Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Wolvee wrote:I have to say, I'm a Christian, I'm a Conservative and I have common sense. I don't care who marries who or who does what. Do I think letting gays marry will be a good thing? I don't care. I teach my child what's right with Gods help. I haven't seen any good results from using fallible human sinners as representatives of religion positively affect politics.

It's our jobs as Christians to witness to world, not control them.

Sure things start out fine, God says this, so lets agree. then it turns into, if you don't do this, you're against God. Then it turns into my God is better than your God.. ...and then it's the middle east.


And for the record, Being a homophob is no reason to not allow other to make their own choices and mistakes.

God doesn't justify the hate in a mans heart, just the equal love for everyone.

I must be a little thick but I just don't get it. This man dosen't discriminate against anyone for their beliefs. He has gays working at his stores, he serves gays, unless their saying he dosen't have a right to his own personal beliefs, to his own conscience I don't see the issue. And even then their posistion would be so hypocritical that no one who is even halfway sensible wouldn't see that they are doing what their accusing him of. Are they saying they (the gays) have a right to think and believe like they do but he has no right to think like he does. Is it not enough for them to protest the actions of those who are discriminatory, they have that right,now they want to protest a persons belief system by getting into his mind and controlling that too. All I see is a group of people saying,if you don't believe like we do, we will destroy you. I see the word hate used here and there,Unless i'm wrong,he didn't say he hated anybody. If fact if he is a Christian, I know he dosen't hate anybody. I can't say the same for the gays,I see their hate. I support chic-fil-A,always have liked their food,I know the mans standing up for whats right,hell,he not even doing that, he just said how he feels about the whole marriage thing. Hes not taking a posistion against anyone. Seems to me these gay folks are the ones who can't live and let live. lets eat.

Got my chicken!

I don't have a problem with gays choosing to boycott chickfila....fine whatever, it is your buck, pend it how you want. The business of chick fil a is to sell chicken, not marry people, and they sell chicken without discrimination or prejudice. If gay people don't want to eat there because the CEO is a Christian and holds Christian values, that is their business. What I find unacceptable is that officials in certain cities have made it clear that because of a CEO's beliefs the restaurants chain is not welcome. I was under the impression that the state could not show prejudice for or against a person because of their religious beliefs. That is why we ate at chick fil a for breakfast lunch and dinner.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

9pm and the local CFA parking lot was still packed. They'll get my business another day.

We had Chik Fil-a today, and the place was PACKED. We waited in a line of about 15 cars to get through the drive-thru. They were lined up to the doors on the inside as well. I'm personally glad to see such a turn-out for a company that sticks to its guns on principles and morals. There's not much of that left in our country these days.

Our Chickfila lost power around 9PM.

I friend of mine is management there and posted this to facebook.

Truly humbled by the passionate support of our fans today at Chick-fil-A. We planned for the business side of this...we didn't plan for the humanity side. I had to take myself to the kitchen (not only to help back there) but to keep from nearly breaking-down at the waves of people that didn't mind being in line for an hour to purchase a milkshake, the cars lined up around to the Hull Street intersection (easily 50+ cars on average), the customers wanting to help behind the counter, the team members constant servant attitude, the customers vocalizing their support. (I know I'm tearing this up grammatically)

Even when the power went out--fans that were unable to receive service graciously left and said they'd return.

It was record-breaking sales day for Chick-fil-A (I'm a rhyming fool)

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/01/r ... les-today/

It is not a legitimate function of government to "provide survivor's benefits". Take away the socialist property-redistribution activities and government's role in defining marriage becomes completely irrelevant.

Which is as it should be.

FiremanBob wrote:It is not a legitimate function of government to "provide survivor's benefits". Take away the socialist property-redistribution activities and government's role in defining marriage becomes completely irrelevant.

Which is as it should be.

A+ in providing a laser focus on one part of a bigger picture. Sure, I agree that part of government benefits packages shouldn't include survivor benefits, but that's a different conversation and right now they do provide those benefits, so it should be equal across the board.

More people are affected by benefits provided by private industry (who take their cues from the government). "Oh, the government says you're not married. Too bad, no coverage for your partner."

Don't want to talk about benefits? What about custody of children if one parent dies? Once again, what the government considers "married" weighs heavily on the adoption process. Sorry kid, you're gonna be shipped off to your Aunt June who lives 7 states away and has never seen you because your other parent isn't classified as a legal guardian.

What about gay couples filing jointly on tax returns? My wife and I get benefits because the government considers us "married" but the gay couple down the street who have been with each other longer than we have don't get the same benefits? Of course you can say "the tax code is all messed up and people shouldn't be getting those deductions anyway" but right now it is what it is and it should be equal.

So right now the government's role in defining "marriage" is completely relevant and very unequal.

It's obvious the government can devide the redistribution booty any way they choose. "domestic partners" could be defined the same as "marrage" that's a straw man from the get go. All other issues in the mess are legal and could be defined in a legal contract.

When a same sex partnership can have offsping naturally it will be "equil". Till then they're fighting God, biology, and the sociology of a man and a woman, married, being the statistically best chance of nurturing and raising children to be emotionally whole people and productive law abiding citizens.

equality of outcomes is impossible. Have sex with whoever and whatever you want.

Since the topic has drifted, my 2¢.

If allowing same-sex couples getting married is so patently offensive to those that say marriage must be sacrosanct, no matter what, then let's redefine it under federal guidelines. Make it so all unions no matter gender are civil unions, and let the churches, temples, and mosques define the non-secular as marriage. Easy peasy.

Mindflayer wrote:Since the topic has drifted, my 2¢.

If allowing same-sex couples getting married is so patently offensive to those that say marriage must be sacrosanct, no matter what, then let's redefine it under federal guidelines. Make it so all unions no matter gender are civil unions, and let the churches, temples, and mosques define the non-secular as marriage. Easy peasy.

Unfortunately I have found that type of libertarian mentality won't fly around here.

Mindflayer wrote:Since the topic has drifted, my 2¢.

If allowing same-sex couples getting married is so patently offensive to those that say marriage must be sacrosanct, no matter what, then let's redefine it under federal guidelines. Make it so all unions no matter gender are civil unions, and let the churches, temples, and mosques define the non-secular as marriage. Easy peasy.

Well said. Don't care how someone's religion defines their union. If the state recognizes it at all, make it generic and equitable. Let each person live with their own beliefs.

Once again... marrage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God.

Calling it fornication between same sex partners won't change that.....

Liberal angst driven hate spewing progressives attacking conservatives won't change that...

Christians not being perfect won't change that...

Liberal politicians seeking to punish a CEO and running him out of business for actually saying the truth won't change that..

PDA's by same sex individuals in front of decent families won't change that...

now time to chick-fil-A ratherfish I guess!

ShotgunBlast wrote: Unfortunately I have found that type of libertarian mentality won't fly around here.

I know, I am in the minority here. Doesn't mean I won't stop expressing my libertarian views. You can't claim to be all about the Constitution, then pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights you support.

Mindflayer wrote:

ShotgunBlast wrote: Unfortunately I have found that type of libertarian mentality won't fly around here.

I know, I am in the minority here. Doesn't mean I won't stop expressing my libertarian views. You can't claim to be all about the Constitution, then pick and choose which of the Bill of Rights you support.

You're not alone brother. I find that the difference between being a Republicant and a Libertarian is that as a Republicant you CAN pick and choose which parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights you support. Normally this is in the name of some religion that others may or may not believe in so it must be ok then! "I need to solidify my rights and freedoms at the expense of yours" tends to be the order of the day.

I must be somewhere in the middle because all of my conservative friends think I'm liberal and all of my liberal friends think I'm conservative.

Be damned with your morals and burn the churches, this isn't about them! It is about a legal contract and is only buisness. We make money, we spend money, we pay our taxes, and whether you would think it or not we ARE couples and deserve the same tax breaks and legal standing.

This is not about god or marriage, it's about buisness and capitalism. Besides we have just as much right to be as miserable as all you straight folk.

Also for the record I'm not upset with chick-fil-a for sticking to it's guns (I'm actually proud of them for it), I'm upset that they have the absolute audacity to serve such a nasty sandwich.

Ok so if tonight we make it so that marriage can exist between any two people no matter the gender. Tomorrow you and I will wake up and someone will say "how dare you say marriage can only between two people, my and my two girls want to marry and be a polygamous marriage.". Are y'all ok with that? How about when a different person says "I have great affection for this life size doll and I want to be legally joined to this doll--how dare you tell me who I can and can't marry. How about a person who really loves her dog, should we discriminate against them. Don't laugh and say I am totally out of my mind, this conversation would not have even been thinkable twenty years ago. People love all sorts of strange things, people find companionship in all sorts of strange things. If we make marriage only about those two things we will see all sorts of strange things.

When we make marriage mean anything anyone wants it to, it begins to mean nothing. If y'all are ok with that--fine, but I am not.

Marriage always has been in every civilization throughout time between one man and one woman. Has there been other relationships, certainly, but marriage was always the standard common family unit.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

mamabearCali wrote:Ok so if tonight we make it so that marriage can exist between any two people no matter the gender. Tomorrow you and I will wake up and someone will say "how dare you say marriage can only between two people, my and my two girls want to marry and be a polygamous marriage.". Are y'all ok with that? How about when a different person says "I have great affection for this life size doll and I want to be legally joined to this doll--how dare you tell me who I can and can't marry. How about a person who really loves her dog, should we discriminate against them. Don't laugh and say I am totally out of my mind, this conversation would not have even been thinkable twenty years ago. People love all sorts of strange things, people find companionship in all sorts of strange things. If we make marriage only about those two things we will see all sorts of strange things.

When we make marriage mean anything anyone wants it to, it begins to mean nothing. If y'all are ok with that--fine, but I am not.

Marriage always has been in every civilization throughout time between one man and one woman. Has there been other relationships, certainly, but marriage was always the standard common family unit.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I was fixxin to make a similar argument, but never mind.

Strawman arguments have been made for decades. "oh, we can't have niggers [sic] marrying white women! Next thing you know, people will want to marry their dog!" a union between two adults - just two - is the discussion. Anything else is strawman hyperbole dramatics.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Hypothetical

Make South Dakota the "gay" state, they move there--get married, work, live there lives as they choose.

How many years until we get the state back because there is no one left, because they can't procreate?