Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash

Yes marriage has automatic presumption of paternity, where man is presumed to be a father, an occasional relationship between man and woman does not automatically presume that man is a father.
You have got it finally.
I have lost in the court but no one has been able to present any meaningful argument why benefits were granted for no reason.
1. Not every court but only some of the courts.
2. Judges are politically charged, so they made decision that is based on political reasoning, that defies simple logic.
3. Many lawyers are poorly educated people, they have never learn hard sciences, so they are not thinking thoroughly when making the laws.

 

@Paul7, did you wish the death of Ginsburg?

 

Then explain the birth of Christ and his missing Daddy.

 

Why do you only mention that one specific behavioural sin?

 

I never said otherwise... it still have nothing to do with marriage being a civil contract

There doesn’t have to be a reason to grant benefits, there has to be a reason to ban them.
So far you have listed zero. As for the reason to grant them — there are numerous; family bonds and legal marriage increase life expectancy and overall health, improve monogamy, create more incentive to purchase a home and participate in a community, provide security for children, provide protection for property and inheritance, and hundreds of other reasons.
I have only ever seen six basic reasons to dent same sex marriage, all easily discounted:

• It is against what god intended (religious law exists in Iran, move there)
• It is against my personal beliefs (don’t get gay married)
• Gay people cannot have children (neither can infertile, elderly, or asexual heterosexual couples — procreation is not a requirement for marriage)
• Gay people are icky (no one cares what you find gross)
• Gay marriage will lead to people marrying trees (consent)
• I cannot marry my sister (fight it through the courts then)

The vast majority of courts.

Yes, conspiracy. It couldn’t have been the argument to ban same sex marriage was just poor.

So you are more educated than the vast majority attorneys and judges in the country?
If your opinion is so logical why do you refuse to answer simple questions?

 

Not at all, I can justify most of my positions and the ones that I cannot I am more than happy to listen to new evidence and change those opinions. However your debate style is sometimes off putting, as several posters have said previously.

The reason I used to be but don’t often now is because I became tired of the interactions — not because I abandoned my positions.

You should try putting in more data, facts, your opinion instead of just a constant barrage of questioning.
Just some friendly advice.

 

They have had a bad track record with gay people, including gay youth, especially in shelters.
They have also been behind some pretty bad bills

Here is a short list if you are interested:
https://medium.com/james-finn/please-dont-support-the-salvation-army-9f1408c333ff

If you are having trouble seeing the issue change the word LGBT with whatever race or religion you are and see if it changes anything.

 

I notice you keep leaving out religious preference which is not only changeable it is 100% a choice. Should states not allow interfaith marriage if that is what they choose? And I disagree that orientation is changeable for most people.

You don’t believe the bible can be twisted to ban interfaith and interracial marriage? It also condones slavery, rape, torture, and murder.

Don’t care

Yeh, the will of the people carries a heavy weight.

How else would trump replace her unless she dies?

Are you saying Jesus condoned ill will towards others?

I could really care less what a book that was written by man and edited by kings and then not accurately translated into english has to say about anything. You are free to your religious believes, you are not free to force those beliefs on others.

 

Thank you for posting that.

I still think the Salvation Army does far more good than bad, and they are not as hypocritical as the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is filled with gay priests and they still discriminate against the LGBTQ community. They also have a terrible record of hiding guilty priests.

Far worse than anything done by the Salvation Army.

 

I agree, I never agreed with why people were so upset with CFA but I understood it. I still ate there because there food is good and their service is exceptional.

I am baffled at the number of people that are upset because CFA has chosen to distance their business away from organizations that potentially alienate potential customers, especially with them wanting to enter more socially liberal markets.

Absolutely, I can still not believe some of the accusations against the Church.
It’s evil what they did and are likely continuing to do.

 

Well as an example, earlier in the thread you posted this link: https://harvardpolitics.com/covers/globalizing-hatred/ - to say that Christians want gays to have zero rights. Do you expect people to take you seriously when you post stuff like that? All I did was scrutinise you on it and you were unable to stand up to it. Posting links like you did in that post is NOT an argument! All I did was try to get you to make one, even if it was based on a poor source. Your post: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...r-lgbt-backlash.564504/page-8#post-1071180165

 

Well why do heterosexual couples NEED to be regulated by the government?

 

To be clear, you mean asexual couples who are related to eachother?

 

Same sex marriage campaigning would've all been for nothing if it hadn't have resulted in Obergefel v Hodges. Now you cite a case that didn't require any campaigning? Okay, but so what? Now the question is this: what legal case has there been involving asexual couples? Also, who is this Chinese man? I can't see any mention of any Chinese man in the case details that I have researched.

Yes I agree - in Obergefel v Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which should apply to literally EVERYONE. So if the court is going to rule based on that, then it should've ruled so that literally anyone can marry anyone, not just so that gay people could marry other gay people. That's why it was a dumb ruling.

 

Choosing to follow the text of a book that cannot be proven to be 'the word of God' instead of treating people with kindness and compassion is not Christian. Not in my eyes.

 

Of course not all christians want gays to have zero rights, most evangelicals however do.
Polling by both gallup and pew suggests that the majority of self identified evangelicals want homosexual behavior to be recriminalized.

Furthermore, scrutinizing something is not what you did in post 212.
What you did was mock a source because it was written by a single person and then laughed at it
Then asked what I was pointing to on a legislative tracker that outlines anti-LGBT laws passed or being passed in each state.

 

Well if you're basing it on Gallup and Pew polling then why didn't you cite any Gallup and Pew polling? All you did was cite a Harvard Political Review source.

No, I mocked the source because it CITED one person, naming him anti-gay. So my point was, how the hell can you in all seriousness call that proof that Christians want gays to have zero rights?

Yeah, what's the problem with that? I was digging further to see if you could go beyond just lazily posting a link to a page which links to hundreds of different laws. I just assume that you can do a bit better than that, that's all. And it is odd that you would links laws to Christians. What do Christians have to do with laws other than some lawmakers being Christian? Perhaps you are under the impression that we have powers that we just simply do not have!

 

How is merely BELIEVING in the Biblical definition of marriage the opposite of treating people with kindness and compassion? I truly do not understand. @cd8ed, as you 'liked' this post (surely meaning that you are in total agreement with it) perhaps you can shed some light on this confusing idea. The way that I see it is that believing something is not hateful. Change my mind. Then I will stop believing it.

 

Firstly, my goal is not to 'change your mind'. As I've previously stated, I respect your right to your own beliefs.

This company does not merely believe the bible - they have put their money behind their beliefs. Donating money to an anti-gay conversion therapy group, to me, is the opposite of treating people with compassion.

And going back to my previous statement about the bible. The author(s) cannot be verified. It was written over two thousand years ago, translated and updated several times. It cannot be proven to be the 'word of God'. Yet, in the name of God and using the bible as their inspiration we have seen hate groups committing hate crimes.

 

The Bible and the narratives of both a Christian god as well as Jesus cannot be proven as fact, I respect that many people believe in all three with an upmost passion but this does still not make it truth. There is nothing wrong with believing the religious aspect of marriage; what I take issue with on this front is that religious causes were not satisfied with just denying same sex couples what has become a civil contract (it is no longer religious) but they also banned or attempted to ban them from civil unions, inheritance law contracts, or contracts that even tried to replicate the legal protections extended via marriage. We also do not see the Christian right being all to upset about the institution of marriage being destroyed by adulterous marriages, divorce, marriage not undertaken in a religious sense, or other items. In other words they are demanding the bible be applied against same sex couples but not against anyone else.

As for the “kindness and compassion” portion of your query. As per recent polling compiled by Gallup 36% of the US population are against same sex marriage, 26% are against same sex relationships being legal (meaning they want gay people arrested), 26% believe gay people should not be allowed to serve in the military. 83% of respondents against gay rights listed their reasoning as religious in nature and 47% directly attribute it to the Bible.

So using the data as listed above, less than one in five people that are against same sex marriage stop there — the remainder believe that gay people should be arrested for being gay (which is also in line with some passages in the bible — as is murdering them).

You should not expect gay people or their supporters to go, “yeh thats cool”, when people cite a book for not allowing them to wed that also says they should be executed. Not to mention religious people are much more likely to back the forced torture knows as conversion therapy and are generally against programs designed to prevent gay youth suicide.

Some Christians are absolutely amazing people that 100% are both full of “kindness and compassion”, but those voices are drowned out by the hate and vitriol espoused by many many others claiming to be Christian.

 

Do you think that 'conversion therapy' is electric shock treatment?

 

All of what I wrote after you asked what I believed to be a sincere question and that was your takeaway, a single question from two words taken out of entire paragraph plus a strawman and you wonder why people ignore you...

 

My question was entirely sincere. The problem is that I'm on my mobile device which makes it difficult to do one of my well structured, multi-quote replies which you know that I'm so capable of. I shall be doing one later. Knowing what you understand as "conversion therapy" is critical in understanding why you have a problem with it. And how the hell can a question be a strawman?

 

The question became a starwman once you threw in shock treatment, conversation therapy typically has numerous methods to attach negative stimulus to same sex attraction via behavior modification. I do not believe electroshock therapy is legal (I could be wrong) but it has been used in the past — as well as lobotomy.

 

What if a gay person decides to get the therapy?