# 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:** 6
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/101 "2013-02-07T16:15:22Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > 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. Noted. I don’t think there’s a position that compares to anti-marriage-equality, in terms of the number of supporters versus the weakness of their arguments. I was in the civil-union camp at one time (during my Young Republican days, before switching to libertarianism), until I really thought about it and could not articulate a single reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry other than “that’s not the way we’ve always done it” or “most people don’t want them to be able to” (which [is no longer true](http://www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx), per Gallup). Both of those are _terrible_ reasons to deny someone equal rights. I never hated gays, and I don’t think most anti-SSM people do either, which doesn’t leave them much to argue with. Still, I changed my mind on this, so others can too. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/102 "2013-02-07T16:15:40Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This post was never answered by **Shiloh** , but it should have been. It’s actually never answered by ANY marriage equality opponent, because they can’t answer it logically from their conceptual framework (wherein they SAY that gay and lesbian people are actually fully equal people, but obviously don’t fully believe it). ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/103 "2013-02-07T16:17:51Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Whenever two gays get married, the ether in the universe is disturbed, and this causes a straight marriage to explode somewhere. They never explain what it was that caused 50% of marriages to explode before any state allowed marriage equality, though. Frankly, the straight people have been doing a very efficient job of destroying marriage for a very long time before marriage equality was even a glimmer of an idea. \*Incidentally, they also fail spectacularly at explaining why the very first state to have marriage equality, the state where it’s been law the longest, has the lowest divorce rate in the country… ---
**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, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/104 "2013-02-07T16:19:50Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > White school, black school. > Marriage, civil unions. Nope. Two different groups: Blacks / Whites Two different schools: Black schools / White schools The two different _schools_ were said to be “separate but equal”. Contrast that with the SSM debate. What I’m talking about is, Two different groups: Heterosexuals / Homosexuals But only ONE set of laws. So every gay couple joined in a civil union would be able to enjoy all the legal privileges and benefits that every heterosexual married couple would be able to enjoy. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/105 "2013-02-07T16:20:18Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > They never explain what it was that caused 50% of marriages to explode before any state allowed marriage equality, though. Frankly, the straight people have been doing a very efficient job of destroying marriage for a very long time before marriage equality was even a glimmer of an idea. Yes. Any time they pull out the “it hurts straight marriage” crap, I tell them to go fix their own marriages instead of blaming someone else for them. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/106 "2013-02-07T16:20:45Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Still, I changed my mind on this, so others can too. Absolutely. We’ve actually had some fairly prominent conservative posters whose minds have changed on the subject since it first became a reality (with the Massachusetts ruling), **Bricker** being a prominent name among them. I do think there are a few who are beyond hope, however, judging from how often we have exactly the same arguments over it with them. ---
**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, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/107 "2013-02-07T16:21:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. > > Two different groups: Blacks / Whites > Two different schools: Black schools / White schools > > The two different _schools_ were said to be “separate but equal”. > Contrast that with the SSM debate. What I’m talking about is, > > Two different groups: Heterosexuals / Homosexuals > > But only ONE set of laws. So every gay couple joined in a civil union would be able to enjoy all the legal privileges and benefits that every heterosexual married couple would be able to enjoy. No, two sets of laws: A marriage license A civil union license And even if they are the same in every way but the name, they have different names. If it’s only about the name, why care about the name? And if the name matters so much, then it must matter. If it doesn’t, then you wouldn’t be so concerned about it. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/108 "2013-02-07T16:22:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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. How else would you write the statutes? You’d have a statute for marriage, which was defined by the spouses being of different gender, and one for civil union, which was defined by the spouses being of the same (depending on how charitable you are to transsexuals) gender. Your argument may differ from **Shiloh** ’s, so if I’ve misstated your opinion, I apologize. How would you resolve civil unions as a statutory matter? > [@magellan01](#): > > 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? Natural rights _are not_ contingent upon laws, customs, and beliefs. Let’s say you were a citizen of the Soviet Union in 1955. Do you have a right to publish your opinions? Yes, you do; you are a human being and all human beings enjoy such rights. Is this right infringed upon, meaning that you are unable to exercise it without reprisal from the government? Yes. But the right exists regardless. Natural rights cannot be granted or removed by law, only protected or infringed upon. ---
**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, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/109 "2013-02-07T16:22:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But only ONE set of laws. So every gay couple joined in a civil union would be able to enjoy all the legal privileges and benefits that every heterosexual married couple would be able to enjoy. Okay, let’s try this one more time. If it’s the same freaking laws that govern the two, why the freaking freak are we giving them different names?! They’re the same damn thing, legally, as you admit, and yet you want to call them something completely different just so you and your fellow straight chauvinists can continue feeling special. ---
**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, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/110 "2013-02-07T16:25:27Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > 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. First, I have considered it from the alternate viewpoint. But it might surprise you to learn that doing so does not obligate me to agree with your position. If it did, than why are you not obligated to see things my way and ultimately agree with me? See the problem? Hope that helps you in your future travels. If you’re able to digest it. If so, it’ll certainly be a nice change for all those who you might find yourself disagreeing with in life. ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/111 "2013-02-07T16:26:27Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes. Any time they pull out the “it hurts straight marriage” crap, I tell them to go fix their own marriages instead of blaming someone else for them. And that’s tellin 'em, by golly!!! ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/112 "2013-02-07T16:29:01Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Absolutely. We’ve actually had some fairly prominent conservative posters whose minds have changed on the subject since it first became a reality (with the Massachusetts ruling), **Bricker** being a prominent name among them. I do think there are a few who are beyond hope, however, judging from how often we have exactly the same arguments over it with them. The idea of gay marriage \*felt \*wrong to me, but the innate moral sense, the gut-feeling of whether something is right or wrong, must in a thinking person be subject to your rational mind. Things that feel wrong sometimes aren’t, and things that feel right sometimes aren’t. That subordination of reasoning to gut-feeling probably underlies some anti-SSM folks’ opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/113 "2013-02-07T16:30:16Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Natural rights _are not_ contingent upon laws, customs, and beliefs. Let’s say you were a citizen of the Soviet Union in 1955. Do you have a right to publish your opinions? Yes, you do; you are a human being and all human beings enjoy such rights. Is this right infringed upon, meaning that you are unable to exercise it without reprisal from the government? Yes. But the right exists regardless. > > Natural rights cannot be granted or removed by law, only protected or infringed upon. I’ve started a new thread on “Natural Rights” [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=681571) ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/114 "2013-02-07T16:35:38Z")
Truthfully, I’m getting better at not letting the whole argument get to me since the balance has begun to tip. More people every day come down on the marriage equality side. Within my lifetime (a fact that I’m still trying to grasp) there WILL be nationwide marriage equality. All the people who try to keep their own straight privilege separate from the hordes of dirty fegelahs will be reduced to bitter muttering and subject to general ridicule as completely equally married couples of all sexes enjoy their rights. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/115 "2013-02-07T16:43:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And that’s tellin 'em, by golly!!! Well, I was going to add more colorful language but thought twice, so that’s why it’s kinda weak. ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/116 "2013-02-07T16:45:17Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Truthfully, I’m getting better at not letting the whole argument get to me since the balance has begun to tip. More people every day come down on the marriage equality side. Within my lifetime (a fact that I’m still trying to grasp) there WILL be nationwide marriage equality. So the polygamists will be able to marry in all 50 states? ---
**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, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/117 "2013-02-07T16:46:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > First, I have considered it from the alternate viewpoint. But it might surprise you to learn that doing so does not obligate me to agree with your position. If it did, than why are you not obligated to see things my way and ultimately agree with me? See the problem? > > Hope that helps you in your future travels. If you’re able to digest it. If so, it’ll certainly be a nice change for all those who you might find yourself disagreeing with in life. Sure, you’re not obligated. Would you being willing to articulate what you view as the best argument for why Americans should, through their vote, oppose allowing same-sex couples to legally enter into marriages? What’s the best case you can make? ---
**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, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/118 "2013-02-07T16:48:13Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So the polygamists will be able to marry in all 50 states? Sure! If they want it, they’re free to work for it. I have no objections, myself. ---
**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, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/119 "2013-02-07T16:50:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > How else would you write the statutes? You’d have a statute for marriage, which was defined by the spouses being of different gender, and one for civil union, which was defined by the spouses being of the same (depending on how charitable you are to transsexuals) gender. > > Your argument may differ from **Shiloh** ’s, so if I’ve misstated your opinion, I apologize. How would you resolve civil unions as a statutory matter? Thanks for the question. Easy: One statute. One set of laws. You’re able to tap into these laws if you’ve you been joined either in marriage or a civil union. Right any set of laws you want regarding property rights, inheritance, hospital visitation, insurance, etc. But the important thing is that there be just the ONE set of laws. Make sense? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Natural rights _are not_ contingent upon laws, customs, and beliefs. Let’s say you were a citizen of the Soviet Union in 1955. Do you have a right to publish your opinions? To “publish”? I’d say no. Freedom of the “press” is not a _natural_ right. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Yes, you do; you are a human being and all human beings enjoy such rights. On what basis do you say this? What about before publishing? Did some ancient Syrian have the natural right to publish his opinion? Before publishing was a possibility? No, of course not. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Is this right infringed upon, meaning that you are unable to exercise it without reprisal from the government? Yes. But the right exists regardless. I think I’ve shown why this is not true. > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Natural rights cannot be granted or removed by law, only protected or infringed upon. This is correct. A person has a right to eat, the right to be compensated for his labor, the right to care for their children, etc. And good place to get a feel for natural rights is Antigone, by Sophocles. After the death of her brother and her desire to care for his body—against the king’s orders, and at risk of death—Antigone instructs King Creon they there are laws higher than those of kings. Just because a right is a good idea, doesn’t mean it is a natural right. Similarly, not all rights enshrined in U.S. Constitution are natural rights. ---
**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, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/120 "2013-02-07T16:51:24Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Well, I was going to add more colorful language but thought twice, so that’s why it’s kinda weak. Yeah, the forum can do that. Just imagine what I could have done with “by golly”. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=7)