National Day of Support for...

[Teatownclown]

When you finally recognize where you are hateful, intolerant, and a bigot please let the rest of us know.  I and others on here can give you a few hints.

You make fun of people's weight, religion, and character and you resort to character attacks on those with whom you disagree on issues.  What part of that exemplifies love, respect, and understanding of your fellow man or woman?

Which one is your Mother?

[Teatownclown]

I will keep asking, why is the issue not about contract law instead of all this diversionary bs?

[Townsend]

But you can't revoke someone's rights because they choose to be an idiot!

I agree with the rights but I don't believe being an idiot is a choice.  I believe idiocy is thrust upon them.

[Conan71]

I will keep asking, why is the issue not about contract law instead of all this diversionary bs?

You might want to clarify a little better then.

If you are referring to the civil aspect of marriage, or the license, certainly gay couples should be welcome to all benefits the rest of us have been able to enjoy: retirement, insurance, right of survivorship, government benefits.  But they also face the pitfalls of divorce, just like the rest of us.

Is that what you are driveling at?

[Teatownclown]

You might want to clarify a little better then.

If you are referring to the civil aspect of marriage, or the license, certainly gay couples should be welcome to all benefits the rest of us have been able to enjoy: retirement, insurance, right of survivorship, government benefits.  But they also face the pitfalls of divorce, just like the rest of us.

Is that what you are driveling at?

Then what is the issue?

[Conan71]

Then what is the issue?

Beats the hell out of me. I don't have an issue with it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you are referring to the civil aspect of marriage, or the license, certainly gay couples should be welcome to all benefits the rest of us have been able to enjoy: retirement, insurance, right of survivorship, government benefits.  But they also face the pitfalls of divorce, just like the rest of us.

That has been a substantial part of the point all along.  So why has there been, and continues to be, such resistance to it?

[Teatownclown]

That has been a substantial part of the point all along.  So why has there been, and continues to be, such resistance to it?

Because in this country today these issues divert attention away from what's really important to the future of our country. That and the difference factor.

[Teatownclown]

Beats the hell out of me. I don't have an issue with it.

But you will continue to support the right of Chick Fillet owners to market in this manor....

You eat that processed traumatized chemically induced fowl?

[heironymouspasparagus]

But you will continue to support the right of Chick Fillet owners to market in this manor....

You eat that processed traumatized chemically induced fowl?

Slow down in your frenzy - think about what you are writing for an extra few seconds - you missed a great opportunity in the second sentence....   fowl versus "foul".

[Gaspar]

But you will continue to support the right of Chick Fillet owners to market in this manor....

You can't take away their right to "market" because what they say is distasteful.  That's just not the way to go about it. 

The force of government cannot be applied to make one group of people agree with another, or to suppress the beliefs or speech of an individual.  That represents a step backwards.  The proposed boycott and educational initiative on the part of many Americans was the proper move. 

The moment government got involved and threatened individual rights over this issue was the moment the gay rights movement was dealt the real blow.  Gay people should be more outraged at those politicians for attempting to steal the issue and in the process, making a clumsy mess of things that resulted in a backlash that was more powerful than the original response to Cathy's stance.

Now they (and you) have been made to look like enemies of free speech, instead of champions.

Jon Stewart on the issue:
"Pretty sure you can't outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO's views repellant. Not sure which amendment covers that, but it's probably in the top one," Stewart said. "I think maybe the mayors hadn't thought this thing through."


Get these bozos out of office before they trash another just cause!

[nathanm]

That said, (and not directed toward you, this is in general) people need to quit loosely throwing around terms like bigot, intolerant, hateful, and other words which relate to character simply because someone has a different tradition or view.

This is an ignorant and laughable cop out. If there were anyone out there trying to force other people to get gay married, your point would make a lot of sense. However, there are not. Your tradition does not excuse hurtful behavior towards others. I am happy to respect your tradition. Unfortunately many feel the need to control others and prevent them from entering into contractual relationships using their tradition as an excuse. That's straight up intolerant. Just like it would be intolerant for me to say first methodist should be shut down because they refuse to marry gay couples.

I get that you're not one of the folks who is trying to keep gay people from having the usual rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, Truett is one of a very large number of folks who think gay people shouldn't get even that much. Somewhere around 20 states have constitutional amendments banning not only gay marriage but any contract that acts like marriage.

Regarding Chick-Fil-A specifically, I'm pretty sure the mayors in question also have the right to express an opinion on Dan Cathy's views. Funny how Dan gets to say whatever he likes and any consequences are somehow unfair and the result of intolerance, but people can't express an opinion on what he said.

[Conan71]

But you will continue to support the right of Chick Fillet owners to market in this manor....

You eat that processed traumatized chemically induced fowl?

I support his right to free speech even though I thought the statement was moronic.  He's free to alienate or endear his customer base however he sees fit.

That has been a substantial part of the point all along.  So why has there been, and continues to be, such resistance to it?

I think many people have a problem with the term "marriage" being applied to it.  Some people think much of the hullabaloo would go away if gay rights advocates would settle for "civil union".  Or not.  Part of that is ignorance or fear that eventually churches could be forced to perform gay marriage. 

Fundamentalists seem to be of the mistaken impression that Christianity has a monopoly on the term "marriage".  Never mind that the term and concept has been used in society long before the New Testament was written.  There's also historical evidence that same sex marriage was accepted and recognized in some ancient societies.

[patric]

Jon Stewart on the issue:
"Pretty sure you can't outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO's views repellant. Not sure which amendment covers that, but it's probably in the top one," Stewart said. "I think maybe the mayors hadn't thought this thing through."

Gas citing Jon Stewart as a conservative voice of reason.  Didnt see that coming.

[Conan71]

This is an ignorant and laughable cop out. If there were anyone out there trying to force other people to get gay married, your point would make a lot of sense. However, there are not. Your tradition does not excuse hurtful behavior towards others. I am happy to respect your tradition. Unfortunately many feel the need to control others and prevent them from entering into contractual relationships using their tradition as an excuse. That's straight up intolerant. Just like it would be intolerant for me to say first methodist should be shut down because they refuse to marry gay couples.

I get that you're not one of the folks who is trying to keep gay people from having the usual rights and responsibilities of marriage. However, Truett is one of a very large number of folks who think gay people shouldn't get even that much. Somewhere around 20 states have constitutional amendments banning not only gay marriage but any contract that acts like marriage.

Regarding Chick-Fil-A specifically, I'm pretty sure the mayors in question also have the right to express an opinion on Dan Cathy's views. Funny how Dan gets to say whatever he likes and any consequences are somehow unfair and the result of intolerance, but people can't express an opinion on what he said.

That said, (and not directed toward you, this is in general) people need to quit loosely throwing around terms like bigot, intolerant, hateful, and other words which relate to character simply because someone has a different tradition or view.

Nathan, the quote is applicable to far more than the issue of gay marriage and I didn't supply it to excuse Dan Cathy's remarks nor anyone who is an obvious bigot.  Have you missed people being call bigots and racist because they don't agree with President Obama's policies or because they won't vote for him?  It's cheap intimidation.

Back to the gay marriage issue and traditional thinking:  There are people who don't approve of gay marriage simply because they were raised in a different sort of society or religion than you or I.  I would suspect an Amish person's view on gay marriage is hardly out of malice or spite, but simply a part of their religious traditions.  Unless their pastors are telling them to go out and "kill the gay" you've got a difficult argument to claim it's tantamount to bigotry or hate. 

I can't believe you haven't noticed this become a pet tool to intimidate less "progressive" thinkers.