On July 30 2012 03:14 GraFx wrote: Run out of ideas for reasonable/rational debate? Just insult the other person's opinion!
This thread is full of this.
Id rather read peoples opinions no matter how irrational than have a bunch of descriptive posts such as yours littering the thread.
I don't need you to tell me whats going on in this thread, and I bet the majority of others don't either. Your comments adds nothing to the discussion yet criticizes people debating. You're silly is all I can possibly say.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
On July 30 2012 03:14 GraFx wrote: Run out of ideas for reasonable/rational debate? Just insult the other person's opinion!
This thread is full of this.
Id rather read peoples opinions no matter how irrational than have a bunch of descriptive posts such as yours littering the thread.
I don't need you to tell me whats going on in this thread, and I bet the majority of others don't either. Your comments adds nothing to the discussion yet criticizes people debating. You're silly is all I can possibly say.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should. But guess what? There are a lot of christians out there who aren't bigoted assholes trying to shove their religious beliefs down other people's throats while claiming protection for that action as religious freedom (conveniently ignoring others' rights to religious freedom). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest. He's deliberately stretching (huge stretches I might add) the words of other people to attempt to convince you that they mean something completely different in order to defend them. That's more or less blatantly lying.
On July 30 2012 03:14 GraFx wrote: Run out of ideas for reasonable/rational debate? Just insult the other person's opinion!
This thread is full of this.
Id rather read peoples opinions no matter how irrational than have a bunch of descriptive posts such as yours littering the thread.
I don't need you to tell me whats going on in this thread, and I bet the majority of others don't either. Your comments adds nothing to the discussion yet criticizes people debating. You're silly is all I can possibly say.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
On July 30 2012 03:14 GraFx wrote: Run out of ideas for reasonable/rational debate? Just insult the other person's opinion!
This thread is full of this.
Id rather read peoples opinions no matter how irrational than have a bunch of descriptive posts such as yours littering the thread.
I don't need you to tell me whats going on in this thread, and I bet the majority of others don't either. Your comments adds nothing to the discussion yet criticizes people debating. You're silly is all I can possibly say.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
Id rather read peoples opinions no matter how irrational than have a bunch of descriptive posts such as yours littering the thread.
I don't need you to tell me whats going on in this thread, and I bet the majority of others don't either. Your comments adds nothing to the discussion yet criticizes people debating. You're silly is all I can possibly say.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
Would you please learn to read? I don't know how you missed the entire part where I went out of my way to say that there are plenty of christians out there who I have no problem with because they aren't doing this, which obviously means I'm not anti-christian. I'm not hating on this bastard for being christian. And being entitled to an opinion and having a good, well-reasoned opinion are not the same damn things. Not all opinions are created equal. Until you can actually argue that yours is a good one, and back that up with logic, reason, and evidence, you have to suck it up and deal with the fact that you have no good reason for holding the opinion you do.
Everyone has a right to have an opinion. They do not have a right to force others to respect the opinion itself.
And no, he's not scum for having a different opinion than mine, he's scum for being a hateful prick. If you can somehow find a way to logically argue that believing that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry the person they love is not hateful or bigoted, I'm listening. Did you also skip the part where I actually lay that out for you?
Good to know you like to skip the entire actual argument itself and skip right to the end though. This is your reminder for this post to actually read the argument and not cherry pick specific lines while skipping everything else.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
Would you please learn to read? I don't know how you missed the entire part where I went out of my way to say that there are plenty of christians out there who I have no problem with because they aren't doing this, which obviously means I'm not anti-christian. I'm not hating on this bastard for being christian. And being entitled to an opinion and having a good, well-reasoned opinion are not the same damn things. Not all opinions are created equal. Until you can actually argue that yours is a good one, and back that up with logic, reason, and evidence, you have to suck it up and deal with the fact that you have no good reason for holding the opinion you do.
Everyone has a right to have an opinion. They do not have a right to force others to respect the opinion itself.
And no, he's not scum for having a different opinion than mine, he's scum for being a hateful prick. If you can somehow find a way to logically argue that believing that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry the person they love is not hateful or bigoted, I'm listening. Did you also skip the part where I actually lay that out for you?
Good to know you like to skip the entire actual argument itself and skip right to the end though. This is your reminder for this post to actually read the argument and not cherry pick specific lines while skipping everything else.
You have to see what you're doing here, you're judging other's opinions as trash and your own as facts. All opinions are created equal, if they weren't they would be called facts. Your opinion is that he is a bigot but you're twisting his words to fit the character you've already determined he is.
You literally take every chance you can to insult the man because his opinion is not the same as yours but you know nothing about him other than what the media has told you.
Believe me when I say I've read all of your posts, but when you type a tiny bit of thought and wrap it in insults there's not much to reply to you'll have to excuse me.
For him to be a Christian and his belief system to be "Marriage is a religious institution between a man and wife" doesn't make him right or wrong, it's just what he believes. You can take a stance on an issue without being on the front line.
If you just throw more insults then there's no need to continue the discussion.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
I think it's just as shitty to be against gay marriage as it is to be against interracial marriage. I think that people who say homosexuality are a sin are just as bad as people who say that blacks are an inferior race. I think that disliking someone or denying someone rights based upon something that they cannot change is one of the most horrific traits of humans.
The fact that people use religion to justify homophobia is just terrifying. I don't understand how the Christian community looks at history and looks at how they used religion to justify their hatred of Muslims in the crusades or how they used religion to justify slavery or how they used religion to justify denying blacks their rights and then still continues to use religion to persecute and spread hate in regards to homosexuals. Maybe they had some justification of being ignorant in the 60s or something but we have the internet now. There is no excuse.
I think the word "scum" might be a bit harsh. But the fact that anyone can continue to discriminate against homosexuals and then hide behind their religion to justify their bigoted views is sickening to those of us who can see clearly. Note that this isn't all Christians mind you, including throughout history. Some Christians spoke out against slavery, some Christians continue to speak out against homophobia, and I'm sure there were Christians who even spoke out against the crusades. The sad thing is that the group who spreads all of this hate tends to get their way as they scream the loudest.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
I think it's just as shitty to be against gay marriage as it is to be against interracial marriage. I think that people who say homosexuality are a sin are just as bad as people who say that blacks are an inferior race. I think that disliking someone or denying someone rights based upon something that they cannot change is one of the most horrific traits of humans.
The fact that people use religion to justify homophobia is just terrifying. I don't understand how the Christian community looks at history and looks at how they used religion to justify their hatred of Muslims in the crusades or how they used religion to justify slavery or how they used religion to justify denying blacks their rights and then still continues to use religion to persecute and spread hate in regards to homosexuals. Maybe they had some justification of being ignorant in the 60s or something but we have the internet now. There is no excuse.
I think the word "scum" might be a bit harsh. But the fact that anyone can continue to discriminate against homosexuals and then hide behind their religion to justify their bigoted views is sickening to those of us who can see clearly. Note that this isn't all Christians mind you, including throughout history. Some Christians spoke out against slavery, some Christians continue to speak out against homophobia, and I'm sure there were Christians who even spoke out against the crusades. The sad thing is that the group who spreads all of this hate tends to get their way as they scream the loudest.
But where is Dan Cathy screaming his hate? How is he using his business to prevent gay rights? This guy runs a chain of fast food restaurants and happens to believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's it.
You claim that you are in an elite group who can "see clearly". Can you not state your side without demeaning the other side?
Everybody keeps scaling the picture back to large views of Christians against gays when this is just an issue of whether or not Chick Fil A is discriminating against gays as a business to which I've yet to see where the have. If somebody can find an article where an employee was fired for being gay, or where a customer was turned away or kicked out for being gay then I'll definitely change sides and say yes they're discriminating against gays but every post goes off into a tangent of making Dan Cathy or people who don't agree with same sex marriages.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
[quote]
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
I think it's just as shitty to be against gay marriage as it is to be against interracial marriage. I think that people who say homosexuality are a sin are just as bad as people who say that blacks are an inferior race. I think that disliking someone or denying someone rights based upon something that they cannot change is one of the most horrific traits of humans.
The fact that people use religion to justify homophobia is just terrifying. I don't understand how the Christian community looks at history and looks at how they used religion to justify their hatred of Muslims in the crusades or how they used religion to justify slavery or how they used religion to justify denying blacks their rights and then still continues to use religion to persecute and spread hate in regards to homosexuals. Maybe they had some justification of being ignorant in the 60s or something but we have the internet now. There is no excuse.
I think the word "scum" might be a bit harsh. But the fact that anyone can continue to discriminate against homosexuals and then hide behind their religion to justify their bigoted views is sickening to those of us who can see clearly. Note that this isn't all Christians mind you, including throughout history. Some Christians spoke out against slavery, some Christians continue to speak out against homophobia, and I'm sure there were Christians who even spoke out against the crusades. The sad thing is that the group who spreads all of this hate tends to get their way as they scream the loudest.
But where is Dan Cathy screaming his hate? How is he using his business to prevent gay rights? This guy runs a chain of fast food restaurants and happens to believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's it.
You claim that you are in an elite group who can "see clearly". Can you not state your side without demeaning the other side?
Everybody keeps scaling the picture back to large views of Christians against gays when this is just an issue of whether or not Chick Fil A is discriminating against gays as a business to which I've yet to see where the have. If somebody can find an article where an employee was fired for being gay, or where a customer was turned away or kicked out for being gay then I'll definitely change sides and say yes they're discriminating against gays but every post goes off into a tangent of making Dan Cathy or people who don't agree with same sex marriages.
He donates millions of dollars to groups that lobby to keep gay marriage illegal. I can't think of a way for him to harm gays more other than actually going out and causing physical harm to homosexuals.
No one ever said they were discriminating against gays anyway. I'm not sure where you got that from.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
I think it's just as shitty to be against gay marriage as it is to be against interracial marriage. I think that people who say homosexuality are a sin are just as bad as people who say that blacks are an inferior race. I think that disliking someone or denying someone rights based upon something that they cannot change is one of the most horrific traits of humans.
The fact that people use religion to justify homophobia is just terrifying. I don't understand how the Christian community looks at history and looks at how they used religion to justify their hatred of Muslims in the crusades or how they used religion to justify slavery or how they used religion to justify denying blacks their rights and then still continues to use religion to persecute and spread hate in regards to homosexuals. Maybe they had some justification of being ignorant in the 60s or something but we have the internet now. There is no excuse.
I think the word "scum" might be a bit harsh. But the fact that anyone can continue to discriminate against homosexuals and then hide behind their religion to justify their bigoted views is sickening to those of us who can see clearly. Note that this isn't all Christians mind you, including throughout history. Some Christians spoke out against slavery, some Christians continue to speak out against homophobia, and I'm sure there were Christians who even spoke out against the crusades. The sad thing is that the group who spreads all of this hate tends to get their way as they scream the loudest.
But where is Dan Cathy screaming his hate? How is he using his business to prevent gay rights? This guy runs a chain of fast food restaurants and happens to believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's it.
You claim that you are in an elite group who can "see clearly". Can you not state your side without demeaning the other side?
Everybody keeps scaling the picture back to large views of Christians against gays when this is just an issue of whether or not Chick Fil A is discriminating against gays as a business to which I've yet to see where the have. If somebody can find an article where an employee was fired for being gay, or where a customer was turned away or kicked out for being gay then I'll definitely change sides and say yes they're discriminating against gays but every post goes off into a tangent of making Dan Cathy or people who don't agree with same sex marriages.
He donates millions of dollars to groups that lobby to keep gay marriage illegal. I can't think of a way for him to harm gays more other than actually going out and causing physical harm to homosexuals.
No one ever said they were discriminating against gays anyway. I'm not sure where you got that from.
Of the $1,733,699 given by Chick-fil-A, $1,714,199 was given to three organizations: The Marriage & Family Legacy Fund (part of Marriage CoMission), The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and The National Christian Foundation. Of these three organizations, none of them can truly be said to have an anti-gay agenda. The only thing about them that can be considered anti-gay is that they are all Christian-run organizations; so, because of their religious beliefs they naturally don’t promote homosexuality. But outside of that, no part of their mission involves actively battling gay rights.
**edit** that's what the whole debate is supposed to be about. Chicago and Boston mayors threatening to ban ChickFilA from their cities for discriminating against gays. Chicago mayor even went as far to say “There are consequences for freedom of speech (and) in this case the consequences are... you’re not going to have your first free-standing restaurant in Chicago.” and that if they wanted to make it a legal matter he wouldn't worry because "there are well-documented traffic and congestion issues in the Logan Square neighborhood that he could raise to justify his decision."
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
I think it's just as shitty to be against gay marriage as it is to be against interracial marriage. I think that people who say homosexuality are a sin are just as bad as people who say that blacks are an inferior race. I think that disliking someone or denying someone rights based upon something that they cannot change is one of the most horrific traits of humans.
The fact that people use religion to justify homophobia is just terrifying. I don't understand how the Christian community looks at history and looks at how they used religion to justify their hatred of Muslims in the crusades or how they used religion to justify slavery or how they used religion to justify denying blacks their rights and then still continues to use religion to persecute and spread hate in regards to homosexuals. Maybe they had some justification of being ignorant in the 60s or something but we have the internet now. There is no excuse.
I think the word "scum" might be a bit harsh. But the fact that anyone can continue to discriminate against homosexuals and then hide behind their religion to justify their bigoted views is sickening to those of us who can see clearly. Note that this isn't all Christians mind you, including throughout history. Some Christians spoke out against slavery, some Christians continue to speak out against homophobia, and I'm sure there were Christians who even spoke out against the crusades. The sad thing is that the group who spreads all of this hate tends to get their way as they scream the loudest.
But where is Dan Cathy screaming his hate? How is he using his business to prevent gay rights? This guy runs a chain of fast food restaurants and happens to believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. That's it.
You claim that you are in an elite group who can "see clearly". Can you not state your side without demeaning the other side?
Everybody keeps scaling the picture back to large views of Christians against gays when this is just an issue of whether or not Chick Fil A is discriminating against gays as a business to which I've yet to see where the have. If somebody can find an article where an employee was fired for being gay, or where a customer was turned away or kicked out for being gay then I'll definitely change sides and say yes they're discriminating against gays but every post goes off into a tangent of making Dan Cathy or people who don't agree with same sex marriages.
He donates millions of dollars to groups that lobby to keep gay marriage illegal. I can't think of a way for him to harm gays more other than actually going out and causing physical harm to homosexuals.
No one ever said they were discriminating against gays anyway. I'm not sure where you got that from.
Of the $1,733,699 given by Chick-fil-A, $1,714,199 was given to three organizations: The Marriage & Family Legacy Fund (part of Marriage CoMission), The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and The National Christian Foundation. Of these three organizations, none of them can truly be said to have an anti-gay agenda. The only thing about them that can be considered anti-gay is that they are all Christian-run organizations; so, because of their religious beliefs they naturally don’t promote homosexuality. But outside of that, no part of their mission involves actively battling gay rights.
Chick-fil-A gave over $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010. Between 2003 and 2009, the WinShape Foundation gave more than $2 million to groups such as Focus on the Family and Eagle Forum that are politically active in opposing same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues
They provide money to an organization and work with an organization that uses their money to fight against gay rights. They co-sponsored a marriage conference with the group that struck down Prop8 in CA. Their owners are firmly against gay marriage.
I don't like him or his company. The same way I'd hope you wouldn't like a company or its owner if they were against interracial marriage or interreligious marriage.
On July 30 2012 13:21 s_side wrote: As a Bostonian (a member of the tiny minority of posters in this thread that this will ever actually affect) I am quite indifferent to this whole media spectacle. I support gay marriage and I also like chicken sandwiches (which Chik-fil-A is undoubtedly the best fast food producer of).
I also find it pretty hilarious that not many people have called us out on the fact that our mayor is a complete fucking imbecile. There is a tremendous geographical diversity here on TL. Can anyone provide me an example of a man so utterly incapable of forming sentences that holds a major public office elsewhere in the world?
For many, I assume, this controversy will be the first time you have heard of Mayor Menino. To give everyone a little bit of context (and to show the amazing breadth of his fat-tongued idiocy):
"We" (myself being a Bostonian) may not have the best mayor around, but he sure as shit isn't the worst thing to grace the east coast.
Also, CFA don't have the best chicken sandwhices imo. Have you tried that new spicy avacado chicken sandwhich from Wendy's? That shit is #cash
I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about
Disgusting.
They might be saying the same thing about you if you had an "atheist" fast food chain. If people don't like it, simply don't go there, and the business will die.
Why add something to a discussion when people like you will only insult what I have to say if you disagree? There's little to no discussion going on.
Also, I'm glad I've read multiple posts of yours where you nominate yourself to speak for the majority.
Because thats what threads are for! Discussion.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, provided that they have the correct ones. If they don't, they're scum. Welcome to our crusade against hate!
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, provided that they have the correct ones. If they don't, they're scum. Welcome to our crusade against hate!
All I read was, "Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and all opinions are created equal, and we should treat everyone's opinions like sunshines and rainbows. If you don't welcome the bigotry with open arms, you're a bigot, too!"
Seriously, since when did being entitled to an opinion also entitle you to be immune from the natural consequences of having a stupid one? It's called public relations - perhaps CFA should invest more money into their program.
I initially commented because I'd love to discuss the situation. I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read a good 70% of it and the last few pages presented little to no actual discussion. It's been a lot of "your opinion is different than mine therefore it is wrong so you must be stupid"
There have been exceptions sure but it's disheartening to see legit discussion topics reduced to insults and diarrhea of the mouth because people run out of rational thoughts.
Honestly, I wanted to link this article but I was beat to the punch.
[quote]
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, provided that they have the correct ones. If they don't, they're scum. Welcome to our crusade against hate!
All I read was, "Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and all opinions are created equal, and we should treat everyone's opinions like sunshines and rainbows. If you don't welcome the bigotry with open arms, you're a bigot, too!"
Seriously, since when did being entitled to an opinion also entitle you to be immune from the natural consequences of having a stupid one?
An opinion is an opinion.. What you consider stupid maybe someone elses genius. You're being very rude.
On July 31 2012 00:03 SayGen wrote: The mayor is wrong.
CFA can move into any city that it wants. It's no different than Wal-mart.
Wal-mart comes in reguardless of anti wal-mart protest.
I tihnk it's great CFA sticks up for its beliefs. In fact I pplan on eating there tomorrow. They got great chicken finger strips
Wish we had more people stick up for themselves even if it isn't popular or politically correct.
Good for CFA
I don't know why you feel you are supporting generic people who stick up for themselves against "unpopular" opinions. You should rephrase your position as applauding people who stick up for the banning of gay marriage, because thats all you are doing in your post. Stop trying to be all inclusive when you aren't.
See this post was awesome. I actually missed that article . . . and thanks to you I get to read it now. Thank you!
That article was written by this gentlemen here:
"I am an Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I also serve as an Associate Pastor at Kenwood Baptist Church, which is in Louisville as well."
Clearly a biased individual (and not even from a particularly qualified person on journalism).
In fact, you took the article from the man's personal website, not exactly a credible source of information and facts.
But lets move on to the actual substance of the article.
He conveniently ignores the massive amount of money Chik-fil-a has donated to anti-gay rights organizations, which makes it an anti-gay company. The owner is anti-gay. The company gives money to anti-gay organizations. I don't see how you can claim the company isn't anti-gay rights. His first point is that Chik-fil-a spouted a take-back statement after they stepped in shit and realized how much trouble they were getting themselves in, and therefore isn't an anti-gay business. His second point is also blatantly a lie and academically dishonest, I present the following quote from the interview:
Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
I don't know how you can interpret that to conclude that they aren't denigrating the idea of two men being married or two women being married. Read the interview for yourselves.
He even writes (about a previous interview) "Cathy also emphasized how crucial it is for children to be raised by both a mother and father. As an aside, he mentions that that’s why he believes it’s arrogant to try and redefine marriage. It’s bad for children and invites God’s judgment. Cathy never says anything about homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly. You will not find the words “gay marriage” or “same-sex marriage” anywhere in this interview. Again, I invite readers to verify this for themselves by listening to the audio below. The interview begins at the 22:00 minute mark."
As if it there was someway to interpret "it's arrogant to try and redefine marriage" that doesn't include the meaning of gay marriage being wrong.
In short, that article you link is horse shit. His argument is awful. Try to evaluate these things with an eye towards acadeic standards.
It's a blog, I'm sorry I used the word article.
But to immediately discredit the value of what's written because of his bias towards the situation solely because he happens to advertise himself a Christian is a stretch. That's like me saying your post isn't credible or worth value because you're obviously bias against Christians.
The words "anti-gay organization" is thrown around so loosely here, have you looked to see what organizations they donate to? Organizations like James Dobson's Focus on the Family. An openly Christian organization who offers help to families in crisis. Whether it be abuse, adultery, divorce, whatever the case. They happen to openly express they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, does that make them an "anti-gay organization" ? Are they out picketing?
Personally, I don't eat lettuce so does that make me anti-vegetable?? (A very loose analogy).
I feel like because of certain loud over-zealous "Christian" groups such as Westboro most people immediately assume all organizations or groups who identify themselves as Christian are similar in how to treat homosexuality. Just because they don't agree with it doesn't necessarily mean they're actively trying to stop it.
You'll notice I had an entire argument lined up outside of commenting on his bias and lack of credentials that came afterwards, you might want to read that.
Any organization that openly declares that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman is declaring a stance that gays should not be allowed to marry. That is by definition an anti-gay position. If they weren't anti-gay, they wouldn't feel the need to state that position.
Your analogy isn't just very loose, it's not even remotely applicable. Your statement is the logical equivalent of asking "I'm not gay, does that make me anti-gay?" The answer is of course not, but that's also a strawman, and it's not logically applicable even if it weren't a strawman. These organizations openly declared their position on this issue.
And no, it's not because they are christian, it's because they took a position that directly opposes gay rights, because they think good christians should (many other christians disagree, you know, the ones who actually don't force their religion on other people? I know they're rare, but they do occasionally exist). So no, this isn't me being anti-christian, this is me being anti-bigot.
And incidentally, they are actively trying to stop it, and going out of your way to make sure people know your opinion or stance on an issue is an attempt to influence the issue.
And the blog is still hilariously wrong, awful, and academically dishonest.
If all of this is you being anti-bigot then your arguments against Dan Cathy/ChickFilA fall apart.
He was asked questions on a radio interview about his views on fatherhood and family, and he gave his personal belief/view of it.
He was asked in a Christian publication interview if he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman to which he replied his personal beliefs/views on it.
Where is the bigotry? Where is the discrimination? He didn't attack anybody personally, he didn't insult the other side of the fence, he simply answered the questions he was asked in a PR intelligent way.
The root of the issue still lies in that Chick Fil A as a business has never discriminated against an employee or a customer based on sexual orientation and until they do, these mayors are out of line to blatantly say they will use their power to deny business.
Hate on Dan Cathy all you want for his personal views, but until Chick Fil A is donating 2million dollars to "Don't Let the Faggots Get Married Inc." then they've technically discriminated against nobody.
Stating that you believe marriage is only between a man in a woman is logically equivalent to saying that men cannot marry men and women cannot marry women. That is by definition bigotry against gays, by stating that they cannot engage in a relationship with each other on the same level as a man and a woman can. In other words, heterosexuals should have more rights than homosexuals.
It isn't as obvious and over the top, but it still is very harmful, and in many ways worse than the asshole who actually shouts it on the street, because it attempts to institutionalize and defend a harmful and hateful opinion with a moral high ground attitude that is unjustified.
Go study some social justice issues, and read up on the history and patterns of other civil rights issues in the past, like racism (separate-but-equal segregation ring a bell?). The fact is, hatred can be institutionalized or cultural or even straight up disguised, but that doesn't make it not hatred. There is a difference between passive and active discrimination, but that doesn't make it any less wrong. He might not be actively discriminating against gay people, but he believes in discrimination against them.
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
"His opinion is different than mine therefore he is scum."
Glad our discussion covered so much ground.
**edit** just remember, by your argument everybody is entitled to an opinion and you're discriminating against him for being a Christian by those same grounds.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, provided that they have the correct ones. If they don't, they're scum. Welcome to our crusade against hate!
All I read was, "Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and all opinions are created equal, and we should treat everyone's opinions like sunshines and rainbows. If you don't welcome the bigotry with open arms, you're a bigot, too!"
Seriously, since when did being entitled to an opinion also entitle you to be immune from the natural consequences of having a stupid one?
An opinion is an opinion.. What you consider stupid maybe someone elses genius. You're being very rude.
That's just an opinion! What you consider rude maybe someone elses polite behavior.
EPT
