Rarely do I find such offensive rhetoric spewed out here.
You sir, Martin Hyde, do a disservice to all adult H. sapiens.
And, I for one, abhor what you have stated and will contest it in my life until my last breath.
Fie, blackguard, fie!
Would you use a similar argument to promote a return to the owning of slaves? It’s been practiced in almost every culture, you know. Historically, I mean.
ETA: Including yours.
This is pathetic in its immaturity.
And what does it tell us about heterosexuality? What conclusions should we draw from this regarding heterosexuality?
I’m not promoting anything. For example I’ve said I’m fine with same sex marriage, nor do I think people should be stoned in the streets. I’m simply say it appears that human cultures naturally tend to be disgusted by homosexuals, and that’s really the source of anti-gay sentiment, not Christianity. Christianity is just a product of culture 2000+ years ago, the religious aspect can give people some sort of respectability and feeling that they are righteous in their natural disgust, but it’s not the source of that disgust.
I guess it’s too much to hope for a thread remaining generally on the topic of the popular reaction to the CfA controversy, rather than becoming a scene of generalized ranting about homosexuality.
Nothing, because the disgust is about the person being fat, not about their being heterosexual.
Probably, from what I saw before I posted it was just a thread to call people who eat Chick-fil-A bigots over and over again. I guess I can see where wanting to do anything other than that somehow ruins this thread which was “just to talk about popular reactions.” I read over 6 straight pages of people foaming at the mouth about the horrible bigots who eat at Chick-fil-A, and it’s unreasonable for someone to respond to that?
I didn’t say you were, I asked if you would. It’s been practiced throughout history, and from your deference to history I would assume you would support it on those grounds. If you wouldn’t, then you admit history doesn’t matter and your conclusions about homosexuality that you draw from history are rendered inoperative.
You’re drawing inappropriate conclusions.
I can conclude from history that some men will naturally be inclined to rape women. That doesn’t mean I am promoting rape, just that I’m noting a natural inclination that some people have. From what I gather you brought up slavery because you seem to think if I believe it naturally develops in the history of human beings I would promote it, but that’s not the case.
When I noted that people were anti-gay because they are disgusted by gays, I wasn’t somehow saying “and history justifies that disgust” I’m just saying that disgust is there.
What do you think the reaction of your 17-25 year old straight males would be to hardcore gay female porn. What can we conclude about homosexuality from that? What if you show it to some 17-25 year old straight females and they say “yuck”? What can we conclude then?
I’m not making conclusions from anything I’ve said, just pointing out things that I assert are true and you don’t really seem to have any counter point.
I’m not concluding anything about the fact that people are disgusted by gay porn, other than that they are disgusted. I only conclude this disgust must arise naturally because it is a sort of disgust seen the world over and throughout history (of course to gay sex in general, in history we would not have had much in the form of pornography, at least that would compare to modern porn films.)
Not at all, in the context of those people. But both your recent posts, and all those responding to them, have left that subject behind, it seems.
This historical inclination towards rape doesn’t inform our attitudes towards it today, why should historical treatment of homosexuals (or straight women, come to think of it) be held in any higher regard, or as proof of anything? If it tells us something about homosexuality, what? If it doesn’t, why bring it up?
To what end?
I’m fine discussing anything directly related to Chick-fil-A and how stupid the outrage over it is, but I think Peremensoe is correct that when we aren’t even talking about that at all it isn’t related and shouldn’t be discussed here.
A minor point of my initial post in this thread was to say, in response to all the people bashing religion for this, that disgust for homosexuality is not a product of religion but rather that religious stances on homosexuality were part of the cultures that invented those religions. The rest of it is a different discussion, and not an interesting one if you just want to ask a bunch of logically fallacious questions over and over again.
Really? The title of this thread is “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day”. It was posted on 8/1/2012, coincidentally the day of the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day supported by Southern ex-governor Mike Huckabee. The posts from the beginning are all about what was happening at this chain on this specific day. The thread is and has always been about the people who showed up in droves on that particular day, not about people who shop there on a regular basis.
That topic is interesting and rebuttals require thoughtful responses. Please try to provide one.
I might accept your premise if I could get people like Miller and Sampiro to say “someone who eats at Chick-fil-A on another day of the week isn’t necessarily bigoted.” I’d be pleasantly surprised if they’d concede that.
However, you can show support for a company that you feel is being unfairly targeted without being a bigot. You don’t even have to support Dan Cathy’s statements to support the chain and say “I’m still going to be buying food here.”
I find it strange the SDMB thinks so highly of itself intellectually but almost everyone here believes in a black and white world, which is a hallmark way of thinking for dumb people. It’s literally inconceivable to most of you that anyone could have any reason to be in line to get a chicken sandwich other than bigotry.
Some people may have even gone to Chick-fil-A that day because they were hungry. I know at least one news article I read, an old man went in and found out what was going on and thought maybe it meant there was free food…so he’s at least one person who went in with no idea what was up.
Ah, screw it.
Moved MPSIMS -->GD.
I honestly don’t understand what parallel you are trying to draw here.
Well, honestly I don’t know what else to tell you people. You (and a handful of other people apparently) can’t tell the difference between saying “this group statistically sucks a bit more than that other group” and “that whole group pretty much sucks and this other group is pretty much golden even though the differences are measured in 10s of a percent”.
Dayum.