Is the media guilty of distorting Dan Cathy's remarks?

[Curious Mike]

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?

[iiandyiiii]

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".

[Czarcasm]

Here is a previous thread on the subject. it contains a link to the whole interview.

[Curious Mike]

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.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Curious Mike

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.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Curious Mike

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?

[Strassia]

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

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Curious Mike

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.

[HansGrosse]

Originally Posted by Curious Mike

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.

[Marley23]

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.

[HansGrosse]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by HansGrosse

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.

[HansGrosse]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by HansGrosse

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.

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.

[SpoilerVirgin]

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.

[jayjay]

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.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin

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.

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.

[SpoilerVirgin]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin

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.

[HansGrosse]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by HansGrosse

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.

[Jackmannii]

Chickens never died for a corporation.

They died for you and me.

[jtgain]

They are closed on Sundays. Does anyone think that someone who is so conservatively Christian would support gay marriage?

[boytyperanma]

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 Exposé 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.

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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.

[magellan01]

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.

[jayjay]

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...

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by jayjay

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.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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.)

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Leaper

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?

[Leaper]

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.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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."

[boytyperanma]

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.

[D-bear]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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!

[tomndebb]

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 ]

[fumster]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

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"

[bobot]

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.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

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.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Miller

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?

[Miller]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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.

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.

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.

[Sam Lowry]

Originally Posted by D-bear

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.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by jayjay

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.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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 ]

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

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.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

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?

[bobot]

Why not just believe what you want, and be happy with that? Why bother telling others that they must abide by your moral code?

[Leaper]

Or trying to enshrine said code in laws, especially at a Constitutional level?

[Acid Lamp]

Originally Posted by magellan01

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.