new legislative or constitutional approaches.

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support the amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year. Even if the amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of Congress, it still must go through the time-consuming process of state ratification. This process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve the amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that immediate action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary should consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of Congress and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment remains unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also consider that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and require the federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years, without any success.

Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state legislatures to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial usurpations of power.

In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president's signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state's right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

 

[KingNothing]

How can you possibly deny that a christian agenda exists? There clearly is one, as they work to pass pieces of legislation. At the same time, there is a clear homosexual agenda, and a libertarian agenda and a Neo con agenda and a socialist agenda. Why deny they exist?