# 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:** 7
**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, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/121 "2013-02-07T16:54:23Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Whenever two gays get married, the ether in the universe is disturbed, and this causes a straight marriage to explode somewhere. What changes for the gay union when it isn’t called marriage? Again, the psychology of this movement is obviously not wanting to have something, but to take something. Having the same rights isn’t good enough, the ages old identity of marriage has to be taken, diluted, re-defined. But yet, I know many gays who don’t feel that way. They are older and have been couples for a long time, but almost universally they say they don’t care what it is called. I know this because I called two of them this am as this thread was going on to ask. One said thoughtfully, that if 1M1F marrieds wanted a dedicated name for that union, that was fine with him because he cares about nothing other than removing government/legal double standards. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/122 "2013-02-07T17:02:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > 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? Perhaps. So your civil-union statute would effectively amend all statutes that include the word “marriage” to say “marriage or civil union”? > [@magellan01](#): > > To “publish”? I’d say no. Freedom of the “press” is not a _natural_ right. > > 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. Expressing opinions is, publishing is just a particular exercise of that right. > [@magellan01](#): > > I think I’ve shown why this is not true. We seem to disagree on what it means to have a right. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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. I would say the first two of those are not, in fact, natural rights. > [@magellan01](#): > > 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. Agreed. Since there’s now a thread on natural rights, if you would like to discuss them further, perhaps it should be done there. I’d rather focus on your hypothetical statute, as it’s more directly relevant. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/123 "2013-02-07T17:03:44Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > What changes for the gay union when it isn’t called marriage? It opens the door for legislature to make one inferior to the other. Not saying its a guarantee, but it is certainly a possibility, and considering the history of SbE in this country, gay people have every right to be concerned. Now. We have answered your question, care to answer ours? What changes for straight union when it IS called marriage? ---
**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, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/124 "2013-02-07T17:05:28Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > 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. Because they are fundamentally different. You ignore what the word has meant. You ignore the special relationship it has described. You ignore that the concept is a fundamental cornerstone of society. You deny that if the definition is expanded, that it—by definition—describes a broader and necessarily less “special” group. You deny that words have meaning that are important and that coming generations might not see the newly expanded definition of marriage as something with as much worth. Yet, you insist that you just must have the word because it IS so special. You’re care little for trying to craft a society that is a better one. You’re stance on SSM is not the proof of that; your stance on polygamy, as you just stated, is. You profess to care oh so much about rights, but when those rights are packaged for you, nope, they’re not good enough. You want not to be tolerated, to be given the rights you deserve, to be accepted…no, you want to be _embraced_. And wanting that is fine, but society is not obligated to embrace you and make you feel good about yourself. Find it elsewhere. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/125 "2013-02-07T17:08:01Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > What changes for the gay union when it isn’t called marriage? What changes for the gay union when it _is_ called marriage? > [@Shiloh2013](#): > > Again, the psychology of this movement is obviously not wanting to have something, but to take something. Having the same rights isn’t good enough, the ages old identity of marriage has to be taken, diluted, re-defined. Nothing is being taken. If the rights are really the same, _then make them the same._ If a marriage is a marriage, and a gay marriage is a marriage, then they really are equal and it’s much harder to make them unequal again, which is what occured the last time separate-but-equal was tried. ---
**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/126 "2013-02-07T17:09:10Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because they are fundamentally different. You ignore what the word has meant. You ignore the special relationship it has described. You ignore that the concept is a fundamental cornerstone of society. You deny that if the definition is expanded, that it—by definition—describes a broader and necessarily less “special” group. You deny that words have meaning that are important and that coming generations might not see the newly expanded definition of marriage as something with as much worth. Yet, you insist that you just must have the word because it IS so special. You’re care little for trying to craft a society that is a better one. You’re stance on SSM is not the proof of that; your stance on polygamy, as you just stated, is. You profess to care oh so much about rights, but when those rights are packaged for you, nope, they’re not good enough. You want not to be tolerated, to be given the rights you deserve, to be accepted…no, you want to be _embraced_. And wanting that is fine, but society is not obligated to embrace you and make you feel good about yourself. Find it elsewhere. Yeah, I can see how losing your special straight privilege can rankle a bit. To tell the truth, **gelly** , you can hate me all you want. You can not embrace me all you want. You can not tolerate me all you want. You can even say nasty things about me behind my back. But you ARE going to have to face the fact that I WILL be married to my partner of almost 10 years someday soon. You and all of the other dead-enders who think that their own straight-people weakening of the meaning of marriage long before gays and lesbians ever even really dreamed of getting married legally isn’t 1000x as destructive as anything we queers can do to 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, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/127 "2013-02-07T17:11:11Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Nothing is being taken. This is not entirely true. We ARE taking something from them. We’re taking that shiny feeling of straight privilege that lets them believe that, whatever else the deluded fools in the majority of the population choose to believe about us dirty homaseckshuls, straight people are still special and superior to the buttpirates. ---
**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, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/128 "2013-02-07T17:13:03Z")
Using this logic, instead of changing the drinking age from, say, 21 to 19 with a new law that supercedes the old one, we would have to let the old law stand and create a new law that would allow 19 and 20 year olds to “imbibe” alcohol-they would still need to be 21 to “drink” alcohol. Both words mean the same thing, but when people turn 21 it’s a special thing to be allowed to drink, and they down’t want that specialness to be diluted. ---
**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, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/129 "2013-02-07T17:16:12Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > 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. The same laws apply to cars, suvs and pickup trucks, but we give “them” different names. You know, this is beginning to sound like the old days when many blacks accused other blacks of wanting to be white. I think if I were gay I wouldn’t want to emulate the heterosexual model. Here’s a thought - what if you take “marriage,” and “we” come up with something else? Would that be hypothetically acceptable? ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/130 "2013-02-07T17:18:27Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > Here’s a thought - what if you take “marriage,” and “we” come up with something else? Would that be hypothetically acceptable? I don’t know if you even realize it, but you’ve just proved that it’s not some unemotional respect for tradition or even some sort of neurotic OCD about word definitions that’s causing you to oppose marriage equality, because neither of those would allow you to even jokingly offer this idea. You just don’t want to have to share a social institution with us faggots. Which really doesn’t surprise me in the least. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/131 "2013-02-07T17:21:24Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > The same laws apply to cars, suvs and pickup trucks, but we give “them” different names. > > You know, this is beginning to sound like the old days when many blacks accused other blacks of wanting to be white. I think if I were gay I wouldn’t want to emulate the heterosexual model. > > Here’s a thought - what if you take “marriage,” and “we” come up with something else? Would that be hypothetically acceptable? Would you support interracial marriage being called, “Mud Marriage?” Because it’s just a different name. Every single argument for banning gay marriage can be applied to banning interracial marriage. And in fact was. Unless you got married to a woman and her father paid your father in sheep, you didn’t have a “traditional” marriage. There is not a single rational reason on Earth to keep gays from marrying. Every one given is either gibberish, or based on bigotry. ---
**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, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/132 "2013-02-07T17:24:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Every single argument for banning gay marriage can be applied to banning interracial marriage. And in fact was. Nope. Reason: married is the union of one man and one woman. ---
**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, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/133 "2013-02-07T17:25:29Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I don’t know if you even realize it, but you’ve just \*\*proved \*\*that it’s not some unemotional respect for tradition or even some sort of neurotic OCD about word definitions that’s causing you to oppose marriage equality, **because neither of those would allow you to even jokingly offer this idea.** You just don’t want to have to share a social institution with us faggots. Which really doesn’t surprise me in the least. what? ---
**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, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/134 "2013-02-07T17:26:28Z")
> [@Shiloh2013](#): > > what? What what? My response was pretty clear, I thought. Are you going to pretend to be confused about it so you don’t have to respond to it now? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/135 "2013-02-07T17:27:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. Reason: married is the union of one man and one woman. That would be one of those gibberish arguments I spoke of. Give me a rational argument for why the right of marriage should be denied to homosexuals. “Nuh uh, it ain’t so!” doesn’t constitute a rational argument for this purpose. Domo. Edit: Clicked Submit a second too early: “Nope. Reason: married is the union of one man and one woman [OF THE SAME RACE].” \<– that was asserted pre interracial marriage. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/136 "2013-02-07T17:28:54Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I don’t know if you even realize it, but you’ve just proved that it’s not some unemotional respect for tradition or even some sort of neurotic OCD about word definitions that’s causing you to oppose marriage equality, because neither of those would allow you to even jokingly offer this idea. You just don’t want to have to share a social institution with us faggots. Which really doesn’t surprise me in the least. More accurately, you find the idea of sharing an institution with gay people and only gay people distasteful. You want to be one of us. One of the norm. Even though you define yourself otherwise. You want to erase your gayness, at the expense of society. Self-loathing is the sort of thing therapy is for. Why should people give up anything to make you feel better about yourself? ---
**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, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/137 "2013-02-07T17:29:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Would you support interracial marriage being called, “Mud Marriage?” Because it’s just a different name. > > Every single argument for banning gay marriage can be applied to banning interracial marriage. And in fact was. > > Unless you got married to a woman and her father paid your father in sheep, you didn’t have a “traditional” marriage. > > There is not a single rational reason on Earth to keep gays from marrying. Every one given is either gibberish, or based on bigotry. Some societies have used race to restrict marriage. But race was not a part of the evolution of the institution. Physical gender was. I still keep marveling at how angry you all are. And that you think you are being helped by that. Anger and victimhood. ---
**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, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/138 "2013-02-07T17:29:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. Reason: married is the union of one man and one woman. Huh. I thought marriage was the union of one woman and her rapist, according to the Bible. Or one man and multiple women, again according to the Bible (and the Koran, and the Book of Mormon). Or of one man and a woman whom he paid her father for and who became his chattel. Or of one man and the young girl he kidnapped from her father’s house. Or of one man and the woman whose entire financial life he controlled, even if it all came to her by inheritance from HER family. Is that the kind of traditional marriage you’re thinking of? ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/139 "2013-02-07T17:30:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nope. Reason: married is the union of one man and one woman. That definition has changed before to fill the needs of a society, and it can(and will) change again. ---
**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, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361/140 "2013-02-07T17:31:02Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That would be one of those gibberish arguments I spoke of. We disagree on the meaning of gibberish. Mine agrees with the dictionary. The reason I gave is straight-forward and crystal clear. If you have a problem with a particular part of it, I’d be glad to help. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/maybe-chik-fil-a-and-dan-cathy-arent-bigots/649361.md?page=8)