Did you kiss more chicks or had chick fil a?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rootX
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers around the cultural implications of Chick-fil-A's support for "traditional marriage" and the counter-movement dubbed "Kiss Mor Chiks" advocating for gay marriage. Participants express strong opinions on the intersection of fast food culture, health, and social issues, particularly focusing on the perceived trivialization of gay marriage amidst larger societal problems. The conversation highlights the tension between traditional values and modern social justice movements, with many contributors advocating for greater tolerance and equality under the law.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the cultural significance of Chick-fil-A in American society.
  • Familiarity with the historical context of marriage and its evolution in the U.S.
  • Knowledge of social movements related to LGBTQ+ rights and marriage equality.
  • Awareness of public health discussions surrounding fast food consumption and obesity rates.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of fast food chains on public health and obesity trends in the U.S.
  • Explore the history of marriage laws and their implications for LGBTQ+ rights in America.
  • Investigate the role of social media in modern activism, particularly regarding LGBTQ+ issues.
  • Examine case studies of businesses that have taken public stances on social issues and their outcomes.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for social activists, cultural commentators, and anyone interested in the intersection of food culture, health, and LGBTQ+ rights in contemporary society.

kiss more chicks or chick fil a

  • Total voters
    20
rootX
Messages
478
Reaction score
4
I would go for kiss more chicks :biggrin:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19087889
Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee urged supporters of "traditional values" to eat at Chick-fil-A.
Meanwhile, gay marriage supporters have called for what they are dubbing "Kiss Mor Chiks" on Friday

Reading this made my day :biggrin:

Is eating at a fast food restaurant something traditional in US? I immediately thought of the obesity rate in the US.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oh cmon rootX, the right to be obese and ruin your body at will is the most sacred of American rights and Chick - fil - A is a great proponent of that. Stuffing your face with chicken in support of the prevention of a group of people from being granted their rights is what this country is all about, the "traditional values" if you may.
 
I would prefer to kiss more chicks, but if I do my wife will filet my butt.
 
I'd kiss chickens.
 
I'll just eat KFC.
 
I don't eat fast food, in support of my health. But now I can not eat fast food in support of gay marriage :biggrin:.
 
lisab said:
I don't eat fast food, in support of my health.

I don't eat fast food because I'm getting too old to catch it.

Can I just kiss a Dixie Chick?
 
The gay marriage supporters lack imagination.
Kiss Mor But Chiks
 
Gay marriage is such a non issue. More so than homelessness, hunger, poverty, rape, genocide, animal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, spousal abuse, abuse or violence of any kind, a corrupt financial system, gangs, climate change, overpopulation is two guys getting married? THAT is the most important issue? The best use of your time is to go out and eat chicken? Or kiss someone in front of a fast food restaurant? THAT is the most important thing to you? If some son of a supernatural creature were to come back, he were to spend all his time protesting against gays? Instead of dealing with real problems?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
rootX said:
Is eating at a fast food restaurant something traditional in US? I immediately thought of the obesity rate in the US.

That would be a Yes and a Yes.
 
  • #11
chick..fil..a? I thought it was a typo, that you smashed your keyboard while hitting reply.
 
  • #12
Monique said:
chick..fil..a? I thought it was a typo, that you smashed your keyboard while hitting reply.
Exactly! I thought so too when I read it first time. I guess you say it chick-filae .. never heard of this before.
 
  • #13
lisab said:
I don't eat fast food, in support of my health.
Ever since I turned 24, my health also wouldn't allow me to visit a fast food. Today morning, I tried to eat chittos but nearly puked. They have turned so disgusting I used to love them so much just a year ago :(
 
  • #14
I love fast food, but I only have it 2-3 times a year. There is nothing wrong with fast food, a lot of it is healthier than the store bought junk many people serve at home.

Processed foods people buy at the grocery store are LOADED with sugar. Empty calories.
 
  • #15
I had never heard of a Chick-fil-A until this controversy. But I am for kissing more chicks.
 
  • #16
johnqwertyful said:
Gay marriage is such a non issue. More so than homelessness, hunger, poverty, rape, genocide, animal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, spousal abuse, abuse or violence of any kind, a corrupt financial system, gangs, climate change, overpopulation is two guys getting married? THAT is the most important issue? The best use of your time is to go out and eat chicken? Or kiss someone in front of a fast food restaurant? THAT is the most important thing to you? If some son of a supernatural creature were to come back, he were to spend all his time protesting against gays? Instead of dealing with real problems?

It's not as if all of these people were about to give a starving child in Africa a big spoonful of chicken-soup, and then threw it on the ground so that they could grab a picket-sign showing their support or distaste towards gay marriage. These are people who have reasons to be passionate about one side or the other, and are willing to take a stand for their rights (or their right to smother other people's rights).

Media attention does not infer that gay marriage is the only problem in the world being worked on. Your anger seems to be irrational; it is highly implausible to shove aside every issue in the world until we have fixed the bigger ones.
 
  • #17
rootX said:
Exactly! I thought so too when I read it first time. I guess you say it chick-filae .. never heard of this before.
Yeah, chicken fillet. Their business should be booming with all this attention.
 
  • #18
johnqwertyful said:
Gay marriage is such a non issue. More so than homelessness, hunger, poverty, rape, genocide, animal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, spousal abuse, abuse or violence of any kind, a corrupt financial system, gangs, climate change, overpopulation is two guys getting married? THAT is the most important issue? The best use of your time is to go out and eat chicken? Or kiss someone in front of a fast food restaurant? THAT is the most important thing to you? If some son of a supernatural creature were to come back, he were to spend all his time protesting against gays? Instead of dealing with real problems?

The black slaves could not legally marry even each other and as recently as WWII it was illegal to marry anyone outside your race. For you it may not seem like an important issue, but among other things gays are being denied the right to visit their loved ones in hospitals because they are not legally immediate family. Tolerance, compassion, and equality under the law are fundamental to democracy and to deny their importance for such a significant minority is to invite mob rule and rebellion.
 
  • #19
rootX said:
I would go for kiss more chicks :biggrin:

I think more than just the name of the fast food restaraunt was lost in translation.

The idea is for women to kiss more chicks. The men have to kiss other men.

I've never eaten at a Chick-fil-A. I probably won't change any of my habits over this.
 
  • #20
I have a few problems with people saying they believe in traditional marriage.
Well, there is a tradition of homosexual marriage too, they just choose to disregard that tradition and only accept the tradition of heterosexual marriage. They'll say "marriage has always been between one man and one woman", but marriage was basically stolen by Christians at the Council of Trent and redefined how they saw fit.

That would be like me saying I believe in traditional voting (only white men can vote). Obviously non-whites were voting elsewhere in the world, and for me to say that I believe in white only voting, that means I would be choosing a specific tradition and disregarding the rest. Not only that, but the people who believe in "traditional marriage" wouldn't hesitate to criticize my belief in "traditional voting", and they would be perfectly justified in doing so.

Another reason I have a problem with people who believe in "traditional marriage" is the arrogance. Some of them claim that it will devalue the marriage institution. They don't want gay marriage to devalue their marriage.
They'll also ignore the fact that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce, but make it seem like gays will be the downfall of the entire institution.
I know they have Christian beliefs and they the Bible is obviously against homosexuality, but they seem to rather want gays having sex out of wedlock, which is something else that Christians denounce.

And to say that we should disallow gay marriage simply because the Bible says so is a direct violation of the first amendment. These people don't seem to care if the Constitution is violated in their favor.

Some will be adamant about not redefining a word, as if they'll jump to the aid of any word that is at risk of being redefined. I'll go out on a limb and assume they wouldn't.

Over 50% of the American population supports same sex marriage, according to the polls, so it's kind of disappointing to see videos of people standing in line for hours to support Chick-fil-a for supporting "traditional marriage." And I haven't heard a single good reason from anyone to disallow gay marriage, yet so many people are against it.
 
  • #21
leroyjenkens said:
Another reason I have a problem with people who believe in "traditional marriage" is the arrogance. Some of them claim that it will devalue the marriage institution. They don't want gay marriage to devalue their marriage.
They'll also ignore the fact that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce, but make it seem like gays will be the downfall of the entire institution.

Where's the "like" button? :smile:

Unless a person's marriage ended specifically because their spouse finally "came out of the closet" and decided they were tired of pretending to be heterosexual, I can't really see how gay marriage has any impact on their marriage at all. Not to mention that if there wasn't so much pressure to conform to the "norm", then maybe the marriage wouldn't have started under false pretenses in the first place.
 
  • #22
I've never heard of that restaurant chain, and I sincerely hope that they're never allowed into my country. Cudos to the New Hampshire franchise owner, but I'm guessing that there will be corporate repercussions from his bravery.
I like to look upon the bright side of this particular situation. The anti-gays morons will stuff themselves with cholesterol-laden chicken and die of heart attacks. Evolution in action.

edit: I couldn't help noting that the sole dissenting voter hasn't posted an excuse for his/her prejudice.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Thomas Menino (Mayor of Boston) said:
If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult.

Proco Joe Moreno (Chicago Alderman) said:
Because of this man’s (Cathy’s) ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.

I don't see how same-sex marriage will hurt me. I don't see how Chick Fil A's stance on the matter will hurt me. But I do see how this will hurt me. And these threats were in response to this simple statement?

the President said:
I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian ... it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.
 
  • #24
leroyjenkens said:
Some will be adamant about not redefining a word, as if they'll jump to the aid of any word that is at risk of being redefined. I'll go out on a limb and assume they wouldn't.
You miss the point about this objection. A significant part of trying to legitimize the phrase "gay marriage" is so that the social connotations associated with "marriage" will carry over to "gay marriage".

Also, as I recall, when homosexuality became a major issue in the U.S., people would routinely counter negative opinions about gay unions with wordplay, glibly accusing the opiner of being "against marriage."

I quite expect the entire reason for line having been drawn at the issue of redefining the word "marriage" is in response to this sort of sophistry along with the back-door attempt at gaining social acceptance.
Another large part, of course, is for legal purposes. Extending the legal definition of marriage makes sense. Or, even better, to revisit the reasons behind laws regarding marriages and extend them to more general unions as appropriate.

But I really think this is a red herring. While important, the legal aspect is not what the controversy is about.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
No one seems to acknowledge that someone demanding "traditional marriage" is defending slavery. After all, marriage originally was a man relinquishing ownership of his daughter to another man in exchange for money, property or power. (Traditional church marriages still have the father "give away" the bride.)
 
  • #26
Jimmy Snyder said:
I don't see how Chick Fil A's stance on the matter will hurt me.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Promoting institutionalized bigotry and unequal rights under the law hurts everyone in a democratic society and, for example, was instrumental in leading up to the American civil war. There have been accusations that Chick fil a discriminates against hiring gays among other things. I know if I lived somewhere with a large gay population I wouldn't want them moving into my neighborhood and stirring up trouble anymore than I would want a KKK owned business in a black neighborhood.
 
  • #27
wuliheron said:
There have been accusations that Chick fil a discriminates against hiring gays among other things.
I googled for it and couldn't find it. Here's what I did find.

History of discrimination.

What have you got to back up your claim?

You do realize that when govt officials threaten to deny permits to businesses they disagree with, they repeat history.
 
  • #28
Jimmy Snyder said:
I googled for it and couldn't find it. Here's what I did find.

History of discrimination.

What have you got to back up your claim?

You do realize that when govt officials threaten to deny permits to businesses they disagree with, they repeat history.

The Huffington Post is one of the largest and most popular journalism websites in the US. You may need to work on how to use Google effectively.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ontroversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html

As for individuals in the government getting involved in this mess, you can't have it both ways. Either the law is applied equally or it invites mob rule and rebellion. To expect anything different is absurd. If the law shows no respect for itself it looses any credibility it might have and its down to anything goes so long as you can get away with it.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
wuliheron said:
The Huffington Post is one of the largest and most popular journalism websites in the US. You may need to work on how to use Google effectively.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ontroversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html
I couldn't find anything in that article to support your statement that "There have been accusations that Chick fil a discriminates against hiring gays". The word accusation does not appear in the article and discrimination only appears once:

Huffington Post said:
Several of the gay and lesbian employees interviewed by The Huffington Post said that they liked their work, and had never witnessed incidents of homophobia or discrimination on the job.

What did you find in the article that supports your statement?
 
  • #30
Danger said:
edit: I couldn't help noting that the sole dissenting voter hasn't posted an excuse for his/her prejudice.

I believe that government officials using their authority to enforce their political views on private citizens is a greater evil than that private citizen giving money to religious organizations that advocate for his own religion.

As a matter of fact, i think Cathy deserves to be merely disliked for his actions, while those elected officials who have abused their authority deserve to be imprisoned for theirs.

Did I make myself clear enough?