Oops, look like it backfired!

LOUD NOISES

RealMiniDriver wrote: Look at it as a way of choosing your words wisely, to get what you want.

Certainly there are more tactful and less tactful ways of approaching a subject - that goes without saying.

However, you didn't ask your wife about buying a "non-critical activity vehicle", did you? No. You talked to her about buying a CAR. If you buy a Miata as a project, are you not going to call it a car? Is HER car less of a car because your Miata is also called a car?

My marriage is what it is on its own merits. My marriage is NOT defined by other people's marriages.

RealMiniDriver wrote: In reply to Duke: I'm not trying to take the "married" status away from a man and a woman that did it anywhere other than a church. The point I'd like to make, and possibly rotard would agree, is that the way you present yourself has a lot to do with the results you get. The LGBT community wants the same tax breaks, health insurance benefits, etc. that a married man and woman get. The radical religious right doesn't want them destroying "the sanctity of marriage". If they would have asked, "Hey, can we get the same benefits by having a civil union?" they might have faired better than, "We want to get married, dammit!" Look at it as a way of choosing your words wisely, to get what you want. For example, since you brought up cars and this is a car forum, after all, I wouldn't say to my wife, "Honey, I want to get a Miata, so I can drive like a hooligan." I'd meet with certain resistance. She'd be more agreeable to, "Honey, you know how I get a little cranky in the winter? I think if I had something to do, like a hobby, I'd be less of a burr under your blanket. A Miata would be fun to tinker on, in the cold months."

This would apply also to gay parades where they wear diapers and no other clothes, or gay day at Disney when they wear t-shirts with lude comments on them, or tomorrow when they plan to go to CFA and make out. These acts would not be considered appropriate for and heterosexual people to do, and homosexuals would be helping themselves much more by doing something more productive and less threatening. I'm sure there's a food chain that supports gay marriage. If they want to do something, they should have an appreciation day for that store, not go to CFA and make out. Home Depot supports gays in a big way, financially also, for those that think it's only the other side that does that. So have a Home Depot appreciation day. What would be wrong with that?

In reply to carguy123:

Crap, if Hell is frozen, then I don't have to worry about going there!!!

SVreX wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Nobody gives a berkeley.

I understand that you may not, but it looks to me like your statement is patently incorrect. A lot of people on both sides seem to give a berkeley. Local CFA had a 2 hour wait at the window all day, 3 hours if you called it in. People stood in line all day. They seemed to enjoy it. Local owner says he's gonna give away free chicken on Friday to any same sex couples that show up for a kiss-in. Yeah, that looks like a backfire to me too.

To most people that have a brain, their actions would have held more merit if it didn't take a E36 M3storm to make them happen in the first place.

Yes i understand franchises and that the view of the corporation don't represent those of each store and blah blah blah...

But really.... it's a bit empty when you do this stuff as a DEFENSE to something that already happened.

That said, i'm glad that some good is coming of this, but really... the stuff that makes headlines and hot discussions these days just boggles my motherberkeleying mind.

At the end of the day, the owner of the company is anti gay/lesbian., PERIOD. I won't support the company because of that (and because their food berkeleying sucks), and everything that's coming of it just makes me lose what little faith i had in humanity.

bastomatic wrote: I think a more appropriate analogy would perhaps be: You can have your Miata honey, but you have to call it something else. And you have to change the way it looks so people don't recognize it as a Miata. And if you could please not compare your Miata to "real" Miatas or it will ruin the sanctity of "real" Miatas.

I am a hypocrite. I have a1960 Morris Mini Minor. You know, a "real" Mini. I chose my screen name around the time that BMW introduced the MINI.

For the past two years, I've had a 2003 MINI Cooper S in my driveway.

The fact that people are thinking enough to take a stand and to find that many others agree with them is probably the best thing that's come of this.

The media would have you believe one thing and only one thing is true, now we find out the media's full of crap!

The free food aspect of Friday just shows how little they believe the Friday Kiss-in will affect them and it's also a shrewd move, now are they really coming to protest or is it just for the food?

And Bravenrace it doesn't mean you're not going to Hell, only that you'd better bring your ice skates when you go.

And BTW, Home Depot has acknowledged my "contact" protest of them. We'll see what they have to say for themselves. The CFA thing taught me that we need to speak out. I'm not HD's biggest customer but I have spent in excess of $300,000 there in the past few years so losing that to Lowes a few times will hurt enough to make my point.

If CFA's opinion matters then so does HD's. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In reply to carguy123:

OK, so I'm Wiccan. Witches can marry whatever sex they want. So following your logic, anyone who opposes gay marriage due to belief in religious freedom and freedom of speech should also support gay marriage due to belief in religious freedom and freedom of speech.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to carguy123: OK, so I'm Wiccan. Witches can marry whatever sex they want. So following your logic, anyone who opposes gay marriage due to belief in religious freedom and freedom of speech should also support gay marriage due to belief in religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Now I'm so confused. I can't even follow your logic there.

Meh. Moot point. This is about CFA, not gay marriage, and I stck to my prior post on page 2.

Now here's a funny. My wife just told me she saw on the news this morning where any number of McDonalds and Wendy's put signs up yesterday or posted on their Facebook pages that they "Supported CFS's rights"

It seems that corporate ordered them to take down their signs so one Wendy's apparently added "Corp wants us to take down this sign" up above the other part and then left it up for a few hours before they complied.

Civil disobedience?

In reply to carguy123:

I'd have done the same.

BTW, don't try to hotlink a picture with a file name that includes a word that is in the content filters. It leads to a lot of frustration.

bravenrace wrote: 6 For the past number of years respect for religions, religious values, family values and moral principles have been decreasing, and things have continually gotten worse in this country.

Are things getting worse, or are you more able to learn about it quickly becaus eof teh intr3webz? Are things getting worse, or are the biased media outlets (biased both ways) spouting out slanted fear-mongering rhetoric in order to keep you afraid so youll keep watching (zomfg the earth is doomed!!! details at 6:05pm after traffic and weather together with Bill Moyle and the newscenter 7 alert team - News Center 7, We're on your side)?

Hey, wrap your mind around this scenario:

A Channel 7 news alert, lake breaking story at 5pm: Earlier today, someone said something that someone else didnt like about a gay sandwich

nearly an hour later

OMFG, ok, so, after an hour of debate, we know the Gays hate sandwiches, and the sandwiches hate the gays! Dianne, I think the sky is falling! Someone set us up the bomb, all ur base are belong to us!!

meanwhile:

hey guys, if theyre all arguing about homosexual sandwiches, no one will ever even see it coming when we berkley them in their asses

I know, Merkuns all have the dumb, plus, Im rich beeotch

lulz, see what we did there? kekekeke

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

ROFLMAO

RealMiniDriver wrote:

rotard wrote: I think that they all should be called "civil unions" for government and legal purposes. Wanna get married? Do it in a church.

I bet if the LGBT community requested it in that terminology, the right just might have not been opposed to it so vehemently.

This, and requesting that on the certificate you recieve from the government states "Civil Union" for everyone.......this would have gone over alot better. And chances are, it would have been a lot quieter and a lot fewer disagreements. But alas, they chose the word "Marriage", which pretty much riled religious institutions into the fear that the government would force them to go against their teachings.....and thus why all the feedback and news coverage.....and probably why this hasn't happened yet.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject, and considering this article by Todd Starnes and the fact that CFA had a record sales day yesterday, I think I'm not alone. You see, it's not so much that we're against gay marriage, as we feel a strong and increasing assault on Christian values in this country. And in consideration of the fact that things are getting worse instead of better, maybe we should all think about that.

"There’s something about the public flogging of Chick-fil-A by government officials that seems un-American – lawmakers hell-bent on destroying a privately owned American company simply because of the owner’s personal opinions. Democrats in more than a half dozen major cities have led the charge – slandering Chick-fil-A’s owner and calling for all-out bans on the company’s expansion efforts in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco. And Chick-fil-A’s only crime is being a family-owned company that ascribes to the teachings of the Holy Bible – a belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy has been called a bigot, a homophobe. The mayor of Washington, D.C., accused the company of peddling “hate chicken.” Philadelphia City Councilman Jim Kenney introduced a resolution condemning the company -- and its president. “This particular individual is rabidly homophobic and wants to deny Americans civil rights that are enjoyed by every other American,” Kenney said. 'The vicious left-wing assault against Chick-fil-A should serve as a wakeup call to people of faith.' - There are efforts under way to shut down Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country. Student groups are launching similar campaigns on university campuses. Lost in their outrage over a belief held by a majority of the American public, is the fact that Chick-fil-A employs thousands and thousands of people. And with unemployment hovering around 8.2 percent, you have to wonder what sort of message Democrats are trying to send to the nation. Perhaps the party of President Obama believes it’s morally better to be unemployed than to be anti-gay marriage? American Christians are facing uncertain times. Our nation’s values are under assault. Religious liberty has been undermined. We live in a day when right is now wrong and wrong is now right. The vicious left-wing assault against Chick-fil-A should serve as a wakeup call to people of faith. It’s not about a chicken sandwich. It’s about the future of our country. “Individuals have the right to decide whether or not to ‘eat mor chikin.’ But no government leader should restrict a business or organization from expanding to their district based on the personal or political views of the owners,” said Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals. “Such evident discrimination and attempts to marginalize those with religious values have no place in American democracy.” Those who preach tolerance – are the least tolerant of all. And I suspect Councilman Kenney spoke for many when he issued a not-so-subtle threat to individuals like Dan Cathy who support traditional marriage. “If he really, truly believes what he believes, that is his right to do so,” he said. “But there is often a price to pay for that. In other words, Councilman Kenney wants people with dissenting views to shut up – or else face the consequences. Pastors across the fruited plain addressed the attacks on Chick-fil-A from their pulpits on Sunday – but none was more eloquent or passionate than Charles Lyons – the pastor of Armitage Baptist Church in Chicago. Lyons issued an appeal to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, urging him to reconsider the verbal assault he made on people of faith. “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values,” Emanuel said. His remarks left many wondering if Christians were welcome in the Windy City. “Mr. Mayor, do not dismiss us,” he implored. “Do not disrespect us. We too, are Logan Square. We too, are Chicago.” The pastor admonished Emanuel without so much as a shout or a hint of anger. His remarks were peppered with applause and the occasional Amen. Midway through his appeal, Lyons paused – and delivered a not-so-subtle warning to city leaders. “If the thought police come to Armitage Baptist Church, we will meet them at the door, respectfully, unflinchingly, willing to die on this hill holding a copy of the sacred Scriptures in one hand and a copy of the U.S. Constitution in the other,” he said. Pay attention, people of faith. Dark clouds are gathering. The winds of intolerance are blowing. There’s a great storm approaching. The days of persecution are upon us."

bravenrace wrote: we feel a strong and increasing assault on Christian values in this country.

Who is "we"? You do realize that this country was not founded by Christians, and that Christians are not the majority, right? You also realize that our constitution has declared freedom for all religions and equality of all men and women, right?

BTW, some quick fact-checking for you, the Bible/Christian values have never been just one man and one woman, concubines and harems were the traditional marriage, along with arranged marriages, servitude, and slavery. Somebody needs some lessons...

<<< Went to Catholic school for 9 years

bravenrace wrote: Do you guys really believe that no one is spending millions to lobby for gay marriage? It's inconceivable to me that anyone that has been paying attention would actually believe that the only money going into this issue is from the traditional marriage side.

Of course I believe that there is lobbying FOR gay marriage. But please revisit my point above and try to understand it: they are only lobbying FOR equal treatment for homosexuals. They are NOT lobbying AGAINST the rights and privileges of heterosexuals. That is the fundamental difference that I think you are missing, and that I am trying to emphasize.

bravenrace wrote: Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This stems all the way back to Adam and Eve. Man and woman are designed to be compatible with one another. The Bible also teaches us that this is true. More importantly in today's world, we believe that the decline of family values is contributing to the decline in morals in the world. Man and woman are different, and have different things to contribute to the family. We believe that children need all of the different things that the mother and father have to give them. When one is missing, the child doesn't get everything they need. This sometimes would apply to broken homes just the same as gay ones. Christians believe that eventually the world with basically self destruct and that at that time God will end it. We see the decline of family values as helping to lead us to that point. I probably shouldnt' be writing this because I'm at work and typing off the top of my head, but you really seem to want to understand, so I'm trying. They are taught to love everyone, including homosexuals. That doesn't mean that they love or agree with that lifestyle.

I understand all that, and fully support your right to believe it and to live your life in such a manner. I disagree with it rather comprehensively, but that's irrelevant. You are allowed to believe it if you wish. What you are NOT allowed to do is legislate against those who do NOT share those beliefs. I'm not allowed to stop you from holding your beliefs - but that is fundamentally different from stopping you from stopping others from holding their beliefs. This is the point I keep coming back to and it is the point that is often either misunderstood or willfully ignored. The first is hypocritical. The second is not.

It is similar to using violence. It is morally wrong to initiate violence, but it is morally acceptable to use violence to defend yourself when violently attacked. And all the posturing to the contrary, religious conservatives are not under attack here. No one is trying to say you cannot live your life according to your beliefs. No one is making you be gay, or accept homosexuality, or perform marriages for gays in your church. It's not even an issue. The issue comes when you try imposing those beliefs on OTHERS and restrict what OTHERS are allowed to do - even when it has no direct effect on you whatsoever. That's the moral equivalent of throwing the first punch. It opens you up to defensive action by those you are trying to impose your beliefs upon.

bravenrace wrote: Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles. We were fleeing from Britain to escape religious persecution. Religious American's are in a big way just trying to make sure this country doesn't end up like the one they escaped from. IOW, they are not so much against gay marriage as they are trying to preserve what has always been traditional marriage.

One - I will fundamentally disagree that this country was founded on Christian principles - that is very much open to interpretation and revisionism. There was VERY much more involved than "fleeing from religious persecution". It's also a topic for another thread. Getting past that, let me ask you: did the Founding Fathers fight a long and bitter revolution for their freedom, just so they could impose a different kind of religious persecution on the citizens of this country?

They did not. Yet that's what's being done today in the name of "Christian" principles.

In reply to Duke and Javelin:

Amen! It seems we forget the whole separation of church and state a lot of times.

I disagree with elected officials trying to ban CFA and support the guy's right to state his stance but I am not about to support his stance with my money.

bravenrace wrote:

poopshovel wrote: In two weeks, no one will care. I'm disappointed in Huckabee, 90 some odd days before the election. Is this really an effective use of time and influence?

Maybe you feel that way because your view of marriage isn't as important to you as it is to some of us. I wouldn't be surprised if Huckabee would say that it's more important than any political matter, and I agree.

I mean this very sincerely: Go berkeley yourself, you worthless condescending piece of E36 M3.

poopshovel wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

poopshovel wrote: In two weeks, no one will care. I'm disappointed in Huckabee, 90 some odd days before the election. Is this really an effective use of time and influence?

Maybe you feel that way because your view of marriage isn't as important to you as it is to some of us. I wouldn't be surprised if Huckabee would say that it's more important than any political matter, and I agree.

I mean this very sincerely: Go berkeley yourself, you worthless condescending piece of E36 M3.

That's against Christian values Poopy!

It is only a matter of time before it passes. Most young people are for gay marriage. So as the older generation dies off it will pass.

poopshovel wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

poopshovel wrote: In two weeks, no one will care. I'm disappointed in Huckabee, 90 some odd days before the election. Is this really an effective use of time and influence?

Maybe you feel that way because your view of marriage isn't as important to you as it is to some of us. I wouldn't be surprised if Huckabee would say that it's more important than any political matter, and I agree.

I mean this very sincerely: Go berkeley yourself, you worthless condescending piece of E36 M3.

I'm not sure that was called for. You could have corrected me if I was wrong about you, or disagreed with me about Huckabee if you wanted to, but what you did instead just makes you look bad, IMO.

93EXCivic :

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” -Winston Churchill.