I mean if gays want to be gay then fuck it, thats their business, I dont think anybody has the right to stop them. But, forcing ppls young children to be exposed to their lifestyle at young ages isnt right.
you're still working from the premise that there is something wrong with homosexual expressions and behaviors. that's why you feel a need to "protect" young children from witnessing different lifestyle choices. however, you overstep your civil bounds by defining right and wrong behavior according to precepts that are religiously derived. No one is advocating to allow homosexuals to behave lewdly or have public sexual encounters. Furthermore, it is wrong for a government to privilege a specific religious doctrine like marriage. We reward people who get married out of an archaic belief that marriage provides a stable building block for social order. The real reform that needs to take place is not the "legalization of gay marriage" but rather the removal of benefits, incentives, and privileges surrounding the legal contract commonly referred to as a marriage. This is a separation of church and state issue more than anything; it is only couched in hateful rhetoric that presupposes there is something "Wrong" with anyone who exhibits behavior that indicates a choice in lifestyle contrary to the mainstream.
Before you retort that i don't know you and don't know what your reasoning is for thinking homosexual behavior is wrong or damaging for children, pause for a moment and ask yourself why it is you can make the statement that its only ok to be gay in private...its linked, i'm sure, to the same reason most comments in this thread start off with "im not gay but"...why do we feel this need to dissociate or distance ourselves from "being gay?;" yet, we equally insist there isnt anything wrong with it (so long as i don't have to witness the fact that you, the hypothetical gay person, exist). So, while i can't know your personal religious conviction, i can definitely isolate the cultural effects and influences of the dominant religion informing American culture (protestant Christianity) which have filtered into your comments.
on the larger issue being discussed, its been said a bunch: no one is sure why chik fil a felt the need to come out with a statement claiming their support for "traditional" marriage (which, by some historically informed accounts, means they stand for the use of women as chattel, so, feminists, where the fuck are we on this?). If you're with them on this stance, you're likely to support them. If you're against them, they'll probably lose your business. Personally, i think (quite cynically, i admit) this is just a way for chik fil a to get some free advertising when a politically active period of media coverage is ramping up for the us election in november. they're wrongheaded in their thinking, but i'll defend to the death their right to voice their ignorance, as i will defend the right for the rest of us to criticize and poke holes in their stances quite publically, AND PEACEFULLY
be easy