The linked article has the text, there's no edits, that's what was said in the original letter.
This whole thing is way overblown except for how not ok it is to discriminate against gay people and how screwed up the US media is by the way they twist and alter the story to sensationalize it one way or the other.
The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play.
By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them.
Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available.
But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him.
Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
Atheists marry too, ding ding ding.
I get my fix by chilling with my friends and having BBQs, they get their fix by discriminating people. It's OK though, they're just differences that we all have to tolerate. All of a sudden gay bashers are all for political correctness.
The whole thing would have never been an issue if the mayor didn't make a political power play.
By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them.
Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available.
But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him.
Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
Atheists marry too, ding ding ding.
I get my fix by chilling with my friends and having BBQs, they get their fix by discriminating people. It's OK though, they're just differences that we all have to tolerate. All of a sudden gay bashers are all for political correctness.
Yes, Atheist (which is a term that always made me chuckle since one can technically believe in Buddhism or polytheistic religions and still be atheistic), do get married. But that is not a change of the definition of marriage though. Granted, it is not being used as it use to in terms of the purpose, but its define entity is still the same.
As for the rest of what you said, I do not see your implication nor do I see the point of your comment so I will just leave it at that (gay bashers... really?)
Very well written article explaining the liberal viewpoint.
Thank you, thank you for posting the link here. I'm spreading it to my friends as we speak. (Not even sarcastic or anything, the article truly touched me; especially the part where he calls for everyone to imagine the situation being reversed).
By that regard this whole thing would never have been an issue if people don't try and oppress gays and lesbians because their valid lifestyle offends them.
Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available.
But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him.
Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
Atheists marry too, ding ding ding.
I get my fix by chilling with my friends and having BBQs, they get their fix by discriminating people. It's OK though, they're just differences that we all have to tolerate. All of a sudden gay bashers are all for political correctness.
Yes, Atheist (which is a term that always made me chuckle since one can technically believe in Buddhism or polytheistic religions and still be atheistic), do get married. But that is not a change of the definition of marriage though. Granted, it is not being used as it use to in terms of the purpose, but its define entity is still the same.
As for the rest of what you said, I do not see your implication nor do I see the point of your comment so I will just leave it at that (gay bashers... really?)
Nah that's bullshit. The whole point of man and woman marriage is because of some religious book. That's what they're basing their worldview on and that's why they're discriminating. Non-Christian/Abrahamic religion people get married without a fuss. I don't see why non-practicing Homosexuals can't get married.
I don't see why you're playing dumb. That's exactly what they are. They get high off discriminating other people.
On August 02 2012 07:15 Jisall wrote: [quote] Following that trail of logic back, no-one would care about a persons sexual-orientation if they didn't try and take the religion out of marriage when there is a identical substitute available.
But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him.
Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
Atheists marry too, ding ding ding.
I get my fix by chilling with my friends and having BBQs, they get their fix by discriminating people. It's OK though, they're just differences that we all have to tolerate. All of a sudden gay bashers are all for political correctness.
Yes, Atheist (which is a term that always made me chuckle since one can technically believe in Buddhism or polytheistic religions and still be atheistic), do get married. But that is not a change of the definition of marriage though. Granted, it is not being used as it use to in terms of the purpose, but its define entity is still the same.
As for the rest of what you said, I do not see your implication nor do I see the point of your comment so I will just leave it at that (gay bashers... really?)
Nah that's bullshit. The whole point of man and woman marriage is because of some religious book. That's what they're basing their worldview on and that's why they're discriminating. Non-Christian/Abrahamic religion people get married without a fuss. I don't see why non-practicing Homosexuals can't get married.
I don't see why you're playing dumb. That's exactly what they are. They get high off discriminating other people.
No offense, but you are not making yourself seem very versed or knowledgeable on the topic and quite disrespectful which is hurting your case even more. The man and woman portion derived from marriage itself, not the other way around. So even your wording is quite flawed. As for the reasoning why they can't, well... it has already been explained and either you did not read it or you simply did not comprehend what is being stated.
I will leave you with this last bit. I am at the point where I cannot take what you say seriously because you are resorting to fallacious claims and just attacking me and others. Sorry but I'd rather have a civilized debate with someone that has something of value to add and not rely on attacking others.
P.s. Books like the bible and other religions text are not just "some books", they help in showing and giving insight of historical events, cultures, etc. if you remove the religious aspect, it has given vast amount of information and acts as a form of historical reference. So you may not care for the religion, but belittling that have are of great historical relevance is ignorant.
Man posts video of himself going to a drive thru, and scolds a drive thru employee. Lady employee handles the situation admirably, despite man being a douchebag to her.
Afterwards....
TUCSON, AZ--(Marketwire - Aug 2, 2012) - The following is a statement from Vante:
Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.
The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.
Man posts video of himself going to a drive thru, and scolds a drive thru employee. Lady employee handles the situation admirably, despite man being a douchebag to her.
TUCSON, AZ--(Marketwire - Aug 2, 2012) - The following is a statement from Vante:
Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.
The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.
He is now the former CFO of Vante. What an idiot...
Jesus, what an assclown.
How is fucking giving some poor chick just doing her job the n-th degree worth ones time? Sleep better at night after that? Feel real fucking good? Jesus. Might agree with Chik-fil-a sucking but show some god damn class.
"I'm actually a nice guy". No, you're a shitbag, take your water and show me those tail lights.
Very well written article explaining the liberal viewpoint.
I really enjoyed reading this; sums things up rather well in my opinion.
EDIT: That Adam Smith video is incredibly sad... Adam is completely picking on a random employee, and props to the woman for keeping her composure and staying professional as long as she did. Glad the guy got fired; calling out a random worker for something she has no control over was incredibly silly, not to mention it made him look like a tool.
On August 02 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote: [quote]
But there isn't actually an identical substitute available... I agree with the idea of the mayor just making Chick-Fil-A's attempt to open a store hell and not mentioning it in public. Would of been much easier for him.
Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
Atheists marry too, ding ding ding.
I get my fix by chilling with my friends and having BBQs, they get their fix by discriminating people. It's OK though, they're just differences that we all have to tolerate. All of a sudden gay bashers are all for political correctness.
Yes, Atheist (which is a term that always made me chuckle since one can technically believe in Buddhism or polytheistic religions and still be atheistic), do get married. But that is not a change of the definition of marriage though. Granted, it is not being used as it use to in terms of the purpose, but its define entity is still the same.
As for the rest of what you said, I do not see your implication nor do I see the point of your comment so I will just leave it at that (gay bashers... really?)
Nah that's bullshit. The whole point of man and woman marriage is because of some religious book. That's what they're basing their worldview on and that's why they're discriminating. Non-Christian/Abrahamic religion people get married without a fuss. I don't see why non-practicing Homosexuals can't get married.
I don't see why you're playing dumb. That's exactly what they are. They get high off discriminating other people.
No offense, but you are not making yourself seem very versed or knowledgeable on the topic and quite disrespectful which is hurting your case even more. The man and woman portion derived from marriage itself, not the other way around. So even your wording is quite flawed. As for the reasoning why they can't, well... it has already been explained and either you did not read it or you simply did not comprehend what is being stated.
I will leave you with this last bit. I am at the point where I cannot take what you say seriously because you are resorting to fallacious claims and just attacking me and others. Sorry but I'd rather have a civilized debate with someone that has something of value to add and not rely on attacking others.
P.s. Books like the bible and other religions text are not just "some books", they help in showing and giving insight of historical events, cultures, etc. if you remove the religious aspect, it has given vast amount of information and acts as a form of historical reference. So you may not care for the religion, but belittling that have are of great historical relevance is ignorant.
No, man and woman came naturally because we pair off to make babies. Then some cultures made it mandatory that marriage be between man and woman, then throughout the ages, the cultural aspects of marriage gets loaded onto the spiritual aspects and we're in this mess because of it.
There is no good reason to not have gay marriage. I've read every single gay marriage topic on here and I have not seen one logical reason why gays can't get married. Here's a general list of reasons that I've seen and dismissed:
Unnatural (faulty assumption)
Homosexuality is a sin/immoral (religious bigotry)
God hates fags (general douchery / religious bigotry)
Can't make babies (faulty assumption / general douchery)
Civil Unions do the same thing (faulty assumption)
Marriage is religious (faulty assumption / religious bigotry / general douchery)
Gays lead to fall of society (religious bigotry / general douchery)
Gays are bad parents (faulty assumption / general douchery)
Think of the children (faulty assumption / general douchery)
Gays are pedophiles (faulty assumption / general douchery)
The closest reason someone's come is making it separate but equal, and I completely agree that this would be progress, but this should only be the first step towards legalizing gay marriage. However, there shouldn't even be a need to compromise in this situation.
Far as I know demestic partnership is available. and you sir would be asking for an impeachment.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
Atheists marry too, ding ding ding.
I get my fix by chilling with my friends and having BBQs, they get their fix by discriminating people. It's OK though, they're just differences that we all have to tolerate. All of a sudden gay bashers are all for political correctness.
Yes, Atheist (which is a term that always made me chuckle since one can technically believe in Buddhism or polytheistic religions and still be atheistic), do get married. But that is not a change of the definition of marriage though. Granted, it is not being used as it use to in terms of the purpose, but its define entity is still the same.
As for the rest of what you said, I do not see your implication nor do I see the point of your comment so I will just leave it at that (gay bashers... really?)
Nah that's bullshit. The whole point of man and woman marriage is because of some religious book. That's what they're basing their worldview on and that's why they're discriminating. Non-Christian/Abrahamic religion people get married without a fuss. I don't see why non-practicing Homosexuals can't get married.
I don't see why you're playing dumb. That's exactly what they are. They get high off discriminating other people.
No offense, but you are not making yourself seem very versed or knowledgeable on the topic and quite disrespectful which is hurting your case even more. The man and woman portion derived from marriage itself, not the other way around. So even your wording is quite flawed. As for the reasoning why they can't, well... it has already been explained and either you did not read it or you simply did not comprehend what is being stated.
I will leave you with this last bit. I am at the point where I cannot take what you say seriously because you are resorting to fallacious claims and just attacking me and others. Sorry but I'd rather have a civilized debate with someone that has something of value to add and not rely on attacking others.
P.s. Books like the bible and other religions text are not just "some books", they help in showing and giving insight of historical events, cultures, etc. if you remove the religious aspect, it has given vast amount of information and acts as a form of historical reference. So you may not care for the religion, but belittling that have are of great historical relevance is ignorant.
The closest reason someone's come is making it separate but equal, and I completely agree that this would be progress, but this should only be the first step towards legalizing gay marriage. However, there shouldn't even be a need to compromise in this situation.
It's honestly really sad that in this country of all the fucking places in the world that this concept is even proposed and viewed as progress.
Has it really been that long since the Civil Rights Movement that people can't see the glaringly obvious comparisons?
In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would "destroy our [white] race eventually.".[33]
Asians were also specifically included in some state laws. California continued to ban Asian/white marriages until the Perez v. Sharp decision in 1948
In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several passages in the Bible,[35] for example the stories of Phinehas and of the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that certain verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses and references as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage.[36]
Miscegenation has become increasingly accepted in the United States since the Civil Rights movement and up to the present day.[37] Approval of mixed marriages in national opinion polls has risen from 36% in 1978, to 48% in 1991, 65% in 2002, 77% in 2007.[38] The most notable American of mixed race is the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, who is the product of a mixed marriage between a black father and white mother. Nevertheless, as late as 2009, a Louisiana justice of the peace refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, justifying the decision on grounds of concern for any children the couple might have.[39]
It should be noted that Jerry Falwell also helped lead the charge against gay marriage after backing off interracial marriage when it became more socially acceptable. Also, I find it interesting to note that as of 2007, 23% of Americans still do not approve of interracial marriage.
Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones.
I suggest you research domestic partnerships before claiming they're identical.
Change your message to "Equal rights for Demestic relationships" and pooof you got 99% public support. People could give less then a shit about who you choose to have relations with, they care when you try and change an establishment.
Why the fuck should they? It's marriage, plain and simple. People who are against gay marriage are bigoted assholes, and they'll feel it in a couple years time when the world passes them by.
Sadly, I will have to disagree here. Although I am understanding of why one may believe so, resorting to fallacious claim just goes against who I am. I will just express my personal feeling of why I think it is not such a simple topic.
Now, there is the problem I see. There are two types of debates going on. There is the debate regarding the essence of marriage, and the debate regarding ones right. The dilemma I am seeing is that, we have those who are opposed to gay-marriage debating on the former, whereas those in support are arguing the latter (yes, there are exceptions and I acknowledge them). When you have two opposing sides debating on a topic and even the topics themselves are not the same, there is little chance of resolve.
So here is the issue regarding the essence of marriage. It originated and was focused on a religious foundation. One for which had changed due to economics, housing, land ownership, etc. But the term itself was/is defined between a man and a woman. One of the arguments from the anti-marriage is the government stepping in and changing the definition of something that is grounded in religion. Which for myself, I disagree with.
Now, I am probably making enemies out of saying that but it is the truth. But this is where I have issues as a whole. I believe the religious aspect and government control is flat out idiotic. We have a separation of church and state, and yet the government gives benefits to something that is based in religion. It comes off as a contradiciton, which I disagree with. Marriage should be restricted to religious aspect, and not turned into what it is today. Now, this is where I agree with the gay-marriage side.
Because of the role the government has gone with regards to giving benefits, they should not be exluding the freedom of others. So, those who are wanting to be together with one of the same sex should and ought to have the very same right to benefits as any other. Which as of right now, they do not. Often those in relationships cannot see their lovers in hospital because they are not recognized, they are not given all of the same benefits.
This is why I see the debate over these situations are often never successful since what it is they are debating are not the same. One side is trying to keep the concept of marriage the same, whereas the other is trying to have the same rights. With the baggage of what marriage means to people, I also understand that there are those who wish to have that connection. For myself, wishing for all sides to at least come to some agreement. The only way I see it is if marriage stayed between a man and woman, but have (as an example) a civil union give all of the same rights and benefits as marriage. Granted, I think it should have a better name than civil union (since sounds so unpersonal), but it is the only compromise I see. Either that, or we give in to the notion that regardless of beliefs, an essence of a word of belief can be controlled by the government.
Anyway, there is more to it than that. But that is the most simplistic way I see it. I do not agree with how thngs have been handled. Chick-Fil-A situation I think is just stupid. I think they should not be upset or angry with the response they have gotten. It goes for anyone that looks down on those who are angry. Just like Chick-Fil-A has a right to support what they want, people have a right to be angry and boycott establishments. You can't defend your own personal right to support X and be angry because people expressing their support for Y. I do think the mayor went too far with the threat though. It becomes a slippery slope if willing to intervene in directly with business for personal beliefs. Although I did chuckle when reading the article because of how one can preach tolerance for the right to preach, while not being tolerant to other beliefs.
So yeah, that is my long post. Felt the need to finally get this off my chest because this whole situation has been bugging me.
Atheists marry too, ding ding ding.
I get my fix by chilling with my friends and having BBQs, they get their fix by discriminating people. It's OK though, they're just differences that we all have to tolerate. All of a sudden gay bashers are all for political correctness.
Yes, Atheist (which is a term that always made me chuckle since one can technically believe in Buddhism or polytheistic religions and still be atheistic), do get married. But that is not a change of the definition of marriage though. Granted, it is not being used as it use to in terms of the purpose, but its define entity is still the same.
As for the rest of what you said, I do not see your implication nor do I see the point of your comment so I will just leave it at that (gay bashers... really?)
Nah that's bullshit. The whole point of man and woman marriage is because of some religious book. That's what they're basing their worldview on and that's why they're discriminating. Non-Christian/Abrahamic religion people get married without a fuss. I don't see why non-practicing Homosexuals can't get married.
I don't see why you're playing dumb. That's exactly what they are. They get high off discriminating other people.
No offense, but you are not making yourself seem very versed or knowledgeable on the topic and quite disrespectful which is hurting your case even more. The man and woman portion derived from marriage itself, not the other way around. So even your wording is quite flawed. As for the reasoning why they can't, well... it has already been explained and either you did not read it or you simply did not comprehend what is being stated.
I will leave you with this last bit. I am at the point where I cannot take what you say seriously because you are resorting to fallacious claims and just attacking me and others. Sorry but I'd rather have a civilized debate with someone that has something of value to add and not rely on attacking others.
P.s. Books like the bible and other religions text are not just "some books", they help in showing and giving insight of historical events, cultures, etc. if you remove the religious aspect, it has given vast amount of information and acts as a form of historical reference. So you may not care for the religion, but belittling that have are of great historical relevance is ignorant.
The closest reason someone's come is making it separate but equal, and I completely agree that this would be progress, but this should only be the first step towards legalizing gay marriage. However, there shouldn't even be a need to compromise in this situation.
It's honestly really sad that in this country of all the fucking places in the world that this concept is even proposed and viewed as progress.
Has it really been that long since the Civil Rights Movement that people can't see the glaringly obvious comparisons?
In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would "destroy our [white] race eventually.".[33]
Asians were also specifically included in some state laws. California continued to ban Asian/white marriages until the Perez v. Sharp decision in 1948
In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several passages in the Bible,[35] for example the stories of Phinehas and of the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that certain verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses and references as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage.[36]
Miscegenation has become increasingly accepted in the United States since the Civil Rights movement and up to the present day.[37] Approval of mixed marriages in national opinion polls has risen from 36% in 1978, to 48% in 1991, 65% in 2002, 77% in 2007.[38] The most notable American of mixed race is the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, who is the product of a mixed marriage between a black father and white mother. Nevertheless, as late as 2009, a Louisiana justice of the peace refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, justifying the decision on grounds of concern for any children the couple might have.[39]
It should be noted that Jerry Falwell also helped lead the charge against gay marriage after backing off interracial marriage when it became more socially acceptable. Also, I find it interesting to note that as of 2007, 23% of Americans still do not approve of interracial marriage.
Does it really surprise you? It took almost 200 years after drafting of the Constitution for racial minorities and women to gain the level of freedom WASPs enjoyed.
On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote: Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones.
Um, who decided that Marriage is made for people that can produce children? Thats a complete BS statement and I have no idea where you got such a ridiculous idea. Are you basically saying that infertile men and women can't get married? Or that women have to divorce once they hit 45+?
Marriage IS companionship, you don't need a new term at all, you just need close minded people to realize that marriage is a broader term than they think.
On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote: Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones.
Um, who decided that Marriage is made for people that can produce children? Thats a complete BS statement and I have no idea where you got such a ridiculous idea. Are you basically saying that infertile men and women can't get married? Or that women have to divorce once they hit 45+?
Marriage IS companionship, you don't need a new term at all, you just need close minded people to realize that marriage is a broader term than they think.
"Marriage" is religious where "companionship" could be the wide term. It would make everyone happy and all would have equal rights instead of going at "normal" people throats. Not everyone can accept homosexuals why don't they just understand and live with it instead of trying to convert whole world? Compromise with system is as good as win over system.
A PLAQUE at Chick-fil-A’s headquarters in Atlanta says the company’s mission is to “glorify God”, which it does by serving chickenburgers and closing its 1,600 outlets on Sundays. The founder, Truett Cathy, once said that while “you don’t have to be a Christian to work at Chick-fil-A…we ask you to base your business on Biblical principles because they work.”
His son Dan, the fast-food chain’s current boss, is also devout, so it should have surprised no one when he told a Christian news organisation that he disapproved of gay marriage. Yet the reaction was swift and strident. Gay-rights groups called for protests and boycotts (see picture). On August 3rd gay couples planned to stage a “kiss-in” at selected Chick-fil-A outlets. The mayors of Chicago, Boston and San Francisco all declared Chick-fil-A unwelcome in their cities—not because the firm refuses to hire or serve gays, but because its boss expressed an opinion that irks them.
Such dust-ups are not common, but they can hurt a business badly. Chick-fil-A could sue if a city actually blocked a restaurant because of its boss’s religious views. But customers can boycott a restaurant for any reason they please. So here are The Economist’s tips on how companies can avoid causing offence.
First, don’t discuss religion in public. Few people will buy your margarine just because you are Zoroastrian. Plenty may shun it if you loudly espouse dogma they find disagreeable. This tip applies doubly to global firms, which must serve customers of every faith and none.
Second, if you must discuss religion in public, keep it bland and woolly. Zhang Xin, one of China’s biggest property developers, is a devoted Baha’i. However, when she frets aloud about whether her country has lost its moral moorings, she does so in non-religious, or at most broadly spiritual, language. Such circumspection is the norm for public figures in China. The Chinese government is deeply suspicious of religion and professions of faith are not a regular part of public discourse.
Third, remember that something which seems trivial to you may be weighty for others. In early 2001 several executives of Ajinomoto, a Japanese company that produces monosodium glutamate, a flavour enhancer, were arrested in Indonesia and charged with breaking the country’s consumer-protection laws. Their mistake, and Ajinomoto’s, was to use a pork-derived enzyme to produce their seasoning, which had been labelled halal, or permissible for Muslims to eat. Ajinomoto switched to a soy-based enzyme, but not soon enough: its shares plummeted, and it had to recall thousands of tonnes of its products from Indonesian shelves.
Finally, ride out brouhahas over which you have no control. In the early 2000s, as the second intifada raged in Israel and Palestine, a group of Egyptians urged Arab consumers to boycott Ariel soap powder. It was named, they claimed, after Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, and its logo was a cleverly disguised Star of David. Procter & Gamble, the American multinational that makes Ariel, pointed out that the soap predated Mr Sharon’s tenure in office (it was launched in 1967, when he was still Major-General Sharon), and that the logo represented an atom, not a religious symbol. Still, sales suffered, as did those of many other American products in the Arab world. Danish goods endured the same fate a few years later, after a newspaper in Denmark published cartoons of the Prophet that upset many Muslims.
Out of such sentiments came a brief flowering of explicitly Muslim enterprise: Hero Chips (its bag depicting a young boy about to hurl a stone at an Israeli tank) and Abu Ammar Chips (named after Yasser Arafat’s nom de guerre) in Palestine, Mecca Cola and Muslim-Up in France, Qibla Cola in Britain.
As for Chick-fil-A, it will cope. Christians hate to see their co-religionists persecuted. Some Christian leaders are urging their followers to “affirm a business that operates on Christian principles” by eating Chick-fil-A’s delicious sarnies.
On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote: Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones.
You don't give a shit about whether or not people can have children, you just latch on to any excuse you can find, no matter how stupid or poorly thought-out, and use it to enforce your small-mindedness and hatred. Case in point: when the fuck did you ever care about sterile people getting married?
Love how you think your own ignorance is more important than other people's happiness. What happens if you win? You say, "oh, okay...good", and that's that? Honestly, you people don't even really care about homosexuals (why the fuck would you?), you just feel threatened that religion is on the decline and want to fit in with your churches and social groups...so much so that you want to prevent me from marrying the person I love.
On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote: Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones.
Um, who decided that Marriage is made for people that can produce children? Thats a complete BS statement and I have no idea where you got such a ridiculous idea. Are you basically saying that infertile men and women can't get married? Or that women have to divorce once they hit 45+?
Marriage IS companionship, you don't need a new term at all, you just need close minded people to realize that marriage is a broader term than they think.
"Marriage" is religious where "companionship" could be the wide term. It would make everyone happy and all would have equal rights instead of going at "normal" people throats. Not everyone can accept homosexuals why don't they just understand and live with it instead of trying to convert whole world? Compromise with system is as good as win over system.
That sounds like a good system, but I got an extra proposal!
Instead of making the other part called "Companionship" by the state (and leaving the word "Marriage" to religious institutions) why don't we just call "Companionship" instead "State Marriage."
Or! Even better! Lets just called it "Marriage" but it won't be performed at a religious level, and only at a state level, which is what this whole fucking debate is about to begin with.
Seriously, if religious institutions want to bar "Marriage under god" in their churches/places of prayer to only heterosexual, then they can go ape shit. This is a war for the equal rights of people in eyes of the government and prevent a separate but equal outcome.
I honestly don't understand why people find the need to impose their world view, or their religious views, onto other people at a state level. Just because I feel a certain way in my religion/spirituality damn well doesn't mean I expect anyone else should be forced to live by my morality for their rights.
On August 03 2012 19:16 M4nkind wrote: Marriage is made for people that can produce children. Marriage of 2 people of the same sex must not exist. It should be called "Companionship" or something like it. They should invent new word and legalize it. If you cannot have normal family you cannot be called in the same names normal people are called. Its hilarious when people try to compare racial minorities and sexual minorities its the same as comparing vegetables with stones.
You don't give a shit about whether or not people can have children, you just latch on to any excuse you can find, no matter how stupid or poorly thought-out, and use it to enforce your small-mindedness and hatred. Case in point: when the fuck did you ever care about sterile people getting married?
Love how you think your own ignorance is more important than other people's happiness. What happens if you win? You say, "oh, okay...good", and that's that? Honestly, you people don't even really care about homosexuals (why the fuck would you?), you just feel threatened that religion is on the decline and want to fit in with your churches and social groups...so much so that you want to prevent me from marrying the person I love.
I'm disgusted.
If one does not live standard life why would he want to feel standard? If you are different from others why cant you live a different life. the thing with minorities that sometimes those people become more equal then the others.
I think its scary to think that a mayor, or any government official for that matter, can have the power to ban a business based on an opinion that the business has. In this case, it is a heated issue that many in the american culture see as bigoted and outdated, but what happens if its the other way around?
Whether or not you, this boston mayor, or anyone else disagrees with chik-fil-a's or any businesses opinion on a moral issue, you should not be able to do what this mayor is suggesting he will try to do. This is a very scary road to go down.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5Vcts.png)
