Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

I find myself weighing the options, and I can't figure out which is more likely; that the bomb threat was phoned in by a pro-LGBT person upset that C-F-A appeared to be doing well out of this kerfuffle, or somebody at the back of the line who wanted that line to go away quickly so he could get his sandwich.

Or Ashton Kutcher.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by RikWriter

So, someone who is a believing Christian who accepts the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is a homophobe?

Yes.

Disagreeing about the morality of an act doesn't mean they are mentally ill or have some neuroses.

Homophobia is not a mental illness. No one who uses the term intends it to be understood to be a mental illness. While it was originally coined to describe a pathology, its usage has diverged from that definition (which, I believe, is no longer accepted in clinical circles, although I could be mistaken on that point) over thirty years ago.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

When this story originally broke, before I got tired of the immature yelling and soapboxing, I explained that I felt this was a false analogy. I think that what the blacks went through was ten times worse and met with such hate. I think that the gays don't have near that kind of persecution and never will

Oh, please; homosexuals have had the advantage of being harder to identify, but they've faced plenty of persecution. Murder, beatings, castration, "corrective rape" for lesbians, forced hormone therapy, imprisonment for decades, and on and on.

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Ya know this is probably the best single argument I've heard about it, and without researching it and from a knee-jerk statement I would say that I think every religion is against gay marriage so I don't think it's just mine.

Well, you are simply wrong. Plenty of religious sects support same sex marriage.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Ya know this is probably the best single argument I've heard about it, and without researching it and from a knee-jerk statement I would say that I think every religion is against gay marriage so I don't think it's just mine.

Well, you're wrong, but even if you were correct, so what? I'm not religious, and by law, neither is our government. Why do you think its proper for our government to force me to live by your religious rules?

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Ya know this is probably the best single argument I've heard about it, and without researching it and from a knee-jerk statement I would say that I think every religion is against gay marriage so I don't think it's just mine. But honestly I think I can only say it's what I believe. It's not the best answer in the world, or one with a lot of bite or anything. But I guess this entire argument, no matter which side you are on, is just what you believe.

Every religion is not prohibitive of gay marriage, nor is any religion defined by any single principle but by the harmony of the individual strings of each member of the church when struck by that principle.

It also is an argument that begs the dragging out of a metric assload of examples of hypocrisy for every law that allows/tolerates/enables/provides equal protection and opportunity for anything that happens to be seen as sinful or bad or evil or whathaveyou by whatever religious teachings you follow. And then we have to reconcile that with whatever is on such a list for that other guy over there who's religious beliefs are different than yours. And so on.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

When this story originally broke, before I got tired of the immature yelling and soapboxing, I explained that I felt this was a false analogy. I think that what the blacks went through was ten times worse and met with such hate. I think that the gays don't have near that kind of persecution and never will

This is idiotic for (at least) two reasons:

1) Blacks were never able to hide their color. Your comparison on that point is shit.

2) You don't grant people equality and basic human rights based on how much abuse they've suffered. Or, would you be happy to grant gays marriage rights if only they experienced another few decades of violent suffering?

What stupidity.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Oh, please; homosexuals have had the advantage of being harder to identify, but they've faced plenty of persecution. Murder, beatings, castration, "corrective rape" for lesbians, forced hormone therapy, imprisonment for decades, and on and on.

For quite some time, California law recognized lobotomies as a legitimate treatment for homosexuality. Although in fairness, I'm never found any evidence that the treatment was used. Still, just being gay was seen as grounds for people cutting out chunks of your brain

[not what you'd expect]

This really makes me sad.

The bible makes a lot of claims that simply must be ignored by christians in order to continue to believe, so I don't understand why they can't just ignore this one too.

My marriage isn't less because Pam and Linda are also married.

I just don't understand.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Statements like this is basically saying "left wingers don't acknowledge anything from the other side that isn't agreed to by other left wingers"

For this I am well chastised. It was a kneejerk reaction, there are most certainly fanatics on both sides, and I withdraw the statement with apologies.

Now explain why a secular Republic should base its marital laws on 2,000-3,000 text whose teachings on marriage include the right to murder a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, the legal obligation of a rape victim to marry her rapist*, and concubinage?

*Sorry Jaycee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart, but my faith says you two have to go back to that guy who abducted and raped you and this time marry him, and while I can see that others would think that's barbaric and unfair, it's my faith and that's what's important. And don't worry that your rapist is already married, it allows polygamy as well. Otherwise you have shamed your family by not screaming louder and must be put to death.

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

It also is an argument that begs the dragging out of a metric assload of examples of hypocrisy for every law that allows/tolerates/enables/provides equal protection and opportunity for anything that happens to be seen as sinful or bad or evil or whathaveyou by whatever religious teachings you follow. And then we have to reconcile that with whatever is on such a list for that other guy over there who's religious beliefs are different than yours. And so on.

I like this statement too.

Brings out a good point about the whole deal

[Miller]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

Good opinion piece from the Washington Post. Huckabee does make a valid point that CEO's (and their companies) who support Gay marriage have not been boycotted like Chick-Fil-A.

Mike Huckabee is a goddamned liar. For fuck's sake, his co-religionists have an ongoing boycott of Disneyland because the park refuses to bar entrance to gays. The list of companies that have been boycotted by Christian groups for having gay-friendly policies is longer than my arm.

[davidm]

This thread is classic. Every time I see a discussion like this, the anti-gay/black/whatever people never try to actually justify their viewpoint, they instead attempt to change the discussion into an argument about their right to hold that viewpoint.

It's almost like they can't justify their viewpoint, so they try to change the subject into an argument about free speech.

The subject is homosexuality and SSM, not free speech. Obviously you have free speech. No one is arresting you for what you're saying. So why can't you stick to the subject? Don't you have any actual arguments?

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

Now explain why a secular Republic should base its marital laws on 2,000-3,000 text whose teachings on marriage include the right to murder a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, the legal obligation of a rape victim to marry her rapist*, and concubinage?]

It shouldn't.

The beauty of it being a republic is that I can be overruled by the populous as they so deem. I can think and vote one way, you and think and vote another way, and the majority rules.

There is a big difference in me posting here saying "I think marriage is between a man and a woman and a same sex union should be a different title", and standing on the street corner with a "God Hates Fags" sign.

Do I think God hates gay people? Not at all. Do I think gays are going to hell? Nope. If I'm standing on a street corner and a gay couple is being beaten by thugs am I going to jump in and intervene with my boxknife in my pocket? Hell yes.

I have an opinion on the subject and that's that. I'm not even that adamant about the opinion that I argue with people and make notes about developments, it's just the opinion I have. It's the answer to a question is all it is with me.

So if some type of SSM act passes and its nationally recognized am I going to be pissed, cry, or speak out against it? Nope. I'm gonna shrug my shoulders and say "well it's not how I would have done it but whatever" and go about my life.

[Labrador Deceiver]

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that all opinions are equally reasonable.

[dnooman]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Yeah it kind of is a semantics issue. I believe the Bible when it says that a Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Which would make a gay marriage not a marriage, but something of another name. So I think we should call it by another name.

First, I'd appreciate it greatly if you took the time to read this whole post, and respond with your thoughts. My intention is not to sound snarky or attacking, so please don't interpret me that way.

Are you actually believing the bible, or are you believing someone else's interpretation of it? If it's your belief, you'd have no problem reciting chapter and verse exactly what it says regarding "a sacred bond between a man and a woman". I don't think text like that exists in any form in the Bible, not in those words at least. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you are able to post said scripture, great. If you need to Google it in order to find the text in question, you are probably operating on the biblical interpretations of others. I don't think there is such a thing as a Christian who can't find at least some fault in the various offshoots and weird sects that Christianity has, some are just plain nutty. My point is, that they all use the same book to justify their beliefs, yet many branches of Christianity believe wildly different things. Interpretation is everything with the bible. When you go to church, you listen to someone interpret the bible. That person is fallible, and was born with original sin. They are people.

God created gay people right? If you think Satan created them, then just stop reading. Bonobo monkeys have homosexual sex all the time, it's not even an issue to them. God made them too right? Did one of them eat an apple in the garden of Eden?

If Jesus came to Earth today, and someone asked him, should we allow these gay people to get married, what do you honestly think his response would be? Think about that for a second. Would he quote Mark 12:31 and say Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Or would he say something about protecting the word marriage, or something about gays being an abomination even though he creates them daily?

I think your heart is in the right place in allowing gays to be joined officially, and given the same rights as heterosexual couples. I just think that your issues with the word marriage being used might be influenced by people that are far more homophobic than you. I also think you feel compassionate towards gay people but are conflicted because of your traditional beliefs. Again, I could be wrong, but I think that in time you might soften your position and adopt a live and let live approach to life.

You may be able to find a passage here or there that can be interpreted as being anti-SSM, but you can find far more about compassion, love, acceptance, and tolerance.

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that all opinions are equally reasonable.

Opinions are all equally reasonable.

The actions surrounding those opinions may well not be.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Opinions are all equally reasonable.

The actions surrounding those opinions may well not be.

Wrong as wrong can be.

[El_Kabong]

My apologies for addressing the actual thread subject when we're all having such a good time yelling at each other, but I pretty much have to drive past a Chick-Fil-A in the Woodlands, TX on the way home from work (not the one La Palin went to last week but only a couple miles away) and there was a quarter-mile line of cars blocking one lane of Rayford Road, waiting for drive-thru.

So, not only upholding the God-given American right to freely express passive-aggressive bigotry, but, given it was 97 degrees and everyone was idling with the a/c on, wasting untold amounts of fuel as well. Way to go, Texas; make me proud.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

It shouldn't.

Then why are you here arguing that we shouldn't have SSM?

The beauty of it being a republic is that I can be overruled by the populous as they so deem. I can think and vote one way, you and think and vote another way, and the majority rules.

We can see that beauty in operation in things like the Jim Crow South, the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Japanese internment, and oh! so many others.

The fact is, this is one of the biggest flaws of a Republic. If the majority decide they want to crap all over a minority, there's really fuck-all the minority can do about it.

There is a big difference in me posting here saying "I think marriage is between a man and a woman and a same sex union should be a different title", and standing on the street corner with a "God Hates Fags" sign.

Not as big as you'd like to think. I mean, after all, those people with the God Hates Fags signs are just expressing their opinion, right? If "I'm just expressing an opinion," is a get-out-of-jail-free card for expressing bigoted ideas, then surely it applies to those guys, too, right?

So if some type of SSM act passes and its nationally recognized am I going to be pissed, cry, or speak out against it? Nope. I'm gonna shrug my shoulders and say "well it's not how I would have done it but whatever" and go about my life.

And that's the difference in this debate between gay people and straight people. If the issue goes a way you disagree with, you can shrug your shoulders and go on about your life. If it goes a way we disagree with, we can't do that, because the issue is literally, "Should gay people be allowed to live their lives?"

That's what makes the attempts to draw an equivalence between how gay people react to things like CFA's position, and how bigots react to it. The people on your side of the debate have absolutely no skin in this game. No matter how the debate turns out, it will literally have no effect at all on your life. The repercussions for gay people, on the other hand, are huge. In some case, literally life or death. I know people who are currently dead, who would otherwise be alive if they'd been able to get on their partner's life insurance policy. So, yeah, gay people are a lot more passionate about not being treated like shit, than the religious right is about being allowed to treat gay people like shit. Big fucking surprise there.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that all opinions are equally reasonable.

I'll take this on three XL tee-shirts please.*


(Actually, XXL if you've got them because, you know, shrinkage and stuff.)

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Huckabee and those like him are just doing to old right wing routine where they whine about being oppressed any time they aren't allowed unopposed free reign to oppress others.

I can't believe I keep doing this, but don't you understand that EVERY law "oppresses" somebody? Laws against speeding punish aggressive people who wish to drive fast. Laws against polygamy oppress people who wish to live in multiple person households construed in that fashion. Civil rights laws impose on private property rights.

But it doesn't matter, you say, because homosexuality is an inherent trait and that any type of law that distinguishes on that ground is bigotry and not worthy of a good faith opposition. I say that is a dangerous position to take because I could say that opposition to concealed carry means that you want my family unprotected and by definition, want to kill them. Not a worthy position.

Then you would come back and say that is different because there are other ways to protect my family, it's not an inherent trait. I will say that the right to self-defense is inherent....then we descend into a 52 page thread.

The bottom line is that Godwinizing a position by simply labeling it bigotry and unworthy of debate is something that divides the country and what your side has accused our side of doing. The next time you argue something, I'm going to say it's the same thing as legal slavery was in 1860, and marginalize you.

Is that a legitimate way to debate?

[Farmer Jane]

After today, I don't know if I could eat at Chick Fil A without feeling guilty.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Opinions are all equally reasonable.

You can't actually believe that, can you?

[El_Kabong]

NM

[dnooman]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Opinions are all equally reasonable.

It is many peoples opinion that the moon landing was faked, that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and that Obama's birth certificate is a fake.

Oh god. I just realized that statistically speaking there have to be hundreds of people that believe all three of those things.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I'll take this on three XL tee-shirts please.*


(Actually, XXL if you've got them because, you know, shrinkage and stuff.)

Not a bad idea.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

There is a big difference in me posting here saying "I think marriage is between a man and a woman and a same sex union should be a different title", and standing on the street corner with a "God Hates Fags" sign.

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Opinions are all equally reasonable.

So the opinions of homosexuality of Fred Phelps and his family, people who even Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell denounced as first order lunatics, are as reasonable as anybody else's?

Are you perhaps equating the adjectives reasonable and legal?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by Farmer Jane

After today, I don't know if I could eat at Chick Fil A without feeling guilty.

Did you read their nutritional information?

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by dnooman

First, I'd appreciate it greatly if you took the time to read this whole post, and respond with your thoughts. My intention is not to sound snarky or attacking, so please don't interpret me that way.

Are you actually believing the bible, or are you believing someone else's interpretation of it? If it's your belief, you'd have no problem reciting chapter and verse exactly what it says regarding "a sacred bond between a man and a woman". I don't think text like that exists in any form in the Bible, not in those words at least. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If you are able to post said scripture, great. If you need to Google it in order to find the text in question, you are probably operating on the biblical interpretations of others. I don't think there is such a thing as a Christian who can't find at least some fault in the various offshoots and weird sects that Christianity has, some are just plain nutty. My point is, that they all use the same book to justify their beliefs, yet many branches of Christianity believe wildly different things. Interpretation is everything with the bible. When you go to church, you listen to someone interpret the bible. That person is fallible, and was born with original sin. They are people.

God created gay people right? If you think Satan created them, then just stop reading. Bonobo monkeys have homosexual sex all the time, it's not even an issue to them. God made them too right? Did one of them eat an apple in the garden of Eden?

If Jesus came to Earth today, and someone asked him, should we allow these gay people to get married, what do you honestly think his response would be? Think about that for a second. Would he quote Mark 12:31 and say Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Or would he say something about protecting the word marriage, or something about gays being an abomination even though he creates them daily?

I think your heart is in the right place in allowing gays to be joined officially, and given the same rights as heterosexual couples. I just think that your issues with the word marriage being used might be influenced by people that are far more homophobic than you. I also think you feel compassionate towards gay people but are conflicted because of your traditional beliefs. Again, I could be wrong, but I think that in time you might soften your position and adopt a live and let live approach to life.

You may be able to find a passage here or there that can be interpreted as being anti-SSM, but you can find far more about compassion, love, acceptance, and tolerance.

First off, this has been one of the greatest posts I've ever read on the dope period, much less in a thread that's one giant argument. I never thought you were being attacking or snarky, you were being logical straightforward and posed questions without being derogatory or...well...just plain mean. I've sat and thought about everything and I have no idea how to do those little quotes in between phrases so I'll do them in a list format.

You are correct in that there is no verse in the Bible that uses the phrase as I did, to be totally honest that was probably just a buzz phrase that I grew up hearing and took it as such. The verse, and mindset, that I am going off of is in Genesis when "a man and a woman are to become one flesh", coupled with the numerous references in the bible as marriages being between men and women, not necessarily while talking about marriage about about loving your woman and how special women are (more precious than rubies).

Yes God created gay people, but I do not believe he created people as gay or straight. God gives us free will and I believe part of that free will is being gay or not. When it comes to gay animals (like monkeys I don't believe they are making the conscious effort to be gay, but rather just like sex. (On a side note I believe there are people who aren't truly gay but just like sex so much they just don't care, which I put into a different category than a gay man).

If Jesus came to Earth today and we asked him this question I believe his answer would be this, which is the way that I live my life and hold my viewpoint when it comes to gay people: "My father created men and women so that they may be here on Earth for each other, compliment each other in ways that only men cannot, and that men and women are to leave their homes and become one flesh together in marriage. But this does not mean that gay people are any less of people, or that their love for each other is any less then that of a man and a woman and they should receive no hate because of who they are. After all the number one rule is love thy neighbor as yourself".

Your entire last paragraph is 1000% true. Every. Single. Word of it. I have no doubts that after some long and hard reflection over the topic (which I haven't done because I'm honestly not THAT adamant about it) I could very easily change my opinion on it when I get some good healthy arguments against it.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I can't believe I keep doing this, but don't you understand that EVERY law "oppresses" somebody? Laws against speeding punish aggressive people who wish to drive fast. Laws against polygamy oppress people who wish to live in multiple person households construed in that fashion. Civil rights laws impose on private property rights.

I can't believe you think that's a rational argument.

Yes, all laws disadvantage someone to some degree or another. But the measure of a good law is, "Is the disadvantage to those people outweighed by the advantages this law gives to society, or the protections it grants to other people in that society?" A 55 mph speed limit disadvantages people who want to drive really, really fast, but it advantages society by making it possible for the rest of us to use the roads in a reasonable degree of safety. Laws against sexual assault disadvantage rapists, but that's outweighed by allowing other people to walk the streets in some reasonable degree of safety. And laws against gay marriage disadvantage gay people, but that's made up because outlawing gay marriage helps society by...

Okay, you're going to have to help me out on this part. How does that help society again? What advantage is there to outlawing gay marriage, other than being a dick to gay people? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't have a good reason for that. When people pass laws that disadvantage a group of people for no good reason, we generally call that oppression. We generally do not apply the term to anyone who is prevented by any law from doing whatever the hell they want to do. Because if we used the word to mean that, the word would be pretty much useless.

[Invisible Chimp]

Originally Posted by Miller

You can't actually believe that, can you?

I think he does, which explains a lot.

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

God gives us free will and I believe part of that free will is being gay or not.

This just keeps getting better.

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

Wrong as wrong can be.

Originally Posted by Miller

Not as big as you'd like to think. I mean, after all, those people with the God Hates Fags signs are just expressing their opinion, right? If "I'm just expressing an opinion," is a get-out-of-jail-free card for expressing bigoted ideas, then surely it applies to those guys, too, right?

No because that is not a reasonable way of expressing the opinion. The fault isn't by HAVING the opinion, the fault is the means to express it...which is usually (and often in the case of the big nutjobs...religious ones included) where the reason goes way out the window

Originally Posted by Sampiro

So the opinions of homosexuality of Fred Phelps and his family, people who even Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell denounced as first order lunatics, are as reasonable as anybody else's?

Are you perhaps equating the adjectives reasonable and legal?

Each person with that opinion has their own reasons for having it, which is why the opinion itself is reasonable. But legality has a big effect on when it stops being legal

[Farmer Jane]

My FB status says, 'Glad to know who's a bigot on Facebook. Go ahead and unfriend me if you "supported" Chick-Fil-A today.'

I'm not the boycotting type, but this is just bullshit.

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

This just keeps getting better.

And I'm wrong in this...why?

[Labrador Deceiver]

... and better.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Miller

Okay, you're going to have to help me out on this part. How does that help society again? What advantage is there to outlawing gay marriage, other than being a dick to gay people? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't have a good reason for that. When people pass laws that disadvantage a group of people for no good reason, we generally call that oppression. We generally do not apply the term to anyone who is prevented by any law from doing whatever the hell they want to do. Because if we used the word to mean that, the word would be pretty much useless.

Society has been served for many thousands of years by heterosexual only marriage. The burden is on the opposition to prove the need for change.

That being said, "for no good reason" is a matter of opinion. I don't think that there is any good reason that the law requires me to wear a seat belt in my own car when I have my own health insurance with money in the bank to pay for any excess charges.

The term "group of people" is also subjective. You see gay people as a "group." I could easily define polygamists, prostitutes, drug users, alcoholics, or people building without a permit as "groups of people". You say homosexuality is inherent. We can disagree over what is inherent. Child molesters certainly have an inherent propensity.

We could debate on how they affect or not affect other people (never mind that affecting other people has never been a standard of law) but we can stop all of that by just drawing a line in the sand and saying, "You bad, me good."

Or even worse, "You are a bigot, debate over."

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I can't believe I keep doing this, but don't you understand that EVERY law "oppresses" somebody?

That's yet another attempt to create a false equivalency. Preventing someone from oppressing others is not the same as oppressing them.

Originally Posted by jtgain

But it doesn't matter, you say, because homosexuality is an inherent trait and that any type of law that distinguishes on that ground is bigotry and not worthy of a good faith opposition.

It's bigotry because it's motivated by malice and religious fanaticism, not facts of any kind.

Originally Posted by jtgain

The bottom line is that Godwinizing a position by simply labeling it bigotry and unworthy of debate is something that divides the country and what your side has accused our side of doing.

Considering that homosexuals were one of the groups put into Nazi concentration camps, and imprisoned all over again once the Allies found out what the pink triangle meant, it's rater ridiculous to complain about the issue being "Godwinized". Especially when you add in things like the support of American Christians for things like the Ugandan push to make homosexuality a capital crime; I see no reason to think that they wouldn't gleefully push for the mass extermination of American homosexuals as well if they thought it was achievable. Present day homophobes are the intellectual brethren of Hitler, whether they like to admit it or not.

[faithfool]

Just out of curiosity for those who oppose SSM, how does it feel being on the wrong side of history? Because no matter how much you rail against or try to prevent this, it's going to happen. So, what does that make you think?

[Sir T-Cups]

Originally Posted by faithfool

Just out of curiosity for those who oppose SSM, how does it feel being on the wrong side of history? Because no matter how much you rail against or try to prevent this, it's going to happen. So, what does that make you think?

Doesn't matter to me.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by faithfool

Just out of curiosity for those who oppose SSM, how does it feel being on the wrong side of history? Because no matter how much you rail against or try to prevent this, it's going to happen. So, what does that make you think?

On another board where I'm having a very similar argument, there's a poster claiming that it's a sign of the End Times, a turning away from "true Christianity" that's prophesied in the Bible.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

Doesn't matter to me.

Since you've just provided an example, I have to respond by quoting this from just upthread:

Originally Posted by Miller

And that's the difference in this debate between gay people and straight people. If the issue goes a way you disagree with, you can shrug your shoulders and go on about your life. If it goes a way we disagree with, we can't do that, because the issue is literally, "Should gay people be allowed to live their lives?"

That's what makes the attempts to draw an equivalence between how gay people react to things like CFA's position, and how bigots react to it. The people on your side of the debate have absolutely no skin in this game. No matter how the debate turns out, it will literally have no effect at all on your life. The repercussions for gay people, on the other hand, are huge. In some case, literally life or death. I know people who are currently dead, who would otherwise be alive if they'd been able to get on their partner's life insurance policy. So, yeah, gay people are a lot more passionate about not being treated like shit, than the religious right is about being allowed to treat gay people like shit. Big fucking surprise there.

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

So I think we should call it by another name.

I vote for "mawwiage."

[Invisible Chimp]

Originally Posted by Tangent

I vote for "mawwiage."

I do think Inigo and Fezzik make a cute couple.

[Mrs. Cake]

Screw it, let's throw out the word"marriage" altogether. As an atheist married to a pagan and childless by choice, I hereby suggest the State now issue consenting adults a License to Fuck. Two people who get one are called Fuckers, and of couse, anyone is free to go to their religious guru/shaman/priest/whatever with their official License to Fuck and in a solemn ceremony become Religious Fuckers.

There, semantics all taken care of.

[Tangent]

I can see it now:
A couple is having a romantic dinner in a nice restaurant. He's got the ring in his pocket and the time is right. He kneels down before his beloved and asks the question, "Will you Fuck me?"

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Cake

their religious guru/shaman/priest/whatever

Fuckmonger. As long as we are changing names, we might as well be consistent.

[aceplace57]

Nicely stated. I too would prefer some sort of civil union for Gays. Marriage is a traditional religious institution and should be respected as such. Basic rights such as visiting at the hospital, insurance, wills and so forth are very important. I understand the need for civil unions.

That does not mean in any way that I'm against the gay movement. Sir T Cups states quite well a moderate position that I fully agree with.

Originally Posted by Sir T-Cups

It shouldn't.

The beauty of it being a republic is that I can be overruled by the populous as they so deem. I can think and vote one way, you and think and vote another way, and the majority rules.

There is a big difference in me posting here saying "I think marriage is between a man and a woman and a same sex union should be a different title", and standing on the street corner with a "God Hates Fags" sign.

Do I think God hates gay people? Not at all. Do I think gays are going to hell? Nope. If I'm standing on a street corner and a gay couple is being beaten by thugs am I going to jump in and intervene with my boxknife in my pocket? Hell yes.

I have an opinion on the subject and that's that. I'm not even that adamant about the opinion that I argue with people and make notes about developments, it's just the opinion I have. It's the answer to a question is all it is with me.

So if some type of SSM act passes and its nationally recognized am I going to be pissed, cry, or speak out against it? Nope. I'm gonna shrug my shoulders and say "well it's not how I would have done it but whatever" and go about my life.

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

Nicely stated. I too would prefer some sort of civil union for Gays. Marriage is a traditional religious institution and should be respected as such. Basic rights such as visiting at the hospital, insurance, wills and so forth are very important. I understand the need for civil unions.

That does not mean in any way that I'm against the gay movement. Sir T Cups states quite well a moderate position that I fully agree with.

Marriage has a very long tradition as a legal institution as well. Why should us non-religious people give up the term to religion? They don't deserve a monopoly on the term.

Really the only reason to give up the term Marriage is to try and pacify religious bigots who aren't too keen on gays having civil unions either.

[PandaBear77]

I went, ate the hell outta some chicken and I'm gonna do it again. I refuse to be told where and when I can spend my own money and if people want to judge me because of where I shop, fuck 'em.