Chick-Fil-A

Status
Not open for further replies.

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Is someone looking for an argument? I said a site. In all the examples that you just gave there was no links. Please show me the Wake Forest football site where the Chick-Fil-A thread is, or how about the message board for Liberty University where football is heavily discussed and how they are concerning themselves to this degree with Chick-Fil-A. Either you are missing my initial point or you are just trying to start a fight. My point was that ND has such a large fan base with a rich tradition of football and sports in general while also being Catholic that this is the only such place (sports message board) on the internet where you would find such a discussion. Yes, there may be others out there but it is most likely very rare. I was not saying that these people are not out there and that they are not having this discussion also. But to have this football SITE go in depth on some of these types of discussion is unique. now i am sure that you will find plenty to nitpick at if you are just trying to start something. Have at it.

I guarantee this discussion is going on right now on many other sites......TCU? SMU? There are other religious universties. Hell, even if it's not a religious university, it's an interesting discussion to have.

Just pick any school in the bible belt. I'm sure you can find something on this issue.
 

95NDAlumNM

Banned
Messages
514
Reaction score
45
I guarantee this discussion is going on right now on many other sites......TCU? SMU? There are other religious universties. Hell, even if it's not a religious university, it's an interesting discussion to have.

Just pick any school in the bible belt. I'm sure you can find something on this issue.

OK. Let's do that. here is a TCU site:

Killer Frogs

I did not spend too much time looking around but there was no obvious Chick-Fil-A thread.

Of how about a SMU site (did a search here for chick-fil-a and found nothing):

PonyFans.com • View forum - Around the Hilltop

How about Oral Roberts:

Free for All - ORU Sports

Did a search on this one and there was one post about wanting a Chick-Fil-A on campus but nothing in regards to the discussion that has been going on here.

So do you guys really think that Notre Dame is unique in some of these ways? Do you just dislike some posters and try to find any reason to argue with them? Yes, this is an interesting discussion to have and it is great that we have IE for this (and everything else). What really is the issue with what I originally posted?
 

ClausentoTate

New member
Messages
631
Reaction score
43
So why can't three adult men marry each other? Seems like the odd-man-out has a good case for being denied his marriage equality.



That's true, but in order to pass 1st Amendment muster it would have to be a generally-applied rule that's content-neutral. That is, it would have to apply equally to all fast-food or chicken places, and couldn't apply based on the content of a restaurant's speech.

So you could re-zone to prohibit a fast food place that serves, say, only chicken with no beef. But you couldn't prohibit a restaurant based on campaign contributions or political stances, regardless of what the "secondary effect" was. Otherwise every town in Tennessee would ban Islamic mosques on the basis that their secondary effect is the incitement of residents (or less consumption on Ramadan, decreased face-shaving, decreased pork/liquor consumption, etc.).

I concede to you, good sir. Makes sense. I still have a problem with CFA, however, and think this conversation has merit. I don't think it's a smokescreen for our dismal economic environment, either. I don't really see why it's a big deal, why aren't people just boycotting it on an individual basis? Don't like them, don't eat there, simple as that.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
1. Genesis 2:24 - Nuclear family: wives are subordinate to their husbands.Interfaith marrigaes forbidden. Brides who could not prove their virginity were stoned to death.
Marriages generally arranged and not based on romantic love.

2. Practiced poloygamy: man+wives+concubines.
Several men of God had several wives and concubines. Solomon had 300.

3. Genesis 16 -A man could acquire and marry his wife's property, including her slaves.

4. Genesis 38:6-10 -brother+sister-in-law+dead husband. Widow must marry her brother-in-law

5. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - victim+her rapist. A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. The rapist must pay victim's father 50 shokels of silver to make up for his loss.

6. Numbers 31:1-18, Deuteronomy 21:11-14 male soldiers+prisoners of war - Under Moses command, Israelites kill every Medianite man, woman and child, save for the virgin girls who are take as spoils of war. Wives must submit to their new owners.

7. Exodus 21:4 - Male slave+female slave+slave master. Slave master could assign his male slave to his female slave. Female slaves must submit to their new husbands.

This is just a wee bit of traditional biblical values on marraige. How many of these do we practice? Why not the others? I am particularly interested in how the reapist one would go down. I am not even going to address God's obvious thoughts on slavery- part.

Point is, your definitiion of marriage is not my definition nor should it be up to you to decide who or how I get married. I have no problem with anyone holding their own point of views, but when you dump corporate money into the field of play in order to institute laws that turn my family members into second class citizens, I DO have a problem with that.

I will say no more because I am tired of this, I justwanted to chime in. It is a media driven politically motivated debate and debasing in general. Both isdes are faulty and there is no real solution until you remove religion from politics.
 

NankerPhelge

WANKER
Messages
805
Reaction score
126
Forgive me for attempting to bring a Catholic viewpoint to a Notre Dame football website. These issues, undoubtedly, deserve much greater study and discussion than can be obtained in this forum. But for anyone who might be interested in considering more deeply the Church's view towards the proper relationship between the Catholic Church (or other religions, for that matter) and the State, I would respectfully suggest "Render onto Caesar" by Rev. Charles J. Chaput as a good read concerning this issue and those that flow therefrom.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
OK. Let's do that. here is a TCU site:

Killer Frogs

I did not spend too much time looking around but there was no obvious Chick-Fil-A thread.

Of how about a SMU site (did a search here for chick-fil-a and found nothing):

PonyFans.com • View forum - Around the Hilltop

How about Oral Roberts:

Free for All - ORU Sports

Did a search on this one and there was one post about wanting a Chick-Fil-A on campus but nothing in regards to the discussion that has been going on here.

So do you guys really think that Notre Dame is unique in some of these ways? Do you just dislike some posters and try to find any reason to argue with them? Yes, this is an interesting discussion to have and it is great that we have IE for this (and everything else). What really is the issue with what I originally posted?

No...thats not what I meant...I do think there are some unique convos here with some good perspectives. But I think that was a national issue and was more than likely disscussed on other forums. And who's to say they didn't get taken down because it's a hot button issue?
 

95NDAlumNM

Banned
Messages
514
Reaction score
45
No...thats not what I meant...I do think there are some unique convos here with some good perspectives. But I think that was a national issue and was more than likely disscussed on other forums. And who's to say they didn't get taken down because it's a hot button issue?

Right but that was not my point. My point was specifically about a sports related site (IE) that discusses the wide range of topics that we do here. Of course it is a national topic. For awhile you could not watch, listen, or view news and not hear about this topic.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good for those animals. Let's not start comparing humans to gut worms.

And if it was "natural" they'd be able to reproduce. (just my opinion)...I have nothing against gays (it's their business what they do in their bedrooms) but I also don't think it was intended for the same sex to be together.
 

irishpat183

Banned
Messages
5,625
Reaction score
504
Right but that was not my point. My point was specifically about a sports related site (IE) that discusses the wide range of topics that we do here. Of course it is a national topic. For awhile you could not watch, listen, or view news and not hear about this topic.

True that.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
Something has always troubled me about the “Don’t vote with your religion” stuff… if you really tell a person of the church they can’t vote with their faith and religious morality what you really tell them is that they can’t vote.

Everyone (hopefully) votes according to what they believe is right or wrong… church goers are no different yet they get singled out. Also many people of non-faith impose their morality every bit as much as those of faith (see the health care bill and contraception taxation for a quick example). Point is, every single responsible voter votes according to their morality at times, so let’s drop that one.

As for the church staying out of the state… I’m all for it, but it goes both ways, the state has to stay the hell out of the church, and if you continue to put religious premises on the ballot you are going to see the church get involved… welcome, reality.

I still say the way to solve this for everyone is keep the government the hell out of it… people keep referencing the church as the block to gay happiness. Last I checked no church can pass federal law, put propositions on a ballot, or rule in the courts… now think about it, what has really kept gays from marrying?? Let each individual church decide who the hell they marry without interference from the gov. and gone is this issue… guarantee it. Then we can move on the REAL civil rights issues facing the homosexual community.
 
Last edited:
J

johnnykillz

Guest
I just brainstormed: Hey, if we allow gay marriage, can't we...

I just brainstormed: Hey, if we allow gay marriage, can't we...

paul_mccartney_mullet_3.jpg


Marry our sisters?

It just moved.

Is that illegal?
 
J

johnnykillz

Guest
Something has always troubled me about the “Don’t vote with your religion” stuff… if you really tell a person of the church they can’t vote with their faith and religious morality what you really tell them is that can’t vote.

Everyone (hopefully) votes according to what they believe is right or wrong… church goers are no different yet they get singled out. Also many people of non-faith impose their morality every bit as much as those of faith (see the health care bill and contraception taxation for a quick example). Point is, every single responsible voter votes according to their morality at times, so let’s drop that one.

As for the church staying out of the state… I’m all for it, but it goes both ways, the state has to stay the hell out of the church, and if you continue to put religious premises on the ballot you are going to see the church get involved… welcome, reality.

I still say the way to solve this for everyone is keep the government the hell out of it… people keep referencing the church as the block to gay happiness. Last I checked no church cannot pass federal law, put propositions on a ballot, or rule in the courts… now think about it, what has really kept gays from marrying?? Let each individual church decide who the hell they marry without interference from the gov. and gone is this issue… guarantee it.

Good call.

I endorse this message.

paul_mccartney_mullet_3.jpg
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I still say the way to solve this for everyone is keep the government the hell out of it… people keep referencing the church as the block to gay happiness. Last I checked no church can pass federal law, put propositions on a ballot, or rule in the courts… now think about it, what has really kept gays from marrying?? Let each individual church decide who the hell they marry without interference from the gov. and gone is this issue… guarantee it. Then we can move on the REAL civil rights issues facing the homosexual community.

You have hit your own counter point on the head. Who introduced legislation banning gay marriage? It certainly wasnt gays. It was the religous right oriented politcians supported by and spending donor money. The church is heavily involved in politics at all levels as you also stated. I dont understand how you can say that the government is the problem when then people donate and elect candidates to put discriminatory legislation on the docket. The governement cannot be left out because it is the force by which banning gay marriage has been made a legal issue through the public. Gays cant just go down to the court house and get a marraige license, it is illegal in most states. Why does it have to be a church that decides who is married? In simplicity gay marriage should be allowed and if you dont want to marry a gay person, then dont. That is as simple as it gets.
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
You have hit your own counter point on the head. Who introduced legislation banning gay marriage? It certainly wasnt gays. It was the religous right oriented politcians supported by and spending donor money. The church is heavily involved in politics at all levels as you also stated. I dont understand how you can say that the government is the problem when then people donate and elect candidates to put discriminatory legislation on the docket. The governement cannot be left out because it is the force by which banning gay marriage has been made a legal issue through the public. Gays cant just go down to the court house and get a marraige license, it is illegal in most states. Why does it have to be a church that decides who is married? In simplicity gay marriage should be allowed and if you dont want to marry a gay person, then dont. That is as simple as it gets.

This reads as though you feel every single law that has ever been introduced to the point of marriage is from the lunatic hate filled religious right... and of course any and all discrimination comes from them... Yet they are the ones with the perception problem??

Gays shouldn't have to go to the court house, that is the point...... if the state would have stayed out of it from the get go there wouldn't be a need for legislation from any side... and sorry, you will NEVER get the church out of marriage issues as it is a religious rite of passage, it is THEIR premise, not the govs to dictate. and for the record there have been many of movements, bills, ammendments and such that have come from sources other than the 'relgious right.' There have also been many that force or discriminate against morality and freedoms of those of faith lately... seems to me you are cherry picking one side of this thing.


I feel if we could just get the state to acknowledge their end of the seperation and let the church handle their own affairs then gays would be able to find a church willing to work with them... no quesiton. No party should be able to make a law on this issue, one way or the other.

Above all, to the bolded... because it is a reilgious rite of passage,... and to further that point. Why the hell should the gov. get to decide?? To your very last point, well yeah, if a church out there is for it, which some are... gays should be able to marry. My argument is not against gay marriage... it's more to the fact that 'this should be done through legislation as it is anyone civil right to marry whomever...'
 
Last edited:

95NDAlumNM

Banned
Messages
514
Reaction score
45
So every single law that has ever been introduced to the point of marriage is from the lunatic hate filled religious right???... and of course any and all discrimination comes from them... Yet they are the ones with the perception problem.

got it.

Gays shouldn't have to go to the court house, that is the point...... if the state would have stayed out of it from the get go there wouldn't be a need for legislation from any side... and sorry, you will NEVER get the church out of marriage issues as it is a religious rite of passage, it is THEIR premise, not the govs to dictate. There shoud never be a need for a law pretaining to marriage... and sorry there have been many of movements, bills, ammendments and such that have come from sources other than the relgious right , give me a break. And those of faith have had their morality and freedoms attacked in legislation plenty lately... again, you are totally cherry picking one side of this thing.


How about this... The real problem here is people like you want to hate and discriminate against the church. There, how's hat? Yep, you are just anti-christian. That helps things doesn't it??? How about we just keep that garbage out of it... implied or flat stated??


Or, again, we could just get the state to acknowledge their end of the seperation and let the church handle their own affairs... and gays would be able to find a church willing to work with them... no quesiton. No party should be able to make a law on this issue, one way or the other. Above all, to the bolded... because it is a reilgious rite of passage,... and to further that point, Why the hell should the gov. get to decide (again, where all the trouble has come from to begin with).


Exactly. The government should be out of this completely. So no asking about whether you are married on tax forms and different tax rates because of it. The insurance companies should be out of it also so no benefits for your spouse. Hospitals can stay out of it also. No one should be able to ask whether you are married or not and base anything on that except the church where you were married. Marriage is a religious ceremony through your church and that is all. Every other organization outside of your church should have some other way to handle these issues. I think they should call it a civil union. It has a nice ring to it.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
Exactly. The government should be out of this completely. So no asking about whether you are married on tax forms and different tax rates because of it. The insurance companies should be out of it also so no benefits for your spouse. Hospitals can stay out of it also. No one should be able to ask whether you are married or not and base anything on that except the church where you were married. Marriage is a religious ceremony through your church and that is all. Every other organization outside of your church should have some other way to handle these issues. I think they should call it a civil union. It has a nice ring to it.

Well, despite the sarcasm meter going off... for the most part I agree...

partnerships could easily be recognized with the gov. if we are to keep tax rates as they are and so on... or yeah we can do away with any benefit attached to the idea of marriage... obviously the first option is more doable...

like I said in my first post, I know how the wind blows on this issue... but I am pretty dang anit-gov. (shocker right?) to begin with and they did indeed overstep church and state here.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
So every single law that has ever been introduced to the point of marriage is from the lunatic hate filled religious right???... and of course any and all discrimination comes from them... Yet they are the ones with the perception problem??

got it.
I did not use "lunatic nor hate-filled" in my statement. That is you putting words in my mouth. Everything after is pointless. When it comes to gays, yes I would agree the religous right is mostly responsible for discrimination towards them. As regards political legislation introduced to ban gay marriage or limit their ability to be treated as married, once again, yes the right -side of the ailse takes the cake.

Gays shouldn't have to go to the court house, that is the point...... if the state would have stayed out of it from the get go there wouldn't be a need for legislation... and sorry, you will NEVER get the church out of marriage issues as it is a religious rite of passage. There shoud never be a need for a law on this issue... and sorry there have been many of movements, bills, ammendments and such that have come from sources other than the relgious right , give me a break.
I agree, there should never have been a law introduced in the first place, but I bet you can guess who introduced it (them)....Give me a break....


The real problem here is people like you want to hate and discriminate against the church. There, how's hat? Yep, you are just anti-christian. That helps things doesn't it???
FAIL. The real problem here is discrimnating against people who don't fit into your version of an acceptable social paradigm. I am anti-discrimination... But thanks for trying to paint me negatively like that. Try again.


Or, again, we could just get the state to acknowledge their end of the seperation and let the church handle their own affairs... and gays would be able to find a church willing to work with them... no quesiton. No party should be able to make a law on this issue, one way or the other. Above all, to the bolded... because it is a reilgious rite of passage,... and to further that point, Why the hell should the gov. get to decide (again, where all the trouble has come from to begin with).
I agree. I wish that were the case. But marriage is not just a religous issue. I am sure there are some athiests out there that would like to partake in the benefits of being married, particularly those nice tax breaks for dependents, and being able to have benficiaries for your pensions and things...How about those polygamists as well? What about people from other countries married in their respective homelands according to other traditons....? doesnt matter, as long you aren't gay right....please.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
btw, I re-did my response to Cacky as I am trying to remain civil... I was def offened by some of his post and let that bleed into mine... post has been 'cleaned"
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Okay, I was pretty sure they were going to delete my one post in this thread which was meant to point out the waste of otherwise good men arguing about such utter nonsense.

What do I mean about utter nonsense?

Since the Civil War Americans have inexplicably embraced being turned against each other by any in a position of power; first it was done with food and housing, then jobs, then better jobs, and more opportunity, then ****ing chicken sandwiches. It is all much more esoteric in nature these days.

I hope this post stands. I feel I have the right to say what I am about to say, because I have paid the price.

I had a lot of respect for most of you on this site, but I have to tell you, I am not going to read any more crap. People spouting off scriptures, telling off color gay jokes, like the one about the two gay Irishmen, Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald; it is all too much.

I had a friend, who had a couple of friends, who were privy to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Stirred their finger in the pot as they used to say smiling. Now one was Oxford and the other Cambridge educated; these men were brilliant. They came over to our country quietly and were gaging the support they may expect from this country. I asked them point blank what they though of us over here. They went on and on about what wonderful things they found. I told them I was really interested in what they thought of the Irish diaspora, other than that is was imense. Their answer shocked me; they were really not pleased.

They brought up Boston and bussing, etc. (This was a while ago.) They couldn't believe the way we treat others over here, after all, they said, "Everybody's [got] their own troubles." I have never forgotten that, from these men who you may find in a history book, some day.

Proof that one is turned against another:

Longshoremen Irish and African American forced to compete against each other for wages in the 1800's. This forced competition remained in effect until the manufacturing reqired to feed the military during Second World War required every able body. It was reinstituted with redlining in the housing market less than a dozen years later.

Deal with the devil, the Pope and George III shook hands and the National Seminary at Maynooth was built, and the most severe of the Penal Acts, the four shillings reward for the head of Roman priests, attached or unattached, was repealed.

Scotts Irish: this is a made up group of people that somehow wanted to show themselves above shanty (Fightin') Irish.

Roe versus Wade, and immediately you have wonderful devoted religious people being turned against wonderful hard suffering womens rights people. These peoples arguements are not diametrically opposed. Exploitation and a lack of understanding has created that preception in all of our minds!

It goes on and on. Stories about ethnic groupsacial groups, homosexuals, womens rights groups, all twisted to justify ancient tribal anger. The common result is to keep the same imoral leadership in power, or in today's corporate enviornment, sell more chicken sandwiches.

Me, I pick college football, you can keep your name calling, small character pevish petty natures, your chicken sandwiches; I PICK COLLEGE FOOTBALL! Téigh Gaeilge!
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
Perspective from one as nuts as boggs... we have all fallen to extraordinary depths...

lol


I'm back to cfb after this last statement...

Screw da damn gavament!! Let a church marry whoever it damn well pleases... regardless.

Now can possibly replace Floyd??
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Perspective from one as nuts as boggs... we have all fallen to extraordinary depths...

lol


I'm back to cfb after this last statement...

Screw da damn gavament!! Let a church marry whoever it damn well pleases... regardless.

Now can possibly replace Floyd??

Fu'kin nuts.


btw, I re-did my response too Cacky as I am trying to remain civil... I was def offened by some of his post and let that bleed into mine... post has been 'cleaned"

BTW: to

(unless through responding to him, you are becoming him.)
__________________
 

tommyIRISH23

Well-known member
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
156
Perspective from one as nuts as boggs... we have all fallen to extraordinary depths...

lol


I'm back to cfb after this last statement...

Screw da damn gavament!! Let a church marry whoever it damn well pleases... regardless.

Now can possibly replace Floyd??

+1

Too much government is a very bad idea. It creates social warfare from every different front. Sadly, we are headed down that road and fast.
 
J

johnnykillz

Guest
I really don't see how incestuous marriage would be any different than gay marriage.

Seriously.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
Does the guhvmint have the right to say a brother can't marry his sister? What if I want to marry my dog (she's actually pretty hot)? Can they say we can't get married? When I was 14, I was engaged to my 34 year old babysitter. We tried to run away and get married...but alas, the guhvmint said we couldn't.

Except dogs can't consent and children can't consent to adults. Two adults can and that's why gay marriage is different from bestiality and pedophilia. That's just a slippery slope fallacy.

Why can't children consent? Because the government has arbitrarily picked a number to say when its citizens are adults? That sounds like anybody under the age of 18 is being discriminated against.

If all of that post above was just a fallacy and you felt the need to point that out on 2 of the examples, then what of the third example? Why can't a brother marry his sister then (it appears Johnnykillz is curious as well)? Or as Sherm pointed out, why can't 3 men marry each other? Or hell, why can't I marry 89 women? Why does the government discriminate against bigamists?
 
Last edited:
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
+1

Too much government is a very bad idea. It creates social warfare from every different front. Sadly, we are headed down that road and fast.

No we're not. We need more government to protect companies who have reaped the benefits from this country for more than a century, and are now pulling off shore to add to their present profit. The list goes on from there, but the 21st century robber barons are a greater threat than terrorists and aliens put together.

And social welfare isn't bad. Abuse of social welfare is. I wish every child in this country a full belly in the morning, a playground mid-day and a safe roof overhead every night.

What corporation or church is going to (can) do that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top