My feelings on the whole Chick-Fil-A controversy : funny

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

My feelings on the whole Chick-Fil-A controversy (imgur.com)

submitted 8 days ago by Dubya09

all 22 comments

[–]BrandonDowell123 5 points6 points7 points 7 days ago

permalink

[–]Nightfalls 2 points3 points4 points 7 days ago

[–]jdizzle367 0 points1 point2 points 7 days ago*

[–]Nightfalls 3 points4 points5 points 7 days ago

[–]jdizzle367 0 points1 point2 points 7 days ago

for the sake of time i didnt put in all of my extra points that being one of them. marriage for several 1000s of years was a matter of church, religion, cultural tradition etc. only in the last few century has the government become involved and in the past 100 years has marriage ceased to be a religious institution but a legal one and though i am not very religious mostly just principled i feel that the sanctity of marrige is incredibly important and the degradation of that sanctity (ie getting married and divorced with in a year) coincides with government taking over the role of church, religion, cultural tradition etc. if marriage was put back into the hands of those some churches of course would not allow gays to be married but despite the hype about christians being bigoted, many churches would be more than happy to marry gays

[–]Nightfalls 1 point2 points3 points 7 days ago

It should be noted that it's rather shortsighted to talk about marriage and only include Christianity in the debate of church and marriage. It's part of the reason I really dislike the government being involved with marriage anyway.

Though I don't see marriage as sanctified in the first place (it was a glorified slave trade originally), I have to agree that the glorified ideal of marriage we had in the 18th and 19th centuries have been destroyed, mostly by straight people. From a male point of view, I don't see marriage as a wonderful thing anyway. When it ends, it very rarely ends well for the man. Of course, the chances of divorce are at 50% when all age groups are considered together. That basically means a man has a 50/50 chance of losing half his assets whenever he decides to get married for the first time. Not good odds to me.

Anyway, I'm getting way off topic here, I suppose. I just think the church and state need to be separated. No more legally-recognized marriages in the U.S., and all civil unions are free of any restrictions aside from the two people being required to be legally capable of entering into a binding contract (basically, 18+ in most states). Honestly, that way it lives up to the first amendment. That's what I really care about. State-sanctioned marriage is a violation of the first amendment to begin with.

[–]jdizzle367 0 points1 point2 points 7 days ago

[–]Nightfalls 0 points1 point2 points 7 days ago

Thank you for the compliment. I do feel quite strongly about this topic, in that I think the answer is far more simple than people let on.

The problems with marriage are easy to solve, and addressing the valid issues on both sides is favorable. Simply taking the government out of what is, essentially, a religious and personal ceremony would be perfectly valid. One unfounded fear that a lot of religious people have is that gay marriage would be forced on their churches. That's not really true, but it's something that can be assuaged by having zero government involvement in marriage, as it should be.

This just shouldn't be nearly as big of a deal as it is. I believe in a lot of thins that don't seem to be shared by everyone. Now that gays are allowed in the military, there's no getting out just because you like fellas, and I say we upgrade women to full combat-ready status while either abolishing the selective service or including women in it. Personally, I vote for the former.

This crap isn't hard. If the majority of people realized just how simple a lot of our social issues are to resolve, politicians would be called out on their bullshit rhetoric far more often by far more people.

[–]jdizzle367 0 points1 point2 points 6 days ago

on females in the military this is a problematic situation not because i do not believe women can fight (i got 8 stitches and a broken nose from trying to break up a high school fight) i believe it is because men in a natural nonsexist manner have an evolutionary role built into their mind as protectors which is brought out by the presence of women which in a combat situation could be distracting and potentially fatal this could be solve by sex segregation of units however due to political correctness this would likely be shot down as sexist and gays despite what the media has said have always been allowed in the military the rule was that you were not allowed to tell people that you were gay a pretty good system with a lot less problems associated while abolishing the selective service seems like a good idea it is nessesary in case a war occurs and we need more people to protect our nation drafts are not ideal as they lead to unwilling soldiers but sometimes they are nessary such as it was in the second world war as for the govt "that which governs best, governs least",thomas jefferson

its so nice to have a pleasant conversation without name calling for once

[–]Nightfalls 1 point2 points3 points 6 days ago

There's really nothing in the Constitution that outright states that a draft is against the basest rules we set down as a nation when this country was founded, but there is an amendment which I think does cover it, somewhat. I'm specifically referring to the thirteenth amendment, which abolished slavery. I quote:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "

Now, obviously they're intending that people not be taken in as slaves or forced to do any work for another private citizen without their explicit consent, but the wording is pretty clear there. Work is work, and the military is work. Lots of work. Very hard work.

The court actually ruled on a case limiting involuntary servitude to servants being made to work through threats or actual physical force, threatened or actual legal action (i.e. sending your ass to prison if you skip the draft), or lying to someone who is a "minor, an immigrant or mentally incompetent".

Now, to me, the Constitution represents a list of "shit we aren't allowed to do or allow", not so much "shit you aren't allowed to do". That may be an arguable point, but at the very base of things, the Constitution does lay out things that the government isn't allowed to "mess with", like freedom of religion, the right to speak freely, the right to keep and bear arms, and so on.

And that's where Selective Service comes in as a loophole to the thirteenth amendment. Selective Service itself does not represent a legal binding to unwilling labor. In fact, Selective Service is simply a contract that says you are willing to become part of the military. Here's the deviously genius part, though: You are legally compelled to sign the Selective Service contract when you turn 18. Through some complex and very dirty legalese, this essentially means you're not being coerced through legal threat to become a servant, it means you're being coerced through legal threat to sign a contract.

Basically, they get around the thirteenth amendment by turning your required service into a "lottery". That contract you signed is binding and exempt from the thirteenth amendment somehow (as far as I know, no contract signed in the U.S. between private citizens can be used to compel a person to work through threat of criminal charges).

Anyway, you had other points. I just kinda wanted to get off on that tangent briefly. I disagree with selective service and the draft. Despite the potential need for military service, there are far better ways of inspiring people to join up. If the cause is just, people tend to flock to it. There was no draft for the Revolutionary War, and there's been no draft since Vietnam, yet we seem to be doing okay with recruitment numbers in this country.

As for women in the military, I agree somewhat that there's an instinctive push for most males to defend females, but that's part of training anyway. Hell, part of boot camp is to bring Soldiers, Marines, Seamen, and Airmen together with a group of their fellow military enlistees and make them want to fight for each other as much as for themselves. If there's a true biological directive for this sort of thing, I'd think that'd simply make the job of a drill instructor easier.

I honestly don't give a crap about perceived sexism in the military when it comes to segregation of males and females. I just think it's unnecessary once the adjustment period is over.

As for gays serving openly, I am actually a bit on the edge on this one. Do I think that gays should be able to serve without actively hiding their orientation? Yes. Do I think they should be shouting from the rooftops that they prefer outies to innies? Not at all. I always imagine the old WWII movies where you have soldiers sitting around in the middle of a war zone talking about their "lady back home". They all whip out the pictures of their girlfriends or wives, and then, nonchalantly, the gay guy pulls out the picture of his boyfriend.

Yeah, that kind of thing may make the other troops feel uncomfortable, but there's a big amount of trust needed to work so closely with other people. Someone hiding something that is at the core of his or her life can lead to tons of mistrust.

The reason I'm conflicted is that I really don't think it should matter, but I question what the big difference is between a closeted and an open homosexual in the military.

I do enjoy when these debates don't derail into namecalling.

continue this thread