Shotgun

Currently listening to my "Guess Who" station on Pandora, and they just played this old gem from Randy Vanwarmer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0i442TVA52E (apologies for the cheezy video, but so many of these old songs don't have "official" videos)

For some it won't make much of a difference...for some it could be the difference between being a gem or a crack addict....c'est la vie, eh? Perhaps.... But if someone is blaming his crack addiction on the fact that he doesn't know who his biological parents are.... I can't win for losing with you people...can I? Well, I think we were sort of agreeing.... that kids with bad parents can still turn out good, and kids with good parents can still turn out bad? (Not that a drug addict is necessarily "bad," but that's a whole 'nother topic.)

Out of curiosity, have you ever read Freakonomics? No. Does it say something about this topic?

For some it won't make much of a difference...for some it could be the difference between being a gem or a crack addict....c'est la vie, eh? Perhaps.... But if someone is blaming his crack addiction on the fact that he doesn't know who his biological parents are....

As you've already pointed out, this is true for many children of heterosexual couples as well. The important thing for the kids is that they have parents (or at least a parent) who loves them and takes good care of them. Whether the parents are biological or adoptive shouldn't make much difference. And yeah, you must have had me confused; I was not adopted. But my heterosexual parents did divorce when I was three years old, which had a somewhat negative impact on my life as a child. One of my best friends was adopted (by a heterosexual couple), and she says she had a great childhood. She was curious about her biological parents, and made contact with them as an adult, so now she just sees them as an extension of her family. And of course I've known people whose biological, heterosexual parents never divorced, but were totally crappy parents. I just don't think the "biological" part of parenting makes much difference one way or another.

You can "vote" by not buying their product. Or you could even publish your own dictionary to compete against them. I think that most companies that publish dictionaries have to add/change definitions as the definitions change in society. For example, last year Webster updated the definition of "cougar," but no one seems too upset about that. They're actually behind the times in updating their definition of marriage, as same-sex marriage has existed for a long time. I have a cultural anthropology book that, in my opinion, has a more accurate (and less ethnocentric) definition of "marriage": "A culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."

...and just to add. We have to remember that christians are very much a part of this this democracy as citizens of the united states. They have every right to express their opinion and vote against anything that would violate their conscience...So it's probably in the best interest of the gay community to not ask us to do so. Has there been a case where the gay community has asked for their rights to be up to a vote? The only opportunity I've had to vote for their rights was CA's Proposition 8, started and funded mostly by Christians to keep gay couples from having legal marriages.

If you're not trying to make "homosexual behavior" illegal, does that mean that you're condoning it? I don't have to try, the moral law already makes it so... If Caesar wants to have gay sex, then that's on Ceasar. OK. So if Chick-fil-A stops donating to groups who fight against gay rights, that doesn't mean that Chick-fil-A condones homosexuality? To me, it would make them seem like better Christians - not passing judgment and all that. I think Jesus wanted Christians to spread the word, but not to force other people to behave any certain way.

Oh, man..... Now there are two sexy veep candidates running against each other.... What's a girl to do? Guess I will have to consider other issues.

If you're not trying to make "homosexual behavior" illegal, does that mean that you're condoning it?

Very sad to hear this. I haven't seen Bob in years, but we had recently gotten in touch again through facebook. He was one of my first skydiving friends, back when I started jumping at Skydive San Marcos in 1991. A lot of my early jumps were with him. Always a sweetheart, and a lot of fun to be around. RIP, Bob. You will be missed.

Bread Three Dog Night The Association Blood Sweat & Tears The Guess Who I'm not sure if these fall into the category of "not so popular," but they're the first ones who pop into my head who weren't quite The Who, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, or The Doors.

Hmm.... And I thought the ones who are for the death penalty were supposed to be the vengeful ones? (According to previous death penalty threads.)

I agree, and I was surprised to see that from him too. I think some of the replies were confusing as to who said what, so he probably got mixed up somewhere if he was reading too fast. I vote we just give him a spanking and carry on.

OK, I apologize for posting a link to the dictionary. And I do have to admit, the marriage of fried chicken and pickle on a Chick-fil-A sandwich was one of my favorite things as a teenager hanging out in the mall.

Whoa, dude. I don't know what you were reading, but it's not the same thread I've been following. I think you might want to carefully read the exchange again.

Or between form and function. Or between sweet and spicy. Or between science and art. Or between Heaven and Hell. (William Blake) Or between two people of the same sex. (Merriam-Webster) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Well, that's you. But anyone who purposely stood in unusually long lines at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday - I'm guessing they wanted more than just lunch or they would have gone somewhere less crowded.

Well, that depends on how you're supporting it. If you're supporting "traditional" marriage by trying to keep homosexual couples from being able to marry, then that is bigoted at best. If you're supporting it by trying to make your own "traditional" marriage work and/or helping others to keep theirs working, then I see absolutely no problem with that. There is no reason why "supporting traditional marriage" should equal "opposing same-sex marriage," yet that's truly what a lot of people mean when they use that phrase.

I don't see an issue with them having to pay taxes, except the amounts quoted in that story seem like an unreasonably high percent of their earnings???

Hopefully not.... I understand the guy's frustration, but I think he was directing it at the wrong person. I think Chick-fil-A - like most Christian organizations - is truly trying to do good. This controversy has encouraged me to look more at the company, and they do seem to have some good programs (through WinShape) aimed at trying to keep marriages and families together and healthy. Unfortunately, to me (and obviously many other people) their donations to and support for groups who actively try to keep homosexual couples from even having the opportunity to have marriages and families as heterosexuals do - this overshadows the otherwise good work they are trying to do. But I'm starting to think this is borne more from ignorance than from hate. It seems to me the people whose opinions on gay rights have "evolved," that this has come about through learning and actual experience around homosexual couples and families. I know many are trying to hold on to the old "well the Bible says so," but that's such a cop-out. The Bible says plenty of things that Christians choose to ignore when their own sense of morals (or perhaps what their pastor tells them) contradicts or overrides. OK, I'm still finding it bizarre that we are having this conversation around a fast-food chicken chain.....

I don't have any problem with gay people (or anyone else) kissing each other, but I don't think a massive "kiss-in" is a good tactic in this case. Just my opinion . . . But then this whole Chick-fil-A thing has turned pretty silly. So far, I think the only thing that will come out of it is that the company will cash in for a little while.

I just think the "kissing" thing is a little bit tacky and immature. It's rubbing homosexuality in their faces, which is only going to make homophobic people even more homophobic. I don't see how it will accomplish anything. But I don't see anything wrong with simply protesting at the company site. Attempt to educate people on what the real problem is that the LGBT community has with Chick-fil-A (the donations and the degrading comments, not the simple comments of supporting "traditional" marriage).

Oh, I'm sure most of the Chick-fil-A's in San Diego were pretty full yesterday. Maybe Bill was on a trip to San Francisco or something.

I don't know. "Gentleman's clubs" are not allowed in my town, and I assume that has to do with government officials (and voters) not liking what they believe/represent. Not saying I agree with Emanuel or Moreno, just pointing out that "beliefs" already play a part in determining which businesses end up in certain areas. Anyhow, from the stories I read yesterday, not a single person mentioned what you just said. The folks standing in line for chicken were there to "protect free speech" (as if this guy was being prosecuted for saying anything) or to show support for "traditional marriage" (oppose marriage equality).