Chick Fil A

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

If you could call them bigots, then everybody is pretty much a bigot, rendering the term meaningless.

That children are too young to consent is all the more reason that intolerance against such a viewpoint shouldn't be labeled bigotry. A viewpoint like that cannot be met with simple disagreement. It is an unacceptable viewpoint that must be met with a swift and severe rebuke, which neccesitates intolerance.

What I am saying is that the notion that intolerance towards other opinions=bigotry is just way too broad a definition. Under that definition, the only people who are not bigots are babies.

GreySeal9

Since when does anybody simply disagree with the viewpoint that adults should be able to have sex with kids? People are repulsed by that idea and the expression of that repulsion is certainly intolerance (and like I said, it's perfectly justified intolerance).

The reason intolerance doesn't come into play as far as our disagreements in music thread is concerned is because music is not a serious issue. However, on more serious issues (such as the issue of children having sex with adults), intolerance most certainly comes into play for the majority of people and I'd guess that you're probably just as intolerant of that idea as anyone else.

Whether that is the definition or not, everybody is most certainly a bigot if you go by such a definition. Even generally tolerant people are intolerant towards certain opinions. Actually, I'd go as far as to say widespread intolerance towards certain opinions is neccesary to keep a society stable.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense of smug saying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

champion837

Any view on this LJ?

It doesnt. Therefore it cant work as a standard for what is worthy of rejection and what isnt.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I dont know about you but if I did meet a person that really thought black people are inferior and should be slaves, I would be pissed at him/her. If that does qualify as being a bigot then there certainly must be different types of bigots, and the word carries no definite negative meaning whatsoever, because I think that the hate towards said person is justified and reasonable.

Besides that, based on a definition I'm using (since OT likes definitions) there is no mention of hate (although I had the same impression as you about the word). Based on the definition, I think it relies on whether or not each side's stance (in general; not just what they believe but what role they'd like their views to play as well) is reasonable. If it is reasonable as a whole then the definition doesnt apply because if a stance is reasonable and logical then it cant be characterised as obstinate. If someone would like to stick to the "superiority" part, then every time someone thinks they are right with 100% confidence then they could be called a bigot, which doesnt make sense. So obviously "superiority" doesnt refer to simply thinking you are right.

My point is, there's a lot of interpretation to be made on the definition itself.

My take is that based on how I used the word "stance" earlier, there definitely are people that are against gay-marriage that dont deserve to be called bigots. And those, imo, would be those who simply disagree without wishing to impose their views via laws.

But it does apply imo to the rest who do wish that. And I'm willing to bet, the outrage coming from people who are pro-gay marriage is due to that group, not the other. Unfortunately, maybe sometimes the frustration makes people attack the first anti-gay marriage group as well.

Teenaged

Again, you can be pro traditional marriage with no hatred involved; therefore, no bigotry.

You can also be a pro-gay marriage bigot due to hatred and intolerance of another opinion.

Bigotry can work both ways because it's based purely on hate and not rational.

Did you read past the first line of my post?

Intolerance though doesnt necessarily entail being hateful or irrational, so being intolerant of a view doesnt necessarily equate to being a bigot.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Any view on this LJ?

Teenaged

It doesnt. Therefore it cant work as a standard for what is worthy of rejection and what isnt.

Most of us do think the Bible makes sense in its entirety, which is why we believe in it. You also said your statement as if that is the staple of which people in America hold, it isnt. Whether or not you disagree with the Bible.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not sure what slavery has to do with a modern day belief.

Again, you can be pro traditional marriage with no hatred involved; therefore, no bigotry.

You can also be a pro-gay marriage bigot due to hatred and intolerance of another opinion.

Bigotry can work both ways because it's based purely on hate and not rational.

champion837

Did you read past the first line of my post?

Intolerance though doesnt necessarily entail being hateful or irrational, so being intolerant of a view doesnt necessarily equate to being a bigot.

Aside from that, I dont think those words have multiple distinct meanings. What I said holds true no matter the context, and they hole true especially when using the words as a denotation.

What gets me is that g@y people are in an uproar about a christian company with christian values ( all the other stuff about him support anti gay organizations and hate groups is just something people made up to discredit the guy). G@y people and non religious people get mad when christians try to force their beliefs on them but g@ys want to force their lifestyle on christians and expect them to be okay with it. Really? That's really on sided if you ask me.

What gets me is that g@y people are in an uproar about a christian company with christian values ( all the other stuff about him support anti gay organizations and hate groups is just something people made up to discredit the guy). G@y people and non religious people get mad when christians try to force their beliefs on them but g@ys want to force their lifestyle on christians and expect them to be okay with it. Really? That's really on sided if you ask me.

djshowstopper87

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I said you can call those intolerant a bigot....not everyone who disagrees. Anyway....that is the definition of the word. Not every difference of opinion makes one a bigot. I disagree with you quite a bit in music threads....but I am not intolerant of you having said opinion.LJS9502_basic

Since when does anybody simply disagree with the viewpoint that adults should be able to have sex with kids? People are repulsed by that idea and the expression of that repulsion is certainly intolerance (and like I said, it's perfectly justified intolerance).

The reason intolerance doesn't come into play as far as our disagreements in music thread is concerned is because music is not a serious issue. However, on more serious issues (such as the issue of children having sex with adults), intolerance most certainly comes into play for the majority of people and I'd guess that you're probably just as intolerant of that idea as anyone else.

Whether that is the definition or not, everybody is most certainly a bigot if you go by such a definition. Even generally tolerant people are intolerant towards certain opinions. Actually, I'd go as far as to say widespread intolerance towards certain opinions is neccesary to keep a society stable.

It is not that simple. There are also ideas and ideologies that the vast majority of people simply don't tolerate. If, as an experiment, you expressed the idea that adults should be able to have sex with children in a social setting, there is no way that you would be met with mere disagreement. Your opinion would be met with intolerance.

What gets me is that g@y people are in an uproar about a christian company with christian values ( all the other stuff about him support anti gay organizations and hate groups is just something people made up to discredit the guy). G@y people and non religious people get mad when christians try to force their beliefs on them but g@ys want to force their lifestyle on christians and expect them to be okay with it. Really? That's really on sided if you ask me.

djshowstopper87

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Any view on this LJ?

Teenaged

It doesnt. Therefore it cant work as a standard for what is worthy of rejection and what isnt.

The bible is full of contradictions, also I guess LJ isnt interested in addressing it anyway.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] Even though bigots isnt necessarily a two way street, lets keep in mind that doesnt mean that people who are anti gay marriage "bigots". Being anti black is not the same as being against something that the Bible is against.champion837

It doesnt. Therefore it cant work as a standard for what is worthy of rejection and what isnt.

I dont make statements when the majority support them, whether its the USA or any other a country, I couldnt care less. I make them when I feel they are right. You're digging your own hole when you set high standards for the Bible with vague phrases such as "something that the Bible is against", implying everything the Bible condemns within the text itself is condemnable. Really? I've heard the Bible condemns some ridiculous things (such as oysters and certain types of clothing iirc).

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] Even though bigots isnt necessarily a two way street, lets keep in mind that doesnt mean that people who are anti gay marriage "bigots". Being anti black is not the same as being against something that the Bible is against.tenaka2

It doesnt. Therefore it cant work as a standard for what is worthy of rejection and what isnt.

The bible is full of contradictions, also I guess LJ isnt interested in addressing it anyway.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Why does it have to do with modern day belief? Its an opinion someone can have whether you think it is relevant in our times or not.

Did you read past the first line of my post?

Intolerance though doesnt necessarily entail being hateful or irrational, so being intolerant of a view doesnt necessarily equate to being a bigot.

Teenaged

Aside from that, I dont think those words have multiple distinct meanings. What I said holds true no matter the context, and they hole true especially when using the words as a denotation.

Addressing what? When did this thread turn into a bible thread?LJS9502_basic

This

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Both sides are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint...hence both sides are bigots.tenaka2

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense ofsmugsaying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] But since we are using these words as a denotation, then we should keep it in that context. People hold biases against everything if we were to open it up. This is about what we consider to be right or wrong.champion837

Aside from that, I dont think those words have multiple distinct meanings. What I said holds true no matter the context, and they hole true especially when using the words as a denotation.

Other than that I cant quite understand what your objection is. Do you think intolerance does entail hate?

[QUOTE="champion837"] If I hit someone, that is worse then if I simply make a statement against someone.JustPlainLucas

I thought you were trying to say that everyone who opposes gay marriage are bad people, my fault.

[QUOTE="djshowstopper87"]

What gets me is that g@y people are in an uproar about a christian company with christian values ( all the other stuff about him support anti gay organizations and hate groups is just something people made up to discredit the guy). G@y people and non religious people get mad when christians try to force their beliefs on them but g@ys want to force their lifestyle on christians and expect them to be okay with it. Really? That's really on sided if you ask me.

toast_burner

Again, its obvious chick fil a is a christian owned company with christian beliefs. The CEO of the company was not trying to FORCE his beliefs on anyone, he just shared what his beliefs are. Then g@y people got offended because he doesn't agree with their lifestyle so they decide to boycott him/ try to bully him, and the company into agreeing with THEIR beliefs and lifestyle. Not one person at Chick Fil A was forcing anything on anyone. Its g@y people here trying to force their lifestyle on everyone who disagrees.

This

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Both sides are intolerant of the opposing viewpoint...hence both sides are bigots.tenaka2

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense ofsmugsaying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

There is no paradox. A bigot IS someone intolerant of the opinions and/or beliefs of others. This is not diagreement...but flat out intolerance of their right to form said opinion.

What IS a paradox is those that want to use their own bigotry to call other's bigots.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

This

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I dont agree with your circular reasoning on this, have a read of this, the smug part applies a lot in this instance.

http://voices.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-bigot-paradox-11216532.html

COMMENTARY |You've seen it somewhere on the Internet: Someone with a sense ofsmugsaying something along the lines of "you guys know that calling someone a 'bigot' makes you a bigot too, right?"

Umm, not so much.

This currently popular and eternally fallacious concept that intolerance against bigotry is somehow itself a form of bigotry seems to have gained traction, despite its complete lack of sense.

The Bigot Paradox is not stealthy ninja logic, it's simply stupidity, and illustrates an utter lack of understanding of the liberal perspective. We don't dislike racism or any discrimination because we're nice and don't want to hurt people's feelings.

We counter that dogma because we believe justice and equality have no color, no gender and no religion. That's not bigoted; that's the core fabric of the United States. That these concepts are actively opposed in the name of "freedom," well, that's the real paradox of bigotry.

LJS9502_basic

There is no paradox. A bigot IS someone intolerant of the opinions and/or beliefs of others. This is not diagreement...but flat out intolerance of their right to form said opinion.

What IS a paradox is those that want to use their own bigotry to call other's bigots.

Well, like I've been saying, if being intolerant of racism or the idea that adults and children should be able to have sexual relations is bigotry, then I have no problem whatosever with being a bigot. Actually, in those cases I'd rather be a bigot than not be one.

]You disagree with the definition of a word due to someone's commentary?

There is no paradox. A bigot IS someone intolerant of the opinions and/or beliefs of others. This is not diagreement...but flat out intolerance of their right to form said opinion.

What IS a paradox is those that want to use their own bigotry to call other's bigots.

LJS9502_basic

So, by your personal definition someone who actively opposes slavery due to its inherent degridation of humanity is a bigot?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

]You disagree with the definition of a word due to someone's commentary?

There is no paradox. A bigot IS someone intolerant of the opinions and/or beliefs of others. This is not diagreement...but flat out intolerance of their right to form said opinion.

What IS a paradox is those that want to use their own bigotry to call other's bigots.

tenaka2

So, by your personal definition someone who actively opposes slavery due to its inherent degridation of humanity is a bigot?

There is no paradox. A bigot IS someone intolerant of the opinions and/or beliefs of others. This is not diagreement...but flat out intolerance of their right to form said opinion.

What IS a paradox is those that want to use their own bigotry to call other's bigots.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

]You disagree with the definition of a word due to someone's commentary?

There is no paradox. A bigot IS someone intolerant of the opinions and/or beliefs of others. This is not diagreement...but flat out intolerance of their right to form said opinion.

What IS a paradox is those that want to use their own bigotry to call other's bigots.

LJS9502_basic

So, by your personal definition someone who actively opposes slavery due to its inherent degridation of humanity is a bigot?

hmm interesting dodge, I said those that actively oppose it, I did not mention the slavers themselves.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

]You disagree with the definition of a word due to someone's commentary?

There is no paradox. A bigot IS someone intolerant of the opinions and/or beliefs of others. This is not diagreement...but flat out intolerance of their right to form said opinion.

What IS a paradox is those that want to use their own bigotry to call other's bigots.

LJS9502_basic

So, by your personal definition someone who actively opposes slavery due to its inherent degridation of humanity is a bigot?

Slavery carries with it an ideology.

To use a similar example, Hitler's actions were beyond unacceptable, but then so was his ideology and you'll find that the majority of people don't tolerate his ideas or his actions.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So, by your personal definition someone who actively opposes slavery due to its inherent degridation of humanity is a bigot?

tenaka2

hmm interesting dodge, I said those that actively oppose it, I did not mention the slavers themselves.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So, by your personal definition someone who actively opposes slavery due to its inherent degridation of humanity is a bigot?

GreySeal9

Slavery carries with it an ideology.

To use a similar example, Hitler's actions were beyond unacceptable, but then so was his ideology and you'll find that the majority of people don't tolerate his ideas or his actions.

By LJs definition you are a bigot if you oppose hitlers views.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Slavery is an action.....LJS9502_basic

hmm interesting dodge, I said those that actively oppose it, I did not mention the slavers themselves.

You are sidetracking again, bigotry can be casued by action but also by a failure to act.

What gets me is that g@y people are in an uproar about a christian company with christian values ( all the other stuff about him support anti gay organizations and hate groups is just something people made up to discredit the guy). G@y people and non religious people get mad when christians try to force their beliefs on them but g@ys want to force their lifestyle on christians and expect them to be okay with it. Really? That's really on sided if you ask me.

djshowstopper87

The problem with the whole "you're a big if you're intolerant of other opinions" definition is that while it might sound good in theory, it completely breaks down when you apply it to the real world where everybody is intolerant of certain ideas.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

So, by your personal definition someone who actively opposes slavery due to its inherent degridation of humanity is a bigot?

GreySeal9

Slavery carries with it an ideology.

To use a similar example, Hitler's actions were beyond unacceptable, but then so was his ideology and you'll find that moral people don't tolerate his ideas or his actions.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Slavery is an action.....tenaka2

Slavery carries with it an ideology.

To use a similar example, Hitler's actions were beyond unacceptable, but then so was his ideology and you'll find that the majority of people don't tolerate his ideas or his actions.

By LJs definition you are a bigot if you oppose hitlers views.

The problem with the whole "you're a big if you're intolerant of other opinions" definition is that while it might sound good in theory, it completely breaks down when you apply it to the real world where everybody is intolerant of certain ideas.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="djshowstopper87"]

What gets me is that g@y people are in an uproar about a christian company with christian values ( all the other stuff about him support anti gay organizations and hate groups is just something people made up to discredit the guy). G@y people and non religious people get mad when christians try to force their beliefs on them but g@ys want to force their lifestyle on christians and expect them to be okay with it. Really? That's really on sided if you ask me.

MrPraline

This all comes from homosexuals getting mad because the CEO of chick fil a doesn't agree with their lifestyle. All this other stuff is just garbage they made up.

What gets me is that g@y people are in an uproar about a christian company with christian values ( all the other stuff about him support anti gay organizations and hate groups is just something people made up to discredit the guy). G@y people and non religious people get mad when christians try to force their beliefs on them but g@ys want to force their lifestyle on christians and expect them to be okay with it. Really? That's really on sided if you ask me.

djshowstopper87

No gay person is trying to force their lifestyle on anyone. Nobody's trying to force you to enter in a gay relationship or anything else. But certain Christians, including those fine folks who own Chick Fil A, are trying to force their values on others by funding groups who lobby to get legislation enacted that suppressed the rights of gay people. Is this really that difficult for you to understand?

The problem with the whole "you're a big if you're intolerant of other opinions" definition is that while it might sound good in theory, it completely breaks down when you apply it to the real world where everybody is intolerant of certain ideas.

GreySeal9

And as far as I noticed, he didnt cite any dictionary.

This all comes from homosexuals getting mad because the CEO of chick fil a doesn't agree with their lifestyle. All this other stuff is just garbage they made up.djshowstopper87

I think you're getting a bit confused over the difference between disagreement with an individuals ideology....and that is perfectly fine.....and being intolerant of differing opinions t.and yes this includes this topic. So someone doesn't personally agree with gay marriage. That does basically nothing to you or anyone else and they should be allowed to have said opinions no matter how unpopular. Being intolerant for instance in regard to religious beliefs is intolerance and bigotry...yet no one calls anyone else for that. Have someone say they don't agree with gay marriage and they get called a bigot. Why the double standard? LJS9502_basic

I'm not getting confused whatosever. It simply is not reflective of reality to say that people simply disagree with Hilter's ideas. The majority of people find his ideas repulsive and don't tolerate them. So, if one is a bigot for not tolerating his ideas, then the majority of people are bigots according to your definition. Again, the definition seems fine on paper, but breaks down when applied to real life.

I never said that people shouldn't be allowed to have certain opinions. Just because I'm not tolerant of certain sick ideologies doesn't mean I'm going to support curtailing their right to free thought.

And I agree that simply being pro traditional marriage is not bigotry. I do think that it's a morally problematic position, but not neccesarily bigotry. It's perfectly possible to be pro traditional marriage and not be a bigot.

No. Thats false. A large portion of believers are moderate believers, who learn to take certain parts of the Bible with a grain of salt. Heck, the entire eastern Orthodox part of the faith believes that the OT is outdated, and the NT is the only part of the Bible that believers should adhere to. I'd expect you to know a bit more than me about Christianity as a hole, but I guess not...Teenaged

Most people do believe that it makes sense entirely. I think you are referring to statistics of it not being hyperbolic or symbolic in any way. That isnt what I am talking about, I am talking about whether or not people trust what it says in its entirety. And the eastern orthodox church follows the belief of the old testament. http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

You're digging your own hole when you set high standards for the Bible with vague phrases such as "something that the Bible is against", implying everything the Bible condemns within the text itself is condemnable. Teenaged

That is why a lot of us are against gay marriage, whether you agree with that stance or not. Those are the facts. That is what the head of Chick Fil A brought up when defending his stance.

That is why a lot of us are against gay marriage, whether you agree with that stance or not. Those are the facts. That is what the head of Chick Fil A brought it up.champion837

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Slavery carries with it an ideology.

To use a similar example, Hitler's actions were beyond unacceptable, but then so was his ideology and you'll find that the majority of people don't tolerate his ideas or his actions.

LJS9502_basic

By LJs definition you are a bigot if you oppose hitlers views.

I am not telling you what you believe, I am stating what you have said. If you act on injustice you are a bigot, you have made your point rather clear. In my opinion its very flawed and your using it as a 'get out of jail free card' but thats ok.

[QUOTE="champion837"]That is why a lot of us are against gay marriage, whether you agree with that stance or not. Those are the facts. That is what the head of Chick Fil A brought it up.MrPraline

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

The problem with the whole "you're a big if you're intolerant of other opinions" definition is that while it might sound good in theory, it completely breaks down when you apply it to the real world where everybody is intolerant of certain ideas.

LJS9502_basic

But being intolerant of an idea/=/not allowing others to hold it.

For instance, I can be totally intolerant of a Neo Nazi's ideas while still acknowledging that they have a right to hold that opinion.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

No. Thats false. A large portion of believers are moderate believers, who learn to take certain parts of the Bible with a grain of salt. Heck, the entire eastern Orthodox part of the faith believes that the OT is outdated, and the NT is the only part of the Bible that believers should adhere to. I'd expect you to know a bit more than me about Christianity as a hole, but I guess not...champion837

You're digging your own hole when you set high standards for the Bible with vague phrases such as "something that the Bible is against", implying everything the Bible condemns within the text itself is condemnable. Teenaged

Suggesting stoning people, referring to slavery as if its nothing, condemning ridiculous things is hardly being symbolic or just hyperbolic.

Perhaps the only part they follow is the ten commandments. Other than that the Orthodox church considers the OT to be outdated. Perhaps it varies from country to country, but in my country thats what we were taught in religious studies (and religion in my country does play an important role so that class cant be accused of distorting the orthodox faith).

But I know why most of you are against it. I'm just saying your reasons couldnt be any less compelling.

Most people do believe that it makes sense entirely.champion837

So what part of not wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or forcing a woman to marry her rapist makes sense?

[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="champion837"]That is why a lot of us are against gay marriage, whether you agree with that stance or not. Those are the facts. That is what the head of Chick Fil A brought it up.champion837