# Maybe Chik-Fil-A and Dan Cathy aren't bigots? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361 "2013-02-05T04:12:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/81 "2013-02-07T15:31:15Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The black vs. white analogy is a massive failure, because those are not legal terms defined by law. They are just facts. > > But since you bring up race, and anti-miscegenation laws are the last way we dealt with a similar issue in this country, I’ll pose this question - would you have been okay with labeling mixed-race marriages as “civil unions” instead of “marriage” as a way of settling that issue? This again? Sigh. (Not directed to you, in particular, **lance strongarm** , but this inapt analogy continually comes up.) There’d be no need to define mixed race couples. As long as they consisted of one man and one woman, they fit into the definition of marriage as it has been understood. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/82 "2013-02-07T15:34:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Otherness does not equal inferiority nor superiority. Is a wrench superior to screwdriver? So you’re saying they should be separate but equal? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/83 "2013-02-07T15:37:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This again? Sigh. (Not directed to you, in particular, **lance strongarm** , but this inapt analogy continually comes up.) There’d be no need to define mixed race couples. As long as they consisted of one man and one woman, they fit into the definition of marriage as it has been understood. Please answer the question. If a legislator had come to you in 1967 and said “The only way we’re going to let blacks and whites have a legal union in this here state is if we call it ‘civil unions’. They will not be allowed to call their union a marriage.” What would you say? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/84 "2013-02-07T15:40:40Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > The pro gay marriage people are such bullies. Yep. The rightwingers are already making videos saying “it gets better.” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/85 "2013-02-07T15:41:48Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I don’t know why you’re surprised that people reject seperate-but-equal, it didn’t work out so well when applied to other subgroups of humanity in this country. IF there were ONE set of laws that applied top both, it would not be akin to the separate but equal notions going back to the '50s. Remember, they wanted one set of schools for Black kids and another set of schools for White kids. TWO different sets of schools. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > 100% legal acceptance, yes. Someone’s natural rights do not depend on what the majority thinks. Normalcy or social acceptance is immaterial. > > If large swaths of America want to deny equality to fellow citizens, yes, to hell with them. Natural rights aren’t up for a vote. Wait, what—now it’s not just a “right”, but a “natural right”? Where to you get this from? You may want to read up on “natural rights”. Here’s the short answer, if it necessitates an imprimatur from the government, it ain’t. It’s more akin to the opposite. Now, if you’d like to argue that their is a natural right to live your life with the person of your choosing, you’d be on much more solid ground there. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/86 "2013-02-07T15:44:16Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So you’re saying they should be separate but equal? No. I’m saying that just because you call different things by different names doesn’t indicate any hierarchy of worth. Also, please read what I just posted about the SbE canard. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/87 "2013-02-07T15:45:08Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > WHY do they think something other than marriage suggests inferiority? Because they doubt their own legitimacy? It’s quite simple, you want them to be different, _legally_ different, but they are not, they are equal to you. There is no reason to classify marriages differently based on the genitals of the couple. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/88 "2013-02-07T15:46:40Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Please answer the question. > > If a legislator had come to you in 1967 and said “The only way we’re going to let blacks and whites have a legal union in this here state is if we call it ‘civil unions’. They will not be allowed to call their union a marriage.” What would you say? Well, if I believed it was the ONLY way, I’d agree. If not, those people would not have the legal rights they are entitled to. Question for you: do you believe Blacks and Whites are equals? If yes, how can that be, we refer to them by two different names? ---
**Author:** ![Shiloh2013](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@Shiloh2013](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shiloh2013)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/89 "2013-02-07T15:49:18Z")
I would say they are, in fact, by definition separate things. And that can’t be changed except by re-definition. So given that as the necessary starting point, I am against redefining marriage, so gay unions remain a separate thing, but should, by all means, be equal in every legal way. ---
**Author:** ![Shiloh2013](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@Shiloh2013](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shiloh2013)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/90 "2013-02-07T15:51:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s quite simple, you want them to be different, _legally_ different, but they are not, they are equal to you. There is no reason to classify marriages differently based on the genitals of the couple. Yes there is. Marriage has always been physical gender based. And that does not need to be changed to create equal rights for other physical gender combinations, which would be something other than marriage. And if you fear that something other than marriage will be seen as inferior, that’s your own paranoia and insecurity at work. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/91 "2013-02-07T15:51:43Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > There was no stripping of rights because the rights never existed. The constitutional amendment simply meant that no law could be passed and no court could back door it. And yes, it is the fault of stubborn gay rights militants that there is no civil union with full equal rights in Ohio. It could have been. But no, better to not have it at all than to not call it marriage. “Why do you keep making me beat you?” The classic abuser’s lament… _reading down the thread_ And there’s our faithful friend, **magellan**. Look! He’s found a disciple! ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/92 "2013-02-07T15:56:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > IF there were ONE set of laws that applied top both, it would not be akin to the separate but equal notions going back to the '50s. Remember, they wanted one set of schools for Black kids and another set of schools for White kids. TWO different sets of schools. TWO different legal definitions of marriage. Same thing. > [@magellan01](#): > > Wait, what—now it’s not just a “right”, but a “natural right”? Where to you get this from? You may want to read up on “natural rights”. Here’s the short answer, if it necessitates an imprimatur from the government, it ain’t. It’s more akin to the opposite. Now, if you’d like to argue that their is a natural right to live your life with the person of your choosing, you’d be on much more solid ground there. Natural rights are “rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.” For example, I have a right to free speech because I’m a human being. This right can be infringed upon, but not removed from me. Marriage is another such right. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/93 "2013-02-07T16:01:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > IF there were ONE set of laws that applied top both, it would not be akin to the separate but equal notions going back to the '50s. Remember, they wanted one set of schools for Black kids and another set of schools for White kids. TWO different sets of schools. White school, black school. Marriage, civil unions. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/94 "2013-02-07T16:03:06Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Marriage is another such right. Is it poisoning the well to warn someone about debating a poster who’s proven his unwillingness to consider any aspect of this subject from the viewpoint of the marriage equality supporters? I don’t believe I’ve seen you, **Human Action** , debate **magellan** about this before. I can tell you from experience that going out into the hallway and debating the cinder blocks in the walls would probably produce more movement of their mental viewpoint than debating **magellan** will move his. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/95 "2013-02-07T16:03:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, if I believed it was the ONLY way, I’d agree. If not, those people would not have the legal rights they are entitled to. > > Question for you: do you believe Blacks and Whites are equals? If yes, how can that be, we refer to them by two different names? Legally speaking, yes, Blacks and Whites are equals. Thats what we want for homosexuals. Pretty simple, really. You want separate-but-equal. In reality, there is no such thing. ONE of the separates is always at least a little inferior. Which do you think it will be in this case? You have never answered the main question though: How does allowing gay people to marry have any impact on straight marriage? What is changes for the heterosexual married couple? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/96 "2013-02-07T16:04:18Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > Yes there is. Marriage has always been physical gender based. And that does not need to be changed to create equal rights for other physical gender combinations, which would be something other than marriage. No, it hasn’t “always” been anything, and same-sex marriages have been performed before modern times. If you think the important, core element of marriage is the gender of the spouses, you have a tragically limited view of what a marriage is. Your definition is worthless and should be changed. > [@Shiloh2013](#): > > And if you fear that something other than marriage will be seen as inferior, that’s your own paranoia and insecurity at work. No, it’s just a basic awareness of history. [Homer Plessy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy) was assured that seperate facilities for different races would be equal. [Roy Torcaso](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins) was told (by lower courts) that Maryland’s religious test for public office wasn’t discriminatory, since he didn’t HAVE to be a public official. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/97 "2013-02-07T16:10:14Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > TWO different legal definitions of marriage. Same thing. How in the world did you get to two different legal definitions of marriage? Who the hell is advocating that? What I am advocating is one set of laws that accessed by two groups. Much like copyright or real estate laws that are accessed equally by two distinct groups, Blacks and Whites. You’re advocating one set of laws, too, correct? You just think gays should be allowed to “marry”. Also, it seems that you might want to also read up on sets and subsets. Oh and analogies. The important thing is how things relate to each other. You’re way off. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Natural rights are “rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.” For example, I have a right to free speech because I’m a human being. This right can be infringed upon, but not removed from me. > > Marriage is another such right. Huh? Your conclusion is at direct odds with the definition you supplied. You posted a good definition that clearly shows that “marriage” does NOT qualify. Or did you miss the “not contingent upon laws, customs or beliefs” part? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/98 "2013-02-07T16:12:29Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Aren’t you fighting over a name just as much as your opponents are? And if all legal rights are the same, why does the name need to be different? All it does is open the door to future laws that affect marriage but not civil unions, so as to bring discrimination back in, beyond the discriminatory effect of a not-a-real-marriage “civil union”. And for what? > > Imagine that when anti-miscegenation laws were being struck down, that a group had proposed allowing interracial couples to enter into “mixed unions” instead of marriages. What might you think of their motives? What could possibly be gained from this approach? This post was never answered by **Shiloh** , but it should have been. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/99 "2013-02-07T16:13:33Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > You have never answered the main question though: How does allowing gay people to marry have any impact on straight marriage? What is changes for the heterosexual married couple? Whenever two gays get married, the ether in the universe is disturbed, and this causes a straight marriage to explode somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/100 "2013-02-07T16:14:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > No, it’s just a basic awareness of history. [Homer Plessy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_Plessy) was assured that seperate facilities for different races would be equal. [Roy Torcaso](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins) was told (by lower courts) that Maryland’s religious test for public office wasn’t discriminatory, since he didn’t HAVE to be a public official. Wonderful examples. The Torcaso ruling is a perfect example of completely warped logic. I can’t believe a judge actually wrote that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=6)