winwin saidI'm (or was) dating this guy for about a month or so. He is very religious which to me was a little odd from the very beginning since he is gay but I still continued to date him. I felt he was very lonely and needed my companionship. He is still in the closet, was married to a woman with kids (for some reason I always end up with guys who were previously married to women). Like I said he is religous and as long as he does not shove it down my throat that was fine with me until last night when we started talking about chick fil a. We got into an argument (nothing big) but in the end he lost and all he could say was "I still disagree" and said he will continue eating there which is his right to do whatever he wants.
I decided not to see him anymore knowing he supports chic and quite adamant about it and even called the opponents idiots which I felt like he called me an idiot as well. Am I doing the right thing or the wrong thing?
If you do in fact feel that strongly about it, and he does in fact feel that strongly about it, then this is probably just one of many many strong conflicts you would continue to have together. I can't tell you whether you're doing the wrong thing or the right thing in this situation. I don't think that kind of binary value condition even applies. You've made the choice you thought was best, now the next step is to continue to make the best out of the choice you've already made.
Personally, I think the boycott of Chik-fil-a is silly as a political action. If it makes people feel better to do so, there's nothing wrong with that, and in fact there's a very real value in establishing a standard you wish to live by and then gaining self-respect and satisfaction from living by it.
It's just like a woman I know who refuses to use paper towels because of the environmental impact of all that paper being manufactured then used once very briefly and then going right into the trash. In reality, her individual impact on the amount of deforestation, industrial manufacturing, and landfill, is negligible; and furthermore, in using cloth napkins she is substituting the environmental impacts of the factory farming to produce the cotton, the industrial textile plant that weaves/bleaches the threads, the chemical plant that produces the laundry detergent to wash the napkins, the water treatment facility, etc.
In the big picture, it may or may not be significantly better for the environment to use cloth towels instead of paper towels. But that's where she chooses to draw the line, and it's a step that she can take which exercises her concern over the environment. Then good for her.
What does more harm to gay rights -- the few million dollars a fast food CEO donates to some conservative american social org, or the billions of dollars we pump into our vehicles every day which go to prop up regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran where homosexuals are beheaded/hanged/stoned simply for the crime of existing? Anyone outside of public-transit havens like Chicago, New York, SF, ready to boycott gasoline?
Modern life is full of paradox, and everything is so turned-around-reverse-interconnected that it's pretty much impossible to live some kind of 100% ideologically consistent pure life. Learning to resolve or manage paradoxes and conflicts of belief/desire is an essential part of psychological maturation. And for me, part of that has required the recognition that others are going through the same process, and I shouldn't be so quick to jump on their hypocrisies when I still have some of my own to struggle with.