Gay Day @ Chick-Fil-A. (1 Viewer)

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Comprehension means to understand what is read - you did not do that.Your history speaks for itself in regards to the biogtry and hypocrisy against me and others.

Yeah...you don't understand what reading comprehension really means.What does my history say in regards to the bigotry and hypocrisy of others?I have pointed yours out...you disagree...I doubt others do in regards to that claim about you...because its spot on.

You haven't pointed out squat. The only thing pointing out is your obsession with me.

 

[Sea Duck]

Looks like the only people left in this thread are the anglers and the fish.

 

[squistion]

Pedophilia was the wrong term... in my 2nd post I admitted that I was using that term incorrectly.

and how can you not see a correlation between sexual predisposition of a homosexual vs someone with a predisposition for somebody that is either much much older than them or somebody with a predisposition for someone who is in the pubescent age range?

they are both sexual orientation related in nature... they are both not considered the most "popular" orientation around (pure numbers?)... homosexuality was taboo way way back... sex with this age difference (where one is still between 14 & 18 yrs old) is still considered taboo even if legally they were both consenting adults according to the stat in which they reside...

its a natural progression to think that eventually it will be accepted to the same degree as homosexuality in society the correlation between a relationship between a young boy/girl with a much older boy/girl and how that compares to gay sex (marriage) boils down to whether you believe people are born with their predispositions.

I have been reading posts in this forum for almost a decade and if there was an award for the most pathetic attempt to justify a position you would win hands down.You should really stop making this false equivalency argument that the natural progression of allowing two gay adults to be married somehow has a connection with society's future view regarding the age of consent to have sex. One really has nothing to do with the other. This supposed "slippery slope" doesn't logically follow and by constantly repeating it you are just making yourself look silly (or sillier).

 

[Leroy Hoard]

just a thought...

Will pedophilia take the same arch of popularity/acceptance as homosexuality seems to have taken?

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel for justifying the "slippery slope" BS. How about bestiality too?

why not just say that one day they will combine them?iwanttomarryapuppy.com

 

[beerbarron]

The national trend over time has been increasingly supportive of gay rights and gay marriage. The anti-gay folks are going to lose the battle -- it's just a matter of time.

The church has been around for 2,000 years and will still be around when the depravity which defines today's declining Western societies is only a memory. It's hard to pass along your beliefs when they involve destroying life in the womb out of convenience, reducing your carbon footprint by not having children, and support of same-sex relations which precludes procreation altogether.The future belongs to those who will be there to see it.

Plenty of gay people and gay-supporting straight people have kids. We're not going anywhere.

Over time, by definition you will increasingly become a minority. The only way you can remain relevant in the long run is to force your beliefs upon others by codifying them in the legal system.That's really what the gay rights movement is all about, life's genetic losers acheiving short term gains through artificial means.

Are you suggesting Darwins Theory of Evolution.. works... Your bringing up genes, natural or unatural selection and winners and loosers?

 

[Steve Tasker]

So is being bisexual a lifestyle preference or something that a bisexual person was born with?Is somebody that turns out to be attracted to pubescent guys or girls who may be half their age, are that way as a choice of lifestyle or born that way?it seems you may be implying the bold here for polygamists but I assume you feel differently about homosexuality, bisexuality, hebephilia, & ephebophilia?

I think it's pretty clear that people don't (and can't) choose whom they're sexually attracted to. (Think about how much easier your life would be if you could choose to be attracted to ugly people instead of pretty people. But you can't.)Whether you're bisexual, or heterosexual, or homosexual, or a pedophile, or a hebephile, or whatever, you likely didn't choose to be. You also can't choose to stop being attracted to other women just because you're married. We're pretty much all bigamists in spirit, at least in that respect.For me, the question of whether someone should act on his sexual urges has nothing to do with whether those urges are freely chosen. Instead, it depends on whether acting on those urges will harm someone else, or violate someone else's rights.That's why practicing homosexuals are perfectly fine in my book, but practicing pedophiles are not. (To pick two easy examples.)

Very well-put, as always.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

i find it a bit odd that in a forum like the FFA where most people seem to be open to ideas and opinions that some of you would at the possibility that "moral" boundaries in this country can erode to a point where the following is possible.(roll with it)Pennsylvania drops the age of minors to be defined as anybody age 13 or younger by the yr 2030.So a 14 yr old consenting "adult" male in the state of PA, for example, could choose to have his 44 yr old boyfriend take him to a Justin Beiber Greatest Hits tour event in Hershey, PA and then give him the oral pleasure on the way home after they stop at Wendy's for Frosties. Perhaps they met on Craigs list when the 14 yr old boy was selling his sex swing for half price because it reminded him of his last relationship that didn't end well because they didn't have the same taste in music and feelings got hurt.sounds absolutely ridiculous but come on so did homosexuality in the 40s & 50s

Just out of curiosity. What do you think was the most common "age of consent" for most of the "2000 year history" of the church? Here's a hint. It was lower than 18. And 16. And 14. For instance the founder of Canon Law wrote that marriage typically occurred between 12 and 14 and that consent to sexual activity was "meaningful" for children as young as 7. As late as 1880, the age of consent in most states in America was 10-12. In Delaware, it was 7. While the late 19th century movement toward higher ages of consent was led by social reformers who were Christians, those reformers were also primarily suffragettes and proto-feminists. So without even considering the slippery slope aspect of your argument, your argument is exceptionally, exceptionally silly. Because our current attitudes toward age of consent are the "radical" ones, not the traditional ones. Forgive the Wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

 

[TobiasFunke]

Nice post-script on this: several of the companies who got in hot water for anti-gay rights stances in recent years have reversed their earlier positions, according to this article about Barilla Pasta. The article also mentions Target and Chik-Fil-A. All of them stopped giving to anti gay rights groups/candidates in response to the controversy and some of them- Barilla in particular- swung prettty much 180 degrees on the issue as a result.

So yeah, the boycotts and negative attention in the press make a difference for the better, not just in getting these companies to reverse their course but probably also in discouraging other companies from doing the same things. As the article says, the protests aren't about impacting short term profits but about tarnishing public image and reputation in the long term, which companies are obviously also concerned about.