Mayor of Boston is opposed to Chick-Fil-A in his City

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Chicago is the only place to abuse it's power to to ban a chick-fil-a.
 
Only, again, nobody in Chicago is "banning" Chick-Fil-A. One alderman is considering voting against a zoning variance for one specific location unless CFA responds to his queries in an acceptable manner, which is well within his authority to do so.
 
The struggle for full gay rights isn't going to get any easier from here on out, but I still think we'll get there eventually. It's a shame that it's making otherwise good people angry at each other. Things like this aren't easy but must be done.
 
The struggle for full gay rights isn't going to get any easier from here on out, but I still think we'll get there eventually. It's a shame that it's making otherwise good people angry at each other, but things like this are never easy.

Define "good".
 
Indeed. Were the people who supported miscegenation and segregation "good"?
 
Indeed. Were the people who supported miscegenation and segregation "good"?

>.> That's not exactly what I was going for... I was more being a negativist prick and just saying that all people are bad.
 
Then I would disagree. I think "good" people support basic human rights and don't support known hate groups.
 
To be fair, even histories greatest villians probably had their good points.
 
EDIT: Misunderstood IdiotsOpposite and went on a huge rant for no reason.

Pretty embarrassing actually. :blush:
 
Except the claims of 'hate and bigotry' are false and are merely the excuse to practice said intolerance.

But it was never about being intolerant of your religion, except to the extent that your religion should not dictate policy that is intrinsically biased against a certain group of people, as I will now enumerate.

Dan Cathy and Chic-Fil- A dont hate homosexuals. They support what they deem as the biblical example of marriage and dont want to see our government change that. That is not hate, nor bigotry, and those opposing him for that are indeed themselves haters and bigots not any better than those same kind from the WBC.

I understand it is popular to say that one merely "supports traditional marriage," as opposed to supporting nontraditional marriage I suppose, but this stance does not by itself absolve one of any guilt of hate or bigotry. But even if I were to assume that one could support traditional marriage on the one hand and yet suffer to ignominiously flatter the gays with "understanding" of their "condition," that does not make the quality of "supporting traditional marriage" a positive assertion. To the extent that it is characterized in part by a categorical rejection of gay marriage, it is bigotry - that is to say, it is obstinate intolerance of the homosexual marriage; it is rejection based wholly on sexual orientation. It is intolerant devotion to your opinions and prejudices, laid down by an ancient book with an excellent track record on complex moral questions, and one that actively harms people. It is this point, I think, that deserves the primary consideration.

It is foolhardy to imagine that denying homosexuals the right to marry is not a form of prejudice in some way. It is, of course, not seen as denying them any right so much as preserving an institution that one might assert was never meant for them. On this point I will happily grapple with the notion that marriage, as a concept, is incompatible with the idea of two members of the same sex mating for life. I need not expound at length on marriage's mutability and general functionality, although I will say, in summary, that marriage is:

  • Not meant for procreation (we permit marriages where this is as unfeasible as with same-sex marriages).
  • Not a religious artefact (it is culturally significant among people of innumerable different stripes and hardly special to Christians only).
  • Thus, a cultural phenomenon, which has become...
  • A binding contract between a monogamous* couple and the crowning achievement of romantic affection.

And thus it behooves us to ask ourselves "whence come the restriction on gay marriage?" But furthermore it begs us to think of the gay couple, who would seek marriage for a multitude of reasons - not merely to obtain benefits that the government provides for such a union, but because marriage is symbolically important to them. As with many Americans, marriage is the ultimate stage of romance, and to deny the satisfaction of that from gay people is cruelty. It is unceremoniously stripping their romance of the capacity to flower in the sense that their culture has raised and taught them to believe that it should flower. If the love of a gay couple is meaningful, they will seek marriage, because that is what a couple in love does in this society. If you dare deny that symbols are important and meaningful, then I defy you to explain this. Refusing to allow gay people to marry under the same auspices that you allow straight people to marry harms them as clearly as it tells them that their love is wrong and improper. That is emotional cruelty.

Part of not being a bigot, part of being legitimately and truly tolerant, is understanding that gays want to get married for the same reason you or any straight person you know wants to get married. It is not part of an overarching kulturkampf, hell-bent on annihilating Christianity once and for all. It's merely a move made by a legitimately desperate group of people to secure support from the society that bore them for the love they have chosen.** Now if you want to tell them that they are fools and that they have chosen wrongly, that they will be judged and damned for their sin, then so be it: but don't you dare pretend that you're merely defending your institution against the vagaries of barbarous influences. They're just people in love who want to be treated like it.

*I am aware of arguments in parallel that state that altering the definition of mariage, to the extent that it can really be said to be altered, also bears impact on the notion that it need be monogamous. You will find no argument from me on this question.

**Even assuming homosexuality is a choice, although very good evidence shows that it probably isn't.
 
And with that, Crezth wins the thread.
 
I agree. The idea that they aren't "against SSM" but are "for traditional marriage" is a smokescreen. Probably not 2% of these people are pushing for restrictions on divorce, adultery, or remarriage.

This is not a robust effort to restore society's standard of marriage. It is a specific denial of marriage to homosexuals in isolation. The slippery slope arguments are all trivial as well.

It's in service to a larger cause, though. I will grant them that. It's intimately tied with creationism and other such issues because it attacks the idea that there is any legitimate America outside of Christian America. It doesn't seek "Religious Freedom" the way most people, even most of Huckabee's Chicken Munchers, imagine. It's Dominionist "freedom." It basically means you are free to be a fundamentalist. "Freedom not to sin," as they so innocently put it.

I'm not afraid of them, though, and I'll tell you why. The actual Americans sucking down the chicken are good people when they aren't up against the wall. Right now they're afraid of a lot of things, and it's comforting for them to feel like they're standing up for something. These people won't persist in any genuine cruelty for long, and those who dream of riding them to theocratic power will be sorely disappointed.
 
The predominant argument has been that SSM "destroys the sanctity of marriage". What a silly notion given that homosexuals represent perhaps 3% of the population and only 52% of marriages in the US make the 15 year mark.
 
The predominant argument has been that SSM "destroys the sanctity of marriage". What a silly notion given that homosexuals represent perhaps 3% of the population and only 52% of marriages make the 15 year mark.

Or that, as I pointed out earlier, the definition of marriage has not always been restricted to between a man and a woman. But anti-SSM people like to pretend it's been that way since Adam and Eve.

Still no response from an anit-SSM person as to why they think they can hold up the constitution for justification for everything when it clearly does not mention SSM but does mention separation of church and state ---> and religion is their sole justification for taking away/denying a right from people.
 
Or that, as I pointed out earlier, the definition of marriage has not always been restricted to between a man and a woman. But anti-SSM people like to pretend it's been that way since Adam and Eve.

Still no response from an anit-SSM person as to why they think they can hold up the constitution for justification for everything when it clearly does not mention SSM but does mention separation of church and state ---> and religion is their sole justification for taking away/denying a right from people.

You're asking for logic, from clearly delusional people.
 
Dominionists claim that the wall is "one way." The church has every right, and in fact an obligation, to completely dominate the state.
 
Dominionists claim that the wall is "one way." The church has every right, and in fact an obligation, to completely dominate the state.

I'm just sayin I've noticed in this thread and others that conservatives in general tend to shout "Freedoms!" all the time and point to the constitution over and over again. They seem to miss some fundamental facts about what is in the constitution while they are doing so. Like the fact that the church cannot and should not dominate the state or be used to deny rights.

Edit: I have yet to see an anti-SSM argument that does not come from church doctrine ultimately.
 
Dominionists claim that the wall is "one way." The church has every right, and in fact an obligation, to completely dominate the state.

Which has absolutely no place in decent society.

If I say that I should hold the reigns of society because I heard a flaming bush talking to me, or because I'd be the first in line to kill my son when I heard a voice in my head, I would (rightfully) be checked into an asylum.

If I say I should hold the reigns because I believe others when they tell me they experienced or would do these things, I should be publicly mocked and surveyed for possible mental disorders.

But no! Lets trust these people around children. Because that hasn't backfired.

Edit: I have yet to see an anti-SSM argument that does not come from church doctrine ultimately.

Fairly telling, isn't it?

Skydad will ground us if we legalize SSM :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom