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.

 Jihadin wrote:
1. I don't care
2. I still like them chikin sammich

My position in a nutshell. Exalted.

 kronk wrote:
Uh, no. You can't. You saying that you can doesn't make it so.

Now that you know that one is legal and one isn't, how does that make you feel about calling people's ideas dumb and stupid in this thread?

Well, given that you are incorrect ...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
1. I don't care
2. I still like them chikin sammich

My position in a nutshell. Exalted.

Someone bothered to take the time to post in a thread about something they say they don't actually care about, to say that they don't care about it and you took the time to quote them and exalt them in that same thread, saying that you agree with them that you don't care about the thread... in the thread...

FWIW, the position seems to be "chicken sandwiches are about chicken sandwiches" but I could just be reading my own position into it.

There's three types of grp on this. Those that support gay marriage, those do not support gay marriage, and those who con't care. I do occsaionaly like a chikin sammich but the perception is if I buy my sammich from a certain venue then I do not support ay mariage so I'm a possible hater. I'm the third grp. It does not effect me one way or another so I don't care.

 Manchu wrote:
FWIW, the position seems to be "chicken sandwiches are about chicken sandwiches" but I could just be reading my own position into it.

I can see that, I also totally disagree with it.

Chicken sandwiches are, for me, about how the food was sourced, the welfare of the animals used in the food, the chemicals added, the standards of hygiene, the quality of the food, the service involved, the quality of the establishment, the conduct of the business and how the business chooses to spend the money I've passed onto it.

I see it as part of a wider picture. Wife and I do all our shopping weighing up the morality of the items we buy. We are dead serious about the sustainability issues of fish we eat, for example, but do not partake of the Nestle boycotting, because we find that does not offend to the same extent.

We purchase in keeping with our morals and beliefs.

I support gay marriage because I'm fine with people having different lifestyles in the US so long as they are peaceable. That includes me being fine with people who want to peaceably oppose gay marriage. And if those who peaceably oppose gay marriage are successful, then I would have to acknowledge the resulting law as valid even if I continue to disagree. I simply do not feel that my choice of lunch has a meaningful connection to such an issue.

 Jihadin wrote:
There's three types of grp on this. Those that support gay marriage, those do not support gay marriage, and those who con't care. I do occsaionaly like a chikin sammich but the perception is if I buy my sammich from a certain venue then I do not support ay mariage so I'm a possible hater. I'm the third grp. It does not effect me one way or another so I don't care.

This is the second time you've posted in this thread to tell us, again, that you don't care...


Do you really not care or do you actually want to tell us something?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We purchase in keeping with our morals and beliefs.

Calling upon Polonius's earlier remark, I would say the same of myself and my wife.

 Manchu wrote:
I support gay marriage because I'm fine with people having different lifestyles in the US so long as they are peaceable. That includes me being fine with people who want to peaceably oppose gay marriage. And if those who peaceably oppose gay marriage are successful, then I would have to acknowledge the resulting law as valid even if I continue to disagree. I simply do not feel that my choice of lunch has a meaningful connection to such an issue.

You fund the business, the business funds the political organisation. Your money is used to fund the political organisation.


No man is an island etc.

We just have to look at the financial impact causing ChickFilA to buckle to realize that individuals making informed (or poorly informed) consumer choices based on a business' political affiliation can and does have potentially severe ramifications for businesses that choose controversial causes.

What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me. I'm okay with us disagreeing. I wouldn't try to get you fired or make your business fail, for example, if we disagreed about gay marriage.

I still want to prevail, politically, but that ideally means having more support rather than trying to hurt the opposition. In our democracy, if most of the people want gay people to be able to get married, then let's have that. If they don't want that, then let's not have it.

 Manchu wrote:
What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me. I'm okay with us disagreeing. I wouldn't try to get you fired or make your business fail, for example, if we disagreed about gay marriage.

I still want to prevail, politically, but that ideally means having more support rather than trying to hurt the opposition. In our democracy, if most of the people want gay people to be able to get married, then let's have that. If they don't want that, then let's not have it.

You are correct, I agree.

If we do not agree over gay marriage, we disagree. I would try to get you to see my side of the discussion.

The difference is you are an individual, not a corporation.

If it was the chairman of the board making a personal statement, I would not care either. If he were putting all his personal finances into anti-gay marriage legislation, well, he can do that.

I do however, very strongly object to certain individuals steering a corporation's spending into controversial organisations. A chicken sandwich is indeed just a chicken sandwich and the chicken sandwich shop has no business at all interfering in the rights of two tax paying individuals to wed. Big business has no business in the rights of citizens!

 Manchu wrote:
What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me.

And I agree, I just don't see how when one person chooses to do a thing that it somehow is considered coercion for you. If I choose not to eat at CFA I'm not saying you can't, and I'm not saying you are are wrong to do so; my choice isn't about you, it is about me. In the end it is just a fast food restaurant and I have no ill will toward anyone that wants to eat there. I have more ill will toward the guy who went through the drive-through lane and was mean to that cashier. If I'm on a trip and I am hungry and the next restaurant is a CFA and I have no idea when the next chance to eat will be I will eat there with no qualms. When it goes from being about a person making a personal choice for themselves to bullying others into thinking they have to do the same as they do to gain some odd sense validation I think it has lost any moral weight it had to begin with.

 Manchu wrote:
I support gay marriage because I'm fine with people having different lifestyles in the US so long as they are peaceable. That includes me being fine with people who want to peaceably oppose gay marriage. And if those who peaceably oppose gay marriage are successful, then I would have to acknowledge the resulting law as valid even if I continue to disagree. I simply do not feel that my choice of lunch has a meaningful connection to such an issue.

Do you think those who peacebly oppose gay marriage do so for bigoted reasons? Like those in the past who opposed interacial marraige? If so, is it morally wrong?

 Manchu wrote:
What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me. I'm okay with us disagreeing. I wouldn't try to get you fired or make your business fail, for example, if we disagreed about gay marriage.

I still want to prevail, politically, but that ideally means having more support rather than trying to hurt the opposition. In our democracy, if most of the people want gay people to be able to get married, then let's have that. If they don't want that, then let's not have it.

Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...

Problem solved!

EDIT: here's a funny note... those states that do NOT allow gay marriages... allows for Divorces of gay couples. Now work that one out...

@KC: One can be peaceable and immoral. In other words, I'm talking about society rather than your conscience.

@MGS: For me, the distinction between the person and the corporation in this context breaks down precisely because what is at issue is not the product or service offered by the corporation but the opinions held by its owners and management.

@Ahtman: You're right, a protest is not technically synonymous with an attempt to coerce. It can also be an attempt to persuade. I don't think that distinction applies to the events at hand, however.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...

That is effectively what is being done minus the change in words (rest assured, an underlying change in meaning is underway nonetheless), which is my big hang up about gay marriage. I do not think it is the same thing as marriage. But the political issue is regarding certain legal rights, which I don't think has anything to do with marriage, either. So on balance, I think this is not really about marriage but something that we are all content to call marriage.

 Manchu wrote:

@MGS: For me, the distinction between the person and the corporation in this context breaks down precisely because what is at issue is not the product or service offered by the corporation but the opinions held by its owners and management.

...and what they do with the profits of the corporation... they are not investing personally but making payments as a company... that is the contentious issue for me. John Doe, owner of chickensammich, does not make a payment to a 'gay fixing camp', but that chickensammich issues a donation to this 'charity'...

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...

That is effectively what is being done minus the change in words (rest assured, an underlying change in meaning is underway nonetheless), which is my big hang up about gay marriage. I do not think it is the same thing as marriage. But the political issue is regarding certain legal rights, which I don't think has anything to do with marriage, either. So on balance, I think this is not really about marriage but something that we are all content to call marriage.

I am married to my wife. She is not my 'civil partner', she is my wife. We did not marry in a church and if any Christian tells me she is not my wife and we are not married, then I will be having very large and angry problems with that Christian. Your church does not have exclusivity on 'marriage' any more than the muslims do or the wiccans or the moonies.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...

That is effectively what is being done minus the change in words (rest assured, an underlying change in meaning is underway nonetheless), which is my big hang up about gay marriage. I do not think it is the same thing as marriage. But the political issue is regarding certain legal rights, which I don't think has anything to do with marriage, either. So on balance, I think this is not really about marriage but something that we are all content to call marriage.

I am married to my wife. She is not my 'civil partner', she is my wife. We did not marry in a church and if any Christian tells me she is not my wife and we are not married, then I will be having very large and angry problems with that Christian. Your church does not have exclusivity on 'marriage' any more than the muslims do or the wiccans or the moonies.

I'm a heathen, so what do I know?

You can call her whatever you want . But that suggestion was what the STATE would call the union.

Again, if gay couples can't marry due to states laws... and yet, that same state will allow for a divorce. Does.Not.Compute.

And the "moonies"... eh... what?

 Manchu wrote:
@KC: One can be peaceable and immoral. In other words, I'm talking about society rather than your conscience.

Isn't it an individual's and citizen's responsibility to strive for a moral society?

Whether you care for history or not, the notion of marriage as practiced in this country developed in the context of Western Christianity. "Marriage" as some inclusive term for disparate social phenomena throughout all human history and across all cultures is not what I'm talking about as changing. Obviously.

As a matter of public consequence, the marriage enjoyed by you and your spouse is nothing more than a legal relationship endorsed by the state. That is very different from sacramental marriage. In years past, in this very country, there was not such a division between the two notions. The existence of gay marriage shows that a huge gap has grown up between them.

Perhaps you think that is a good thing. I'm not so sure I do. But my point was that I am in favor of states recognizing gay marriage independent of that consideration.

 Manchu wrote:
Whether you care for history or not, the notion of marriage as practiced in this country developed in the context of Western Christianity. "Marriage" as some inclusive term for disparate social phenomena throughout all human history and across all cultures is not what I'm talking about as changing. Obviously.

The concept of Marriage was started in Rome (or maybe Greece) during the Roman Empire.

Take a guess why...

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't it an individual's and citizen's responsibility to strive for a moral society?

Sure. But a moral society is not the same thing as a moral individual life, hence my mention of conscience. I am not going to support outlawing masturbation, for example, whether or not I or anyone else finds it immoral.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Big business has no business in the rights of citizens!

I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?

As for moral buying, I get it. I do. But I'm not going to deprive myself of something I enjoy because the owner has a viewpoint I disagree with. And all of the hyperbolic comparisons, Chick-fil-a isnt' the clan, or the Phelps, or the Tamil Tigers. They're a restaurant chain that has a conservative christian mentality, of which I agree with far more than I disagree.

Much like too many christians obsess over homosexuality (which is a tiny speck of human morality), too many liberals obsess over the anti-gay ideals of a lot of christians.

 Polonius wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Big business has no business in the rights of citizens!

I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?

As for moral buying, I get it. I do. But I'm not going to deprive myself of something I enjoy because the owner has a viewpoint I disagree with. And all of the hyperbolic comparisons, Chick-fil-a isnt' the clan, or the Phelps, or the Tamil Tigers. They're a restaurant chain that has a conservative christian mentality, of which I agree with far more than I disagree.

Much like too many christians obsess over homosexuality (which is a tiny speck of human morality), too many liberals obsess over the anti-gay ideals of a lot of christians.

And I approve this message!

Seriously... it's fething good chicken sammich... that's all.

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Isn't it an individual's and citizen's responsibility to strive for a moral society?

Sure. But a moral society is not the same thing as a moral individual life, hence my mention of conscience. I am not going to support outlawing masturbation, for example, whether or not I or anyone else finds it immoral.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

 Polonius wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Big business has no business in the rights of citizens!

I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?

Personally I am against the concept of corporate personhood and that corporations have the same rights as people.

But if you want to give free speech to a corporation then they are free to speak out against gay marriage. I don't think that anybody in this thread has said that they shouldn't be able to say what they want. But the usual caveat applies: Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom of Consequences.

If people don't like what you say they can't make a federal case about it. But they can choose to listen to what you have to say and take their money elsewhere. How and where I spend my money is a form of speech as well.

 Manchu wrote:
Whether you care for history or not, the notion of marriage as practiced in this country developed in the context of Western Christianity. "Marriage" as some inclusive term for disparate social phenomena throughout all human history and across all cultures is not what I'm talking about as changing. Obviously.

As a matter of public consequence, the marriage enjoyed by you and your spouse is nothing more than a legal relationship endorsed by the state. That is very different from sacramental marriage. In years past, in this very country, there was not such a division between the two notions. The existence of gay marriage shows that a huge gap has grown up between them.

Perhaps you think that is a good thing. I'm not so sure I do. But my point was that I am in favor of states recognizing gay marriage independent of that consideration.

This may surprise you but I once pondered the same things. Some thought the solution was to simply call it a "civil union" and save the more sacred "marriage" term for the traditional meaning even though they were essentially the same legally. I wondered if that might be a good way to meet in the middle.

So, things work a little differently up here. We don't have that "intricate system of checks and balances" that America "enjoys." We basically elect a dictator for 1-5 years. One day the Prime Minister just went ahead and made gay marriage legal. No, civil unions or anything like that. WHAM! Everyone start getting gay married right now! I was just kind of went "oh, alright then I guess that's settled....." and pretty much that's what the rest of the country thought too. The world didn't end and the sun came up the next day and eveything. It just doesn't effect most people's lives.

Whatever my ambivilance about the issue before when it (rarely) gets brought up again in Canadian politics it just annoys me now. Like it's done we got bigger problems to deal with.

Anyways, I didn't post that with any personal agenda just saying how it went up here. If it becomes legal America will survive.

 d-usa wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Big business has no business in the rights of citizens!

I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?

Personally I am against the concept of corporate personhood and that corporations have the same rights as people.

But if you want to give free speech to a corporation then they are free to speak out against gay marriage. I don't think that anybody in this thread has said that they shouldn't be able to say what they want. But the usual caveat applies: Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom of Consequences.

If people don't like what you say they can't make a federal case about it. But they can choose to listen to what you have to say and take their money elsewhere. How and where I spend my money is a form of speech as well.

Corporate personhood is actually an incredibly useful legal fiction and nothing new. It's why you can sue and tax a company as "the company" and is based on the theory that people acting as a group do not lose their individual rights. There are plenty of limits on corporate personhood and while the argument could be made more restrictions are needed the concept itself has been in existance since at least the early 1800s and is pretty sound legal theory at this point.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?

The problem is that, by giving the CEO access to the much greater financial and organizational resources of an entire corporation, "corporate" speech has much more influence than an individual person. It stops being about speech between equals and becomes little more than a question of which corporation can afford to buy the most speech. This is especially true when "speech" often includes giving corporate money to various causes that few, if any, individuals could attempt to match.

Much like too many christians obsess over homosexuality (which is a tiny speck of human morality), too many liberals obsess over the anti-gay ideals of a lot of christians.

And why shouldn't we obsess over them when they cause completely unjustified harm to a significant element of society? I see no reason to excuse the behavior of ignorant bigots just because it's a "tiny speck of human morality".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?

The problem is that, by giving the CEO access to the much greater financial and organizational resources of an entire corporation, "corporate" speech has much more influence than an individual person. It stops being about speech between equals and becomes little more than a question of which corporation can afford to buy the most speech. This is especially true when "speech" often includes giving corporate money to various causes that few, if any, individuals could attempt to match.

Did you just describe the lobbying industry?