The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:42 AM
Curious Mike Curious Mike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Is the media guilty of distorting Dan Cathy's remarks?

Chick-fil-A COO Dan Cathy was interviewed, and a report of that interview was posted on the Baptist Press wesite http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271.

My take is that Mr. Cathy is expressing only support of a traditional marriage by supporting "family". Some in the media seem to take his remarks and read an anti-gay stance.

He may very well hate gays with all of his heart, but that is not the idea that he expressed. At least as far as he is quoted in the post. His quote "Guilty as charged." seems to have been perverted into hate speech against gays.

Hence my question, is the media guilty of distorting his remarks here?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:58 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 4,850
Many think opposing gay marriage is anti-gay.

I think this is reasonable- in the same way that those in the '60s who opposed voting rights for African-Americans could be reasonably characterized as anti-black- even if they didn't think so themselves- and even if they used some euphemism like "supporting traditional voting".
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-26-2012, 12:02 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 37,117
Here is a previous thread on the subject. it contains a link to the whole interview.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Curious Mike Curious Mike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Thanks for the link Czarcasm. Just the same that was in the MPSMS forum and the post did not contain a debate question, hence this post. Further it doesn't quote the entire article. It quotes the relevant part to be sure, but as usual there was more to the article.

I contend that you have to read into the quotes to get to any anti gay message. So unless you follow the creed "If you are not for us, you must be against us" how do you get an anti gay message here. He state clearly that he supports traditional marriage and never even mentions gays or gay marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:22 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 37,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Mike View Post
Thanks for the link Czarcasm. Just the same that was in the MPSMS forum and the post did not contain a debate question, hence this post. Further it doesn't quote the entire article. It quotes the relevant part to be sure, but as usual there was more to the article.

I contend that you have to read into the quotes to get to any anti gay message. So unless you follow the creed "If you are not for us, you must be against us" how do you get an anti gay message here. He state clearly that he supports traditional marriage and never even mentions gays or gay marriage.
I see.
Please define "Traditional Marriage" as you understand it to be.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:23 PM
Bosstone Bosstone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Mike View Post
He state clearly that he supports traditional marriage and never even mentions gays or gay marriage.
Is there some other perceived threat to "traditional" marriage? Is he speaking out against it because of the sudden rash of people who want to marry their vacuum cleaners?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:32 PM
Strassia Strassia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Or maybe you have to know that the reason the interview even happened was because the Chik-fil-A has been getting a ton of crap recently for the millions it has donated to oppose SSM. Maybe that has something to do with it.

Cite
Cite
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:46 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 4,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Mike View Post
Thanks for the link Czarcasm. Just the same that was in the MPSMS forum and the post did not contain a debate question, hence this post. Further it doesn't quote the entire article. It quotes the relevant part to be sure, but as usual there was more to the article.

I contend that you have to read into the quotes to get to any anti gay message. So unless you follow the creed "If you are not for us, you must be against us" how do you get an anti gay message here. He state clearly that he supports traditional marriage and never even mentions gays or gay marriage.
Just like "pro-life" in common parlance means that one opposes legalized abortion, supporting "traditional marriage" means opposing legalized gay marriage. I think he's made it pretty clear that he opposes gay marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:50 PM
HansGrosse HansGrosse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Mike View Post
He state clearly that he supports traditional marriage and never even mentions gays or gay marriage.
Here's the problem with that:
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-co...-the-bible.jpg

"Traditional marriage" is a misleading use of rhetoric, because marriage has evolved and been redefined so many times over the years.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-26-2012, 01:57 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 75,190
If you read the full passage it's not clear that he is talking about gays and it actually sounds more like he's talking about "supporting" marriage and opposing divorce. While people do spout a lot of bullshit about "traditional marriage" when they are denouncing gay marriage, it's not clear that Cathy was doing that. We also don't know what question he was responding to, so it's not fair to assume gay marriage was part of the topic. For example the use of "guilty as charged" in reference to Cathy/the company's views on gays is a little unfair. It doesn't sound like he was being asked about gays there. On the other hand it's obvious his comments about 'knowing better than God' what a marriage is were made in reference to gay marriage. It'd be a real stretch to read that as referring to divorce or single parenthood, I think. And it's worth noting that the commentary about divorces is also dumb on its own.

Last edited by Marley23; 07-26-2012 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-26-2012, 02:57 PM
HansGrosse HansGrosse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
If you read the full passage it's not clear that he is talking about gays and it actually sounds more like he's talking about "supporting" marriage and opposing divorce. While people do spout a lot of bullshit about "traditional marriage" when they are denouncing gay marriage, it's not clear that Cathy was doing that. We also don't know what question he was responding to, so it's not fair to assume gay marriage was part of the topic. For example the use of "guilty as charged" in reference to Cathy/the company's views on gays is a little unfair. It doesn't sound like he was being asked about gays there. On the other hand it's obvious his comments about 'knowing better than God' what a marriage is were made in reference to gay marriage. It'd be a real stretch to read that as referring to divorce or single parenthood, I think. And it's worth noting that the commentary about divorces is also dumb on its own.
Considering his donation history, I think the context becomes a bit more clear.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:03 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 75,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansGrosse View Post
Considering his donation history, I think the context becomes a bit more clear.
The guy is obviously a Christian conservative Republican. I could tell you that without looking into his political donations. That doesn't mean it's fair to make big assumptions about what he says, and in particular it doesn't mean the press can do that. In that sense, attacking him for being anti-gay because of comments that appeared to be about divorce is unfair. The 'knowing better than God' thing was more likely about gay marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:13 PM
HansGrosse HansGrosse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
The guy is obviously a Christian conservative Republican. I could tell you that without looking into his political donations. That doesn't mean it's fair to make big assumptions about what he says, and in particular it doesn't mean the press can do that. In that sense, attacking him for being anti-gay because of comments that appeared to be about divorce is unfair. The 'knowing better than God' thing was more likely about gay marriage.
I think there is more than enough evidence in both his quotes and donations to suggest that he's likely anti-gay marriage. The "knowing better than God" line is pretty much a dead giveaway short of an outright confession. Very much fair to make this assumption.

Examples of where he donated to:

National Organization for Marriage
Focus on the Family
Marriage & Family Foundation
Family Research Council

Last edited by HansGrosse; 07-26-2012 at 03:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:30 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 75,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansGrosse View Post
I think there is more than enough evidence in both his quotes and donations to suggest that he's likely anti-gay marriage.
We're not discussing his "likely" views, we're discussing what he said. His comments to the Baptist Press were attacked for being anti-gay marriage, but it's not at all clear that he was discussing gay marriage there. It sounds to me like he was making a comment - about equally dumb, but much less hateful - about divorce.

Quote:
The "knowing better than God" line is pretty much a dead giveaway short of an outright confession.
It's close, although even there you could argue he was not specific. You might think people would want to know for sure that he said what he was accused of saying before calling him a bigot and launching into calls for boycotts and stuff, but I guess assumptions are good enough if you're in a hurry.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:33 PM
SpoilerVirgin SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Obama Country
Posts: 4,543
Cathy's remarks have received insane amounts of media coverage. They are currently the #2 story on Google News, just behind Romney's travels. His company is facing not only boycotts, but also denial of permits in numerous U.S. cities. If Mr. Cathy wasn't taking an anti-gay-marriage stance, it would be a simple matter for him to step forward now and say so.

When the Susan G. Komen Foundation faced a similar media crisis because of their policy toward Planned Parenthood, they immediately did everything in their power to quiet the furor. If he really has been misinterpreted, Mr. Cathy should do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:34 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Oh, yes...why don't the gays just stop being so shrill and thin-skinned that they have to read things into someone's words, just because they're AWFULLY familiar with what those words actually MEAN when said by certain people...

Enjoy your privilege.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:39 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 75,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin View Post
Cathy's remarks have received insane amounts of media coverage.
Yes, and he said this a week ago. I agree it would be easy for him to clear it up if he were interested.
Quote:
His company is facing not only boycotts, but also denial of permits in numerous U.S. cities.
I'll point out here that the permit thing is probably not going to stand up. Cathy appears to be a dick, but denying them permits on this basis is probably not legal.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:45 PM
SpoilerVirgin SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Obama Country
Posts: 4,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
I'll point out here that the permit thing is probably not going to stand up. Cathy appears to be a dick, but denying them permits on this basis is probably not legal.
True, I just meant that if people were going on about denying me permits based on something I didn't say and didn't mean, I'd be explaining myself rather than calling the lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-26-2012, 03:54 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 75,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin View Post
True, I just meant that if people were going on about denying me permits based on something I didn't say and didn't mean, I'd be explaining myself rather than calling the lawyers.
You'd be doing both, but yes, if his views were being that badly misunderstood you'd think he would just say he's not opposed to gay marriage. And I know somebody commented on this earlier, but I wasn't aware of it- this story makes it clearer that the company was already in hot water for donating $2 million to "groups that actively lobby against" LGBT issues. That puts Cathy's statement to the Baptist Press in a different context.

Last edited by Marley23; 07-26-2012 at 03:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-26-2012, 04:55 PM
HansGrosse HansGrosse is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
We're not discussing his "likely" views, we're discussing what he said. His comments to the Baptist Press were attacked for being anti-gay marriage, but it's not at all clear that he was discussing gay marriage there. It sounds to me like he was making a comment - about equally dumb, but much less hateful - about divorce.


It's close, although even there you could argue he was not specific. You might think people would want to know for sure that he said what he was accused of saying before calling him a bigot and launching into calls for boycotts and stuff, but I guess assumptions are good enough if you're in a hurry.
I think you should read up more on his history before forming your opinion. I don't think any reasonable person would have any doubt of this man's bigotry when given the facts. It's not just "likely." It's about as close as you can get short of a full confession.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-26-2012, 05:13 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 75,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansGrosse View Post
I think you should read up more on his history before forming your opinion.
I'll wait until you read the next post. If you notice, I found the initial controversy about the company's donation history and his comments about look different when considered in that light. (More here.) Taken on their own, it's at best an inference that he's against gay marriage. Combined with the company's financial donations and his later comments, it's more reasonable to conclude that that's his opinion - but going there based on just the initial comment was a stretch. So it's a little bit distorted if you say, as HuffPo did in their headline, that he said the company is "Guilty as charged" in opposing gay marriage. But on balance it's completely reasonable to conclude based on the company's donations and Cathy's other remarks that he's against gay marriage and that Chick Fil A is using its money to fight same-sex marriage efforts.

Last edited by Marley23; 07-26-2012 at 05:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-26-2012, 05:16 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Chickens never died for a corporation.

They died for you and me.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-26-2012, 05:35 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
They are closed on Sundays. Does anyone think that someone who is so conservatively Christian would support gay marriage?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-26-2012, 05:54 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
So is the problem here the press looked into his history and used that in context with the interview to establish he is indeed anti-gay?

Is the press being accused of distortion for bringing facts to the foreground? Should they have limited their entire Exposť to his statements made in the interview?

If Dan Cathy was not anti-gay and the media claimed he was. I'd agree they distorted his remarks. It's been known a fairly long time now Dan Cathy is anti-gay. I was kinda confused when the recent story came out as 'news.' I guess it is news to some people.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-26-2012, 06:20 PM
Strassia Strassia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
I'll wait until you read the next post. If you notice, I found the initial controversy about the company's donation history and his comments about look different when considered in that light. (More here.) Taken on their own, it's at best an inference that he's against gay marriage. Combined with the company's financial donations and his later comments, it's more reasonable to conclude that that's his opinion - but going there based on just the initial comment was a stretch. So it's a little bit distorted if you say, as HuffPo did in their headline, that he said the company is "Guilty as charged" in opposing gay marriage. But on balance it's completely reasonable to conclude based on the company's donations and Cathy's other remarks that he's against gay marriage and that Chick Fil A is using its money to fight same-sex marriage efforts.
The thing is the whole point of the interview was to respond to flack the company has been getting for funding anti SSM groups. Knowing that it seems clear that he is proudly declaring his opposition to gay marriage. I don't think a single person in the intended audience for that interview didn't understand what he was saying.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-26-2012, 10:49 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
We want tolerance!

We want acceptance!

We demand you embrace us and agree with us on everything or we will demonize you!


Meanwhile... I'm at a two day meeting in a town that has Chick-fil-A. They don't in my home town. During a lunch break, one of the local guys wanted to walk to what he said was a great burger place. Fine. On the way, we pass a Chick-fil-A. I pipe up, "Hey, how about Chick-fil-A. I used to love that place when I lived n Texas, and they don't have them where I live now. Anybody interested in doing that instead. A few guys said, sure, and we were all gonna meet up in 45 minutes or so. I was about to try to get the others guys to come along, but before I could, the senior guy said, "Hey, let's all go together if they want to go. We can burgers tomorrow." So, nine of us went to Chick-fil-A.

Mission accomplished.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:08 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
You know, I actually agree with magellan. Every Chick-fil-A in every town in America should immediately become the gay hangout. We should ALL go to Chick-fil-A. Break out your finest drag for the occasion! Let's make it a PARTY!

Instead of being angry and nasty, we should be organizing invasion parties...BIG groups of local LGBT, butch bears to drag queens and everything in between. Just take over every Chick-fil-A we can find...do it in shifts, maybe. Not doing things that would even get straight people kicked out, like a sit-in without buying anything, but sure, give 'em our gay money, eat their Christian chickens, and just enjoy ourselves, all the while making it quite clear who we are.

Let's see if their anti-gay stance is just opinion or if it's something they'll actually try to enforce in their restaurants...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:16 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
You know, I actually agree with magellan. Every Chick-fil-A in every town in America should immediately become the gay hangout. We should ALL go to Chick-fil-A. Break out your finest drag for the occasion! Let's make it a PARTY!

Instead of being angry and nasty, we should be organizing invasion parties...BIG groups of local LGBT, butch bears to drag queens and everything in between. Just take over every Chick-fil-A we can find...do it in shifts, maybe. Not doing things that would even get straight people kicked out, like a sit-in without buying anything, but sure, give 'em our gay money, eat their Christian chickens, and just enjoy ourselves, all the while making it quite clear who we are.

Let's see if their anti-gay stance is just opinion or if it's something they'll actually try to enforce in their restaurants...
Make sure you all get the Waffle fries. Good eaten'! One guy got the chicken salad sandwich. I'm not partial to chicken salad, but he said it was pretty good. But all 9 of us were really happy with the food. Spread the word.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:18 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 8,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
We want tolerance!

We want acceptance!

We demand you embrace us and agree with us on everything or we will demonize you!
So the proper response to the 5,422,812th rich white guy who thinks you're subhuman and not deserving of basic human rights, and is spending lots of money to make sure you're denied those rights, should be... hugs and kumbayas? I thought conservatives disliked hippies!

As for the rest of your story, I know you don't think that your "mission" is supporting state sanctioned homophobia, but I think that's why a lot of gay people are reacting strongly to this issue. Cathy isn't spending his money on those special interest groups for nothing, after all: he is trying to get laws enacted that basically oppress them, and is not ashamed of it. I mean, gay people are, quite frankly, "the little guy" in all this, no matter how much their political and monetary power have improved. The idea that Cathy is being harassed or oppressed by gay rights activists strikes me as ludicrous.

(Note that this is not about the whole Chicago alderman wanting to take official government action against Chik-Fil-A; that's a whole other kettle of fish, and one I'm much more uncomfortable with.)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:24 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
So the proper response to the 5,422,812th rich white guy who thinks you're subhuman and not deserving of basic human rights, and is spending lots of money to make sure you're denied those rights, should be... hugs and kumbayas? I thought conservatives disliked hippies!

As for the rest of your story, I know you don't think that your "mission" is supporting state sanctioned homophobia, but I think that's why a lot of gay people are reacting strongly to this issue. Cathy isn't spending his money on those special interest groups for nothing, after all: he is trying to get laws enacted that basically oppress them, and is not ashamed of it. I mean, gay people are, quite frankly, "the little guy" in all this, no matter how much their political and monetary power have improved. The idea that Cathy is being harassed or oppressed by gay rights activists strikes me as ludicrous.

(Note that this is not about the whole Chicago alderman wanting to take official government action against Chik-Fil-A; that's a whole other kettle of fish, and one I'm much more uncomfortable with.)
Here's what you evidently just don't get. Or won't. Just because someone is opposed to SSM does not mean that they think gays are subhuman. Really. The former does not necessitate the latter. A few months ago Obama was against SSM, do you think he thought gays to be subhuman?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:27 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 8,943
I didn't use that word lightly. I looked at the causes Cathy gives money to, and how much. I looked at how seriously he takes his religion. I looked at articles that describe his past history in both cases.

After putting it all together (since, as you point out, just one fact on its own doesn't mean a whole lot), on the whole, I was very comfortable in drawing that conclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:38 PM
Marley23 Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 75,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Just because someone is opposed to SSM does not mean that they think gays are subhuman.
There's not a lot of daylight between "you don't deserve the same rights as every other person" and "you're subhuman."
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:39 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
If you donate heavily to the the American Family Institute, who believe gays are at fault for Katrina, the BP disaster and the recent Colorado shooting, I think you can be lumped in with the bigots beyond any reasonable doubt.

Last edited by boytyperanma; 07-26-2012 at 11:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-26-2012, 11:40 PM
D-bear D-bear is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
We want tolerance!

We want acceptance!

We demand you embrace us and agree with us on everything or we will demonize you!


Meanwhile... I'm at a two day meeting in a town that has Chick-fil-A. They don't in my home town. During a lunch break, one of the local guys wanted to walk to what he said was a great burger place. Fine. On the way, we pass a Chick-fil-A. I pipe up, "Hey, how about Chick-fil-A. I used to love that place when I lived n Texas, and they don't have them where I live now. Anybody interested in doing that instead. A few guys said, sure, and we were all gonna meet up in 45 minutes or so. I was about to try to get the others guys to come along, but before I could, the senior guy said, "Hey, let's all go together if they want to go. We can burgers tomorrow." So, nine of us went to Chick-fil-A.

Mission accomplished.
That's the 2012 equivalent to having a hamburger at a Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro NC in 1960 just so you know. Hurray! You can say you were on one side of the Civil Rights movement of the 21st century. Congrats!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-27-2012, 12:23 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 35,935
Moderating

The discussion of whether opposition to same sex marriage equates to considering homosexuals to be subhuman or second class citizens is a legitmate topic within this thread.

Attacks on or defenses of magellan01's threadshitting lunch anecdotes are not valid topics for this thread.

Take those latter discussions to a separate thread.

[ /Moderating ]
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-27-2012, 01:36 AM
fumster fumster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Many think opposing gay marriage is anti-gay.

I think this is reasonable- in the same way that those in the '60s who opposed voting rights for African-Americans could be reasonably characterized as anti-black- even if they didn't think so themselves- and even if they used some euphemism like "supporting traditional voting".
Or supporting "traditional employment"
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-27-2012, 01:39 AM
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 1,307
I'm not reading all of this thread before commenting. Who DOSEN'T support traditional marriage??? For one to state that one does..( I support traditional marriage) is an obvious slam on gay marriage. I'm reminded of my racist boss, and his racsist comments, and his obligitory denials of his racism.

Last edited by bobot; 07-27-2012 at 01:40 AM.. Reason: needed me a close parenthesis
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-27-2012, 01:34 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 35,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
A few months ago Obama was against SSM, do you think he thought gays to be subhuman?
Well, one difference there is that Obama actually had something to gain from being publicly opposed to gay marriage. By taking that stand, he increased his likelihood of being elected to the presidency. But that's an outlier. Very, very few people are in a position where opposing gay marriage gives them any material advantage - and I'm fairly certain Dan Cathy is no exception.

A few months ago, I would have gladly described Obama's views on gays as homophobic. In light of recent events, it seems likely that his position did not stem from antipathy towards gays, but instead a simple cravenness. Which is not surprising, of course - he's a politician, after all, and it's to Obama's favor that's he significantly less craven than most others in that field.

Likening that level of homophobia to a view of gays as subhuman is hyperbolic, but not factually incorrect, I think. I do not see a way that one can oppose equality for gays, up to and including marriage rights, without feeling that they are also, in some measure less than a straight person.

Likening the level of homophobia displayed by Dan Cathy to a view of gays as subhuman is, I think, much, much less hyperbolic.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-27-2012, 01:42 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
The discussion of whether opposition to same sex marriage equates to considering homosexuals to be subhuman or second class citizens is a legitmate topic within this thread.

Attacks on or defenses of magellan01's threadshitting lunch anecdotes are not valid topics for this thread.

Take those latter discussions to a separate thread.

[ /Moderating ]
Ahem. Are your not aware that in this post of yours you do what you instruct other posters not do to?

So I report you to you. I look forward to toe the degree to wish you moderate yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-27-2012, 01:52 PM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Well, one difference there is that Obama actually had something to gain from being publicly opposed to gay marriage. By taking that stand, he increased his likelihood of being elected to the presidency. But that's an outlier. Very, very few people are in a position where opposing gay marriage gives them any material advantage - and I'm fairly certain Dan Cathy is no exception.

A few months ago, I would have gladly described Obama's views on gays as homophobic. In light of recent events, it seems likely that his position did not stem from antipathy towards gays, but instead a simple cravenness. Which is not surprising, of course - he's a politician, after all, and it's to Obama's favor that's he significantly less craven than most others in that field.

Likening that level of homophobia to a view of gays as subhuman is hyperbolic, but not factually incorrect, I think. I do not see a way that one can oppose equality for gays, up to and including marriage rights, without feeling that they are also, in some measure less than a straight person.
Easy. One feels that it is a greater benefit to society to keep marriage between one man and one woman. S=The U'S' dis that when restricting polygamy in the Mormon church. I don' think there was any thoughts of people as being subhuman. Likewise with SSM. I'm not sure of Cathy's complete stance on all issues concerning gay, but I'm pretty sure hew employs them, But the larger point is that being against SSM simply does not equate to hating the to or thinking them subhuman. Would you say that someone who is in favor of treating gays as equals, including something like the ability to adopt kids, but doesn't think SSM is a good idea, thinks of gays as subhumans?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-27-2012, 02:10 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 35,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Easy. One feels that it is a greater benefit to society to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
I think that a necessary component to that world view is the idea that gays are in some way lesser than straight people.

Quote:
The U'S' dis that when restricting polygamy in the Mormon church. I don' think there was any thoughts of people as being subhuman.
I'm far from an expert on Mormon history, but my understanding is that the prejudice against Mormons in the 19th century was pretty extreme - just from glancing at Wikipedia, I note the existence of a Mormon Extermination Order. I'm not sure if this is the best analogy you can use to make your case.

Quote:
Would you say that someone who is in favor of treating gays as equals, including something like the ability to adopt kids, but doesn't think SSM is a good idea, thinks of gays as subhumans?
I wouldn't say it myself, but I don't think I'd correct someone else if they said it. Like I posted up thread, I don't see how one can take the position that SSM is a bad idea without necessarily thinking that there's something bad about homosexuality itself.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-27-2012, 02:43 PM
Sam Lowry Sam Lowry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-bear View Post
That's the 2012 equivalent to having a hamburger at a Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro NC in 1960 just so you know. Hurray! You can say you were on one side of the Civil Rights movement of the 21st century. Congrats!
Exactly. It's not like Chick-Fil-A is uncomfortable with gay marriage but otherwise supports gay people. They actually received a 0 from the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which means they don't offer any protection or benefits for it's gay employees. For comparison, McDonald's has a 75, Wendy's has a 30, Burger King has a 55.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-27-2012, 02:53 PM
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayjay View Post
You know, I actually agree with magellan. Every Chick-fil-A in every town in America should immediately become the gay hangout. We should ALL go to Chick-fil-A. Break out your finest drag for the occasion! Let's make it a PARTY!

Instead of being angry and nasty, we should be organizing invasion parties...BIG groups of local LGBT, butch bears to drag queens and everything in between. Just take over every Chick-fil-A we can find...do it in shifts, maybe. Not doing things that would even get straight people kicked out, like a sit-in without buying anything, but sure, give 'em our gay money, eat their Christian chickens, and just enjoy ourselves, all the while making it quite clear who we are.

Let's see if their anti-gay stance is just opinion or if it's something they'll actually try to enforce in their restaurants...



That would be fucking fabulous. Can straight people come? Please? I actually won't buy anything, I'll just hang out with yinz? I promise to wear rainbows.


You could call it the "Chik-fil-GAY" Campaign.

Last edited by Guinastasia; 07-27-2012 at 02:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-27-2012, 05:26 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 35,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Ahem. Are your not aware that in this post of yours you do what you instruct other posters not do to?

So I report you to you. I look forward to toe the degree to wish you moderate yourself.
I am aware that I cut you some slack and simply indicated that you were threadshitting rather than hit you with a Warning for trolling.

I am quite willing to reverse myself on that point if you want to make an issue of it.

[ /Moderating ]
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-27-2012, 05:31 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
That would be fucking fabulous. Can straight people come? Please? I actually won't buy anything, I'll just hang out with yinz? I promise to wear rainbows.

You could call it the "Chik-fil-GAY" Campaign.
I've seen elsewhere online that Cathy supporters (presumably mostly religious conservatives) are encouraging people to express their support by going to their local Chick-Fil-As on August 1. It's entertaining to imagine them arriving only to find the place full of butch bikers and drag queens.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-27-2012, 06:50 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Easy. One feels that it is a greater benefit to society to keep marriage between one man and one woman.
Unfortunately, you're the only person in America who thinks that. Everyone else who opposes gay marriage does so BECAUSE JESUS.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-28-2012, 01:26 AM
magellan01 magellan01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
Unfortunately, you're the only person in America who thinks that. Everyone else who opposes gay marriage does so BECAUSE JESUS.
Not following you here. I grant that many, maybe most, of those opposed to SSM are motivated by religion. So what? They can be so motivated and also believe that it is "a greater benefit to society to keep marriage between one man and one woman". In fact, of those who oppose SSM and are devout, I'd say the over 99.9% believe that. Do you disagree?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:23 AM
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 1,307
Why not just believe what you want, and be happy with that? Why bother telling others that they must abide by your moral code?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-28-2012, 02:38 AM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 8,943
Or trying to enshrine said code in laws, especially at a Constitutional level?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-28-2012, 08:24 AM
Acid Lamp Acid Lamp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
Would you say that someone who is in favor of treating gays as equals, including something like the ability to adopt kids, but doesn't think SSM is a good idea, thinks of gays as subhumans?
I'm calling you out. How, EXACTLY, would society be negatively impacted if gay people were allowed to enjoy the same protections of marriage that straight people do?

I can't think of any arguments that logically come to this conclusion.

Either this is religiously based, (in which case we should leave it to the churches to decide who to marry, and leave the state out of it completely; Either the state issues licenses to everyone, or nobody at all since we have separation of church and state.)or you simply view homosexuals as second-class citizens unworthy of the same rights and recognitions of heterosexuals.

Last edited by Acid Lamp; 07-28-2012 at 08:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.