Jim Henson Company breaks ties with Chick-fil-A over gay marriage stance

[Onceler]

Facts is arguing against childless marriages, and adoption. He/she also seems to think that people who are unable to have babies due to infertility or health concerns should not be able to marry.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Gay marriage can exist on its own as well. How about we remove all gov't intrusion into marriage? How about we remove all of the 1,400 benefits given by the federal, state and local gov't to married couples and make it simple a social contract?? Can we do that?



If you would like to discuss polygamy that is fine. But that does not take away from the issue we are discussing here. Next you will say "If we cave in and allow gays to marry, next we will have people marrying their dog or cat!".

I am fine with getting the federal government out of marriage. But, you raise an interesting point. Why did the gobblement come up with tax advantages for marriage? Were they trying to find a way for people to stay married? Why would they do it? Did they do it to discriminate against queers? Nope. They did it to promote the welfare of the child. Now we can argue if the gobblement should even be doing that. But again, it strengthens my argument and leaves you flailing with LBGT talking points.

In every state (including the most liberal) where queer marriage has come for a vote it has failed miserable. Comparing queer marriage to inter racial marriage is an insult to blacks. Interracial marriage did not change the fundamental definition of marriage.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So, do you think childless marriages should be illegal?

This looks at marriage from the adult point of view. It reveals just how deeply same sex marriage inverts the purpose of marriage. Look at marriage from the child's point of view. Not every marriage produces children, but every child has parents.

Again, stop with the LBGT talking points

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Facts is arguing against childless marriages, and adoption. He/she also seems to think that people who are unable to have babies due to infertility or health concerns should not be able to marry.

So now you are posting the same thing but with a different spin?

You are looking at marriage from the adult point of view. It reveals just how deeply same sex marriage inverts the purpose of marriage. Look at marriage from the child's point of view. Not every marriage produces children, but every child has parents.

Again, stop with the LBGT talking points

 

[Onceler]

This looks at marriage from the adult point of view. It reveals just how deeply same sex marriage inverts the purpose of marriage. Look at marriage from the child's point of view. Not every marriage produces children, but every child has parents.

Again, stop with the LBGT talking points

Nice dodge. All of your logic is geared toward 2 people procreating. There are many childless marriages, as well as many where the adults are unable to have children. There are also many people who adopt. You have argued against all of that, and now you're merely faced with how absurd that is.

 

[Howey]

Intolerant liberals crack me up. Although I fully support their right to boycott.
It is ironic though that they get their collective panties all in a twist when the right boycotts companies

Like the outrageous uproar from the right over JCP?

Allowing gays to marry would only hurt society as a whole.

What hurts society is homophobic bigots like you. Welcome to the 21st fucking century, neanderthal!

All the things facing this country and you are tying yourself in knots over 1% of the population?

1%? You're kidding, right? It's more like 8%. Make it 10-15% when you include closeted homosexuals and homophobes who want to suck dick - like you.

It changes the definition of marriage.
1 The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.
2 Man/woman marriage allows children to know and be known by their biological parents. Same sex marriage separates children from at least one parent.
3 Man/woman marriage sets the foundation for children to have the same biological, legal and care-giving parents. Same sex marriage separates these functions among different people.
4 Man/woman marriage provides children with access to their genetic, cultural and social heritage.
5 Even though it is not always possible, children have the best life chances when they are raised by their biological married parents.

What total and utter bullshit! How many heterosexual marriages today include both the original biological parents? Very, very, few. Since you cribbed your response from either Eagle Forum or *cough* something called Christian Doctrine*..,
here's some responses for ya:

*Ahh...It's from the NOM's:

They probably had to use actors for that pic because they couldn't find a happily married breeder couple[/COLOR].

Since that came out in 09, here's some replies I didn't plagarize like you:

THE ESSENTIAL PUBLIC PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Yeah, here we go; A woman who named her “institute” after a woman who married twice and never give birth to children herself is going to lecture everyone on marriage and children.

1. The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.

FALSE. The primary purpose of marriage is not sexual reproduction

2. Man/woman marriage allows children to know and be known by their biological parents. Same sex marriage separates children from at least one parent.

FALSE. Morse is suggesting that children void of heterosexual parents have no place in society and that our social order is comprised only of married people. This is laughably untrue.

3. Man/woman marriage sets the foundation for children to have the same biological, legal, and care parents. Same sex marriage separates these functions among different people.

FALSE.

4. Man/woman marriage provides children with access to their genetic, cultural, and social heritage.

FALSE. I was the product of man/woman marriage; My parents were born and raised in Puerto Rico. I know little or nothing of my Puerto Rican heritage because I was raised in the US.

5. Even though it is not always possible, children have the best life chances when they are raised by their biological married parents.

True, but in a perfect world, of course. This is why we have adoption, and that is to provide children with those life chances when their biological parents fail to live up to their responsibilities.

The remainder of the responses follows...get your gay son to read them to ya, ok?

Here's another one, again not PLAGARIZED:

The essential Public Purpose of Marriage
1. The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.
This is the first of many positive statements that Dr. Morse makes, without providing evidence. It may very be that this is correct, but evidence must be provided to demonstrate this. Even if this is the case (which I do not stipulate it is) why could the purpose of marriage not change as society changes?
2. Man/woman marriage allows children to know and be known by their biological parents. Same sex marriage separates children from at least one parent.
I think Dr. Morse means one biological parent. However this same argument could be used against adoption and I do not find it at all to be valid, even if such separation is necessarily always a negative outcome. Dr. Morse not only insults homosexual parents, but all non-biological parents.
3. Man/woman marriage sets the foundation for children to have the same biological, legal and care-giving parents. Same sex marriage separates these functions among different people.
Again, this is not necessarily the case. Even if it is so, this is not an argument against gay marriage but rather gay parenting. Reading it as such, this could easily be used as an argument against adoption in general. Additionally, even if we assume that Dr. Morse’s positive statement is in fact true (and she has not yet demonstrated this) there is nothing in this statement that indicates it is a bad thing.
4. Man/woman marriage provides children with access to their genetic, cultural and social heritage.
I do not disagree with this statement, but it does not indicate that homosexual marriage will always necessarily make this not the case.
5. Even though it is not always possible, children have the best life chances when they are raised by their biological married parents.
Parts of this statement are generally true. Foster care studies seem to indicate that the outcomes for children who were not taken away from their biological parents fare generally either the same or slightly better than when compared to those who were removed from their families. However this does not compare children who were adopted out. Also, I am not currently aware of any study which indicates that two parents being married has any effect on the outcome of the child opposed to two parents simply cohabitating. But even if this were the case, this would be an argument against homosexual parenting rather than marriage.
Some People say research shows that children of same sex couples do just as well as the children of opposite sex couples

You are simple minded and easily swayed by popular culture.

And you are ignorant and easily swayed by bigotry and a lack of knowledge.

I know, you watched Will and Grace, Modern Family and some other show highlighting homo's and now you think it is "normal". Well, it is not normal. See my previous point.
This bullshit that homo's can't visit in hospitals is a crock. That they can't leave their assets to their homo lover is crap. Now, take your LBGT talking points somewhere else where they will have more effect on the weak minded

You sure do know a lot about those shows, don't ya? Did you jack off to Will, or did you pound it to Cam? And no, most gays do not have the aforesaid rights. We just registered at our county courthouse and paid $50 to be "recognized" as a couple. In December, we'll be doing the real thing when we visit the in-laws in NY. Wanna attend?

The same was said about interracial marriage 50 years ago.

It's bull. It's not changing any definition, and it's allowing 2 consenting adults to do what everyone else can do. Ergo, liberty.

Not sure why you're anti-freedom, but hey...

Truth. ^

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Nice dodge. All of your logic is geared toward 2 people procreating. There are many childless marriages, as well as many where the adults are unable to have children. There are also many people who adopt. You have argued against all of that, and now you're merely faced with how absurd that is.

The fact that you don't understand what I said, doesn't make it a dodge. When you use childless marriages or marriages unable to have children as a basis for your argument, then you are making it about the adults not the children. My entire argument has been 100% centered on the children. Yours has been on the adults.

I have argued against none of that. You have been proven wrong so now you flail around

 

[Onceler]

The fact that you don't understand what I said, doesn't make it a dodge. When you use childless marriages or marriages unable to have children as a basis for your argument, then you are making it about the adults not the children. My entire argument has been 100% centered on the children. Yours has been on the adults.

I have argued against none of that. You have been proven wrong so now you flail around

Only adults get married.

Were you aware of that?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Like the outrageous uproar from the right over JCP?



What hurts society is homophobic bigots like you. Welcome to the 21st fucking century, neanderthal!



1%? You're kidding, right? It's more like 8%. Make it 10-15% when you include closeted homosexuals and homophobes who want to suck dick - like you.



What total and utter bullshit! How many heterosexual marriages today include both the original biological parents? Very, very, few. Since you cribbed your response from either Eagle Forum or *cough* something called Christian Doctrine*..,
here's some responses for ya:

*Ahh...It's from the NOM's:

They probably had to use actors for that pic because they couldn't find a happily married breeder couple[/COLOR].

Since that came out in 09, here's some replies I didn't plagarize like you:



The remainder of the responses follows...get your gay son to read them to ya, ok?

Here's another one, again not PLAGARIZED:




And you are ignorant and easily swayed by bigotry and a lack of knowledge.




You sure do know a lot about those shows, don't ya? Did you jack off to Will, or did you pound it to Cam? And no, most gays do not have the aforesaid rights. We just registered at our county courthouse and paid $50 to be "recognized" as a couple. In December, we'll be doing the real thing when we visit the in-laws in NY. Wanna attend?





Truth. ^

Interesting that your so called tolerant libs can never argue your point without calling others queer. Apparently you think there is something wrong with being queer. Opposing gay marriage does not make on a homophobe anymore than opposing affirmative action makes on a racist.

What has changed about the 21st Century that makes queers want to marry all of a sudden? Why didn't what want to do it 200 years ago? You seem to have a pretty good handle on what the queers want

 

[Jarod]

btw....i do not support chick fil a on their stance. however, i don't believe idiots like kenneth should just assume bigotry.

Bigot is a big word to be throwing around...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

difference of beliefs? it is a struggle to define, but for some or many, it comes down to their faith, beliefs or whatever. that is, alone, is not bigotry.

Could be but if I was a share holder in Chik-fil-a I'd be royally freaken pissed. There's no way this will help business and it's sure to hurt it and since it is a publicly traded company they have a responsibilit to those share holders. If I was in the board of Chick-Fil-A I'd have who ever made this decions ass.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm sure both Chick-fil-A and the muppets will be OK.

In the long run sure. It the short run it was a stupid and short sighted decision by Chick-Fil-A. Consider this, 5 to 10% of the general public is gay/lesbian/Bi/Transgender. That 5 to 10% of the population have about another 25% or more of the population who support them as friends and family members. A large percentage of them are going to be alienated as Chic-fil-a customers by this. It was a stupid, stupid business decision by Chic-fil-a.

Oh, and yea...they lost me as a customer. I go there about 2 or 3 times a month for lunch. Not any more. Chic-Fil-A certainly has a right to their beliefs and I have a right to spend my money somewhere else.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Reminds me of what Michael Jordan said when asked why he wasn't more involved in Democratic politics as a wealthy celebrity. He said "Republicans buy sneakers too.". Smart man.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Could be but if I was a share holder in Chik-fil-a I'd be royally freaken pissed. There's no way this will help business and it's sure to hurt it and since it is a publicly traded company they have a responsibilit to those share holders. If I was in the board of Chick-Fil-A I'd have who ever made this decions ass.

How embarrassing for you that you posted out of complete ignorance. Chick-Fila is a privately owned company. Therefore it does not have a ticker symbol and is not a publicly traded company. This is where your cognitive dissonance kicks in

 

[leaningright]

I think I knew that they were privately owned but wasn't sure enough to state it. Somewhere someone is discussing the other side of this....boycotting the muppets. Don't jump on me yet. Not agreeing, just sayin'.

 

[Phantasmal]

I think I knew that they were privately owned but wasn't sure enough to state it. Somewhere someone is discussing the other side of this....boycotting the muppets. Don't jump on me yet. Not agreeing, just sayin'.

Chick fil a might start serving frogs legs?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I think I knew that they were privately owned but wasn't sure enough to state it. Somewhere someone is discussing the other side of this....boycotting the muppets. Don't jump on me yet. Not agreeing, just sayin'.

Well, that is sort of where we are now as a society right? Everyone wants to force someones opinion out of them in an effort to pigeon hole them and bully them. Who cares what Chick-Fila's stance on queer marriage is? I don't boycott businesses because they support it. But, the left wingers are trying to bully them plain and simple.

But, it goes both ways and I won't pretend otherwise. Will people boycott the muppets? Don't know. I know I don't watch PBS and don't allow my children to either, but that is a personal choice not a boycott per se. Bottom line in a free society, people can do what they choose to do.

Where I think it is deplorable is a government official threatening a private business because of a personal belief. I posted a thread about it the other day. Where a councilman or mayor said he would hold up zoning on anything Chick-Fila would want to do based on its stance. Now that probably sounds swell to the pro queer crowd. But, what if the roles were reversed? What if a mayor or councilperson said they would hold up zoning of a business because they supported queer marriage? To me that would be equally wrong. But, to the hard core leftists, they support one while they would oppose the other. Party over principle always with the hard core leftists

 

[Phantasmal]

Well, that is sort of where we are now as a society right? Everyone wants to force someones opinion out of them in an effort to pigeon hole them and bully them. Who cares what Chick-Fila's stance on queer marriage is? I don't boycott businesses because they support it. But, the left wingers are trying to bully them plain and simple.

But, it goes both ways and I won't pretend otherwise. Will people boycott the muppets? Don't know. I know I don't watch PBS and don't allow my children to either, but that is a personal choice not a boycott per se. Bottom line in a free society, people can do what they choose to do.

Where I think it is deplorable is a government official threatening a private business because of a personal belief. I posted a thread about it the other day. Where a councilman or mayor said he would hold up zoning on anything Chick-Fila would want to do based on its stance. Now that probably sounds swell to the pro queer crowd. But, what if the roles were reversed? What if a mayor or councilperson said they would hold up zoning of a business because they supported queer marriage? To me that would be equally wrong. But, to the hard core leftists, they support one while they would oppose the other. Party over principle always with the hard core leftists

How unfortunate for your children that they are not allowed to watch PBS, they miss a lot of first rate children's programs, Sid the Science Kid, Word World, Super Why and Dinosaur Train. Programs on other channels are inferior to some of those presented on PBS. Their loss.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

How unfortunate for your children that they are not allowed to watch PBS, they miss a lot of first rate children's programs, Sid the Science Kid, Word World, Super Why and Dinosaur Train. Programs on other channels are inferior to some of those presented on PBS. Their loss.

Nothing unfortunate at all. Unlike some, we don't rely on the television to educate our children. They are educated with real science, not bullshit about global warming. Our children don't watch much television at all. And what they do watch is carefully controlled by us.

 

[Howey]

Interesting that your so called tolerant libs can never argue your point without calling others queer. Apparently you think there is something wrong with being queer. Opposing gay marriage does not make on a homophobe anymore than opposing affirmative action makes on a racist.

I'm not calling you a queer. I'm calling you a homophobe. And it's been scientifically proven that homophobes have latent homosexual desires. So suck it!

You're right. Opposing gay marriage does not make one a homophobe. Opposing it using uneducated, intolerant, bigoted, and hate-filled diatribes like you do makes it homophobic.

What has changed about the 21st Century that makes queers want to marry all of a sudden? Why didn't what want to do it 200 years ago? You seem to have a pretty good handle on what the queers want

Things change...societies change. Thought processes change. All through education and knowledge. 200 years ago we were riding around in covered wagons and only a small percentage of Americans could read and write. Life expectancy was half what it is today and people were dying by the thousands of malaria, tuberculosis, and other diseases.

Do you want to return our society to those days? No. At least I hope not.

Yet your archaic thought processes exist on the level of man two hundred years ago...

Well, that is sort of where we are now as a society right? Everyone wants to force someones opinion out of them in an effort to pigeon hole them and bully them. Who cares what Chick-Fila's stance on queer marriage is? I don't boycott businesses because they support it. But, the left wingers are trying to bully them plain and simple.

But, it goes both ways and I won't pretend otherwise. Will people boycott the muppets? Don't know. I know I don't watch PBS and don't allow my children to either, but that is a personal choice not a boycott per se. Bottom line in a free society, people can do what they choose to do.

Where I think it is deplorable is a government official threatening a private business because of a personal belief.

Happens all the time. People are denied health care because their physician doesn't share their personal belief. People are denied housing and jobs because they're gay. Most of all, people are denied the same rights of heterosexuals by some governments because of their personal belief.

What makes that right, breeder?