'If gays don't like it, they can choose another pasta': Barilla pasta faces global boycott after chairman says brand would never feature a homosexual

[pnewton]

You can do all of those things, and giving gay people equal rights does not stop you from doing any of them.

You are not allowed to do all these things everywhere. Unless one is very young or is blind to the news, it cannot be denied that these “gay rights” have expanded and show no sign of stopping this expansion. So the idea that anything is impossible for the gay agenda to accomplish has not shown to be true. One’s right to free exercise of religion on the other hand has shrunk over the same time and, again, has shown no sign of slowing, if that religion involves any sort of ban against cooperation with what has been considered evil for the whole of Christendom.

 

[TMC]

You are not allowed to do all these things everywhere. Unless one is very young or is blind to the news, it cannot be denied that these “gay rights” have expanded and show no sign of stopping this expansion. So the idea that anything is impossible for the gay agenda to accomplish has not shown to be true. One’s right to free exercise of religion on the other hand has shrunk over the same time and, again, has shown no sign of slowing, if that religion involves any sort of ban against cooperation with what has been considered evil for the whole of Christendom.

You can do all those things everywhere in the US. Your mileage may vary elsewhere. I realize there have been a few outlier “man bits dog” stories in the news, but the law in the US is very clear on these points.

 

[Jeanne_S]

He was not a homosexual, though he did probably eat a lot of pasta.

Good one!

 

[Presurmksdimnds]

facebook.com/pages/Show-your-support-for-Barilla-Pasta/675358305808916?ref=br_tf

Here is one page in support!!! Hopefully there will be worldwide support Barilla Pasta day like there was with Chick Fil A.

A heads up to anyone who may have clicked this link and liked this page; it was hacked by gay activists last night. If you don’t want to be associated with what it had now become, you may want to ‘decline’ your subscription. If you receive any messages from the admins (or any other person in the group), do not click the links sent as you will likely be hacked as well.

*it looks likes it has been cleaned up and returned to regular admins, but still, don’t respond to any emails from last night that isht was cray cray

 

[Monkey1976]

The same goes with gay people. Anyone deep in LGBT culture knows you go to festivals for clean, family fun, you go to parades if you want to strip in public (and believe me, this involves a lot more straight people than you’d expect), and you go to nightclubs if you want to hook up, get drunk, or just dance all night if you’re not into that scene.

I challenge you to turn off “SafeSearch” and do a Google image search on “Gay pride festival” and explain how those images reflect “clean, family fun”. (Spoiler - For those who want to verify the results, I will warn you - they are FAR from being work-safe, much less “clean, family fun”) I know that there are likely many in the gay “culture” who really do want to simply live quietly and never pushed for their relationship to be called something it can never be. But when the only voice heard in the public square is that of the so-called “extremists”, and this “silent majority” continues to take advantage of the “extremists” actions, what other conclusion can we draw?

If, at the height of the pedophilia crisis in the Church, the only voices heard were those who saw nothing wrong with it, how would the Church be seen? What would it say about us as Catholics if the “silent majority” in that case began taking underage lovers because these few deviant priests said it was okay?

I have lived within the gay “culture” as my ex-roomates’ “pet het/token breeder”. I’ve been to the Castro Street Halloween Party. I’ve eaten at “Little Orphan Andy’s”. Those you insist on calling “extremists” are quite representative of what I saw. That the majority you claim are sickened or embarrassed by them does nothing tells me that they might not be as “extreme” as you’re claiming, after all.

 

[SMGS127]

I challenge you to turn off “SafeSearch” and do a Google image search on “Gay pride festival” and explain how those images reflect “clean, family fun”. (Spoiler - For those who want to verify the results, I will warn you - they are FAR from being work-safe, much less “clean, family fun”) I know that there are likely many in the gay “culture” who really do want to simply live quietly and never pushed for their relationship to be called something it can never be. But when the only voice heard in the public square is that of the so-called “extremists”, and this “silent majority” continues to take advantage of the “extremists” actions, what other conclusion can we draw?

I just did do the search, and there were a bunch of clean pictures intermitten with a few guys who decided to go to the festivals in speedos, with one or two pictures of gay pride parades incorrectly thrown in. I would hope you know the difference between a parade and festival in general; anything done in procession is unlikely to be a festival.

If, at the height of the pedophilia crisis in the Church, the only voices heard were those who saw nothing wrong with it, how would the Church be seen? What would it say about us as Catholics if the “silent majority” in that case began taking underage lovers because these few deviant priests said it was okay?

That’s funny that you mention that, because a lot of Southern Protestants claim that mainstream Catholics refuse to stand up to their leadership on pedophilia in the priesthood. I guess those mainstream Catholics who do speak out are drowned out by the scandal surrounding the Catholic Church, huh? Reminds me of a different group of people whose voices are drowned out by the scandal surrounding the parades…

I have lived within the gay “culture” as my ex-roomates’ “pet het/token breeder”. I’ve been to the Castro Street Halloween Party. I’ve eaten at “Little Orphan Andy’s”. Those you insist on calling “extremists” are quite representative of what I saw. That the majority you claim are sickened or embarrassed by them does nothing tells me that they might not be as “extreme” as you’re claiming, after all.

You consider the Castro Street Halloween Party to be gay “culture?” That’s equivalent to me going to a New Year’s Eve nightclub in New York City in a bad area of town and being shocked, SHOCKED I tell you at how promiscuous, rude drug-abusers all heterosexual people were from that one experience .

Also, hint for the future: if your gay friend calls you his “token breeder,” he’s probably pretty radical .

Also, for your enjoyment, I bring you a parody piece!

theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

 

[ishii]

Yes, I know that “sex positive” culture permeates a lot of heterosexual culture, especially third-wave feminist culture. The problem with your question about speaking out is: what news organization is going to carry a story about how some lowly normal gay person doesn’t like how gay people are characterized? How would that get ratings (for TV/radio), views (for Internet), or sells (for written media)?

That doesn’t make headlines. What makes headlines is shocking footage of gays. The media is partly to blame for this.

For example, does the non-third-wave-feminist woman get a news story on any channel about how she thinks that there are actually differences between the genders? Probably not. Does airtime go to the woman who writes a shocking book about how she thinks that the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ are social constructs with no reality or meaning? Probably, both to either congratulate her (for those on the far left) or abhor her work (most people). Does airtime go to the woman who writes a book about how women should be barred from careers completely, regardless of income, if they’ve ever been pregnant in their life? Probably, both to congratulate her (for those on the far right) or abhor her work (most people).

No, the non-3rd waver wouldn’t. No leftist media outlet would give time to a different view like that. A conservative or perhaps independent source would publish those views - such as the Atlantic Monthly or a conservative magazine like Weekly Standard or Nat’l Review.

Those on the far right would congratulate someone who calls for banning a women who has been pregnant, from the workplace? I don’t think you understand the right much.

The same goes with gay people. Anyone deep in LGBT culture knows you go to festivals for clean, family fun, you go to parades if you want to strip in public (and believe me, this involves a lot more straight people than you’d expect), and you go to nightclubs if you want to hook up, get drunk, or just dance all night if you’re not into that scene.

Likewise, straight people know they go to strip clubs if they want to experience nudity, dance clubs if they want to hook up, get drunk, or dance, bars if they want to watch sports or enjoy a night out with friends, or family events like park events if they want to enjoy a nice day out. I don’t see why people think that parades are somehow the epitome of gay culture; they’re just the epitome of the extremes of gay culture, much like S&M bars are for the extremes of straight culture. I know that parades are obviously more public than S&M bars, but it’s the same principle.

Yes, but the difference is that “straight people” criticize both types of cultures - whether gay or straight. And you’ll notice that the hedonistic “straight” folks don’t march in parades demanding that everyone except their deviancy.

This is why I always encourage those who honestly wish to help evangelize in the LGBT community to experience Pride festivals. They’re very peaceful, and people there don’t put up with the sex-positive crazy people who try to infiltrate it; LGBT people are just as family & children-conscious at events like this as anyone else. They’re also very respectful of the religious, which is something you’re also unlikely to find at sex-positive parades.

I didn’t know there was a more “moderate” festival as opposed to the parades. Why don’t the moderate gays speak out against the outrageousness and offensiveness of the pride parades?

Just a thought, but as someone who used to be very into the LGBT scene, it pains me greatly to see such good people’s characters smeared by those who have never truly experienced LGBT culture, only a smattering of LGBT people (or sometimes no one at all) and the images they show on TV of shocking parades.

Which do you think would get more viewers - a bunch of folks hanging around the park or a bunch of outrageous folks doing perverted things on floats? Furthermore, and I think this is a point that I’d like you to answer: the outrageous “pride” participants get more attention because they are challenging the values and institutions associated with traditional morality, the Church, etc. The left loves that - and co-opts that because their ultimate goal is the overthrow of all traditional institutions, replacing them with the state.

Ishii

 

[SMGS127]

That doesn’t make headlines. What makes headlines is shocking footage of gays. The media is partly to blame for this.

I absolutely agree, but unfortunately, both the conservative and liberal outlets post the shocking images and no one produces the non-shocking images. As you said, headlines matter.

No, the non-3rd waver wouldn’t. No leftist media outlet would give time to a different view like that. A conservative or perhaps independent source would publish those views - such as the Atlantic Monthly or a conservative magazine like Weekly Standard or Nat’l Review.

Those on the far right would congratulate someone who calls for banning a women who has been pregnant, from the workplace? I don’t think you understand the right much.

I was using a bit of hyperbole so as not to use political issues that might derail the issue. Understand that I wouldn’t actually expect such an argument to occur (though it would certainly get airtime).

Yes, but the difference is that “straight people” criticize both types of cultures - whether gay or straight. And you’ll notice that the hedonistic “straight” folks don’t march in parades demanding that everyone except their deviancy.

Honestly, I don’t really know why the hedonistic gays have less shame to do what they do in public than the hedonistic straights. Maybe it’s just that they have less social backlash from it. I don’t like it anymore than you do.

I didn’t know there was a more “moderate” festival as opposed to the parades. Why don’t the moderate gays speak out against the outrageousness and offensiveness of the pride parades?

Mmhmm. The Pride festival in Vermont two years ago was one of the best I’ve been to. A park was rented out, and there was a concert plus a bunch of booths. Some people were trying to promote themselves to the community [music, literature, blogs, etc.], others were merchants selling Pride materials (wristbands, keychains, etc.) Most of the people were just laid out on the grass listening to the concert, but I spent most of the time in the rest booth, where they had free water bottles and air conditioning, talking to friends. No one was dressed inappropriately, and it was just a lot of fun.

The booths are also the reason I didn’t understand why people didn’t like that a Christian was given a booth where he could give out Bibles at a festival; his booth would be right in the middle of everything else, for those who were interested. But people on here probably don’t know that much about Pride festivals, which I understand.

Which do you think would get more viewers - a bunch of folks hanging around the park or a bunch of outrageous folks doing perverted things on floats? Furthermore, and I think this is a point that I’d like you to answer: the outrageous “pride” participants get more attention because they are challenging the values and institutions associated with traditional morality, the Church, etc. The left loves that - and co-opts that because their ultimate goal is the overthrow of all traditional institutions, replacing them with the state.

Ishii

The radical left and the radical right are the ones who get the media; there is no center news, because center news doesn’t get headlines. I’m just trying to represent the religious community properly in gay communities and the gay community properly in religious communities. I don’t like everyone being angry at everyone just because the loud people are angry with the loud people on both ends.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…I’m very open with the absurdly radical <1% of gays who act like they’re doing what’s best for all other gay people, when in reality they’re not very well-liked in the gay community and viewed as giving gays a bad name. I tell them upfront that they’re crazy and radical, just as I tell people who are wrong about LGBT culture that they are wrong about LGBT culture…

^^^look at this^^^

Attack absurd, crazy, radical minorities who cause harm and accuse them of being not very well liked by the majority.

What breath-taking hypocrisy.

Are transvestites “absurdly radical” for wanting to use the swimming pool change rooms of the opposite sex? Are bisexuals discriminated against because they are banned from having a polygamous, multi-gender marriage? Should same sex couples who want to “have” a baby be entitled to tax payer funded IVF treatment - since they are infertile?

 

[SMGS127]

^^^look at this^^^

Attack absurd, crazy, radical minorities who cause harm and accuse them of being not very well liked by the majority.

What breath-taking hypocrisy.

Are transvestites “absurdly radical” for wanting to use the swimming pool change rooms of the opposite sex? Are bisexuals discriminated against because they are banned from having a polygamous, multi-gender marriage? Should same sex couples who want to “have” a baby be entitled to tax payer funded IVF treatment - since they are infertile?

A) Transvestites don’t want to use the swimming pool changing rooms of the opposite sex. Transvestites are people who crossdress when they have sex to get off.

B) Transsexuals who use the opposing gender’s changing rooms before surgery are certainly radical. Even post-surgery it’s questionable, but then they wouldn’t be bothering anyone since no one would know

C) Bisexuals don’t want polygamy. Bisexuals can be attracted to members of either sex, but the vast majority of them are still monogamous.

D) Polygamists are radical.

E) Same-sex couples don’t use IVF treatment. Gay men can’t use it, and lesbians use sperm donation via turkey baster injection .

F) Same-sex couples who want taxpayer-funded IVF treatment for them are, quite frankly, insane since it’s not possible.

 

[SaintAugustine]

C) Bisexuals don’t want polygamy. Bisexuals can be attracted to members of either sex, but the vast majority of them are still monogamous.

Can you provide some sort of back-up for this statement? My personal experience with bi-sexuals, including the one who married my brother and had a woman move in with them, is that they like or at least wouldn’t mind the idea of having a spouse from each sex.

If my brother’s ex-wife is supposedly an exception, then I would like something more than personal opinion to back that up.

 

[SaintAugustine]

E) Same-sex couples don’t use IVF treatment. Gay men can’t use it, and lesbians use sperm donation via turkey baster injection .

F) Same-sex couples who want taxpayer-funded IVF treatment for them are, quite frankly, insane since it’s not possible.

You can use a sperm donor for IVF, so your charges are incorrect.

 

[SMGS127]

Can you provide some sort of back-up for this statement? My personal experience with bi-sexuals, including the one who married my brother and had a woman move in with them, is that they like or at least wouldn’t mind the idea of having a spouse from each sex.

If my brother’s ex-wife is supposedly an exception, then I would like something more than personal opinion to back that up.

This website:

scienceofrelationships.com/home/2012/8/2/bisexuality-myths-debunked-by-science.html

says this:

Myth 3: Bisexual People Can’t be Faithful to Their Partners

This myth – which is arguably the most pernicious one – stems from the idea that one partner can not fully satisfy a person who is attracted to both genders. Sooner or later, people assume, they’ll yearn for someone of the gender that their partner is not. For example, people tend to perceive bisexual individuals as being more likely to cheat on their partners compared to heterosexual, gay, or lesbian individuals.3

In reality, a great many bisexual individuals have happily monogamous relationships with their partners; for example, by the end of Dr. Diamond’s ten-year study,2 fully 89% of bisexual women were in monogamous, long-term relationships. Furthermore, for those bisexual individuals who do desire multiple sexual partners, research suggests that they typically achieve this goal by negotiating open relationships with their partners, NOT by sneaking around behind their partners’ backs.4 I could find no research supporting the idea that bisexuals are any less faithful or honest with their partners than people of other sexual orientations.

using this as the source:

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44, 5-14.

This is consistent with my own experience in the LGBT community. Are the small minority of the community that make up polygamists more likely to be bisexual? Probably, though I’d argue they’re more the “no-labels” crowd. But the vast majority of bisexuals are monogamous.

 

[SMGS127]

You can use a sperm donor for IVF, so your charges are incorrect.

It’s also incredibly expensive when compared to a turkey baster injection, so no lesbian couple would ever make that choice. Gay men typically adopt their good friends’ unwanted children, racially unwanted children that can’t find homes, or go turkey baster with a good friend who will be the surrogate mother. No one ever goes IVF; it’s just dumb to do. In addition, they don’t get taxpayer money to do so for sure. But if someone, somewhere magically got taxpayer money to go do IVF over an easier, cheaper method, they would be radical too (and extremely dumb).

 

[SaintAugustine]

This website:

scienceofrelationships.com/home/2012/8/2/bisexuality-myths-debunked-by-science.html

says this:

using this as the source:

This is consistent with my own experience in the LGBT community. Are the small minority of the community that make up polygamists more likely to be bisexual? Probably, though I’d argue they’re more the “no-labels” crowd. But the vast majority of bisexuals are monogamous.

Thanks. I guess my brother’s ex- was part of the 11%.

 

[SaintAugustine]

It’s also incredibly expensive when compared to a turkey baster injection,** so no lesbian couple would ever make that choice. ** Gay men typically adopt their good friends’ unwanted children, racially unwanted children that can’t find homes, or go turkey baster with a good friend who will be the surrogate mother. No one ever goes IVF; it’s just dumb to do. In addition, they don’t get taxpayer money to do so for sure. But if someone, somewhere magically got taxpayer money to go do IVF over an easier, cheaper method, they would be radical too (and extremely dumb).

IVF is something done when there are infertility issues…and not just infertility on the part of a male. I agree that it is less likely to be used by a Lesbian couple, but I wouldn’t be so bold to state “no lesbian couple would ever make that choice.” You seem to like absolutes.

Oh, and btw…the “turkey baster” method is just as sinful. For that matter, any arrangement to have children by a homosexual couple is sinful. So, I guess the point is moot.

 

[livingwordunity]

This is consistent with my own experience in the LGBT community. Are the small minority of the community that make up polygamists more likely to be bisexual? Probably, though I’d argue they’re more the “no-labels” crowd. But the vast majority of bisexuals are monogamous.

The homosexual community itself is a small minority yet the government is bending over backwards to change the definition of marriage to include them. Why should another kind of small minority be treated differently? Are you saying that with so-called “marriage equality” all are not equal? (I’m playing “the devil’s advocate”)

 

[SMGS127]

IVF is something done when there are infertility issues…and not just infertility on the part of a male. I agree that it is less likely to be used by a Lesbian couple, but I wouldn’t be so bold to state “no lesbian couple would ever make that choice.” You seem to like absolutes.

Oh, and btw…the “turkey baster” method is just as sinful. For that matter, any arrangement to have children by a homosexual couple is sinful. So, I guess the point is moot.

With 2 women in the relationship, infertility issues are very unlikely. Either way, they wouldn’t get taxpayer funding for IVF, as I said. And if something is 95, 96, 97% one way, it might as well be an absolute. If I say “all men have a Y chromosome,” that’s not actually true (XX males). But should I qualify a statement like that too? I don’t feel like qualifying all my statements. If something is under 80%, I don’t deal with it in absolutes. Over that, I don’t see why I can’t use a generalization as an absolute as long as it’s not a stereotype.

And I know it’s sinful; I’m not saying it’s not. I’m just saying that his “examples” were not based in the reality that exists in the LGBT community. This isn’t a discussion on the morality of these behaviors, simply a discussion of the current reality of the behaviors. The reason I mentioned that the “turkey baster” method is most common is because it is, effectively, free, as lesbians will find a good male friend with traits they like, get him to give them a “sample” with permission to use it, then inject it. All for no cost (except the collection cup and baster I guess?) So it’s highly unlikely two women would use IVF when they could do it for free. Even sperm banks are pretty inexpensive.

The homosexual community itself is a small minority yet the government is bending over backwards to change the definition of marriage to include them. Why should another kind of small minority be treated differently? Are you saying that with so-called “marriage equality” all are not equal?

Yes, so polygamist bisexuals make up 10% of 2% (2% of the country is bi, 2% gay/lesbian) of the country or…0.2% of the country. Extremely small.

 

[livingwordunity]

Yes, so polygamist bisexuals make up 10% of 2% (2% of the country is bi, 2% gay/lesbian) of the country or…0.2% of the country. Extremely small.

That kind of reasoning is very arbitrary and hypocritical. “Even though we are a small minority that is demanding that we get our way, no one who is a smaller minority than us should be able to do the same because we say so”.

 

[SMGS127]

That is very arbitrary.

It’s not arbitrary at all. The 10% (actually 11%) number is quoted above with source. The 2% number is as per the most recent US census. Both are sourced.