W
whatevergirl
Guest
I don’t understand why you made such a rude comment? There’s no need, really. I just merely speculate that their motives *might not *be as altruistic as we think they are.
- Status
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
GENERAL REMINDER
Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here. If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.
Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here. If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.
U
urban-hermit
Guest
al·tru·ism (altroo-izm)
n.
- Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
It’s even worse than being rude - and that’s bad!
H
He_Man
Guest
You don’t have an issue with being in your face or beligerent, yet you whine that you have been harased and mistreated for acting this way…
Sounds like you enjoy being persecuted.
H
He_Man
Guest
So your attitude is break God’s laws, then demand He change them to fit us. That makes no sense whatsoever.
You could make the same case for legalizing anything; in your eyes, it is only scandal because we don’t allow it.
H
He_Man
Guest
As does the completely meaningless, (name removed by moderator)roperly used, and trite term “homophobia.”This is ridiculas…Homophobia rears it’s ugly head every once in awhile on CAF.
Nice argument. When you disagree with people, call them bigots, or add the word phobia to the end of the modifying term…
Whatever; you didn’t even use the word properly.
And regarding your use of the relativistic mantra about the timbers in your own eye, can we assume you never voice a negative opinion about anything, since that is what you advocated?
Oh wait, you shot yourself in the foot by claiming you had too many of your own problems to worry about, while simultaneously chiming in and chatisizing people for worrying about the homosexual agenda.
If you truly believed what you preach, you would have worried about your own problems instead of posting criticism here.
There goes the concept of minding your own business you espouse…
S
surfinpure
Guest
I just received this update from the American Family Association today: afa.net/afamcdonaldsresponse.asp
It appears McDonald’s is now trying desperately to downplay their role in gay activism.
It appears McDonald’s is now trying desperately to downplay their role in gay activism.
V
v3orb
Guest
Well of course it seems that way, coming from one of the most anti-gay organizations in the world…
R
rlg94086
Guest
Can you clarify your post? What seems what way (are you referring to the title, or someone else’s post) and who is “most the anti-gay organization in the world?”Well of course it seems that way, coming from one of the most anti-gay organizations in the world…
V
v3orb
Guest
This post.
S
surfinpure
Guest
I suppose you could say they are anti-gay agenda. As am I, proudly. I am also anti-gay lifestyle. I am not, however, anti-gay person, just as I am not anti-anybody else. It is the sin I detest, not the sinner.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
I guess they’re just searching for ‘equality’ when they force the schools to teach four-year-olds the joys and wonders of homosexual acts of perversion.
Please give one school in one city–and approximate date would be nice–where this has actually happened.
Please give one school in one city–and approximate date would be nice–where this has actually happened.
H
He_Man
Guest
I wasn’t the one quoted, but here is one such promotion in California, SB 1437:
savecalifornia.com/getactive/sb1437analysis.php?PHPSESSID=89ea5dbcc5b0c65014def604b581c638
As amended, here is what SB 1437 will do:
*1. SB 1437 will force all California public schools to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to schoolchildren as young as kindergarten. *
*2. SB 1437 will require textbooks to promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to schoolchildren. *
3. SB 1437 prohibits schools from sponsoring traditional school activities.
*4. SB 1437 prohibits public schools from teaching there is a natural family – a father, a mother, and their children. *
S
surfinpure
Guest
WOW!!
J
Julianna
Guest
As does the completely meaningless, (name removed by moderator)roperly used, and trite term “homophobia.”
Nice argument. When you disagree with people, call them bigots, or add the word phobia to the end of the modifying term…
Whatever; you didn’t even use the word properly.
And regarding your use of the relativistic mantra about the timbers in your own eye, can we assume you never voice a negative opinion about anything, since that is what you advocated?Yes, I do have negative opinions about certain subjects…adultery, addiction, abuse. Ah yes, the proverbial E=mc2. I get that alot.I have also been called a feminist. Go figure. However, I do not take the stance of telling other “human beings” that they are hellbound, when I myself as a “human being” don’t really know that. Seems you have your PHD in Catholicism but haven’t past the pre-K test on spiritually.
**Oh wait, you shot yourself in the foot by claiming you had too many of your own problems to worry about, while simultaneously chiming in and chatisizing people for worrying about the homosexual agenda.**Homosexuals are not a threat to me.
If you truly believed what you preach, you would have worried about your own problems instead of posting criticism here.
Oh, so the criticism and judgementalism on here towards other human beings is ok. I get it.
There goes the concept of minding your own business you espouse…
H
He_Man
Guest
This isn’t that hard to follow.***Oh, so the criticism and judgementalism on here towards other human beings is ok. I get it.***
You complained about being judgemental, and trotted out the all to common “plank in your eye” verse, misusing it in the process. We are free to (and obligated to) judge inapprpriate behavior, while still loving the individual and a human person, one of God’s children.
Then, you castigated people for being judgemental, and did so, by in fact, judging them for being judgemental (oh the irony). You can’t in one breath say “thou shallt not judge!”, and in the next breath, log onto a website and judge people you deem too judgemental. That’s why that attitude of “never judge anything as bad” is a black hole from which NO ONE can escape.
I never once made any claims about not being able to judge behaviors as inappropriate; hence, there is nothing contradictory in my stance, unlike yours.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
I know what it means, thanks though.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. People might think that McDonald’s is doing something to support the gay agenda, when in reality (but this is a guess, like I’ve stated a few times) they could just want free advertising. It definitely has everyone here talking, and even negative talk, to some corporate big wigs, is better than none. (this possibly could drive up sales–controversy) Maybe that might be a more clear way of saying what I have been trying to say earlier–sometimes controversy drives sales.
But, I’m just taking guesses. That is why I said it most likely is NOT altruistic – why they are supporting them. So, I never said they were being altruistic, but that maybe people think they are.
I think I’m done with this thread. lol
S
Struble
Guest
Goodby snack wraps and Big Macs. Hello Whopper and BK pie.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Yeah, that’ll work. Just ask Ford.
S
surfinpure
Guest
Exactly! Now that the boycott on Ford has been lifted, GM has gotten the brilliant notion of supporting the gay agenda. Guess I know what type of car I won’t be buying this fall.
Afterthought: I wonder, though, if McDonald’s will be more successful in the cover-up than Ford was. Ford made it pretty obvious after a while, especially when they sponsored “Gay Day” in Chicago. If McDondald’s sticks to their party line about “just one employee” and “non-discrimination,” and doesn’t do anything else overt, they may succeed in fooling a large portion of the public.
- Status