• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

California Chick-Fil-A Surprise

Dan

Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Gender
V2 White Male
I can't vouch for the integrity of Chick-Fil-A's top representatives but I certainly hope their hearts are in the right place.

Also, I've grown weary of the people who claim those who support the traditional family are on the wrong side of history comparing them to the civil rights movement. Civil rights was an issue which produced violent outbursts and tension. Whites shouted at and beat blacks who integrated their schools, restaurants, and public facilities. The recent Supreme Court case returning to California's Proposition 8 has shown those who support marriage between a man and a woman to be respectful but firm in what they believe in.

Only a man can impregnate a woman. It's biologically impossible for it to be any other way. Men and women also serve important complementary purposes in a family. Men reinforce discipline whereas women act as the caretakers of young children teaching them important lessons into adolescence and adulthood.

I'm not a radical who would block access to abortion clinics or condemn homosexuality-I respect gays for who they are-but two women or two men in a civil union do not constitute a family and never will.
Well I'd like to bring in some personal experience with this. I am very friendly with a gay couple, and they are raising a child fine. A lot of people accept that and see no problem with it. The child is happy and healthy, if that's not a family I don't know what is.

Men reinforce discipline whereas women act as the caretakers of young children teaching them important lessons into adolescence and adulthood.
So what, is there some sort of magical spell not allowing men to do this as well? My mum and dad have played both these roles for me.
 

Agent Spaghetti

Advanced Noodle
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Location
The Pasta Kingdom.
First off, I'm a little disappointed my comment was deleted. There was absolutely no good reason to do so. I suppose I'll just have to say what I said before:

Huffington Post is the source this thread is based on, chief.

Also, if you dislike homosexual culture, you might as well just ignore it and move on with your life because it's not going anywhere. ;)
What is your point? The thread's article contained bias as well, but there's a difference. The thread's article reported an event that had many witnesses. Your article is making a claim. Your article has claimed that FRC supports a genocide bill and that because Chik-fil-A donates them, of course they're at fault for it all. However there is such a lack of information that the veracity of this is entirely questionable. The most important part of the entire deal, the WHY, was completely neglected; it says "FRC Lobbied! Chik-fil-A donates to them! Terrible!" and it doesn't even bother to mention WHY FRC lobbied. And like I said before, "The FRC lobbied to change the wording of the bill opposing the proposed law in Uganda to make it more accurate. FRC stated publicly that it opposed the proposed law in Uganda and supported the bill here in the US opposing that proposed law."

Now you say it's not going anywhere. Well I wouldn't be so sure. In Rome the exact same thing happened: homosexuality was accepted as fine and normal. Rome, due to moral decay and corruption, grew weak and collapsed, leading to the Dark Age which, if you will, reset culture. Over a millennium later we are right back there; homosexuality is being accepted as fine and normal. The United States (and other nations), due to moral decay and corruption, are growing weak. It is a very real possibility that we will collapse and enter into another Dark Age, resetting culture again. In that case, the "homosexual culture" will be going somewhere. Not that I desire a collapse, but...I wouldn't be so sure that this culture isn't "going anywhere".

Also you suggest that I "ignore" this. It is not right for one to ignore what they perceive to be a problem. As Gandalf the Grey so perfectly put it, "We can remain blind, but it will not be ignoring us; that I can promise you."

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children

Seems like this is not necessarily always the case.

Men and woman have pretty clear psychological differences. I think that any parent could tell you that. As a child, your parents are you entire life, essentially. You change the psychological balance of a male and female parent, then there are bound be different psychological developments.

However the truth is we have very little evidence. We have so little that we cannot possibly hope to truly understand this subject. We have yet to see the consequences.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Location
'Murica
Well obviously not everyone affiliated with Chick Fil' A is opposed to gay marriage, and they never denied their rights in the first place. The problem was that Dan Cathy was donating huge sums of money (Most likely from Chick Fil' A income) in favor of opposing gay marriage. There's nothing wrong with stating an opinion, but there is a problem with denying people basic human rights.

Now, at this moment I haven't read all the posts in this topic, so I apologize if I bring up any past arguments, but:


Only a man can impregnate a woman. It's biologically impossible for it to be any other way. Men and women also serve important complementary purposes in a family. Men reinforce discipline whereas women act as the caretakers of young children teaching them important lessons into adolescence and adulthood.

I'm not a radical who would block access to abortion clinics or condemn homosexuality-I respect gays for who they are-but two women or two men in a civil union do not constitute a family and never will.
Are you kidding me? Now you're usually a smart person so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is ridiculous.

If we're going to go by literal definition (Which we shouldn't but for the sake of the argument...) a family is defined as "A group consisting of parents and/or children living together in a household." Now I'm sure you could Google another definition of family that directly contradicts that, so I won't use it as a basis for my argument but- point being: A family represents a group of people knitted by a close bond.

But wait! Gay couples can't have children! They can't be married can they? Well, where exactly does it say a couple is obligated to have children? There are plenty of married couples out there with no children by choice, are they not a family?

Furthermore, you're slipping into stereotypical gender roles as arguments. "Men reinforce discipline?" "Women act as caretakers?" Well might as well toss in a few slaves, concubines, and divorces and we'd be transported back in time diminishing any sense of progression in families and fair treatment this past millenium. Men are more than sturdy, stoic, bread-winners - They can be kind, delicate, gentle home owners. Likewise, women are more than faithful maids - They're independent business workers with as many responsibilities as any other man.

Your role in a household isn't defined by your gender, it's defined by your character.

Moreover, you don't even need two parents to be considered a family. Are you going to waltz on down the street and tell Single Sally that her child is a ******* and she isn't a real mother? Are you going to make your way over to Mr. and Mrs. Smith's home and tell them that they don't love each other because they don't have any children? Are you going to explain to Mr. Jones that he and his wife's family is an abomination for putting their child up for adoption due to money problems? No.

But gee, it's a good thing these types of parents don't exist, otherwise we'd have to branch out of being white middle-class cookie cutter Americans..... oh wait, these families do exist and they love their children, spouse, cousins, parents, grandparents, and extended family just the same as any others.

Which brings us full circle: Does being a gay couple mean you're not considered a family? Well in my opinion, no. Which means that, if two people love each other, they should be able to share that loving bond through marriage. And considering overpopulation and orphans are especially prevalent in today's world, I'd say we can risk a few couples not having and/or adopting children. (It's almost as if that exact thing is done by straight couples!)

In the end, my point is, Person X and Person Y could be the worst family ever and be bitter, or, raise an awful child, or they could turn out to be the best family ever, regardless of gender.
 

Batman

Not all those who wander are lost...
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Location
40 lights off the Galactic Rim
Gender
Dan-kin
Agent Spaghetti said:
However the truth is we have very little evidence.
I urge you to actually look at those academic papers and read them. The evidence is truly overwhelming. Instead of just claiming "there isn't enough evidence," perhaps you should examine what evidence there actually is first. I read those papers a long time ago, they are full of evidence. I can provide you with a plethora of more scientific studies into the effects of same sex parenthood on children. A plethora. So, just ask me. I can also provide you with less professional articles, personal anecdotes, non-peer reviewed studies...from all over the world. If you need more evidence, just ask and I will compile it for you. Everything from peer reviewed studies published in Psychology, Sociology, and Biology journals - to things you can find on Google. Don't claim there is little evidence when that is not factually correct.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Spaghetti, you obviously did not watch the video I linked to this thread and the fact that you have such gall as to repost something that was deleted because it is hate speech shows how deeply your animosity towards the gay community goes. You're demonstrating a lack of respect towards a specific group of people which is the very definition of bigotry. I'm not citing a single source in this thread because I believe it to be evident to anyone with a rational mind that not only are your assumptions on the effect on homosexuality grossly contrived and invalid, but that it is not those whose lifestyle differs from the norm who are ruining society, but it is closed-minded, misinformed individuals who advocate virtual crusades against actions and beliefs who are ruining society. Ultimately, intolerance will be our downfall.
 

Hanyou

didn't build that
Chick-Fil-A is a private organization and in light of this story individual franchises are obviously not bound by an company policy with respect to same-sex marriage.

I don't think it's unexpected or much of a big deal. Thank God we live in a free society, and it seems like good corporate policy to allow individual franchise owners and employees to express their opinions.
 

Agent Spaghetti

Advanced Noodle
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Location
The Pasta Kingdom.
I urge you to actually look at those academic papers and read them. The evidence is truly overwhelming. Instead of just claiming "there isn't enough evidence," perhaps you should examine what evidence there actually is first. I read those papers a long time ago, they are full of evidence. I can provide you with a plethora of more scientific studies into the effects of same sex parenthood on children. A plethora. So, just ask me. I can also provide you with less professional articles, personal anecdotes, non-peer reviewed studies...from all over the world. If you need more evidence, just ask and I will compile it for you. Everything from peer reviewed studies published in Psychology, Sociology, and Biology journals - to things you can find on Google. Don't claim there is little evidence when that is not factually correct.
This culture has yet to really accept homosexuality. Children of homosexuals have conformed to meet with society's standards. There are many influences that would throw these studies off. So far, there has been no difference. But should society begin to accept "different" people, there will not be conforming. It is only then that we will see the truth. I stand by my belief that we do not have enough evidence.

Spaghetti, you obviously did not watch the video I linked to this thread and the fact that you have such gall as to repost something that was deleted because it is hate speech shows how deeply your animosity towards the gay community goes. You're demonstrating a lack of respect towards a specific group of people which is the very definition of bigotry. I'm not citing a single source in this thread because I believe it to be evident to anyone with a rational mind that not only are your assumptions on the effect on homosexuality grossly contrived and invalid, but that it is not those whose lifestyle differs from the norm who are ruining society, but it is closed-minded, misinformed individuals who advocate virtual crusades against actions and beliefs who are ruining society. Ultimately, intolerance will be our downfall.
I have seen that video cited multiple times. I have seen the video. It is interesting and proves that this issue is so much more complex than either side wants to make it. It made me think more about it. I still don't have all the answers, of course, but I still stand firm in my position.

Hate speech? Animosity? ...You know, this is what I am so sick of when it comes to this LGBT movement; people, like you, insulting anyone, and I mean anyone who opposes same-sex marriage, and NO this does not define EVERYONE of the LGBT movement, just people like you. They call me a hatemongering, bigoted, ignorant, irrational, animosity-filled, close-minded, intolerant, misinformed, evil person when you have never met me in your life before! I know gay people and there those a really like. And then there are those who are just annoying. Just like any heterosexual person could be. I do not hate people! You have absolute ignorance of my character and my full view of the situation. How dare you! How in the world dare you be so hypocritical! You said clearly, "Ultimately, intolerance will be our downfall." I concur; you're complete intolerance of my view will be our downfall. Quit stereotyping me and placing me in some category of a hate group!

What I said was not hate speech. What I said before is not "hate speech". What I've said after has not been hate speech! Even now as I lecture you're complete intolerance and hypocrisy, I do not hate you. However I am absolutely sick of this unfounded vitriol.
 

Batman

Not all those who wander are lost...
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Location
40 lights off the Galactic Rim
Gender
Dan-kin
Agent Spaghetti said:
This culture has yet to really accept homosexuality. Children of homosexuals have conformed to meet with society's standards. There are many influences that would throw these studies off. So far, there has been no difference. But should society begin to accept "different" people, there will not be conforming. It is only then that we will see the truth. I stand by my belief that we do not have enough evidence.
Wow. I’ll accept this incoherent cop-out as defeat.

You’re not willing to even read the papers. You’re not willing to examine the evidence because you just “know” that they will be biased or “thrown off.” You won’t even examine the parameters of the experiments. You won’t accept anything that doesn’t conform to your preconceived notions.

You stand by your belief that we don’t have enough evidence, and I’ll stand by my belief that you can’t defend yourself properly in this context.
 
Last edited:

Zorth

#Scoundrel
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
I really don't understand why gay couples need to get so much pressure on themselves about raising children as they do as of the moment compared to straight couples. They are human beings just like us and can make mistakes when raising a child just like any other married couple can, straight or gay. Just because a gay couple's child doesn't turn out to be an A student with a bright future doesn't mean we should ban gay marriage and question how homosexuals raise children.

My point being that linking articles where a gay couple's child has turned out to be a failure is pointless to use as an argument for why it is "wrong" or shouldn't be allowed since I too can link 100x more articles with even more horrible stories about straight parents instead and use that as an argument for why we shouldn't allow straight people to raise children.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
My point being that linking articles where a gay couple's child has turned out to be a failure is pointless to use as an argument for why it is "wrong" or shouldn't be allowed since I too can link 100x more articles with even more horrible stories about straight parents instead and use that as an argument for why we shouldn't allow straight people to raise children.
Similarly, we shouldn't link articles where a gay couple's child has turned out to be a genius to use as an argument for why it is "right". ;)
 

Agent Spaghetti

Advanced Noodle
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Location
The Pasta Kingdom.
Wow. I’ll accept this incoherent cop-out as defeat.

You’re not willing to even read the papers. You’re not willing to examine the evidence because you just “know” that they will be biased or “thrown off.” You won’t even examine the parameters of the experiments. You won’t accept anything that doesn’t conform to your preconceived notions.

You stand by your belief that we don’t have enough evidence, and I’ll stand by my belief that you can’t defend yourself properly in this context.
Incoherent? Cop-out? What I said makes a lot of sense to me.

Unwilling? That is untrue. I do not have the time to read through all of this right now, however I am not unwilling to read. In fact I want to. You have an argument here that appears to be legitimate and I will take the opportunity to read and consider it. I am stating that there are issues problems in these kinds of studies and so I am not willing to cling to anything. That would be close-minded.

Can I defend myself properly in this context? Perhaps not.
 

Batman

Not all those who wander are lost...
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Location
40 lights off the Galactic Rim
Gender
Dan-kin
Agent Spaghetti said:
Unwilling? That is untrue. I do not have the time to read through all of this right now, however I am not unwilling to read. In fact I want to. You have an argument here that appears to be legitimate and I will take the opportunity to read and consider it.
Fair enough. This is good to hear.

I am not willing to cling to anything.
This is spoken like a true scientist. Never take anything for granted. Never take anything on faith or authority. Look at the evidence and decide whether it convinces you or not. My point throughout this debate was that you should actually look at it though. And don't claim that there isn't enough evidence when there is. You're free to disagree with the this evidence (which is nearly impossible if you look at it objectively), but at least acknowledge its existence, and that it does support my "side" of this argument, and not yours.
 

Agent Spaghetti

Advanced Noodle
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Location
The Pasta Kingdom.
I really don't understand why gay couples need to get so much pressure on themselves about raising children as they do as of the moment compared to straight couples. They are human beings just like us and can make mistakes when raising a child just like any other married couple can, straight or gay. Just because a gay couple's child doesn't turn out to be an A student with a bright future doesn't mean we should ban gay marriage and question how homosexuals raise children.

My point being that linking articles where a gay couple's child has turned out to be a failure is pointless to use as an argument for why it is "wrong" or shouldn't be allowed since I too can link 100x more articles with even more horrible stories about straight parents instead and use that as an argument for why we shouldn't allow straight people to raise children.
First I'd like to point out what you said in the second paragraph about getting a 100x more stories about straight-parent raised children. The ratio of straight parents to gay parents is pretty far apart; you're bound to get MORE stories to attack straight parents. With that said, I'll have to agree. The story I linked to doesn't really prove much. It has good points within, but there's more to it than that. Unfortunate for my argument.

Fair enough. This is good to hear.



This is spoken like a true scientist. Never take anything for granted. Never take anything on faith or authority. Look at the evidence and decide whether it convinces you or not. My point throughout this debate was that you should actually look at it though. And don't claim that there isn't enough evidence when there is. You're free to disagree with the this evidence (which is nearly impossible if you look at it objectively), but at least acknowledge its existence, and that it does support my "side" of this argument, and not yours.
Yes. I don't like when I see stuff like this, obviously, but it is extremely counterproductive to ignore it. I refuse to be a part of those who truly are ignorant and close-minded on the subject. As I said, I don't have the time to read it right now. Especially not today, Easter. Busy busy. But I will get to it.
 

A Link In Time

Break the Ice!
ZD Legend
I've said what I needed to in this thread and I'm glad my unpopular personal opinion has inspired some passionate debate. The majority of users on this forum are moderate, leaning slightly left and naturally I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, I was merely stating my own. I've been here long enough to know that it would not be welcomed without a fair amount of debate and repudiation.

One's personal background influences their outlook on life-social status, religion, upbringing-all these things shape who we are. I wouldn't have stated something if I didn't have good reason and experience to defend it. I've already maintained that I'm not condemning gay marriage; I don't have anything against homosexuals. There was a thread awhile back, "Would you vote for a homosexual president?" and I responded Yes because that doesn't bother me.

I'm not supporting stereotypical gender spheres either. What I stated was merely exemplary. If you think I'm being sexist, think again. Gender does not determine one's personal merit. Women have played an important role in my life and the women in my family certainly have been gentler and more rational than their male counterparts. I recognize the growing importance of women in the workplace as well, recently overtaking males in general as well as many important fields.

I briefly wanted to touch upon the topic of families with single parents. Yes, they are families. For a family to form and children to be born, there must be parents of both genders and if one is deceased or otherwise departed, the family still holds. Are a man and a woman without children a family as well? Sure. I'll use definitions courtesy of dictionary.com for support a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: the traditional family. a social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for: a single-parent family.

The second definition raises the question, why isn't a homosexual couple a family? Love is love no matter who's involved. Love is universal. I couldn't agree more and don't condone civil unions. That said, I'm a moderate conservative who supports the traditional family. It's been awhile since I've stated my political views on this forum-not since the 2012 Presidential Election thread-but my notions are hardly unique. A large percentage of people identify themselves as conservatives. In fact, an even larger number than liberals. I'm familiar with the popular views espoused on this forum. The general gist is that people should be allowed to do as they please. Their expressions are protected by the Constitution, etc. "Should abortion be allowed?" Yes. It exhausts me that contrary opinions, however, are not accepted and trampled upon until they conform.

My post isn't meant to change your views and I've researched my position sufficiently to know its merits. Some clarification and further explanation was in order though.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
The second definition raises the question, why isn't a homosexual couple a family? Love is love no matter who's involved. Love is universal. I couldn't agree more and don't condone civil unions. That said, I'm a moderate conservative who supports the traditional family. It's been awhile since I've stated my political views on this forum-not since the 2012 Presidential Election thread-but my notions are hardly unique. A large percentage of people identify themselves as conservatives. In fact, an even larger number than liberals. I'm familiar with the popular views espoused on this forum. The general gist is that people should be allowed to do as they please. Their expressions are protected by the Constitution, etc. "Should abortion be allowed?" Yes. It exhausts me that contrary opinions, however, are not accepted and trampled upon until they conform.

My post isn't meant to change your views and I've researched my position sufficiently to know its merits. Some clarification and further explanation was in order though.
Ehm, you do mean condemn hopefully, or perhaps but before the "and don't".

Anywho, as for being exhausted, you must understand the concept of "politically correct". Despite claiming to be advanced and all this madness, people still go with the orchestration of Darwin's theory of evolution: whatever new idea sprouts, must be accepted on the basis of X/Y. If you say anything against the Holy Law, it shall be suppressed, censored or whatever you should so please. Simply put: if a leading majority or a growing minority believes something, it is indefinitely correct no matter what one's personal opinion may be. This extends to everything, not just gay rights but even video games. It's evident in what sells and what doesn't; what gets a good review and what doesn't.

My point is, you cannot expect to be anti-gay rights (don't care if anti is too harsh a word, the idea is taht you do not support them) and still be viewed positively under a government that is at least considering, if not PRO-, gay rights.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom