Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont see why I should tolerate your belief that I am less deserving of full citizenship than you.

If that's the case, then I don't see how you can possibly represent yourself as a liberal. Sure, you can hint at advocating bashing queer haters, or censoring them, or persuading the government to close down homophobic websites or making the Catholic Church change its despicable and obviously self-hating queer motivated policy on gay rights - you, or anyone, can do any of those things - but i don't see how you or anyone else can claim that you're a liberal at the same time, it just isn't consistent. It's an intellectual contradiction, on some level, to do so.
 
I'm a progressive.

I had no idea you were so concerned with validating everyone's feelings and making sure that all opinions -- no matter how uninformed -- are treated as if they are all of equal merit.

In fact, I thought you hated that PC shite.
 
I'm a progressive.

I don't know what that means, it's never been satisfactorily explained to me. It's an Americanism which is not widely used outside of the US.

I'm I had no idea you were so concerned with validating everyone's feelings and makin sure that all opinions -- no matter how uninformed -- are treated as if they are all I equal merit.

I haven't the slightest interest in validing everyone's feelings and I don't remotely accept that all opinions are of equal merit.

For example, you think that "Brokeback Mountain" is the best thing since sliced bread and I think that it's a boring predictable exploitative sentimental melodramatic Hollywood complete crock of shit.

That doesn't make me right and you wrong, or the reverse. It just means that I have a different opinion to yours. But, our difffering opinions on the movie are, hopefully, based purely on artistic grounds. Someone that wanted to ban the movie because of what they read in the Bible or whatever - well, that person's opinion is not necessarily equally valid to yours or mine, because they are coming from the standpoint of intolerance. But, their expression of that bigoted opinion shouldn't be banned, criminalised or censored. It should be listened to and heard, even if only to be scorned and criticised, and held up up for contempt. Much like Richard Dawkins does with religion, for example.

"My Own Private Idaho" - now, that was a decent movie.
 
Yes, because opinions on movies are the same as opinions on civil rights.

You're also talking around yourself in circles.

I don't eat at CFA. They are gay hating shits. IH's "opinions" on gay people are pathetic and indefensible and he knows it.

Everyone has the right to be stupid, and I have the right to tell them. All of that IS tolerance and hasn't been suggested otherwise.

Go pick a fight where there is one to be had with an actual person, not someone you've fabricated.
 
I don't remember any of you "boycotting" Senator or President Obama when he held the same position.

Quite frankly, I never thought he was against gay marriage, I honestly don't think he's bothered one way or another by it. And I definitely did express my wish that he'd shown his support for it much sooner-like when he was campaigning in '08.

But apples and oranges, and stuff. Plus, he's showing his support now, and whether it's for political gain or sincere (I think it's probably a mix of both), he's supporting civil rights, and that's always going to be a good thing in and of itself.

yep. yet it's perfectly cool for all these other organisations to boycott groups like jcpenney and encourage going to chick-fil-a as much as possible. it's a bit hypocritical.

Exactly.

I agree, by the way, that the government shouldn't be dictating what businesses can and can't come into a city. I'm beyond thrilled that Boston supports gay marriage, but I think there's better ways to handle this issue than denying businesses opportunity to set up in town. Besides that, just because the head of the company's against it, doesn't mean every single person working there agrees (I'm guessing. I don't know if they have strict rules about supporting the beliefs of that chain if you wish to work there or what). Why should they be punished because of what the head of the company says?

Interesting to me that in WA state, gay marriage was passed through the legislature and signed off by the governor. Yet, the anti-gay marriage crowd raised up a stink and started a petition. Aren't we repeatedly told that the issue with gay marriage is that activist judges are forcing it upon citizens against their will? So if the elected legislators also can't do it, then who?

Good point. I guess it's supposed to come down to the citizens themselves. But if the people vote and the bill to legalize gay marriage STILL passes, then what would their argument be?

It's all so confusing, the anti-gay marriage arguments.

Also, Pearl, thanks, and I agree with your post as well.
 
I consider myself conservative on more issues than not but don't understand why people are against gay marriage. Everyone should be allowed the opportunity to marry their loved one and gain the benefits of that marriage. I know that the idea of marriage to many people is a holy idea and only between a man and a woman. But damn half the marriages in the US end in divorce. Some people get married 4 times. It cant be that holy. Everyone should have the equal opportunity to be miserable and experience divorce. Not just heterosexuals.
 
tim722 said:
I consider myself conservative on more issues than not but don't understand why people are against gay marriage. Everyone should be allowed the opportunity to marry their loved one and gain the benefits of that marriage. I know that the idea of marriage to many people is a holy idea and only between a man and a woman. But damn half the marriages in the US end in divorce. Some people get married 4 times. It cant be that holy. Everyone should have the equal opportunity to be miserable and experience divorce. Not just heterosexuals.

Can we call a moratorium on "gays should be allowed to be as miserable of the rest of us ha ha ha" please? It's great that you (not you personally) support gay marriage but that's such a lame joke.

I'd also like to call a moratorium on the "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" joke.
 
Mayor Bloomberg: Chick-fil-A Ban ‘Not Going to Happen’ in NYC | Politicker

Despite Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s advocacy for a healthier diet and strong support for gay marriage, he’s cold on the idea of banning Chick-fil-A within the five boroughs.

As mayors around the country — including Boston’s, Chicago’s and San Francisco’s — are backing efforts to keep the fast food chain out of their cities due to the company’s president, Dan Cathy, spending millions to push back against gay marriage, Mr. Bloomberg said it’s “a bad idea and it’s not going to happen” on John Gambling’s radio show this morning.

“They’re all friends but I disagree with them really strongly on this one,” Mr. Bloomberg said of his mayoral colleagues. “You can’t have a test for what the owners’ personal views are before you decide to give a permit to do something in the city. You really don’t want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit, that’s just not government’s job.”

Mr. Bloomberg went on to argue that blocking a business based on their political beliefs opens a potential slippery slope where liberal cities block conservative establishments and vice versa with conservative cities.

“Freedom of speech — everybody’s in favor of it as long as it’s what they want to hear,” he explained. “Well the only way that you have your freedom of speech is if you give other people freedom of speech. … This is just a bad idea and it’s not going to happen in New York City.”

The mayor didn’t weigh in on Chick-fil-A’s particular cuisine, however.

“Never had one,” he said of their sandwiches, maintaining that they would be welcome to open a business in the city with the right permits and inspections. “I didn’t even know about them until I read about them in the paper.
 
Daily Kos: Another Headache for Chick-fil-A — Sued for Gender Discrimination


Former Chick-fil-A employee Brenda Honeycutt is now suing the chain for wrongful termination. She alleges that she was the victim of gender discrimination. According to the reports:

The lawsuit, which was obtained by GLAAD, refers to a June 27, 2011, incident in which Jeff Howard, the owner and operator of a Duluth, Ga., Chick-fil-A, fired Honeycutt so she could be a "stay home mother."

It seems that they are kind of stuck in the 1950s while much of the rest of the country is in the 21st century.

According to GLAAD:

Honeycutt was terminated by Howard after meetings with restaurant management (during which she was not present), and was replaced by a male employee. The lawsuit cites a pattern of discrimination against female employees, who, after being terminated, were also replaced by male employees in Northern Georgia’s Chick-Fil-A restaurants.
 
Yes, and surprise! He was criticized for it by many people. So your "jab" of a comment yesterday was pointless.
 
How about a moratorium on "there are no reasoned opinions that marriage is gender specific for a male and a female, only bigotry." Because that leads to "therefore you are not wrong, you are in fact a vile and loathsome hater." And logically to "One cannot be against same-sex marriage and be a decent human being."
 
Speaking of haters: The Tolerance Enforcers - Mark Steyn - National Review Online

The city’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, agrees with the alderman: Chick-fil-A does not represent “Chicago values” — which is true if by “Chicago values” you mean machine politics, AIDS-conspiracy-peddling pastors, and industrial-scale black youth homicide rates. But, before he was mayor, Rahm Emanuel was President Obama’s chief of staff. Until the president’s recent “evolution,” the Obama administration held the same position on gay marriage as Chick-fil-A. Would Alderman Moreno have denied Barack Obama the right to open a chicken restaurant in the First Ward? Did Rahm Emanuel quit the Obama administration on principle? Don’t be ridiculous. Mayor Emanuel is a former ballet dancer, and when it’s politically necessary he can twirl on a dime.

Meanwhile, fellow mayor Tom Menino announced that Chick-fil-A would not be opening in his burg anytime soon. “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult,” said His Honor. If you’ve just wandered in in the middle of the column, this guy Menino isn’t the mayor of Soviet Novosibirsk or Kampong Cham under the Khmer Rouge, but of Boston, Massachusetts. Nevertheless, he shares the commissars’ view that in order to operate even a modest and politically inconsequential business it is necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance with party orthodoxy. “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail,” Mayor Menino thundered in his letter to Mr. Cathy, “and no place for your company alongside it.” No, sir. On Boston’s Freedom Trail, you’re free to march in ideological lockstep with the city authorities — or else. Hard as it is to believe, there was a time when Massachusetts was a beacon of liberty: the shot heard round the world, and all that. Now it fires Bureau of Compliance permit-rejection letters round the world.

Menino is happy to hand out municipal licenses to groups whose most prominent figures call for gays to be put to death. The mayor couldn’t have been more accommodating (including giving them $1.8 million of municipal land) of the new mosque of the Islamic Society of Boston, whose IRS returns listed as one of their seven trustees Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Like President Obama, Imam Qaradawi’s position on gays is in a state of “evolution”: He can’t decide whether to burn them or toss ’em off a cliff.

Once upon a time, Massachusetts burned witches. Now it grills chicken-sandwich homophobes. One day it’ll be something else. Already in Europe, in previously gay-friendly cities like Amsterdam, demographically surging Muslim populations have muted leftie politicians’ commitment to gay rights, feminism, and much else.

When Mayor Menino and Alderman Moreno openly threaten to deny business licenses because of ideological apostasy, they’re declaring their unfitness for public office. It’s not about marriage, it’s not about gays, it’s about a basic understanding that a free society requires a decent respect for a wide range of opinion without penalty by the state.

:applaud:
 
Yes, and surprise! He was criticized for it by many people. So your "jab" of a comment yesterday was pointless.

The mayors of Chicago, Boston and S.F. were not criticizing or balancing one aspect of Chick-Fil-A while noting the philanthropic deeds they agree with, the jobs, tax revenue and unique product the company also provides. As Obama supporters must have done to vigorously disagree with him one this issue while still contributing to his campaign and casting a vote for him.

No, it was more "My way or the highway" wasn't it? Until their lawyers and advisors got to them anyway.
 
“Freedom of speech — everybody’s in favor of it as long as it’s what they want to hear,” he explained. “Well the only way that you have your freedom of speech is if you give other people freedom of speech. … This is just a bad idea and it’s not going to happen in New York City.”
I don't understand this arguement
none of the other mayors denies anyone free speech as far as I can tell

Mr. Bloomberg went on to argue that blocking a business based on their political beliefs opens a potential slippery slope where liberal cities block conservative establishments and vice versa with conservative cities.
this I do agree with
so every mayor should pick their battle very, very carefully
 
INDY500 said:
The mayors of Chicago, Boston and S.F. were not criticizing or balancing one aspect of Chick-Fil-A while noting the philanthropic deeds they agree with, the jobs, tax revenue and unique product the company also provides. As Obama supporters must have done to vigorously disagree with him one this issue while still contributing to his campaign and casting a vote for him.

No, it was more "My way or the highway" wasn't it? Until their lawyers and advisors got to them anyway.

I already specified my issues with their employment tactics. I will not be applauding a company for killing job opportunities once every seven days.
 
How about a moratorium on "there are no reasoned opinions that marriage is gender specific for a male and a female, only bigotry."
What are these reason-based opinions? And, if your answer is going to revolve around parenting as opposed to marriage per se, what are the reason-based opinions that parenting is gender specific for a male and a female?
I already specified my issues with their employment tactics. I will not be applauding a company for killing job opportunities once every seven days.
Not really an "employment tactic" to be closed one day a week, is it?
 
Former Chick-fil-A employee Brenda Honeycutt is now suing the chain for wrongful termination. She alleges that she was the victim of gender discrimination.
it doesn't surprise me. when i worked there, it was clear if you weren't a white guy, you didn't move up at all. four years and i couldn't even move up one level, much less become a shift supervisor or something. yet guys younger than me (it was their first job too so it was not a matter of them having more experience) got promotions months after being hired.

not making myself out to be some victim though, just venting. this isn't the first time they've been accused of firing someone because they're a woman, gay, etc.
 
How about a moratorium on "there are no reasoned opinions that marriage is gender specific for a male and a female, only bigotry." Because that leads to "therefore you are not wrong, you are in fact a vile and loathsome hater." And logically to "One cannot be against same-sex marriage and be a decent human being."



come tell me to my face that i am less of a person than you are.

but really, the issue here is CFA and their hurt feelings and how difficult it is to dislike gay people and it's getting harder every day to be against denying gay people basic things the rest of the world takes for granted like the right to marry the person of your choice.

poor things.
 
What are these reason-based opinions? And, if your answer is going to revolve around parenting as opposed to marriage per se, what are the reason-based opinions that parenting is gender specific for a male and a female?



how could it though? we know that one isn't required to be a parent to get married or vice versa (straight people have made sure of this), and we have decades of evidence that children with gay parents do just as well if not better than their hetero raised counterparts.

so i think even bringing up parenting as an issue is bogus.

i think all INDY has left is to say that it's necessary to discriminate against gay people so that straight people feel more special, and this helps us all because straight people need to feel more special so they will stop having illegitimate children all over the place. which is my fault.
 
I had an argument the other day with someone who said homosexuality is a choice. I told him that it wasn't and he said "yeah well it's my fucking opinion and I'm allowed to have it, don't try and force your beliefs on me".

THAT ISN'T AN OPINION. IT'S AN INCORRECT FACT.
 
illegitimate
That's the only reason I brought it up. An assertion is often made to the effect that one (or even "the") core function marriage serves is to officially privilege a particular context--public commitment to a shared legal status entailing both rights and obligations--for childrearing. The notion that married parents are categorically, quantifiably "better" is clearly bogus, but to be fair, it's difficult to explain the existence of civil marriage at all without acknowledging the role of this perceived core function. Is the mere prospect of two people in love remaining together permanently really of such social value, in and of itself, as to warrant extensive government-provided incentives? Maybe the answer is "yes," but if so that's a fairly new argument, and while I could take a stab at making it, I doubt it'd qualify as "reason-based." (Note, I'm speaking here only about why civil marriage exists in general, not whether everyone who's ever participated in it has or "should" have availed themselves of the "legitimized" parenting opportunities--i.e., the "no refusing a public good on the basis of arbitrary characteristics" legal argument, which tends to ignore the question of why this is a public good. The fact that anyone who can marry gains access to this socially privileged parenting context would thus be the issue, not whether everyone who can marry chooses to do so.) So I don't think it's necessarily bogus to request "reason-based" arguments against same-sex parenting, if that's how the anti-SSM argument is being framed. Besides, I'd rather see the whole of what I'm arguing against.
 
I read in the paper this morning that Chick Fil A has donated to American Family Association and similar groups. That's a big negative for me, but I still don't think you can stop them from doing business because of that. I don't want to support that kind of thing, but I want to have the choice not to. The people are supposed to have the power. Businesses rise and fall due to consumer choice (and outside economic factors, obviously) and I think an educated consumer is the best person to decide how they fare.
 
I read in the paper this morning that Chick Fil A has donated to American Family Association and similar groups.


they also make them lunch at conferences.

i'm waiting to hear about the time that Obama made sandwiches for Tony Perkins, since INDY thinks they're the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom