RECENT  POSTS:  » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case » Read: Wyoming to become our 32nd marriage equality state » GLAAD: Victory is what happens while you're busy making other plans » What fake victimization sounds like in Arizona » Federal judge strikes Arizona's discriminatory marriage ban; marriages should begin today! » NOM's latest desperation: Relying on hearsay James O'Keefe video to smear Democrat for 'secretly' not opposing equality  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/11/2008

Marriage deal-breakers: Infidelity, irreconcilable differences, or kid-sized fries

by Jeremy Hooper

Since the McDonald's boycott was announced, we've produced some jokey headlines and quips to refer to the absurd notion that McDonald's is out to gay up the world via their McMuffins. For instance, the other day we wrote a piece under the heading, "Gays destroying sanctity of McNugget intake." Because that's what we often do around here: Take the piss out of the hyperbolic way the religious right often refers to gay people.

Well folks, the line between comic absurdity and "pro-family" actuality gets more and more blurred every day. Here is the actual headline that the Campaign For Children and Families' Randy Thomasson is running on his site:

Picture 1-179

A scenario that might possibly be true if your spouse is a chief executive at Burger King or Wendy's, in which case your patronage of the Golden-arched chain might cause some hubbub. But for the vast majority of us? Well, the sugar from the soda might hype your kids up causing you the parents to have a splitting headache; the fat from the fries might lead to debates among you and your spouse about whether or not to send junior to weight loss camp; and the dead animal that makes up the protein part of the meal might lead to a scorching debate if you and your spouse have an animal rights-discordinant household. However, if the continued existence of the happy meal in and of itself is going to harm your marriage, then you seriously need to put down that Filet-o-Fish and drag your spouse to some marital counseling, pronto!

After all, everyone knows it's the McFlurry that really makes Jesus cry.

Buy a Happy Meal, harm marriage [CCF]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Wish I could claim it, but Mark Morford of SF Chronicle/Gate did his piece on the fact that no one is paying any attention to this whole thing. Since most of his readers hadn't heard about it, here is his 'explanation.'
Did you know the AFA recently boycotted McDonald's? That's right, this once semi-powerful tub of right-wing brain-caulk recently declared a comestible fatwa against America's foremost purveyor of toxic foodstuffs because, apparently, some high-ranking McD's VP just joined the board of directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, which, to the AFA, somehow translates directly into free pink condoms and mind-controlling rainbow flags in every toxic God-fearing Happy Meal.

Were gettin' there!

Love it.

But he does admit that only because it won't hurt their bottom line are they being so
tolerant.'
Nossir, they do so purely for economic reasons, because it's just good PR, because they are safe in the knowledge that the AFA's rantings have exactly zero effect on their bottom line and lots of their own employees are gay -- and by the way discrimination based on sexual orientation is thoroughly illegal -- and therefore it simply makes more business sense to support tolerance than it does to endorse homophobia and general spiritual stupidity. Isn't that right, Boy Scouts of America? You bet it is.
But wait just a second: Is it still not fascinating in this day and age that our most powerful capitalist companies, those most associated with mainstream, dumbed-down, unhealthy, rather uninformed Republican Americana, even these megacorps are now openly and rather shamelessly supporting gay rights and tolerance?
Is it not, concomitantly, interesting that no one at all cares a whit for what the hell the AFA has to say anymore? Is this not a sign of something interesting and sea-changing and good? I think it is. McD's, Wal-Mart, Ford and Disney utterly ignore the Christian Right? What's next, an articulate black intellectual president? Oh wait.

Posted by: LOrion | Jul 11, 2008 4:18:41 PM

LOrion, discrimination is thoroughly illegal? True it is many places but it is also true that it is thoroughly legal in many places as well.

But on to the AFA* They seem to pick their battles in ways that are meant to show their boycotts work when the company shows a less than stellar quarterly report. They picked Ford when it was already heading down and they are picking McDonald's because they assume that the recession will hurt McDonald's and when (if, BIG if) it does they can take credit.

The problem that the AFA has with wagering on the economic down turn to hurt McDonald's (so they can say their boycott worked) is that fast-food joints historically do better in recessions. The reason? People can no longer afford to eat at slightly more expensive restaurants but they still don't have time to cook so McD's and Wendy's and Burger King benefit.

Plus, 52 million people patronize McDonald's everyday. The AFA has two million members. Do the math. This boycott will do nothing to their bottom line

Posted by: Jon-Marc | Jul 11, 2008 6:17:29 PM

I don't do much fast food. However, this makes me wanna go suck down a McRib or four. Or maybe one of those Angus beef thingies. Go McDonalds! Unlike weak-ass Starbucks who caved over Rachel Rays 'terrorist' scarf, at least Mickey D's knows that no one cares what these fringe nut jobs think.

Posted by: Taylor Siluwe | Jul 11, 2008 7:20:20 PM

I find this whole boycott rather silly. As mentioned, a boycott isn't too effective if few even know about it (way to go afa).

At any rate, I feel it is my duty (now) to buy a bunch of mickey d's gift cards and pass them out to a bunch of homeless people in one of the nearby neighbourhoods.

I stopped eating at mcd's a LONG time ago. I try to eat healthier then double-processed pseudo-food, but that's just my opinion.
I CAN feel good about supporting them, since they seem ok supporting NONDISCRIMINATION :)

just my 2 cents

aj

Posted by: aj | Jul 11, 2008 7:37:22 PM

aj I love that. Pass out McD gift cards! Might just do that myself. Take some to our Jesus Center to give the guys on their way out.

Posted by: LOrion | Jul 11, 2008 9:02:03 PM

I will have you all know that even though my diet is important because I have a wedding tomorrow and next month, I still went to Mickey D's last night and bought the family five Big Macs, chocolate malt and large fries. I am doing my part. It was good.

Boycotts do not work. The AFA does not have control over people that need these things to live. I have done many posts about the AFA and they would not even answer my questions. I emailed them and ask them to respond and not a word. They run when confronted.

Stop by and read if you like.

Posted by: Blondie Writes | Jul 11, 2008 9:58:54 PM

Just a technical note, Taylor.

It was Dunkin Donuts, not Starbucks, that caved over the scarf

Posted by: Jon-Marc | Jul 12, 2008 9:52:32 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails