EPTA handful of them would.
Boston Mayor vows to ban Chick-Fil-A from his city - Page 50
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
A handful of them would. | ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
In any case, remember that harmful is not the same as illegal when it comes to the organizations CFA contributes to. Edit: Props to the Mayor - he went too far, knows it, and admits it - good on him (or smart political move with his whole "sometimes I get carried away for the good of the city" spiel - ha ha). | ||
|
crbox
Canada1180 Posts
What surprises me (I don't live in the U.S.) is that there are anti-gay organisation lol!? If people want to be against gay marriage, I can understand, old fashionned people that don't really get it.. But an organisation that revolves around it? What the fuck O_o? I wonder what their meetings are like. Quite retarded imo | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 27 2012 20:43 Cel.erity wrote: While I'm definitely on your side in this argument, my devil's advocate (and unfortunate childhood in a Christian school) requires me to point out a couple of things: 1. For a religious person, nothing predates religion, since God created the world we live in and everything unfolds according to his will. 2. Even though historically I'm sure you are correct, marriage has always traditionally been between a man and a woman, so it's not like Christianity changed any of that. It's changing now, and that scares fundamentalists. Of course, I'd say that if God invented marriage, that means he also invented gays, and he'd want them to have all the same rights that we have, but hey. Historically a marraige has been between a man and as many women as he felt like getting married to. It also created expectations for women that we have mostly thrown out the window (serving her husband and all that). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity We have already changed what marriage is by outlawing polygamy. Your first argument is impossible to argue against, due to its tautological nature, but I think you might have known that already. There's also fun bits in the bible like the next quote that have been used to justify marital rape for a long damn time. "4 The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time" (1 Corinthians 7:3-5) If we decide that one party dissenting is grounds for divorce and criminal proceedings (since it is, ya know, rape) and that a man cannot marry as many women as the bible says he can, I think that on the whole the bibles opinions on marriage can be pretty much ignored. | ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-chick-fil-a-20120724,0,5809726.story Sorry that's apparently a follow up article. The one published in denverpost was also titled muppets something or other. | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
Freedom of speech exists so society can change, evolve, and adopt new principles and ideas as time goes on. Without it, your ideas about gay-equality would NEVER get off the ground. There is no logic that allows you to silence a company whose beliefs are that gays should not marry that does not allow another city to silence someone who believes they should. You have to keep in mind that the same logic you are currently using to silence old ideas can just as easily be used to silence new ones. These days, its a majority opinion that gays should have some form of marriage or union available to them. However, it hasn't always been. In fact, it was a very rarely held opinion at one time. The same rules you're pretending exist to silence Chick Fil A, could just as easily silence YOU. The PURPOSE of freedom of speech is to allow ideas to circulate freely, so that society can decide upon their merits. The purpose of freedom of speech is not to allow you to shit all over anyone who is wrong and then make them shut up by taking away their business. You have to allow people who are wrong to be wrong. You have to allow it. If you don't, if you refuse this, then the people who hold the ideas that are wrong can silence you before you even challenge them. Those who hold the idea that gay marriage is wrong could have, in the past, kept your pro-gay businesses out of towns. They could have destroyed companies and people. But free speech protected you. When I say "allow" I mean on a governmental level. You should personally tell them how wrong they are, repeatedly, and convince them of it. But on a societal, governmental, level...You can't just tell them they can't speak. That's a fast train to a stagnate, immoral, society. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On July 28 2012 00:29 Ansinjunger wrote: I say let the customers decide whether a shop is worth their money, not the mayor of Boston (in this case). Let 2 dudes determine if they want to get married. Not some church, state or fucking fried chicken joint. I'm all for free speech, and I do think that we should get all of the information out there, so that people can decide on their own what is right. It is slowly happening, and the complete legalization of gay marriage in the U.S. is inevitable given a long enough timeline. | ||
|
ThreeAcross
172 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 28 2012 00:36 Zorkmid wrote: Let 2 dudes determine if they want to get married. Not some church, state or fucking fried chicken joint. Yep. "Live and let live" only applies if you actually let others live. That's kind of the point. | ||
|
danl9rm
United States3111 Posts
On July 27 2012 23:02 KwarK wrote: Marriage has traditionally been a contract between a man and a woman's father for the transfer of property (the woman). People were upset when that one got changed too. Marriage only predates Christianity in the sense of Christianity emerging as a brand new "religion." But, that was not the case. There was only further revelation of existing truth. Because Christ was "new" in the sense that he had now walked the earth and revealed himself, the followers started calling themselves "Christians." If you intend to be honest, you cannot choose a specific timeline of wrong or generally unacceptable behavior and retrospectively apply it to all other times to suit your needs. It's just dishonest and misleading. The very first marriage was between Adam and Eve. No one was sold; there was no transfer of property. People certainly twisted what was intended, but that has consistently been done throughout history on every subject imaginable. Marriage was never intended to be merely such as described. | ||
|
Undrass
Norway381 Posts
| ||
|
Smat
United States301 Posts
On July 28 2012 01:39 danl9rm wrote: Marriage only predates Christianity in the sense of Christianity emerging as a brand new "religion." But, that was not the case. There was only further revelation of existing truth. Because Christ was "new" in the sense that he had now walked the earth and revealed himself, the followers started calling themselves "Christians." If you intend to be honest, you cannot choose a specific timeline of wrong or generally unacceptable behavior and retrospectively apply it to all other times to suit your needs. It's just dishonest and misleading. The very first marriage was between Adam and Eve. No one was sold; there was no transfer of property. People certainly twisted what was intended, but that has consistently been done throughout history on every subject imaginable. Marriage was never intended to be merely such as described. Why is he being dishonest? He is showing how Christians changed the definition of marriage over and over and over again. But suddenly, today, its sacred and can't be changed? | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. + Show Spoiler + Personally, I think the best and easiest solution is for the government to just call it a partnership. Everyone who enters into the partnership receives the taxing and legal benefits that traditional marriage has granted. Everyone becomes equal in the eyes of the law and there is a real separation of Church and State. For those who view a lifelong commit to one another as more than just a contractual partnership, they are free to get married in a manner consistent with their beliefs without additional benefits. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote: First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:04 Joedaddy wrote: Going to try to give a general response to the few who quoted me~ First off, I don't see myself as a bigot. I don't have an ounce of hatred towards any group of people. I am however steadfast in my beliefs. Those beliefs include opposition to same sex marriages. That doesn't mean I hate gay people though. I've explained in detail the relationships I've had with gay people in previous threads, and I don't feel its necessary to explain that part of my life again in this thread. Someone asked if I thought black people should get married. Really? I take that as a cheap, personal attack to assume that I am somehow against anyone but a white man and a white woman getting married. Who's bigoted? My mother is married to a black man. My sister's kids' dad is black. We all get along quite well. My opinions on a variety of issues are in the minority here on TL. I've come to accept that. If I could wish one thing for TL members who believe differently than I do, it would be that you would come to understand that just because a Christian is in opposition to your beliefs doesn't make us hateful bigots. Opposing gay marriage does not equate to hating gay people. For those who are so quick to label me, and those like me, as uneducated is hypocrisy. My faith and beliefs compel me to not hate any person, for any reason. Saying anything to the contrary only shows their own lack of education on the various veins of the Christian faith. Dare I say, it almost sounds like bigotry against Christians to use demeaning and hateful language without making any effort to understand what I am saying and why. Everyone has their own ideas about whats best for our society. A responsible citizen in a democratic society feels the need to support ideals and legislation that move the country more in line with what they believe is best for the nation as a whole. Its what makes America great. I respect your advocacy and support of gay marriage. I do however, respectfully, disagree. Education and faith together in the same sentence. What? A book that has been around for thousands of years and has been edited, changed, and translated so often that it's probably indistinguishable from the original is your guide on how you live your life. A book that was written by man, for man. What is there to be educated on? Mythology and stories? An archaic belief system that helps the weak minded get through each day because the thought of absolute and permanent death is too much? Obviously, you're entitled to your beliefs. But, you have to understand that asking people to be "educated" about your faith is pretty stupid in the eyes of most rational people. EDIT: The guy above me touched on a few fantastic points. | ||
|
MooseyFate
United States237 Posts
On July 28 2012 01:55 Smat wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 28 2012 01:39 danl9rm wrote: Marriage only predates Christianity in the sense of Christianity emerging as a brand new "religion." But, that was not the case. There was only further revelation of existing truth. Because Christ was "new" in the sense that he had now walked the earth and revealed himself, the followers started calling themselves "Christians." If you intend to be honest, you cannot choose a specific timeline of wrong or generally unacceptable behavior and retrospectively apply it to all other times to suit your needs. It's just dishonest and misleading. The very first marriage was between Adam and Eve. No one was sold; there was no transfer of property. People certainly twisted what was intended, but that has consistently been done throughout history on every subject imaginable. Marriage was never intended to be merely such as described. Why is he being dishonest? He is showing how Christians changed the definition of marriage over and over and over again. But suddenly, today, its sacred and can't be changed? Most religions/societies/civilizations have changed the definition of marriage, not just Christians. Currently some fundamentalist Christians (as well as most other major religions) don't support homosexual relationships and therefore don't support homosexual marriage. It's not that they don't want to change the definition of marriage, it's that they don't want to change it to include something they don't agree with, especially not because of pressure from the outside. Reason and understanding, from BOTH sides, needs to be used to resolve the issue, not bullying. Neither side is innocent of bullying the other at this time. Divorce use to be taboo in many religions, and still is in some sects. But eventually common sense helped evolve most everyone's ideas about the realities being married today, and divorce is fairly widely accepted. I'm sure, as many people have already stated in this thread, that marriage between all individuals will be accepted by the majority and we will look back on this and shake our heads. However, we have to be careful about stepping on the toes of everyone's constitutional rights in order to further a particular agenda. Legally and constitutionally, what the Mayor was trying to do was wrong, he saw this and regrets his statement. He may still feel the same way, but he (and his advisers I'm sure) has been intelligent enough to resolve the problem the correct way. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:18 MooseyFate wrote: Most religions/societies/civilizations have changed the definition of marriage, not just Christians. Currently some fundamentalist Christians (as well as most other major religions) don't support homosexual relationships and therefore don't support homosexual marriage. It's not that they don't want to change the definition of marriage, it's that they don't want to change it to include something they don't agree with, especially not because of pressure from the outside. Reason and understanding, from BOTH sides, needs to be used to resolve the issue, not bullying. Neither side is innocent of bullying the other at this time. The problem is that homosexuals ARE being bullied by Christians in the US, so a popular response against secular people like myself is to attack this organization which takes a stand which in direct opposition to equality. It's hard for me to be gentle with a group of people which lobbies so aggressively AGAINST an entire subset of people. Can I really be expected to have an intellectual discourse with a person who thinks that "faggots" are lesser humans? They can't even throw together one argument that actually makes sense, so they're immune to proper reasoning in the first place. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:13 Djzapz wrote: It's great that you don't hate gay people, but the fact that your opinion is that gays shouldn't be able to marry the person they love is actually a vile and outdated sentiment which is a source of inequality. If homosexuals want something inoffensive, how do you justify not giving it to them unless you JUDGE that there's something wrong with what they want? Why would you say no to gay marriage unless you think it's so wrong that it stains straight marriages? Most if not all arguments against gay marriage can be traced back to the dislike or hatred of homosexuals. "The Christian Faith" as you put it is one strange thing to talk about because of how many versions of it there are. There are a bunch of sects, and a bunch of people in those sects who have different views. There are Christians who take the Bible literally (including the rape, slavery, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of disobedient teenagers) and the Christians, presumably like yourself, who prefer not to take the Bible literally, and conveniently ignore entire sequences - which presumably allows you to see homosexuals as people even though your holy book essentially dictates that homosexuals are subhumans. I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one I know believes that stoning disobedient teenagers (or gay people) is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On July 26 2012 05:57 Zaqwert wrote: I wonder how everyone would feel if the mayor of Birmingham, AL said he was going to use zoning laws to force out all the Muslim and Jewish owned business. Would you be cheering that? Probably not. You shouldn't base what should and shouldn't be allowed in society based on your own personal beliefs and agenda. Clearly mayors should not have the power to ban legit businesses from their city just 'cuz they disagree with their beliefs. 50 years ago the talk would have been to drive the gays out and that would have been wrong too. This thought police crap has to end. Let people live their own lives. If you don't wanna give Chic Fil A your business because you disagree with their policies, then don't. It's not the governments job to sanction what is acceptable beliefs. I never thought I would find such an intelligent post on the internetz. I am surprised. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 28 2012 02:30 Joedaddy wrote: I just want to point out that there is a new and old testament. Saying that I ignore entire sequences is a bit irresponsible. To elaborate, Jesus' death on the cross created a new covenant between man and God. The old testament talks about animal sacrifices to gain forgiveness. No one I know believes that we should continue sacrificing animals because the old testament says so.... and no one believes that stoning disobedient teenagers is God's will...... There is so much wrong with so much of what you have said that I don't even know where to start. In the interest of not derailing the thread any more than we already have I will end by saying that there are a lot of great resources that explain the old testament is more of a historical account, while the new testament is the literal foundation of the Christian faith, beliefs, and principles. I'll try to keep this religion talk to a minimum. Yes it is true that many people ignore the old testament, but let's not forget that many Christians still don't - and a shitload of them actually pick up some nasty shit from there and live their life by those standards. Also, let's not pretend that the New Testament is all fluffy. There's some seriously crazy stuff in there, and it's a good thing that a vast majority of Christians pick and choose their favorite parts, and ignore most of the despicable things. It's easy as a Christian to stand up and say "well I don't believe x and y in the Bible and therefore Christianity is like this". You're not your religion though. And you're definitely not your religion's average. | ||
| ||
