Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Going to eat at Chick Fil A today

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • i don't even know who you monsters are any more!
    beautiful
    yeah you are

    Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
    lol

    Comment


    • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
      Downsized = butchered, packed, and frozen.

      They're going to be DELICIOUS!
      Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer
      Had a very tender loin
      We sliced him and sauteed him
      and served him with a nice red wine...

      Comment


      • C'mon down to Rudy's Reindeer Fill Eh ! " Where the burgers are primal, and we don't care who you're screwin' ! "

        Edit: Now look what you've done. This thread is losing its....well, ...thread.

        Cori has made Baby Jesus cry, and I'm making silly culinary jokes.
        Last edited by Picaro; 08-06-2012, 10:58 PM.
        "Continue being a man and you will be excellent. Pussy will rain from the sky. " - Legbiter
        Couldn't resist immortalizing this quote.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by patski View Post
          Really?

          Where did you get that smelly piece of info? Do you speak for all homos?
          Given the enormous sample size of gay men in my social circle, I think I'm on pretty solid ground in my assertion. Most gay men have no interest in actually marrying. And that makes sense. As Karl Lagerfeld has noted, the whole point of the Gay Rights movement was to free gays of the tyranny of bourgeois morality. Having won their freedom, should they now rush headlong to adopt the customs of their oppressors? And of course I'm not saying that there are no gay men who want to marry. Obviously there are, and they should be free to do whatever they feel is best for them. But this highlights a fundamental problem with the framing of this entire debate. Ones equality should not be dependent upon whether one believes in marriage or not. Why should the gay man with a long term partner but no interest in marriage be discriminated against in terms of the law vs the gay man who marries his long term partner? If equal treatment before the law is dependent upon conforming to bourgeois values then aren't you really arguing for the same sort of mindset which just a few decades ago resulted in the horrific pressures that forced the vast majority of homosexuals to enter in to marriages and have children against their will?

          Originally posted by bionicsamm View Post
          Not actively standing up against a bully (in this case CFA) makes you just as bad. By funding CFA, YOU, PERSONALLY are donating to groups that actively promote hate and discrimination.
          Meh. If you help fund any corporation that donates money to a political group (and all the major corporations do) you are donating to groups that promote hate and discrimination. So unless you are fine with never owning a computer, or a TV, or a car, or ever filling your car with gas, you better make your peace with being a party to hate and discrimination.
          Last edited by JWBooth; 08-06-2012, 11:49 PM.

          Comment


          • I don't take my political cues from fashion designers, sorry.

            You may speak for *some* homos in *your* circle, but you certainly don't speak for us all, particularly women.

            No one is forcing gay people who don't want to get married to get married, either.
            A Post-Primal PrimalPat

            Do not allow yourself to become wrapped up in a food 'lifestyle'. That is ego, and you are not that.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by patski View Post
              I don't take my political cues from fashion designers, sorry.

              You may speak for *some* homos in *your* circle, but you certainly don't speak for us all, particularly women.

              No one is forcing gay people who don't want to get married to get married, either.
              He raises a good point though. Assuming homosexual marriage should be legal for the reason of equality under the law then those who are unmarried should receive the same considerations or there is still inequality under the law. Married couples have benefits that non-married persons do not. My wife and I love each other, we live together, we do blah blah etc. I could do all of those things without being married. The only difference between married and not married in this case is the 10 minutes we stood in front of a judge and the fee we paid to get a piece of paper saying we are married. Since the piece of paper changed not one thing about our relationship (to us) or how we feel about each other, all it did was give us certain legal rights/benefits/obligations that we did not have before. Why are married us treated differently by the law than unmarried us? I think that is his point. I get wanting to be married for the symbolism of it, but why should married people be treated any differently from the non-married?

              To answer my own question it seems to me to be based on a certain idea of societal stability etc. That said, is that reason enough for inequality under the law?

              Comment


              • Yeah, I always seem to get screwed on the whole marriage tax thing. I lived with my first love without the benefit of marriage for seven years; two incomes and we paid more in taxes. Then for a short time, there was a marriage tax "penalty" for two income married people and I was legally married during that time.

                There should also be a tax credit for us non-breeders, straight or gay. heh.
                "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                B*tch-lite

                Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                Comment


                • Do you not have common-law recognition in the states? There's no reason to get married up here unless it matters for you.

                  I actively don't participate/endorse companies who contribute to hate groups or have morals I don't believe in. I don't support Curves Gyms because they're anti-abortion, same for Coors Light (and all sister companies.) There are others, but we have less hate groups in Canada

                  Comment


                  • Common law recognition is on a state by state basis here. Also, some cities/states recognize benefits for partners. Even community property is on a state by state basis. The good news on that, though is that the courts are getting a bit better on that so that even in a non-community property state, if you trade your spouse of 20+ years in for a newer model, you're probably still going to split assets acquired during the marriage down the middle and pay spousal support for like ever.
                    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                    B*tch-lite

                    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by patski View Post
                      I don't know; I still disagree with changing the status of the word marriage. There are gay people who believe in God (myself included),
                      Thank you; I don't see why this is such a mutually exclusive thing to some people. Too many people pick and choose their scriptures.
                      The most important commandment is quite possibly the easiest to follow; Matthew 22:36-40. Love God, love your neighbor. Not love God and love your neighbors except those people over there, that whole <insert color> race, and gay folks. I think it's kind of important since it says "This is the greatest commandment", but I might be wrong.
                      Congratulations on your marriage, I wish you all the best.
                      If I just said LOL, I lied. Do or do not. There is no try.

                      Comment


                      • Those who do not learn from the pasta are doomed to reheat it, people.

                        One of the funniest things to me about the whole Religious Right claiming that we are a Christian Nation, damnit, like our forefathers! is that that they really didn't read their history books. The Puritans- those super, duper Religious Righters that had a stranglehold on our nation for quite a while considered marriage to be a legal contract. It was not a religious institution at all. In which case, no one but the state should have a say. Which means that whether God hates the gayz or not really doesn't matter. Person A wants to enter into a legal contract binding him or herself to Person B. Done.

                        Marriage has it's uses. Fewer, these days, seeing as how women are (mostly) considered fully human. However, when one binds one's life to another's permanently, I think that it IS a different circumstance than someone who has bound themselves into what is acknowledged as a possibly temporary relationship. My mother, as a SAHM, could not walk out of the relationship with my father and just get a good job and move on with her life. She has no resume. But she was able to be a SAHM because she and Dad had a contract with each other that is a permanent promise to care for each other. He brings home the bacon and she cooks it. If something happens to him, she will need more than just her own two hands to get on in the world because of the role that she took on. If I had two mothers or two fathers instead of one of each, the situation of the "SAHM" as a surviving spouse would be far, far more tenuous than my mother's situation. (Originally, marraige was partially a change of ownership of a woman, but it was also a contract that her husband was now responsible for her wellbeing- in life and death)
                        http://cattaillady.com/ My blog exploring the beginning stages of learning how to homestead. With the occasional rant.

                        Originally Posted by TheFastCat: Less is more more or less

                        And now I have an Etsy store: CattailsandCalendula

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by patski View Post
                          I don't take my political cues from fashion designers, sorry.

                          You may speak for *some* homos in *your* circle, but you certainly don't speak for us all, particularly women.

                          No one is forcing gay people who don't want to get married to get married, either.
                          I mention him because he is an unquestionably brilliant man who made a very good point, not because of his chosen profession. And I've already conceded that I don't speak for ALL homosexuals. Furthermore I specifically pointed out that I'm mostly talking about gays, not lesbians, of whom I have far less personal experience and who could have completely different attitudes and tendencies. And you say nobody is forcing gay people to get married, but they absolutely are saying, "to get equal rights, you have to get married". It is same sex marriage now instead of the cruel "traditional" marriages most gays were coerced in to over the past few centuries, but the message remains "conform or be discriminated against". Marriage has not been a component of gay relationships or gay culture for millennia. Why should gays have to enter in to this phony bourgeois convention in order to secure equal rights? It may be better for the particularly homosexuals who want to enter in to such a convention, but for those that do not, it amounts to the same repression and discrimination. And it is particularly demented to force gays in to their longtime oppressors favored form of union just to secure their rights. It is little different Queen Isabella's offer to the Jews welcoming them to stay in Spain so long as they renounce their faith and pretend to believe in the religion of the majority.

                          Comment


                          • The discussion of the desire to participate in the legal institution of marriage is one that would not be restricted to the LGBOP etc community. It would equally include all the hetero, non kinky, vanilla, monogamous folk.(All 36 of them).
                            In terms of this discussion, it is a red herring.
                            Gays have been repressed?
                            African slaves, American Indians, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Workers of the world...yadda yadda. We've all been repressed and discriminated against. So (for those that it is not a present reality) we have a good cry, mourn the cost of that discrimination, and then get up and build our lives.
                            In terms of this discussion, it is a red herring.

                            The only agenda on the table is that there are a large number of people who do wish to enjoy the existing legal rights of citizens, not just the US, but any other nations that havent caught up yet. Its really far king simple.
                            "Continue being a man and you will be excellent. Pussy will rain from the sky. " - Legbiter
                            Couldn't resist immortalizing this quote.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Picaro View Post
                              The only agenda on the table is that there are a large number of people who do wish to enjoy the existing legal rights of citizens, not just the US, but any other nations that havent caught up yet. Its really far king simple.
                              I think that's a narrow minded way of looking at it personally. This is essentially the same thing as the marijuana "decriminalization" debate. Some agitate for it because they think (correctly) that it is slightly less barbaric while others of us think it is a horrible strategy because it implicitly accepts the immoral and insane war on drugs. Or take it back a few decades to the interracial marriage debate. By ignoring other groups currently on the outside of "legal" marriage looking in, the current Gay Marriage Lobbyists are very much like a group of Asians in the 1950's arguing that they should have the right to marry whites too but that blacks shouldn't. I get your argument. You believe it is a process and short term compromise with the enemy is a valid strategy that might pay off in the long term. I'm just of the opinion that compromising with these monsters only makes them stronger.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JWBooth View Post
                                I mention him because he is an unquestionably brilliant man who made a very good point, not because of his chosen profession. And I've already conceded that I don't speak for ALL homosexuals. Furthermore I specifically pointed out that I'm mostly talking about gays, not lesbians, of whom I have far less personal experience and who could have completely different attitudes and tendencies. And you say nobody is forcing gay people to get married, but they absolutely are saying, "to get equal rights, you have to get married". It is same sex marriage now instead of the cruel "traditional" marriages most gays were coerced in to over the past few centuries, but the message remains "conform or be discriminated against". Marriage has not been a component of gay relationships or gay culture for millennia. Why should gays have to enter in to this phony bourgeois convention in order to secure equal rights? It may be better for the particularly homosexuals who want to enter in to such a convention, but for those that do not, it amounts to the same repression and discrimination. And it is particularly demented to force gays in to their longtime oppressors favored form of union just to secure their rights. It is little different Queen Isabella's offer to the Jews welcoming them to stay in Spain so long as they renounce their faith and pretend to believe in the religion of the majority.
                                Or Shylock having to convert to Christianity in The Merchant of Venice.

                                Well, I can't honestly say I've ever thought of it that way...
                                Last edited by patski; 08-07-2012, 07:48 PM.
                                A Post-Primal PrimalPat

                                Do not allow yourself to become wrapped up in a food 'lifestyle'. That is ego, and you are not that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X