Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well maybe one day they'll serve them some bad chicken

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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."

Yeah, we're still waiting to hear what these "reasoned opinions" are as to why straight marriage is better (or, as the guy in your article from a few pages back so nicely put it, "superior") than gay marriage. I believe we've brought up a TON of arguments/questions for quite a number of pages now that we're waiting on you to answer and explain.

I can't fathom why I should approve of people wanting to deny others civil rights. You talk all the time about personal freedom. You think marriage is a vital part of society.

So how can you reconcile your belief in personal freedom with your belief that a certain segment of society should be denied the same rights you get to enjoy? How can you talk about the value of marriage and its benefits to society while telling people they can't get married because it doesn't fit with your personal worldview of what makes a "traditional" marriage (which, once again, isn't even the original definition of a traditional marriage to begin with)? Why do you think your straight marriage, if you are married, or if you ever do get married, is automatically better than a same sex marriage by default? And I'm still not sure what exactly you mean by marriage being "gender specific".

We in this thread have many questions about the anti-gay marriage stance. It'd be great to hear some of these supposed reasoned answers.

As for your article...

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.

1, as seems to have been noted, seems the restaurant is still managing to set up shop many other places. One city's stance on the issue isn't reflective of some threatening widespread boycott.
2, if it's not about gays, then why make a big fuss over gays and marriage to begin with? The head of the business started the whole thing by making his stance on the issue known.
3, again, if one wants respect, they must show it themselves. Denying people civil rights, or showing support for people who deny people civil rights, for no logical reason doesn't strike many as a stance worthy of respect.

Like has been said numerous times already, anti-gay marriage people are entitled to their beliefs. Nobody, but nobody, has been silencing them, nor are there any plans to do so by the government at large (one city refusing to let a restaurant in town isn't exactly a mass crackdown, and the chain can still set up restaurants plenty of other places). But that doesn't mean those people are free from criticism or scrutiny of those beliefs.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

1, as seems to have been noted, seems the restaurant is still managing to set up shop many other places. One city's stance on the issue isn't reflective of some threatening widespread boycott.


(one city refusing to let a restaurant in town isn't exactly a mass crackdown, and the chain can still set up restaurants plenty of other places). But that doesn't mean those people are free from criticism or scrutiny of those beliefs.

What if the shoe were on the other foot? Would it be acceptable for a mayor of a city in, say, Mississippi to refuse to allow a business with noted pro-gay stances to set up shop in his city?
After all, there're plenty of other places to set up business in, right?

[Moonlit_Angel]

No, it wouldn't. And I'm agreeing with the overall sentiment that Boston shouldn't be outlawing the Chick-Fill-A chain, either, simply for its views on this issue.

I'm just saying that I hope people aren't suggesting that a city or two making a thing out of this means that this'll become some sort of domino effect or something. Quite frankly, I don't think the city has to do anything one way or the other. I think the owner making his stance known will be enough for many customers to figure out if they want to keep giving his restaurant chain business.

Course, I do wonder, if some city refused to allow a business in whose owner had been known for racist beliefs/practices, what people'd be saying in that case. There are also discrimination laws to take into account, and I don't know if the restaurant chain would qualify under those or not. So far they haven't actively turned away any customers who don't subscribe to their beliefs, to my knowledge, but I don't know if running a business with those kinds of beliefs still counts for something or not.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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."

The Prop 8 case pretty effectively showed that anti-SSM forces really are motivated by nothing more than animus.

We can go over the trial and ruling if you'd like, or I'm sure I know some 'mo somewhere who can get us tickets to the next reading.

[unico]

So...I have a few points here...

Why is the muppet company just now severing ties with CFA? Did they seriously only recently find out about the owner's views? I knew about this over 10 years ago, back when I heard that they were denying employment to rainbow friends. So how is it that I knew about CFA's political stance before their own investors did?

I do find the conservatives right to free speech argument a bit silly. Would they show CFA the same support if Cathy had instead said he donated to the KKK? To al-Quaeda? Of course not. The majority of both sides would likely be raging over this if that were the case. And for the record, although I've yet to hear of the AFA killing people (yet), I do equate them with terrorists, because like them, they promote intolerance and seek to strip a particular group of their liberties.

I agree with mayor Bloomberg's stance, though. I almost see it as a challenge. I doubt that a CFA in NYC would last very long. Not just protests, but I don't see many people in the area eating there now that the cat is out of the bag.

I'm not quite sure I understand why some people are surprised about CFA's stance. A fast-food chain isn't looking out for our well being. How is that news??? CFA serves diabetes in a box and claims it is doing so in the name of God. At least they are indiscriminately killing off the American population.

I know CFA day is coming up, which is mostly supported by anti-gay people. But, I think that "Even if you're gay, chow down at Chick-Fil-A"

Chow Down (at Chick-fil-A) - YouTube

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

What if the shoe were on the other foot? Would it be acceptable for a mayor of a city in, say, Mississippi to refuse to allow a business with noted pro-gay stances to set up shop in his city?
After all, there're plenty of other places to set up business in, right?

But one could argue that these are two entirely different things. One company is donating money in order to DENY rights, and one is SUPPORTING rights.

Surely you can see the difference?

What if a Chic-Fil-A type company gave millions to support organizations that were trying to remove crosses from cemetaries or the word 'God' from the pledge?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by BVS

But one could argue that these are two entirely different things. One company is donating money in order to DENY rights, and one is SUPPORTING rights.

Surely you can see the difference?

What if a Chic-Fil-A type company gave millions to support organizations that were trying to remove crosses from cemetaries or the word 'God' from the pledge?

But the thing is, both positions are legal. I get it -- supporting the denial of rights to a certain section of the population is wrong. But it's not illegal.

Freedom of speech was created to protect horrible, detestable, widely disagreed upon speech. It wasn't created to protect our right to say things that no one finds offensive.

And as for your example, as a Christian, I would find that position incredibly offensive, unreasonable, and mean-spirited -- probably exactly how many people feel about chic-fil-a's stances. However, if my local mayor decided to ban the restaurant sporting those opinions from my city, I would be just as distraught as I now am.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

But the thing is, both positions are legal. I get it -- supporting the denial of rights to a certain section of the population is wrong. But it's not illegal.

Freedom of speech was created to protect horrible, detestable, widely disagreed upon speech. It wasn't created to protect our right to say things that no one finds offensive.

And as for your example, as a Christian, I would find that position incredibly offensive, unreasonable, and mean-spirited -- probably exactly how many people feel about chic-fil-a's stances. However, if my local mayor decided to ban the restaurant sporting those opinions from my city, I would be just as distraught as I now am.

Of course both stances are legal, so are the KKK's but several local governments have blocked them from doing things like adopting a portion of a highway. Very few got up in arms about governments taking these kinds of boycott stances. So my point is that these things are not without precedent. I'm glad you would be consistent in your stance but many would not, and are not.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by BVS

Of course both stances are legal, so are the KKK's but several local governments have blocked them from doing things like adopting a portion of a highway. Very few got up in arms about governments taking these kinds of boycott stances. So my point is that these things are not without precedent. I'm glad you would be consistent in your stance but many would not, and are not.

The KKK is linked to innumerable crimes. I don't find that analogous to Chic-Fil-A in the least. Though frankly, I thought it was illogical that they weren't allowed to adopt a highway, even though that situation is fairly different from this one.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

The KKK is linked to innumerable crimes. I don't find that analogous to Chic-Fil-A in the least. Though frankly, I thought it was illogical that they weren't allowed to adopt a highway, even though that situation is fairly different from this one.

It's just as legal as any other organization last time I checked. You and I may find them abhorrent, but it doesn't change the fact that their existence is protected, yet they get banned all the time with very little uproar. So does the amount of people who find their views abhorrent matter?

[BonosSaint]

Originally Posted by unico

So...I have a few points here...

Hi. I've missed you and your avatar.

[unico]

Hey there! Thanks!! I've missed you, too.

[deep]

YouGov BrandIndex, which tracks public perceptions about name brands worldwide, says Chick-fil-A’s consumer approval rating has nosedived since revelations that the fast food chain gave more than $2 million to anti-gay hate groups in 2010.

The company’s steepest slide seemed to follow remarks made by company president Dan Cathy, who told the Baptist Press that marriage equality is “inviting God's judgment.”

YouGov BrandIndex compiles total scores based on an average of key scores measuring quality, impression, value, reputation, satisfaction and willingness to recommend. Perceptions are measured among adults over 18 who have eaten fast food in the past month.

On July 16, the day the Baptist Press published its Dan Cathy interview, Chick-Fil-A’s Index score was 65, which was 19 points above the top sector average score that day of 46.

Four days later, Chick-Fil-A had fallen to a 47 score, three points below the top sector average score of 50.

Last Wednesday, Chick-Fil-A had a 39 score compared to the average score of 43.

In total, Chick-fil-A dropped 26 points in consumer approval since the controversy began.

Chick-fil-A’s consumer approval plummets | Breaking News | Wisconsin Gazette - News

[Moonlit_Angel]

There ya go. Proof that it's best to let people be honest and open on stuff like this. People can figure out from there where they wish to stand.

Also, hey, unico! Good to have you back.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by BonosSaint

Hi. I've missed you and your avatar.

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Also, hey, unico! Good to have you back.

Me three!

[MrsSpringsteen]

There was a commercial during the Olympics last night for some new reality show (hosted by Wesley Clark) that Todd Palin is on. Bristol is coming back on DWTS all stars. They just can't get enough-attention or Chick Fil A

[anitram]

You would think that if you had that much money you'd actually go and buy yourself some decent food. But no.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally Posted by anitram

You would think that if you had that much money you'd actually go and buy yourself some decent food. But no.

But that wouldn't get you any media attention, or make a big f u political statement. She couldn't be the big hero.

Her hair looks pretty

[martha]

Todd looks nice.