Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.
I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/

youbedead wrote:A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

Who cares? We're talking about the thing as a right, not a privilege to be given or retracted by the electorate. Are you telling me that if there is a swing back around to disfavoring homsexual marriage, it can be abolished by opinion polls?

And what about the 38% who do not support it? They should be marginalized from society, starting with having their business driven from certain major cities, for disagreeing? Sounds an awful lot like how gay people have themselves been treated over the years.

Yes, Manchu, it shouldn't matter.

But it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:I agree that homosexuality is a sin (but no more of a sin than any of the sins I commit), and so forth.

Would you say that it's not a sin once they're married?

I know several preachers who would argue that the main problem with homosexuality is that it is outside of the sanctity of marriage. A few of them support gay marriage because of this-- not wanting homosexuals to live in a state of sin because they're not allowed to marry.

Not really in this for the theological discussion Mel, just because I know it is the quickest way to get a thread shut down. It will just go off-topic really fast with the usual crowd fighting with each other.

I was really just trying to show that people can disagree with people being gay but still fight for their legal rights to be gay and enjoy the protection of marriage.

But it's a far more interesting discussion than the CFA one :/

Melissia wrote:Yes, Manchu, it shouldn't matter.

But it does.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to.

Melissia wrote:Would you say that it's not a sin once they're married?

I know you didn't ask me but I'll answer all the same. As I understand it, this is just a red herring. First, homosexual marriage is a theological impossibility in the Catholic tradition. It's a basic contradiction of terms. Second, it is the act rather than the status of the actors that is considered sinful. So even if people of the same sex could be meaningfully married, their status as married would not have anything to do with the sinfulness of the act of homosexual intercourse. It's like how beating your significant other is wrong, no matter if you guys are married or not. I make this comparison only for the purposes of showing how status does not necessarily qualify an act; I do not personally equate homosexual intercourse with spousal battery.

Don't we already have the religion/gay thread on a biweekly basis in the OT?

Don't we already have the religion/gay thread on a biweekly basis in the OT?

thats 2-3 threads going at the same time like every two weeks. Would use the word "bi" but that might start a 3-4 thread every two weeks

Manchu wrote:

youbedead wrote:A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

Who cares? We're talking about the thing as a right, not a privilege to be given or retracted by the electorate. Are you telling me that if there is a swing back around to disfavoring homsexual marriage, it can be abolished by opinion polls?

And what about the 38% who do not support it? They should be marginalized from society, starting with having their business driven from certain major cities, for disagreeing? Sounds an awful lot like how gay people have themselves been treated over the years.

That was a direct response to frazz's stated belief that a majority of americans don't support gay marriage

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, Manchu, it shouldn't matter.

But it does.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to.

Popular opinion.

Manchu wrote:First, homosexual marriage is a theological impossibility in the Catholic tradition. It's a basic contradiction of terms.

Well, I wasn't really asking regarding Catholics anyway.

I have plenty of reasons to not like the Catholic church or its numerous teachings. No offense meant.

I guess the real problem here is not about gays or about religion.

The real problem is the terrible notion that if people have a different conception of anything, whether its sexuality or morality or even more superficial things, then they have no place in society.

To me, that's the issue whether it comes to marginalizing gay people or marginalizing people with more traditional values.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I have plenty of reasons to not like the Catholic church or its numerous teachings. No offense meant.

None taken. I suspect I have a lot more than even you.

All this talk of chicken sandwiches lead me to making a grilled chicken sandwich with marinara sauce and mozzarella cheese on a 7-grain bun I bought from the deli.

It kicked ass.

Also, the two Chick-Fil-As in my area had cars wrapped around them.

As for Chick-Fil-A and stuff, it's made it easy to see whom I need to block from my Facebook updates before the election season starts. I don't want to read about politics on facebook. Now go post pictures of your dog or your kid climbing on something REALLY dangerous.

youbedead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.
I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/

Yet no law change has ever been approved by ballot.
Take out the civil union part and the numbers change big time. Eventually its all a word game though. If Bob and Bob say they are married they have a right to do so under the First Amendment. What are you going to do, call them on the phone and say they are lying?

(translation marriage as a religious institution depends on the religion, just change your religion. Marriage as a non religious institution is just whatever you say).

The "majority of Americans" have not voted on a nationwide basis.

It's always been on a state by state basis. If 62% of Americans feel that homosexual marriages or civil unions should be legal, that doesn't mean they are all in one great big voter base which can roam the lands righting wrongs by voting in every instance.

I can think of at least one high profile instance of gay marriage being rejected by voters.

Yeah, but NC passing a gay marriage bill was as likely as chimps are to colonize Mars.

Wasn't the DNC suppose to be there first? Instead of FL?

From what I can tell, the DNC is still going to be here in Charlotte, NC.

Kanluwen wrote:Yeah, but NC passing a gay marriage bill was as likely as chimps are to colonize Mars.

California was rather more surprising.

Time to......REINSTATE SPQR!!!


But I shall be AWSOMIST MAXIMIST


just because I'm watching the movie

Frazzled wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:The people who are suggesting that this is just a "freedom of speech" issue or just about one man's opinion are ignoring the fact that Chick-fil-A donates money from its profits to religious lobbyists and anti-gay groups seeking to deny people their rights.

I think a lot of people are intentionally missing the point on this. I don't care what this guy says. I don't care what their corporate mission is. It's his business, and it's his right.

What I do care about is when they start to use their corporate funding to push their religious leanings via the monopolistic force of government onto other people, stealing their civil liberties, as happened with Prop. 8. The real mystery to me is why self-professed libertarian and small-government republicans would support this sort of government intrusion into private lives.

Its not intrusion. Its free speech on a topic that the majority of Americans agree with and the other side laughs at and generally screams BIGOT! at every opportunity.
I don't agree with the guy other than traditional marriage was indeed a tradition - a religious tradition. Government has no place in it.

A majority of american do support however.

62% feel that gays should be allowed to marry or be allowed to form a civil union

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57433493-503544/poll-most-americans-support-same-sex-unions/

Yet no law change has ever been approved by ballot.
Take out the civil union part and the numbers change big time. Eventually its all a word game though. If Bob and Bob say they are married they have a right to do so under the First Amendment. What are you going to do, call them on the phone and say they are lying?

(translation marriage as a religious institution depends on the religion, just change your religion. Marriage as a non religious institution is just whatever you say).

Exactly marriage is religious and the gov should have no involvement whatsoever, but i deserve the same tax breaks you do, I should be able to visit my SO in the hospital, I should be considered family for the purpose of health insurance etc. I could give a gak what you call it but I deserve an equal legal representation

And I am ok with that.

I demand equal rights for gay chickens NOW

Gay Chickens for some, tiny American flags for others!

I demand equal rights for gay chickens NOW

Processing plants provide 100% equal oppurtunity for all chickens coming through the door...

Melissia wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:So where is he able to restrict rights?

By trying to deny the right to marry for homosexuals through funding political action groups, and through funding anti-homosexual organizations which actively go about trying to make the lives of homosexuals miserable.

And this doesn't happen to other "groups" of people? Gun owners? I know I have been called racist a bunch of times even though some of my best friends (and family) are of different ethnicities. My point was to his statement in this instance. He expressed his opinion. I'm sorry if you don't agree with him but honestly I don't care about yours or his...that's my opinion, but it is also my opinion that people shouldn't attack him or his company based on his views. Now if it was something that threatened the country as a whole or threatened violence...like a shooting or terrorist attack then that is a whole other thing and goes well beyond what the first ammendment gives.

MrDwhitey wrote:

Akroma06 wrote:Personally I don't care if you are straight or gay as long as you don't get up in my face about it and keep your love life in your house.

I agree, straight couples should keep it all at home. No kissing in public, holding of hands etc. It makes me feel damn icky just seeing a man and woman together, eugh.

Ugh that was not my point either. I mean don't get rilled up and fill my news with it. I'm not a fan of things like the gay pride parades that block roads and interfere with society as a whole, and yes it would bother me if it was a "straight pride" and did the same thing.

Ultimately if you love your partner (gay or not) then fine. I am genuinely happy for you. If you have the same benefits whether mariage or civil union then that is where I think we should be as a whole. Anything else is excessive and we don't need.

This states the issue better than I can.


I encourage everyone who is in any way confused by any element of this matter to read the full post in the link.

No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

That's what makes arguing on the internet so much fun!

Manchu wrote:No that doesn't adequately capture the issue. That's just the same tired assumptions and sentiments trotted out once again.

Then please explain to me how Chick-Fil-A giving money to the Family Research Council is any different than donating money to the Ku Klux Klan. Because outside of some minor semantics, the comparison is apt. Both organizations have the goal of repressing or eliminating the freedoms of a minority group.