|
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever.
|
On July 27 2012 02:03 gorbonic wrote:The company's values extend to the way it's run. From a NYT article last year (1/29/2011): Show nested quote +The company’s Christian culture and its strict hiring practices, which require potential operators to discuss their marital status and civic and church involvement, have attracted controversy before, including a 2002 lawsuit brought by a Muslim restaurant owner in Houston who said he was fired because he did not pray to Jesus with other employees at a training session. Furthermore, some people have argued that Chick-fil-A's "Christian" values extend only to conservative American political idee fixes, and that Christian problems related to goodness and altruism (such as homelessness, factory farming/animal cruelty, etc.) fall by the wayside.
In argument against your last comment:
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/Winshape
Factor farming/animal cruelty is not as simple or not as clearly/universally a prominent issue as you portray it anyway?
|
On July 27 2012 01:43 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:36 Smat wrote:On July 27 2012 01:21 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:18 Smat wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 U_G_L_Y wrote:On July 27 2012 01:04 Praetorial wrote:On July 27 2012 01:00 Trainrunnef wrote:
For those of you who think the ban is right, would it also be right for a anti-gay mayor to ban a pro gay institution in his city?
If he wants to ban CFA from his city because of their anti-gay stance, why not bar all anti-gay organizations from setting up shop in boston? would it be wrong then? The mayor's opinion (no matter how morally laudable or reprehensible) shouldn't be enough to outright ban any institution, future or present. Anti-gay marriage is a hateful position, because its explicit goal is the restriction of the freedoms of an individual. Anti-anti-gay marriage is not a hateful position because it does not restrict the freedom of individuals, it merely protects their right to personal freedoms. Thus, any anti-gay position is always hateful, any pro-gay marriage position is inherently unhateful. This is the opinion of most of Boston. Some people believe that children are better off with a mom and a dad. They have no hate in their hearts. They have a political belief perhaps based on the love of their own parents and a concern for children. I FEEL like we should put people in prison who tell others what they believe. But I know that fascism is wrong, so I will hold strong and continue to support the rights of people to say ridiculous and offensive things, even things that are not true, even things that are discriminatory and rude. And what if they are doing more than saying discriminatory things? Contrary to popular belief, we actually have laws in America to address that sort of thing, and those laws should be enforced. Eh, I was talking about the fact that Chick-fila funds discrimination directly with company money. If they are funding firebombing people's homes, that is different than paying for an advertisement to share their political views. They are very different things. (One is murder, one is free speech. One is illegal, one is the basis for democracy...)
One is a campaign whose ultimate goal is to put an artificial barrier between two consenting adults attempting to form a contract between themselves, it is a campaign whose only goal is to continue discrimination, no one is suggesting they are funding terrorism.
Also, if children are better off with two heterosexual parents is not something that is decided by majority vote, what people "feel" on the matter is irrelevant. It is decided by proper long-term study and review by sociologists/psychologists. Unless you can prove to me that they are better off, we should err on the side of liberty, that is the default right? It might not be hateful but it is discriminatory. Somethings are not a matter of belief, they are matters of evidence and rational conclusions. (Ya know, science!)
The mayor actually can't even ban the damn business, he can just make life very difficult for them. If the mayor has the right to ban businesses is a matter for each city to decide when they are formed, they have a right to give their elected representatives the powers they see fit as long as they are constitutional.
|
On July 27 2012 01:37 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street.
Imagine if this was the other way away. A pro-traditional marriage city blocking a company with different views. Do you really think the reaction would be the same? Nope the reaction would not be same at all. Which is a good sign for this country.
Prejudice is a wonderful awesome thing when you are in the majority.
|
On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever.
Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselves together in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society.
|
Bigotry is one thing, but what they want to do is anti capitalism.
You can't just deny someone to run a fast food because he is a bigot. You, as a state , can chose to not hire them and that's pretty much it....
Again, if they are assholes than they will get "punished" by the non-asshole "community". Nothing that they do is against the law.
|
On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever. Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselvestogether in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society.
I am not writing an exhaustive treatise on why one position would be correct. The subtleties make things messy (I mentioned adoption was tough and tossed it to the side). I could imagine that following argument relating to adoption: (admittedly this one isn't terribly good) that asking about infertility/actual plans to have children would invade privacy of the citizens, so these must by default be included in coverage of marriage.
In any case, I am attempting to trace a rough line of argument that is not inherently homophobic/gay-hating to make a philosophical point that one cannot simply write off the opinion of anyone who does not support gay marriage.
This clearly stretches the imagination of the majority of the readers of the thread, but I still wanted to argue for the existence of a non-homophobic argument anyway. Your ability to debate and convince other people is greatly weakened when you misunderstand or pigeonhole the argument of the opposition.
|
United States2925 Posts
Great move! Although I wish I could just enjoy a chicken sandwich without all this political and religious drama.....
|
i don't even see a reason why this is even in debut. regardless of the issue, if you're simple minded enough to be motivated to shut down a whole food chain just because someone has different beliefs than you, you sir, are far too simple minded and are simply a band wagon rider.
we live in a country where we preach freedom for all and freedom to practice what we believe in regardless of what it is, by taking away innocent people's ability to make a living based on a rumor? and to lump ALL who work for them into the same category, you're IQ should already disqualify you from having this discussion. the stupidity in this thread is at an all time high, most of you immediately jump to the conclusion that just because a company is associated with a religion = bad. you're not even seeing the possible repercussions of shutting down a large food chain that supplies JOBS which in this day and age, we don't have enough of.
the hypocrisy is just laughable, people preach about human rights and flaunt a morale high ground, then turn around and can't even see, they're depriving others of their own basic rights. imo you're no different than the self righteous natzi's who indiscriminately killed based on their beliefs, you may not be there yet but you're sure on the same track.
what you should be doing is getting the mayor banned for having an emotional reaction to a rumor and stepping beyond his boundaries. anyone who can't think rationally about the pro's and cons of such a decision should never have the power to lead a state or city.
|
On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever. Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselves together in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society.
Personally, I don't understand the problem with Marriage vs Civil Union. As long as one contains all the rights of the other, who cares what we call it. It should be the rights that are the contentious point here? I wish we could just settle and say "Man and woman: Marriage. Gay or Lesbain: Union" And give each the same rights as the other. Seems like the best outcome for everyone. But some ultra religious say that it's a slippery slope, and some gay/lesbian say it isn't good enough.
|
I've always assumed
Discrimination->Bad
Discriminating against people that discriminate->Fine
Kind of like
killing people->Bad
Killing people that are killing people->Fine
|
On July 27 2012 02:35 saocyn wrote:
i don't even see a reason why this is even in debut. regardless of the issue, if you're simple minded enough to be motivated to shut down a whole food chain just because someone has different beliefs than you, you sir, are far too simple minded and are simply a band wagon rider.
we live in a country where we preach freedom for all and freedom to practice what we believe in regardless of what it is, by taking away innocent people's ability to make a living based on a rumor? and to lump ALL who work for them into the same category, you're IQ should already disqualify you from having this discussion. the stupidity in this thread is at an all time high, most of you immediately jump to the conclusion that just because a company is associated with a religion = bad. you're not even seeing the possible repercussions of shutting down a large food chain that supplies JOBS which in this day and age, we don't have enough of.
the hypocrisy is just laughable, people preach about human rights and flaunt a morale high ground, then turn around and can't even see, they're depriving others of their own basic rights. imo you're no different than the self righteous natzi's who indiscriminately killed based on their beliefs, you may not be there yet but you're sure on the same track.
what you should be doing is getting the mayor banned for having an emotional reaction to a rumor and stepping beyond his boundaries.
You're saying we preach freedom -- shouldn't that give the mayor, who was elected democratically, the right to disallow Chic-fil-a in Boston? Seems fine to me.
|
On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever.
What you said doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
You mentioned one of the huge problems in your argument (adoption) but there's another one: heterosexuals don't have to have kids, many can't. To say that marriage is all about kids is a strange assumption I don't agree with from a historical or personal point of view. I don't want kids but I do have a fiance, if i couldn't get married because I refused to have kids, adopt, or if I was sterile then that would be interfering with my rights. The government gives massive tax breaks for kids already, they become dependants on your tax return. Marriage can be about almost anything, from joining families together, to celebrating love, or to avoid having a bastard kid.
Your restroom analogy is just... so off and unconnected to your argument I don't what to say about it, they aren't remotely similiar.
People have a right to freely enter into contracts, like marriage. I'm also pretty sure your whole argument is still just discrimination.
|
On July 27 2012 02:36 Ecrilon wrote:
I've always assumed
Discrimination->Bad
Discriminating against people that discriminate->Fine
Kind of like
killing people->Bad
Killing people that are killing people->Fine
Chick-Fil-A did not discriminate.
Gay people are welcome to work and eat there.
|
On July 27 2012 02:32 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On July 27 2012 02:16 Ryalnos wrote:
There seems to be this assumption that opposition to gay marriage is necessarily homophobic, etc.
Some among those opposed to gay marriage take a 'separate but equal' approach to the 'government-codified coupling of sexual partners' issue.
Here are, roughly, two ways this concept of 'separate but equal' could be understood:
A) "Separate but equal" segregation of black Americans in the early half of last century - real baaad and false in practice.
B) The "separate but equal" male & female restrooms in many businesses and establishments throughout this country - different physical makeups require different facilities, + privacy - deemed acceptable.
If marriage is understood to be legally protected for a purpose related protecting the stability/protection of children (the next generation of citizens) produced by sexual coupling, then it is not extremely difficult how an argument could be made for B) as homosexual coupling cannot physically produce children (adoption complicates this of course etc.). It could be argued that it is wasteful to apply monetary government benefits (which cost taxpayers somewhere down the line) to support these relationships.
Now an easy common sense argument is that the small cost to taxpayers would be meaningless compared to the impact of unequivocating, "identically equal" treatment of homosexual couples by the government. So the other position may seem heartless (or truly motivated by other reasons that the 'philosophical ones presented') but need not necessarily come from a homophobic/gay-hating position.
This may well be philosophical minutiae but, whatever. Marriage isn't understood that way by the government though. Even Heterosexual couples could be incapable of producing children because they are infertile, yet they can adopt children and they get the benefits government provides for having children via taxes and the like. People join themselvestogether in life and the government is trying to facilitate and accomodate for the natural grouping that people do, rather than government protecting marriage for a purpose. The effects of the grouping that are beneficial to society the government helps facilitate like education, but it starts with the people joining their lives together, the people are the ones who define their joining, and not the governments or religions job to define what that joining is and isn't but to accomodate for it in society. I am not writing an exhaustive treatise on why one position would be correct. The subtleties make things messy (I mentioned adoption was tough and tossed it to the side). I could imagine that following argument relating to adoption: (admittedly this one isn't terribly good) that asking about infertility/actual plans to have children would invade privacy of the citizens, so these must by default be included in coverage of marriage. In any case, I am attempting to trace a rough line of argument that is not inherently homophobic/gay-hating to make a philosophical point that one cannot simply write off the opinion of anyone who does not support gay marriage. This clearly stretches the imagination of the majority of the readers of the thread, but I still wanted to argue for the existence of a non-homophobic argument anyway. Your ability to debate and convince other people is greatly weakened when you misunderstand or pigeonhole the argument of the opposition.
I wasn't misunderstanding your point. My point was that the joining that is marriage starts with the people. The extension of which is that those who insist on sticking their nose in other peoples business where it has no place being to tell them their joining is not what they say it is and deny them their rights are doing so out of misguided homophobia since there are no valid reasons for denying gays and lesbians those rights. Maybe I was being too subtle, if so I'm sorry for the lack of clarity.
|
On July 27 2012 02:36 Ecrilon wrote:
I've always assumed
Discrimination->Bad
Discriminating against people that discriminate->Fine
Kind of like
killing people->Bad
Killing people that are killing people->Fine
if you want a never ending cycle of hatred and problems that will never be solved, sure.
2 wrongs don't make a right.
as my man MLK once said "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that"
and your analogy is quite incomparable to the situation at hand, especially killing the people who kill.
in the majority of cases we have absolutely no choice but to take a life due to the threat of that person taking more and has consistently proven to take more and more.
in this case you're trying to eliminate people of making a basic living based on an "assumption" and even more laughable, a rumor. yeah let's throw everyone who has jobs under the bus cause the majority of the chain is christian, NOT ALL, some.
even then the moment you start to discriminate against someone because of their own rights to their own PERSONAL beliefs, only shows how much of a bigot you are.
i will end on the quote
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
|
On July 27 2012 02:50 saocyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:36 Ecrilon wrote:
I've always assumed
Discrimination->Bad
Discriminating against people that discriminate->Fine
Kind of like
killing people->Bad
Killing people that are killing people->Fine if you want a never ending cycle of hatred and problems that will never be solved, sure. 2 wrongs don't make a right. as my man MLK once said "Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that" and your analogy is quite incomparable to the situation at hand, especially killing the people who kill. in the majority of cases we have absolutely no choice but to take a life due to the threat of that person taking more and has consistently proven to take more and more. in this case you're trying to eliminate people of making a basic living based on an "assumption" and even more laughable, a rumor. yeah let's throw everyone who has jobs under the bus cause the majority of the chain is christian, NOT ALL, some. even then the moment you start to discriminate against someone because of their own rights to their own PERSONAL beliefs, only shows how much of a bigot you are. i will end on the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It's not discrimination based on the fact that some people are Christian;
It's discrimination based on the fact that the chain donates money to hateful causes.
Call it what you will, it's justified.
|
On July 27 2012 02:38 Deadlyhazard wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:35 saocyn wrote:
i don't even see a reason why this is even in debut. regardless of the issue, if you're simple minded enough to be motivated to shut down a whole food chain just because someone has different beliefs than you, you sir, are far too simple minded and are simply a band wagon rider.
we live in a country where we preach freedom for all and freedom to practice what we believe in regardless of what it is, by taking away innocent people's ability to make a living based on a rumor? and to lump ALL who work for them into the same category, you're IQ should already disqualify you from having this discussion. the stupidity in this thread is at an all time high, most of you immediately jump to the conclusion that just because a company is associated with a religion = bad. you're not even seeing the possible repercussions of shutting down a large food chain that supplies JOBS which in this day and age, we don't have enough of.
the hypocrisy is just laughable, people preach about human rights and flaunt a morale high ground, then turn around and can't even see, they're depriving others of their own basic rights. imo you're no different than the self righteous natzi's who indiscriminately killed based on their beliefs, you may not be there yet but you're sure on the same track.
what you should be doing is getting the mayor banned for having an emotional reaction to a rumor and stepping beyond his boundaries. You're saying we preach freedom -- shouldn't that give the mayor, who was elected democratically, the right to disallow Chic-fil-a in Boston? Seems fine to me.
you clearly didn't comprehend what i wrote. so let me introduce another scenario for you. if that same mayor just happened to suddenly flip the script and ban out weed / gay marriage, would your stance change? if so, you still don't comprehend what i have written.
it's not about the actual who is right in this situation, it's about the deeper issue of taking away jobs because of an assumed belief. the moment you start endorsing others who silence and even go so far as to take away basic rights such as making a living, especially those who are innocent, is when you destroy and go against the very foundation on which we built this country on.
|
It's not exactly an eye for an eye really in this case.
Think about it this way,
If you are for tolerance, the flip side would be you being against intolerance.
|
On July 27 2012 02:24 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:37 Smat wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 ImAbstracT wrote:
Apparently those mayors, who preach tolerance, can't be tolerant of companies who's views are different than theirs. It is a two way street.
Imagine if this was the other way away. A pro-traditional marriage city blocking a company with different views. Do you really think the reaction would be the same? Nope the reaction would not be same at all. Which is a good sign for this country. Prejudice is a wonderful awesome thing when you are in the majority.
Ya well you would probably be saying the same thing about those fighting for equality and acceptance in any other time period. Guess what, people like you lose every time. History marches on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
