|
On July 31 2012 00:38 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 00:36 shinosai wrote:On July 30 2012 22:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On July 30 2012 17:40 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:38 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:28 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:15 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:07 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 13:00 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 03:38 PanN wrote:
[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.
So the opinion that blacks are inferior is just as valid as the opinion that the person who's opinion is that blacks are inferior is an idiot. Is that what I am reading?
|
He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion.
Its frightening how its 'ok' to be biased against someone for having a conservative opinion. Do you realize that you are doing the same exact thing against him? So by your own definition you are now scum as well.
Just because the owner of CFA said he does't believe gay marriage its suddenly ok to hurt his business and discriminate against him because of his beliefs. CFA never once said they won't hire gay people or server gay people. In fact I am sure they do all over the country. Imagine the uproar if the Mayor of Chicago said he would deny CFA because the owner gay. So many people are failing to see the double standard here.
|
On July 31 2012 00:41 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 00:38 SayGen wrote:On July 31 2012 00:36 shinosai wrote:On July 30 2012 22:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On July 30 2012 17:40 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:38 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:28 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:15 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:07 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 13:00 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
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. So the opinion that blacks are inferior is just as valid as the opinion that the person who's opinion is that blacks are inferior is an idiot. Is that what I am reading?
Yes. And furthermore, we can never criticize ANYONE for ANYTHING because that would just be an opinion, and opinions can't be wrong.
|
On July 31 2012 00:41 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion. Its frightening how its 'ok' to be biased against someone for having a conservative opinion. Do you realize that you are doing the same exact thing against him? So by your own definition you are now scum as well. Just because the owner of CFA said he does't believe gay marriage its suddenly ok to hurt his business and discriminate against him because of his beliefs. CFA never once said they won't hire gay people or server gay people. In fact I am sure they do all over the country. Imagine the uproar if the Mayor of Chicago said he would deny CFA because the owner gay. So many people are failing to see the double standard here.
I don't think anyone takes issue with him having an opinion, even if his opinion is frankly a shit one. However he doesn't simply have an opinion, he uses his company to donate to anti-gay rights groups. If people find that reprehensible i can't see what's so wrong about not supporting his business.
Not that I think I'd support denying his request to set up shop in Boston.
|
On July 31 2012 00:41 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 00:41 Smat wrote:On July 31 2012 00:38 SayGen wrote:On July 31 2012 00:36 shinosai wrote:On July 30 2012 22:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On July 30 2012 17:40 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:38 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:28 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:15 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:07 GraFx wrote:
[quote]
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. So the opinion that blacks are inferior is just as valid as the opinion that the person who's opinion is that blacks are inferior is an idiot. Is that what I am reading? Yes. And furthermore, we can never criticize ANYONE for ANYTHING because that would just be an opinion, and opinions can't be wrong.
Criticism and contempt are two different things. One is healthy, but the other impoverishes its target, its possessor, and especially the democratic discourse by which they relate to one another.
|
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda.
So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted?
Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument 
|
On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument
It is fine to have either oppinion, and people should not be discriminated for having one.
Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not.
Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay.
It would be ridiculous if it wouldn`t be happening, but if you look at the pro-gay movement it becomes more and more openly hatefull to the persons of the opposite view, which means, they already are on that kind of slope.
|
On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay.
In italics... I guess that's it, guys. If the majority of people hold an opinion, it can't be stupid.
Is this really your argument? If so, it is not a very good one.
|
Why do people seem to think that opinions can't be wrong? If you're anti-gay, you ARE wrong. The only real argument against homosexuality is a religious one. And that is stupid considering that no religion has ever had a scrap of evidence supporting it. The very basis of your argument is already invalidated by that very important fact. You can bring up all the "scientific" evidence you want that homosexuality is wrong, but none of it is valid. I used to think that homosexuality was a genetic defect that had no benefits as far as survival of a species. Of course, I was uneducated. The simple fact is that homosexuality has occurred naturally throughout history, and exists in the animal kingdom. Why does it occur? There are many theories, but none of them has been proven conclusively true. Just because you don't understand why it happens, doesn't mean it's an abomination or unnatural. To think so is very narrow minded and ridiculous.
There are two types of people I can't stand in this world: the overtly religious, and anyone who discriminates against another group of people for a difference they were born with. It's a fucking shame that those two traits exist in the same person so frequently.
|
On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay.
Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..).
PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?).
|
On July 31 2012 01:36 ayaz2810 wrote:
Why do people seem to think that opinions can't be wrong? If you're anti-gay, you ARE wrong. The only real argument against homosexuality is a religious one. And that is stupid considering that no religion has ever had a scrap of evidence supporting it. The very basis of your argument is already invalidated by that very important fact. You can bring up all the "scientific" evidence you want that homosexuality is wrong, but none of it is valid. I used to think that homosexuality was a genetic defect that had no benefits as far as survival of a species. Of course, I was uneducated. The simple fact is that homosexuality has occurred naturally throughout history, and exists in the animal kingdom. Why does it occur? There are many theories, but none of them has been proven conclusively true. Just because you don't understand why it happens, doesn't mean it's an abomination or unnatural. To think so is very narrow minded and ridiculous.
There are two types of people I can't stand in this world: the overtly religious, and anyone who discriminates against another group of people for a difference they were born with. It's a fucking shame that those two traits exist in the same person so frequently.
Does not matter at all in this case. The only 2 questions that matter are. Is it illegal in the USA to openly speek against gay marriage and is it illegal to donate to anti gay marriage groups. I don't think that's the case. And when a company doesn't act against the law you can't just forbid them to open a restaurant.
|
On July 31 2012 01:49 Uracil wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:36 ayaz2810 wrote:
Why do people seem to think that opinions can't be wrong? If you're anti-gay, you ARE wrong. The only real argument against homosexuality is a religious one. And that is stupid considering that no religion has ever had a scrap of evidence supporting it. The very basis of your argument is already invalidated by that very important fact. You can bring up all the "scientific" evidence you want that homosexuality is wrong, but none of it is valid. I used to think that homosexuality was a genetic defect that had no benefits as far as survival of a species. Of course, I was uneducated. The simple fact is that homosexuality has occurred naturally throughout history, and exists in the animal kingdom. Why does it occur? There are many theories, but none of them has been proven conclusively true. Just because you don't understand why it happens, doesn't mean it's an abomination or unnatural. To think so is very narrow minded and ridiculous.
There are two types of people I can't stand in this world: the overtly religious, and anyone who discriminates against another group of people for a difference they were born with. It's a fucking shame that those two traits exist in the same person so frequently. Does not matter at all in this case. The only 2 questions that matter are. Is it illegal in the USA to openly speek against gay marriage and is it illegal to donate to anti gay marriage groups. I don't think that's the case. And when a company doesn't act against the law you can't just forbid them to open a restaurant.
I was speaking more to the way people in this thread and in society in general act.
|
I would note, poeple get way off topic into discussing the entire gay issue instead of the instances of pro-gay people discriminating anti-gay people.
The gay movement that started as a movement for tolerance, civil rights and general understanding and sympathy to their issues, is turning into the hate and pro-discrimination movement,.. Which is, in fact curious development, considering that gays are always the minority, and that thay have to rely on protection of minority rights and good will of the heterosexual majority.
On July 31 2012 01:36 ayaz2810 wrote:
I used to think that homosexuality was a genetic defect that had no benefits as far as survival of a species. Of course, I was uneducated. The simple fact is that homosexuality has occurred naturally throughout history, and exists in the animal kingdom. Why does it occur? There are many theories, but none of them has been proven conclusively true. Just because you don't understand why it happens, doesn't mean it's an abomination or unnatural. To think so is very narrow minded and ridiculous.
That in fact is wrong. homosexuality is a genetic defect, you can not excape that.
On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?).
You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world.
The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option.
And, you know, US is on the fence.
On July 31 2012 01:29 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. In italics... I guess that's it, guys. If the majority of people hold an opinion, it can't be stupid. Is this really your argument? If so, it is not a very good one.
You can not call it stupid just because you think so. It is just stupid bigoty.
|
You can not call it stupid just because you think so. It is just stupid bigoty.
Apparently I can since we're all entitled to our opinions. See what I did there? You're just being bigoted about MY opinion! Your argument is self-refuting.
Anyways, there are certainly good reasons for thinking it's a stupid opinion. Like, for example, the reasons for having the opinion have little basis in reality. It's mostly because homosexuality is "icky" - and unfortunately feelings are not very persuasive instruments for argument.
|
On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:I would note, poeple get way off topic into discussing the entire gay issue instead of the instances of pro-gay people discriminating anti-gay people. The gay movement that started as a movement for tolerance, civil rights and general understanding and sympathy to their issues, is turning into the hate and pro-discrimination movement,.. Which is, in fact curious development, considering that gays are always the minority, and that thay have to rely on protection of minority rights and good will of the heterosexual majority. Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:36 ayaz2810 wrote:
I used to think that homosexuality was a genetic defect that had no benefits as far as survival of a species. Of course, I was uneducated. The simple fact is that homosexuality has occurred naturally throughout history, and exists in the animal kingdom. Why does it occur? There are many theories, but none of them has been proven conclusively true. Just because you don't understand why it happens, doesn't mean it's an abomination or unnatural. To think so is very narrow minded and ridiculous.
That in fact is wrong. homosexuality is a genetic defect, you can not excape that.Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:29 shinosai wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. In italics... I guess that's it, guys. If the majority of people hold an opinion, it can't be stupid. Is this really your argument? If so, it is not a very good one. You can not call it stupid just because you think so. It is just stupid bigoty.
Prove it. You can't possibly know that it's not exactly the way things are supposed to be.
|
On July 31 2012 02:11 naastyOne wrote:I would note, poeple get way off topic into discussing the entire gay issue instead of the instances of pro-gay people discriminating anti-gay people. The gay movement that started as a movement for tolerance, civil rights and general understanding and sympathy to their issues, is turning into the hate and pro-discrimination movement,.. Which is, in fact curious development, considering that gays are always the minority, and that thay have to rely on protection of minority rights and good will of the heterosexual majority. Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:36 ayaz2810 wrote:
I used to think that homosexuality was a genetic defect that had no benefits as far as survival of a species. Of course, I was uneducated. The simple fact is that homosexuality has occurred naturally throughout history, and exists in the animal kingdom. Why does it occur? There are many theories, but none of them has been proven conclusively true. Just because you don't understand why it happens, doesn't mean it's an abomination or unnatural. To think so is very narrow minded and ridiculous.
That in fact is wrong. homosexuality is a genetic defect, you can not excape that. Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:42 m4inbrain wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. Well, no. Most of the religious world is openly anti-gay. Thats true. Muslims, christians, etc. Theres quite a difference. Your statement is not true for "most of the non-religeous" world. They're actually quite tolerant, except, of course, the US (20% of hatecrimes against homosexuals, well what do you know..). PS: in germany homosexuals can't marry because of the "CDU/CSU", and only because of them (one of the biggest political parties in germany, christian democratic union and christian social union, get it?). You forgot that China, India, Africa, Eastern europe and Russia= most of the world. The US, Canada and Western europe are pretty much the only places where gay marriage is an a vievable option. And, you know, US is on the fence. Show nested quote +On July 31 2012 01:29 shinosai wrote:On July 31 2012 01:26 naastyOne wrote:On July 31 2012 01:12 Elsid wrote:On July 31 2012 01:09 naastyOne wrote:
I lowe the american pro gay fascism.
It is perfectly fine to have hatefull speach towards the people that do not share your stance. It is perfectly fine to openly call the the stupd, bigoted lesser people.
Wait a little more, and gas poisoning of people that are anti-gay would ba absolutely fine agenda. So essentially what you're saying is it's okay for a man to say that homosexuals don't deserve the rights afforded to heterosexuals even though they're two consenting adults, but on the contrary it's not okay to say that said opinion is stupid and bigoted? Also nice ridiculous use of the slippery slope argument Also you jump on the assumption that that kind of oppinion is stupid and bugoted by default, which it is not. Especially considering that most of the world is openly anti-gay. In italics... I guess that's it, guys. If the majority of people hold an opinion, it can't be stupid. Is this really your argument? If so, it is not a very good one. You can not call it stupid just because you think so. It is just stupid bigoty.
Its a.. what? A genetic defect? Are you stupid man?
Yes, there is the discussion that homosexuality can be "encouraged" by some genes and/or a combination of social and familary circumstances, but in no way ever a scientist actually said, its a "defect".
Also, about Africa: 40% Christians, 45% Muslims. Questions?
The fact that you actually called India shows, that you have no idea (at all), that again, abrahamic religions are the cause for homophobia over there. If you actually had bothered to research what hinduism stood for before muslims and christians (and general degeneration of the ppl) fucked with hinduism. Fact of the matter is, if you read the Sanskrit, you will see that homosexuals actually had their own little space in hinduism with their own funktions and tasks. Not just tolerated, but integrated.
I guess i should not try to respond further, because someone who actually denies that its almost always a religeous matter to strip homosexuals of their rights, well.. Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion i guess. I just would like to see more educated ones.
|
On July 31 2012 00:41 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion. Its frightening how its 'ok' to be biased against someone for having a conservative opinion. Do you realize that you are doing the same exact thing against him? So by your own definition you are now scum as well. Just because the owner of CFA said he does't believe gay marriage its suddenly ok to hurt his business and discriminate against him because of his beliefs. CFA never once said they won't hire gay people or server gay people. In fact I am sure they do all over the country. Imagine the uproar if the Mayor of Chicago said he would deny CFA because the owner gay. So many people are failing to see the double standard here.
You can have a conservative opinion if you want. However that will not make it okey, or right, when that opinion is that some people are of lesser worth. Just like the conservatives who think black people are inferior to white are not right. Or how conservative muslims beleve that you should spread the religion via jihad is not right.
I'm all for people wanting to preserve core family values. But it's the values where a couple stick with one and other and take care of thier partner and kids. And how the makeup of that family looks is of no consecuense as long as they treat one and other well.
The point is not that someone is conservative in there opinions. It's that they should not judge others as inferior nor should they slander people who are different then them.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 30 2012 18:33 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2012 18:22 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 18:18 overt wrote:On July 30 2012 18:17 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 18:10 overt wrote:On July 30 2012 17:40 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:38 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:28 GraFx wrote:On July 30 2012 17:15 Whitewing wrote:On July 30 2012 17:07 GraFx wrote:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#Controversy_regarding_LGBT_issuesThey 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.
I'm going to reply to this post because this conversation kept going while I was sleeping and it seems like my point was made very well by someone else. The fact of the matter is, I actually provided an argument as to why his opinion is bigoted on the issue. You never attempted to refute or attack the argument itself, only ignore it and attack the results without considering the argument. This is basically announcing to the world that you are incapable of attacking the argument but are so firmly entrenched in your position that no amount of evidence or discussion will ever pull you out, and that's a terrible thing, because it makes you essentially useless to humanity with regards to this issue.
If you're going to take a position on a topic, and someone else takes a different position, and then provides an argument as to why their position is a superior position, you'd better have an argument for your own position. If you don't, you might as well concede and change positions, because you don't actually have a good reason to hold the position that you do.
Either attack my argument by finding things wrong with it, or provide your own well reasoned argument. If you can't do either of those things, you are pretty much admitting defeat.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 31 2012 00:41 StreetWise wrote:Show nested quote +He is allowed to have his opinion, he's just scum for having that particular opinion. Its frightening how its 'ok' to be biased against someone for having a conservative opinion. Do you realize that you are doing the same exact thing against him? So by your own definition you are now scum as well. Just because the owner of CFA said he does't believe gay marriage its suddenly ok to hurt his business and discriminate against him because of his beliefs. CFA never once said they won't hire gay people or server gay people. In fact I am sure they do all over the country. Imagine the uproar if the Mayor of Chicago said he would deny CFA because the owner gay. So many people are failing to see the double standard here.
I wouldn't classify his opinion as conservative, I'd classify it as religious extremism. I'm not biased against him for merely having an opinion, I dislike the man because he's a hateful prick who uses his religion to justify denying rights and freedoms to other human beings without good reason. It's not bigotry to criticize a person who is a bigot. I don't hate the man because he is a christian or because he is white or because he is heterosexual, I despise him because he is actively trying to deny people the same rights he is entitled to.
Do you realize the difference between something you can't change that you were born with (homosexuality) and behavior that you choose to engage in (being anti-gay)? One is voluntary, one isn't. If we can't criticize voluntary behavior and point out what the fuck is wrong with assholes like this, we may as well give up as a species, roll over, and die, because we're going nowhere.
And yes, I'll say it since seemingly nobody else will. Your beliefs are not on some ridiculous unimpeachable pedestal that is beyond reproach. They are not beyond criticism and critical evaluation. If your beliefs are hateful, people have the right to actually point out that they are hateful. You can practice whatever beliefs you want, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to roll over and accept your behavior quietly. When you use your freedoms to infringe on the freedoms of others, you've lost any claim to having the high moral ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
