Jump to content

Is Homosexuality Really A Sin?


Recommended Posts

What makes you think bi-sexuality is a choice? Even straight people often have preferences..I've got friends that are more attracted to asains, brunettes, bigger women etc not one of them says that their preference is a choice-they all say it's just where their attraction lays whatever the reasons. I'm unsure why this concept seems so hard to many: it seems logical under the same criteria that some would be attracted to the same sex and some may find people of either gender attractive. As for you marrying analogy- as someone with a ton of food service management/ownership experience I can tell you every day restaurants across the world marry things like ketchup-not ketchup and mustard, ketchup and ketchup, vinegar and vinegar, salt and salt and so on and so on

 

Well, they choose to be with a man OR a woman OR both, don't they? I also have many years as in fast food management. How do you "marry" ketchup and ketchup? No, you are mixing one ketchup with more/another ketchup. You can "marry" ketchup and mustard. When would you ever say "Marry these two ingredients together; Ketchup and Ketchup, Mustard and Mustard". See, it makes no sense, now does it? Can you say "Marry these two ingredients together; Ketchup and Mustard". Sure you can. One is confusing and makes no logical sense, the other makes perfect sense.

 

What am I missing here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

MELLO, BUFFALO. CHANDLER, BUFFALO. KENYON MARTIN, BUFFALO. JR SMITH, BUFFALO. PIGIONNI, HE'LL BUFFALO YOUR FUKEN COOKIES

I realized a bit ago that it may be unfair of me to come in and just snipe others without actually answering the threads question myself.   Is homosexuality a sin? Of course it is.   This isn't j

Now, this is curious. Last night I checked this post, and someone had commented that "straights have legal protections gays don't" I replied with a challenge, asking just what those laws were.

 

Today, that response and my answer are no longer here. Now, WTF is going on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'll ask it here, as I always hear this:

 

Do straights have legal protections that gays do not have? If so, what are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, bleep hole, I ended this bleeping thread in August. Scroll up and read my post, there's nothing more to add.

 

Rinse and repeat for every new bleep hole who shows up in the forum and bumps this thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked in a different forum, see the quotes below.

 

 

Oh, by all means, just what laws are those? I hear that alot, never can seem to get an answer. Odd. Please, however, make it more than one, after all; you said "protections". This would indicate a gaggle of laws that protect only people who are straight. By all means, enlighten me. Frankly, I'm not aware of ANY laws that do not protect BOTH Gay and STRAIGHT. But you go right ahead and list them. I will apologise full heartedly for my ignorance if this turns out to be true.

 

As for the text size, hey, I'm new here, cut me some slack. You should have seen the first run. I could not even get my signature pic to load properly. Had to try 3 different browsers before I got it, lol.

From an article posted today.

 

http://news.national...iage-this-week/

 

What happens if the court upholds Section 3 of DOMA, defining marriage for purposes of federal law as the union of a man and a woman?

 

Upholding DOMA would not affect state laws regarding marriage but would keep in place federal statutes and rules that prevent legally married gay Americans from receiving a range of benefits that are otherwise available to married people. These benefits include breaks on estate taxes, health insurance for spouses of federal workers and Social Security survivor benefits.

 

 

What if the court strikes down the DOMA provision?

 

A ruling against DOMA would allow legally married gay couples or, in some cases, a surviving spouse in a same-sex marriage, to receive benefits and tax breaks resulting from more than 1,000 federal statutes in which marital status is relevant. For 83-year-old Edith Windsor, a New York widow whose case is before the court, such a ruling would give her a refund of $363,000 in estate taxes that were paid after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer. The situation could become complicated for people who get married where same-sex unions are legal, but who live or move where they are not.

So, I'll ask it here, as I always hear this:

 

Do straights have legal protections that gays do not have? If so, what are they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, still bumping around in the night here. CLEARLY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rinse and repeat for every new bleep hole who shows up in the forum and bumps this thread

 

Rise and repent for every member of the posting police who criticise people posting to old topics by bumping them back that they are a "bleep hole" for bumping this thread.

 

Anything else you would like to add to this dead thread, zippy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked in a different forum, see the quotes below.

 

Bob, I found it, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, bleep hole, I ended this bleeping thread in August. Scroll up and read my post, there's nothing more to add.

 

If you want to officially end a thread, you must use the "/thread" designation.

 

You didn't therefore you are wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to officially end a thread, you must use the "/thread" designation.

 

You didn't therefore you are wrong.

 

Thanks, BG. I think between the 2 of us, he might finally get the "big picture". It is still listed as a "hot" topic. LMAO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rise and repent for every member of the posting police who criticise people posting to old topics by bumping them back that they are a "bleep hole" for bumping this thread.

 

Anything else you would like to add to this dead thread, zippy?

 

Just one thing..

 

 

 

b65jN.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they choose to be with a man OR a woman OR both, don't they? I also have many years as in fast food management. How do you "marry" ketchup and ketchup? No, you are mixing one ketchup with more/another ketchup. You can "marry" ketchup and mustard. When would you ever say "Marry these two ingredients together; Ketchup and Ketchup, Mustard and Mustard". See, it makes no sense, now does it? Can you say "Marry these two ingredients together; Ketchup and Mustard". Sure you can. One is confusing and makes no logical sense, the other makes perfect sense.

 

What am I missing here?

Yes there is a choice on who one would be with that doesn't make sexuality or sexual preference a choice. Acting and desire are two very different things. Honestly you've worked in the industry and never heard the expression? Marry means to join-twenty years in the industry and I've not once heard staff directed to mix ketchups-only to marry them. From fast food to fine dining on multiple continents I've only heard it referred to in that manner....
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're putting the cart before the horse though.

 

Marriage was an existing word with a clear meaning to join together, as in the Biblical 'two shall become one flesh'

 

The restaurant industry just borrowed it and adapted it to their needs

 

 

Remember, it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Mustard

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're putting the cart before the horse though.

 

Marriage was an existing word with a clear meaning to join together, as in the Biblical 'two shall become one flesh'

 

The restaurant industry just borrowed it and adapted it to their needs

 

 

Remember, it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Mustard

 

Well, they both make sense. Then again, Adam and Adam would just be two Adams. Mustard and mustard would just be a lot of mustard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is a choice on who one would be with that doesn't make sexuality or sexual preference a choice. Acting and desire are two very different things. Honestly you've worked in the industry and never heard the expression? Marry means to join-twenty years in the industry and I've not once heard staff directed to mix ketchups-only to marry them. From fast food to fine dining on multiple continents I've only heard it referred to in that manner....

 

You will never hear anyone with any sense say to "marry" two of the exact same ingredients together. Come on. Nor would you "join" two of the exact same ingredients; you can "add" them together, however, can you not? Which sounds like it makes more sense...

 

Marry that ketchup to that other ketchup

OR

Add that ketchup to that other ketchup

OR

Join those two ketchup's together.

Only the last two make sense.

 

Now, try it the other way:

 

Marry that ketchup to that mustard

OR

Add that ketchup to that mustard

OR

Join that ketchup to that mustard

All three make sense. Why can we not maintain proper use of language here? That is my whole point. Could it be Gays want to be identical to a man and a woman, when clearly they simply cannot be IN THIS RESPECT? Nothing bad about that, it is what it is. How could they be the exact same? You are guy + guy or girl + girl; you are not guy + girl. Clearly! So, If you want gay "additions", "joining" or "unions"; anything that does not imply TWO DIFFERENT sexes, when there clearly is not TWO DIFFERENT sexes, then fine. If you are joined in a civil union, are you technically not the same as joined in marriage? Of course you are! What is the difference then? Union = Guy+guy or Girl+Girl; Marriage = Guy+Girl. So, if I invite you to my family function, you say you are "married", and I sit you by my crazy uncle that hates gay people, I look like an azz and feel bad, because I don't agree with him bashing gays. I would not want to do that to you! You tell me you are (you make a word to describe it here so I know you are guy+guy), then I can sit my crazy uncle away from you so he doesn't make a fool out of all of us, make you feel uncomfortable, and we can all get along. Is that too much to ask? The ability for me to be able to extend common courtesies to my friends and my stupid azz family? Geezz....

 

And before you say it....

 

 

"Semantics: It's what people who don't know what the hell they are talking about accuse you of using, in order to cover up their own stupidity" MPALER/2013

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never hear anyone with any sense say to "marry" two of the exact same ingredients together. Come on. Nor would you "join" two of the exact same ingredients; you can "add" them together, however, can you not? Which sounds like it makes more sense...

 

Marry that ketchup to that other ketchup

OR

Add that ketchup to that other ketchup

OR

Join those two ketchup's together.

Only the last two make sense.

 

Now, try it the other way:

 

Marry that ketchup to that mustard

OR

Add that ketchup to that mustard

OR

Join that ketchup to that mustard

All three make sense. Why can we not maintain proper use of language here? That is my whole point. Could it be Gays want to be identical to a man and a woman, when clearly they simply cannot be IN THIS RESPECT? Nothing bad about that, it is what it is. How could they be the exact same? You are guy + guy or girl + girl; you are not guy + girl. Clearly! So, If you want gay "additions", "joining" or "unions"; anything that does not imply TWO DIFFERENT sexes, when there clearly is not TWO DIFFERENT sexes, then fine. If you are joined in a civil union, are you technically not the same as joined in marriage? Of course you are! What is the difference then? Union = Guy+guy or Girl+Girl; Marriage = Guy+Girl. So, if I invite you to my family function, you say you are "married", and I sit you by my crazy uncle that hates gay people, I look like an azz and feel bad, because I don't agree with him bashing gays. I would not want to do that to you! You tell me you are (you make a word to describe it here so I know you are guy+guy), then I can sit my crazy uncle away from you so he doesn't make a fool out of all of us, make you feel uncomfortable, and we can all get along. Is that too much to ask? The ability for me to be able to extend common courtesies to my friends and my stupid azz family? Geezz....

 

And before you say it....

 

 

"Semantics: It's what people who don't know what the hell they are talking about accuse you of using, in order to cover up their own stupidity" MPALER/2013

lol wow you're talking to a guy that has worked/owned/consulted for restaurants on three continents and telling me what I've heard. It is a very common use of the terminology world wide in my experience for my industry so your original analogies were way off base.
Link to post
Share on other sites

lol wow you're talking to a guy that has worked/owned/consulted for restaurants on three continents and telling me what I've heard. It is a very common use of the terminology world wide in my experience for my industry so your original analogies were way off base.

 

Then I have far superior management and communication skills compared to yours. Your employees must typically be confused by what you ask them to do, or just assume what you mean, even though you fail to say it correctly. I'm sure you often say things like "Oh, you know what I mean..." and "Sorry, what I meant was..." to them, and assuming they are simply ignorant by not understanding what you are saying, most likely, incorrectly.

 

My examples were perfectly analogous to the subject at hand, not "way off base"; however, given your clear lack of proper language/communication skills, I'm not surprised you would think so. What I mean by that, just so you know, is that your comment is reminiscent of what happened when the first ships came to the new world; the native peoples did not even notice the ships, until they actually saw the men, as they had no frame of reference for a seagoing vessel. They literally "did not see it" despite them being in clear view. Without a clear reference for the importance of clear communications with those you manage and therefore a clear understanding of proper wording (you sound like a "close enough" type) of those communications, of course you think I am simply "way off base".

 

Now, I seriously doubt you are that stupid, so more than likely you know EXACTLY what I am talking about, know that IT IS a perfect example, and yet you lack the fundamental debating skills to countermand my thesis with a logical, common sense rebuttal. IE; you know I am correct and yet, you cannot think of any way to refute me. So, you immaturely refuse to agree I am correct and therefore you simply dismiss it - instead simply saying "your original analogies were way off base" with nothing to back up just HOW and WHY my original analogies are "way off base" other than all your "restaurant experience on several continents". That doesn't cut the mustard, if you will pardon the pun.

 

For one last example, to back up my analogy given directly above, it is much like when Phil Hellmuth loses a hand; he cannot refute the way it was played by his opponent in any logical sense to that person who beat him, so he instead tends to wonder "why the person did not play it like I would" or "others would not play it like that", and instead just whines and cries about being beaten, fair and square.

 

I would just simply advise you to give up, clearly you have lost this one. Spare yourself any further embarrassment. Or just be a man and say "I know what you are saying is correct, I just cannot agree with it in that manner". That's the gentlemanly way of waving the white flag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I have far superior management and communication skills compared to yours. Your employees must typically be confused by what you ask them to do, or just assume what you mean, even though you fail to say it correctly. I'm sure you often say things like "Oh, you know what I mean..." and "Sorry, what I meant was..." to them, and assuming they are simply ignorant by not understanding what you are saying, most likely, incorrectly.

 

My examples were perfectly analogous to the subject at hand, not "way off base"; however, given your clear lack of proper language/communication skills, I'm not surprised you would think so. What I mean by that, just so you know, is that your comment is reminiscent of what happened when the first ships came to the new world; the native peoples did not even notice the ships, until they actually saw the men, as they had no frame of reference for a seagoing vessel. They literally "did not see it" despite them being in clear view. Without a clear reference for the importance of clear communications with those you manage and therefore a clear understanding of proper wording (you sound like a "close enough" type) of those communications, of course you think I am simply "way off base".

 

Now, I seriously doubt you are that stupid, so more than likely you know EXACTLY what I am talking about, know that IT IS a perfect example, and yet you lack the fundamental debating skills to countermand my thesis with a logical, common sense rebuttal. IE; you know I am correct and yet, you cannot think of any way to refute me. So, you immaturely refuse to agree I am correct and therefore you simply dismiss it - instead simply saying "your original analogies were way off base" with nothing to back up just HOW and WHY my original analogies are "way off base" other than all your "restaurant experience on several continents". That doesn't cut the mustard, if you will pardon the pun.

 

For one last example, to back up my analogy given directly above, it is much like when Phil Hellmuth loses a hand; he cannot refute the way it was played by his opponent in any logical sense to that person who beat him, so he instead tends to wonder "why the person did not play it like I would" or "others would not play it like that", and instead just whines and cries about being beaten, fair and square.

 

I would just simply advise you to give up, clearly you have lost this one. Spare yourself any further embarrassment. Or just be a man and say "I know what you are saying is correct, I just cannot agree with it in that manner". That's the gentlemanly way of waving the white flag.

Your analogies were way off base and your phrasing was as well.

 

"Before you leave tonight can you please make sure you marry the ketchups, the salts, and the vinegars.." sounds perfectly acceptable and I'd say even more logical than "before you leave to tonight could you please join the ketchup with the ketchup, the salt with the salt and the vinegars with the vinegars.."

 

So no your example is far from perfect and way off base as it pertains to the subject at hand. In reading over your own post you should have seen how the use of "marry" in this context fit, that is why I didn't feel the need to break it down for you particularly when you said "you'd never heard anyone with any sense use it in this manner"

 

I figured my pointing out that I've heard it pretty well world wide in all levels of dining points to the fact that tons of people with lots of sense use it in this manner daily. Also cute that you'd proclaim to know anything about my management style based on a post-if you've worked or are working in the restaurant industry and actively try to improve odds are you've come across articles I've written or been to conferences where I've been a speaker-started as a dishwasher and worked my way up and do the same at every single establishment I've been involved with sense.

 

At the end of the day "marry" is a term, for some to say it is only for "us" and not the homosexuals makes the gay people feel like they are purposefully being held at a different level-it's one thing for people to hold people at separate footing it's another for the government.

 

I believe I said it hear a long time ago I don't think it would be right for the government to force churches to marry gay couples or to even say churches must recognize gay marriages as marriage but at that same point the government shouldn't be referring to one as a marriage and one as a civil union in my opinion. As for the awkwardness for people like your crazy uncle- I'd say tough to him, it's 2013 time to get over this crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez. You just do not get it. Do you? You really just do not get it. WOW. In ANY KITCHEN IN THE WORLD, and this would include up there in Canada, if you were to say "MARRY THESE TWO INGREDIENTS TOGETHER: KETCHUP AND KETCHUP, you would sound like a total moron. Then again, in Canada, maybe not. You do not have an official language, you have official languages. Do you understand the difference in that? ONE is singular, ONE is plural (I'm just checking, I don't want to lose you). Maybe this has something to do with having two languages (english and french, instead of english or french - still with me? and/or? O.K.) which has led to these little 'oddities' in the communication of this principle to you.

 

Here in America, we use the word COMBINE when speaking of two of the exact same things. Not marry, COMBINE. YOU CAN COMBINE KETCHUP AND KETCHUP, in a ketchup CADDY, or COLLECTOR. YOU CANNOT MARRY THE TWO TOGETHER. Why? Because of this word: SEPARATE. After you MARRY ketchup and ketchup, can you then SEPARATE ketchup from ketchup? NO, YOU CANNOT. Can you separate ketchup from mustard? In theory, YES. Why? Because one is DIFFERENT from the other. Or, yes, combine, you can also combine two of the same or two different things; But when we say to marry two ingredients together, it is safely assumed you mean two different ingredients, not two of the same ingredients, otherwise you would COMBINE them if the exact same. Clearly, I am wrong, correct? All over the world they say things like "Marry one onion and one onion and one onion and some parsley together" in a kitchen. I stand corrected. Now that I say it like that, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. They would not say "COMBINE 3 onions and MARRY them together with some parsley", would they? Noooo.....up in Canada, I imagine you would also then say something like "go back in the kitchen and birth me a cheeseburger" or "go to the ice machine and poop some ice into my glass".

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go divorce a beer from my refrigerator, invade my aspirin bottle and perform some poker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez. You just do not get it. Do you? You really just do not get it. WOW. In ANY KITCHEN IN THE WORLD, and this would include up there in Canada, if you were to say "MARRY THESE TWO INGREDIENTS TOGETHER: KETCHUP AND KETCHUP, you would sound like a total moron. Then again, in Canada, maybe not. You do not have an official language, you have official languages. Do you understand the difference in that? ONE is singular, ONE is plural (I'm just checking, I don't want to lose you). Maybe this has something to do with having two languages (english and french, instead of english or french - still with me? and/or? O.K.) which has led to these little 'oddities' in the communication of this principle to you.

 

Here in America, we use the word COMBINE when speaking of two of the exact same things. Not marry, COMBINE. YOU CAN COMBINE KETCHUP AND KETCHUP, in a ketchup CADDY, or COLLECTOR. YOU CANNOT MARRY THE TWO TOGETHER. Why? Because of this word: SEPARATE. After you MARRY ketchup and ketchup, can you then SEPARATE ketchup from ketchup? NO, YOU CANNOT. Can you separate ketchup from mustard? In theory, YES. Why? Because one is DIFFERENT from the other. Or, yes, combine, you can also combine two of the same or two different things; But when we say to marry two ingredients together, it is safely assumed you mean two different ingredients, not two of the same ingredients, otherwise you would COMBINE them if the exact same. Clearly, I am wrong, correct? All over the world they say things like "Marry one onion and one onion and one onion and some parsley together" in a kitchen. I stand corrected. Now that I say it like that, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. They would not say "COMBINE 3 onions and MARRY them together with some parsley", would they? Noooo.....up in Canada, I imagine you would also then say something like "go back in the kitchen and birth me a cheeseburger" or "go to the ice machine and poop some ice into my glass".

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go divorce a beer from my refrigerator, invade my aspirin bottle and perform some poker.

And you completely ignored the fact that it is fairly common place-your post is essentially the same as a previous one except now you use combine instead of join. http://www.ask.com/answers/83957841/in-waitressing-what-does-marry-the-ketchups-mean-line-in-2-broke-girls-pilot-episode http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=marry%20the%20ketchups http://www.stuckserving.com/waiter-story-ketchup-catastrophe http://www.slashfood.com/tag/marrying%20ketchup/ pretty sure these and the hundreds of others are all American sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are points where join or combine or mix etc is the correct terminology. Your original point was that it wasn't possible to marry two of the same things-you used ketchups as an example, I've stated that you are wrong in my experience and now I've shown that even in your country the terminology is used. If you want to continue to dispute that-that's fine. I suppose it's easier then admitting that you misspoke. Funny how you stick to trying to defend your views on ketchup and ignore the more important points. I mean who cares what two ketchups decide to do. in the privacy of their own refrigerator and what right do any of us have to tell those ketchups how they can describe their love or the relationship that they have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez. You just do not get it. Do you? You really just do not get it. WOW. In ANY KITCHEN IN THE WORLD, and this would include up there in Canada, if you were to say "MARRY THESE TWO INGREDIENTS TOGETHER: KETCHUP AND KETCHUP, you would sound like a total moron. Then again, in Canada, maybe not. You do not have an official language, you have official languages. Do you understand the difference in that? ONE is singular, ONE is plural (I'm just checking, I don't want to lose you). Maybe this has something to do with having two languages (english and french, instead of english or french - still with me? and/or? O.K.) which has led to these little 'oddities' in the communication of this principle to you.

 

Here in America, we use the word COMBINE when speaking of two of the exact same things. Not marry, COMBINE. YOU CAN COMBINE KETCHUP AND KETCHUP, in a ketchup CADDY, or COLLECTOR. YOU CANNOT MARRY THE TWO TOGETHER. Why? Because of this word: SEPARATE. After you MARRY ketchup and ketchup, can you then SEPARATE ketchup from ketchup? NO, YOU CANNOT. Can you separate ketchup from mustard? In theory, YES. Why? Because one is DIFFERENT from the other. Or, yes, combine, you can also combine two of the same or two different things; But when we say to marry two ingredients together, it is safely assumed you mean two different ingredients, not two of the same ingredients, otherwise you would COMBINE them if the exact same. Clearly, I am wrong, correct? All over the world they say things like "Marry one onion and one onion and one onion and some parsley together" in a kitchen. I stand corrected. Now that I say it like that, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. They would not say "COMBINE 3 onions and MARRY them together with some parsley", would they? Noooo.....up in Canada, I imagine you would also then say something like "go back in the kitchen and birth me a cheeseburger" or "go to the ice machine and poop some ice into my glass".

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go divorce a beer from my refrigerator, invade my aspirin bottle and perform some poker.

 

 

Working in restaurants over the years the word "marry" has indeed been used.

 

Also, your tone reminds me of Smash, but that can't be. He died long ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you completely ignored the fact that it is fairly common place-your post is essentially the same as a previous one except now you use combine instead of join. http://www.ask.com/a...s-pilot-episode http://www.urbandict...ry the ketchups http://www.stuckserv...hup-catastrophe http://www.slashfood...rrying ketchup/ pretty sure these and the hundreds of others are all American sites.

 

Did you notice anything odd about your examples? No? Nothing at all? Not one is a mention of this older than 2009. That probably does not strike you as odd, if you are one who believes everything you read on the web as gospel. I do not. Not saying it is wrong, but hey - since this is such a common thing to say and since, well, forever!; perhaps we could find 4 examples of this being used in this manner older than say, 2000? How about 1993? Yes, lets see if we can find any good example of this as far back as 1993, older than at least 2000. That is only 10-20 years and using that expression is far older than even that, right? Sure it is! They would not just start using that expression for something that has been around (since, well, I don't know, but longer than 1990, I know that for a fact) for much longer. So, this should not be a problem. Should it? I mean, it's not like this just started getting used in this manner in the last four or five years, now has it? Right about the time that the idea of gay marriage started really taking root? For that to be true, I would have to believe in conspiracies and that is most certainly not me. I just do not buy into the "vast left wing" or the "vast right wing" or the "media" conspiracy crap, do you? I hope not. (I think we did go to the moon, JFK was shot by one loon, 911 was hijacked airplanes, etc;) Right, then, so lets both look and see what we can find. Because I think that is just a little weird. What, we woke up one day and started saying "marry" the ketchups instead of "combine" them? I doubt that very seriously. Either I do not correctly remember what terminology we used at all those restaurants I worked in and managed after saying it a ga-jillion times, and hearing it as many times again, or this is damn peculiar.

 

Are you up for that?

 

By the way, how many restaurants have you worked at here in America where you heard it/used that expression? Not just across the border, but within America? I have in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Arizona, Nevada and California. Mostly sit-down-and-order style places, nothing fancy though. And in the Navy, although that was not my primary job. I spent a week while in Australia with a rather cheeky fellow teaching him how to make Fried Chicken, "American" style. Not one of them once, in all those places, all that time, not once did I ever hear that term for anything other than "marrying" two different ingredients together. I know the piece equipment, such as it is, for combining the liquid condiments together though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...