whats funny is that of all of the fast food places in America, Chick-Fil-A is by far the friendliest and most respectful in regards to customer service.
If people are just "so upset" with them having a nativity scene on the counter during Christmas or someone answering a gay marriage question then just don't go there. But don't try to harm their business just because their views differ from yours. That's why i'm so glad Chick-Fil-A is cashing in from this nonsense.
uhhh ... if the owner doesn't believe in same sex marriage - maybe he should just not go to one or have any gay married friends ... why does he want to go and harm other people's ability to get married? ... he is prepared to spend money to prevent other people from marrying ... so, that's ok?
I don't understand why government is involved in marriage at all. Government shouldn't be telling us what's right and what's wrong.... period. I mean they are government, after all.
That said, I don't understand what the ruckus is here. Under our constitution, this owner is entitled to an opinion on the subject, just like we are. Further, he's also entitled to speak out on his opinion, and if it's true he somehow donated to organizations that back laws regarding his opinion - he's entitled to do that. It's his money. It seems some just don't like his opinion on the subject.
Basically, I'm questioning the following:
1) Is he not allowed to have an opinion?
2) Is he not allowed to speak his opinion on the issue?
3) Is he not allowed to use his money as he pleases?
I believe he has a right to do all of the above. That said, I believe gay-rights advocates also have a right to:
1) Have an opinion
2) Speak their opinion
3) Use their money as they please
... Hence, why I don't understand the "severity" of this issue. It's equivalent to someone being upset about someone else's opinion on gay rights here on MT. This is one guy... the gay rights population has to come to terms with the fact that not every single person agrees with them, nor will they. No matter how strong they believe their case is, they can't force others to agree.
with attitudes like the one you are conveying there would still be no african americans voting in the south.
But there are different ways to attack different issues. In the south, more drastic measures were needed as the rights that were being denied were far more important, imo.
Now, while it is still certainly an important issue, I think we are beyond the sit-in stage. It's time for continuous open dialogue. Because if you do, people will eventually see how silly they sound and start to wonder why they feel this way. it's only a matter of time.
I don't understand why government is involved in marriage at all. Government shouldn't be telling us what's right and what's wrong.... period. I mean they are government, after all.
That said, I don't understand what the ruckus is here. Under our constitution, this owner is entitled to an opinion on the subject, just like we are. Further, he's also entitled to speak out on his opinion, and if it's true he somehow donated to organizations that back laws regarding his opinion - he's entitled to do that. It's his money. It seems some just don't like his opinion on the subject.
Basically, I'm questioning the following:
1) Is he not allowed to have an opinion?
2) Is he not allowed to speak his opinion on the issue?
3) Is he not allowed to use his money as he pleases?
I believe he has a right to do all of the above. That said, I believe gay-rights advocates also have a right to:
1) Have an opinion
2) Speak their opinion
3) Use their money as they please
... Hence, why I don't understand the "severity" of this issue. It's equivalent to someone being upset about someone else's opinion on gay rights here on MT. This is one guy... the gay rights population has to come to terms with the fact that not every single person agrees with them, nor will they. No matter how strong they believe their case is, they can't force others to agree.
well said...
however, I do find it funny that folks waited for hours for a mediocre sandwich...
No, it's not. But this isn't a black and white world and individually we sometimes compromise our beliefs. Kinda like voting for that guy that believes its ok to kill babies. I did that last time.
Again, the major problem I have with all of this is instead of having an open dialogue about this stuff we always resort to overwhelming support (i.e. Aug 1st) or complete and utter opposition (boycott, etc.)
I say a few people I know in that Chick-fil-a line and they are all very good people, some of the best I know. It's the religion and history that has made them so against Gay Marriage. If we can openly talk about it, I think it starts to whittle away. Hell, when I was in High School I remember not really understanding it and wondering how it could be natural if it couldn't sustain itself (ie can't have kids).
what does you voting for obama have anything to do with this? ... i mean how can you begin to say we should have a frank and open discussion when you just said the president believes its ok to kill babies ... if that isn't antagonistic - what is?
and i'm not really sure where you are going with your 'good people' line ... 50 years ago ... good people didn't allow black people on the bus ... 100 years ago good people had slaves ... this religious intolerance is problematic because it infringes on other peoples human rights ... i'm not sure why that is so hard to get ...
again - if you don't believe gay people should marry ... fine ... i'm ok with that ... but once you start trying to influence gov'ts or anywhere else to take that belief and start oppressing other people - it becomes a problem ...
dude are you fucking serious with all that crap ? all this started because the guy from chic fil a said "guilty as charged" about his beliefs..he dident start a media campain on the subject, I think he was aked and he answered right ? then some lbgt got all but hurt and started a bitch fest and now every little thiong that is said is now bigotry or in your words racism ? give me a fuckin break man.
Godfather.
yes i am dead serious.
it is ok with you that a company gives money to organizations that work against gay marriage? i don't care if they believe in god or whatever, but the minute they are actively working to keep a group of people from enjoing the same rights that you and i have, that is discriminatory. with attitudes like the one you are conveying there would still be no african americans voting in the south.
if you think it is ok to deprive rights to an entire population because you think their right to marry is "yucky" then it is you who has the problem.
you and i have a decent rapport, but if i were gay i would be outraged at how easily you dismiss my rights and my desire to have the same rights you have.
I haven't really looked into it but I wonder how gay rights supporters spend their money,I mean on things other than gay rights support, are they all as squeeky clean as you make them out to be ? the poor picked on lgbt group that never hurt anybody ? I highly doubt it.
and why are we even talking about african american discrmination ? believe me I the last guy to care what color you are and just because I find lgbt "ICKY" doen't mean I would treat them differently than anybody else but I would not support their cause either.
1) Is he not allowed to have an opinion?
2) Is he not allowed to speak his opinion on the issue?
3) Is he not allowed to use his money as he pleases?
1. YES
2. YES
3. NO - not when that money is used to oppress people
would you be ok with me funding an organization that wants to ban white people from all public places?
I think you have a right to do what you want with your money. That doesn't mean I agree with what you do with it. But, I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your money.
1) Is he not allowed to have an opinion?
2) Is he not allowed to speak his opinion on the issue?
3) Is he not allowed to use his money as he pleases?
1. YES
2. YES
3. NO - not when that money is used to oppress people
would you be ok with me funding an organization that wants to ban white people from all public places?
I think you have a right to do what you want with your money. That doesn't mean I agree with what you do with it. But, I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your money.
Totalitarianism is not a good thing.
but isn't he promoting totalitarianism with his money? also wasn't your original argument about not understanding why people are protesting...aren't people exercising their freedoms by protesting his place?
This is really such a stupid issue. We are $16T in debt, who cares about people stuffing their faces with genetically modified chicken?
This is why I have little faith with either side of the table reducing spending. When an issue like this can generate 100x more attention then our growing debt, the nation will never be focused enough to hold politics accountable on debt.
Too many shiny objects to distract us, there are. Yes, hmmm.
I think you have a right to do what you want with your money. That doesn't mean I agree with what you do with it. But, I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your money.
Totalitarianism is not a good thing.
but isn't he promoting totalitarianism with his money? also wasn't your original argument about not understanding why people are protesting...aren't people exercising their freedoms by protesting his place?
Good question. I think there's a slight difference here.
I think there's a difference between voicing an opinion on a potential law and potentially donating to fund that point of view... vs. .... someone who's trying to say he shouldn't voice his opinion or donate. He has freedom or speech and he's entitled to do what he wants with his money.
To my knowledge, this man is not saying gay rights side is not also entitled to their opinion or to spend their own money in the way they please. In fact, I'm pretty sure (although not positive) he's fine with them doing what ever they want to do. He just doesn't agree with a law and voiced his opinion.
I do think the gay rights side is exercising their freedom by protesting, I agree with that. But, I original point was not to say I don't understand gay rights protests in general, it was to say - I think this - "as an issue" is silly.... Remember the issue here is one person's opinion. One guy. I said it already, you can't change everyone's opinions or force them to agree with you.
This is really such a stupid issue. We are $16T in debt, who cares about people stuffing their faces with genetically modified chicken?
This is why I have little faith with either side of the table reducing spending. When an issue like this can generate 100x more attention then our growing debt, the nation will never be focused enough to hold politics accountable on debt.
Too many shiny objects to distract us, there are. Yes, hmmm.
Shhh, you're interrupting, I'm flipping back and forth between the Jersey Shore and the Kardashians while stuffing my face with chemically sweetened cola, GMO Doritos, and wiping my hands with these Federal Reserve notes because that's about all they are worth anymore.
No, it's not. But this isn't a black and white world and individually we sometimes compromise our beliefs. Kinda like voting for that guy that believes its ok to kill babies. I did that last time.
Again, the major problem I have with all of this is instead of having an open dialogue about this stuff we always resort to overwhelming support (i.e. Aug 1st) or complete and utter opposition (boycott, etc.)
I say a few people I know in that Chick-fil-a line and they are all very good people, some of the best I know. It's the religion and history that has made them so against Gay Marriage. If we can openly talk about it, I think it starts to whittle away. Hell, when I was in High School I remember not really understanding it and wondering how it could be natural if it couldn't sustain itself (ie can't have kids).
what does you voting for obama have anything to do with this? ... i mean how can you begin to say we should have a frank and open discussion when you just said the president believes its ok to kill babies ... if that isn't antagonistic - what is?
and i'm not really sure where you are going with your 'good people' line ... 50 years ago ... good people didn't allow black people on the bus ... 100 years ago good people had slaves ... this religious intolerance is problematic because it infringes on other peoples human rights ... i'm not sure why that is so hard to get ...
again - if you don't believe gay people should marry ... fine ... i'm ok with that ... but once you start trying to influence gov'ts or anywhere else to take that belief and start oppressing other people - it becomes a problem ...
Jesus, talk about antagonistic. Do you purposely try to slant my posts to annoy you? I'll bullet point it for you.
1) There are a lot of issues to consider when you are deciding who you support. Would you support someone in favor of gay marriage but wants to nuke Iran?
2) As far as my good people comment - I believe them to be reasonable and able to change their minds. I also believe they treat everyone with respect everyday in their personal dealings. They've just been told for so long that Jesus is against it so it's tough for them to go against Jesus. But, being good people, I think with open discussions continuing, they could understand that their position is wrong.
I believe not allowing Blacks on a bus or to drink from the same water fountain or go to the same school is more extreme than the marriage question. Some may disagree.
hippiemom = goodness
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
Wait a minute- when did Obama say it's ok to kill babies?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Again, the major problem I have with all of this is instead of having an open dialogue about this stuff we always resort to overwhelming support (i.e. Aug 1st) or complete and utter opposition (boycott, etc.)
I agree with this. How can views and ideas otherwise be legitimately exchanged, heard?
Last night on the news, they covered the hoopla at the CFA in Hollywood. I appreciate folks' passion on both sides of the issue - when openness of mind is involved. Thankfully, there were some there.
But then I had to shake my head at one dude who said that Cathy had no right to voice his views because (the dude believed) they're hateful. Whether Cathy's views are hateful or not is irrelevant to me - he has the right to express them. We have the right to disagree, or agree. Or not give a shit, too.
(I also don't get how PETA got themselves into the mix with signs encouraging people to become vegan, but that's another story)
There is such a thing as an opinion that is not worthy of respect. Just because someone has an opinion, it doesn't mean we always have to be all respectful and open-minded about it. Where did that idea come from, anyway?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Had me some Chick-fil-A Today....It was packed...It was awesome!!!! just to see All the people that showed up in support of freedom of speech...... I pulled in on empty........Started praying that I would not run out of gas............ Thank You God! for not letting me run out of gas as I sat in that longgggg line! I swear I saw that gas needle go back up a hair or two......Amen!
GOG BLESS AMERICA!!!
They are not supporting freedom of speech. They are against gay marriage and went because the president is as well. If the president had said he was for gay marriage those same people would be boycotting the place.
Exactly. This whole "freedom of speech" crap is just a cover for their real agenda, which is to stand against gay rights. They are totally full of shit.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I prefer to hear why someone believes as they do, probably moreso when I disagree with their opinion. Respecting the fact that someone has an opinion is in no way tantamount to agreeing with them. That's just me though.
Jesus, talk about antagonistic. Do you purposely try to slant my posts to annoy you? I'll bullet point it for you.
1) There are a lot of issues to consider when you are deciding who you support. Would you support someone in favor of gay marriage but wants to nuke Iran?
2) As far as my good people comment - I believe them to be reasonable and able to change their minds. I also believe they treat everyone with respect everyday in their personal dealings. They've just been told for so long that Jesus is against it so it's tough for them to go against Jesus. But, being good people, I think with open discussions continuing, they could understand that their position is wrong.
I believe not allowing Blacks on a bus or to drink from the same water fountain or go to the same school is more extreme than the marriage question. Some may disagree.
how did i slant your post!?? ... read it yourself - are you saying that what you said isn't antagonistic!? ...
do you not think your "good people" have had that discussion!?? ... has it not been in the news for some time now as a matter of public discussion!?? ... i am more than happy to have that discussion - i don't see how it has any relevance here ...
ya ... it is more extreme and we got rid of it ... yet in this day and age ... we are still fighting for the civil rights of gay people ... what does that say!??
I prefer to hear why someone believes as they do, probably moreso when I disagree with their opinion. Respecting the fact that someone has an opinion is in no way tantamount to agreeing with them. That's just me though.
I prefer to hear why someone believes as they do, probably moreso when I disagree with their opinion. Respecting the fact that someone has an opinion is in no way tantamount to agreeing with them. That's just me though.
In most cases I'd agree with you; I want to know why people believe what they do, especially when I disagree with them. But not in cases of racism and/or bigotry. I couldn't care less why someone feels racist or is against gay rights. No reasoning that they come up with is going to make me feel any more understanding or make their feelings any less wrong. The only reason I might care about reasoning is so that I can be better equipped to tell them how awful their viewpoint is. I'm not generally a black and white person AT ALL - very grey normally! But not when it comes to this issue. I couldn't be more black and white on this one, because I don't think there are degrees here. Hey, great for other people who can stay all calm and moderate on this issue. I sure am not capable of it. Someone arguing against gay marriage may as well be someone arguing that black people shouldn't be able to vote as far as I'm concerned.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
yet in this day and age ... we are still fighting for the civil rights of gay people ... what does that say!??
Probably been mentioned a quarter-trillion times, but would you be against gays receiving all benefits of a hetero married couple, yet calling it a something different... perhaps, a civil union or something?
Basically, I question - is it really all about "rights"? Or is about a group trying to wedge society (via government) into condoning a way of life that was previously shunned? Because if it was just about rights, the word marriage would be saved (for the people who think that matters) and I think the gay rights crowd would have a lot more support - so they would get all rights desired. Compromise is tough... "this day and age".
Easiest answer, however, is to get government out of marriage all together. I mean if it is a "word" issue, it comes down to what people "believe" that word means... and with "marriage" this mixes faith in with government. The worst part is we have government legislating definitions which are outside of it's scope. This would be no issue if churches and spiritual bodies would be the preeminent "marriage" institutions, not government.
Probably been mentioned a quarter-trillion times, but would you be against gays receiving all benefits of a hetero married couple, yet calling it a something different... perhaps, a civil union or something?
Basically, I question - is it really all about "rights"? Or is about a group trying to wedge society (via government) into condoning a way of life that was previously shunned? Because if it was just about rights, the word marriage would be saved (for the people who think that matters) and I think the gay rights crowd would have a lot more support - so they would get all rights desired. Compromise is tough... "this day and age".
Easiest answer, however, is to get government out of marriage all together. I mean if it is a "word" issue, it comes down to what people "believe" that word means... and with "marriage" this mixes faith in with government. The worst part is we have government legislating definitions which are outside of it's scope. This would be no issue if churches and spiritual bodies would be the preeminent "marriage" institutions, not government.
honestly - i would say it would be up to the lgbt community to decide that ... i don't believe that marriage is a religious term and even if it was ... it definitely isn't catholic term (there are some christian faiths that support gay marriage) ...
if the lgbt community said - we will accept civil unions and no longer feel like the imposition of these groups to deny me my rights are there ... then i support it and be done with it ... but until then - i think that they have every reason to fight this ...
as for the separation of church and state ... apparently easier said than done ...
Probably been mentioned a quarter-trillion times, but would you be against gays receiving all benefits of a hetero married couple, yet calling it a something different... perhaps, a civil union or something?
Basically, I question - is it really all about "rights"? Or is about a group trying to wedge society (via government) into condoning a way of life that was previously shunned? Because if it was just about rights, the word marriage would be saved (for the people who think that matters) and I think the gay rights crowd would have a lot more support - so they would get all rights desired. Compromise is tough... "this day and age".
Easiest answer, however, is to get government out of marriage all together. I mean if it is a "word" issue, it comes down to what people "believe" that word means... and with "marriage" this mixes faith in with government. The worst part is we have government legislating definitions which are outside of it's scope. This would be no issue if churches and spiritual bodies would be the preeminent "marriage" institutions, not government.
honestly - i would say it would be up to the lgbt community to decide that ... i don't believe that marriage is a religious term and even if it was ... it definitely isn't catholic term (there are some christian faiths that support gay marriage) ...
if the lgbt community said - we will accept civil unions and no longer feel like the imposition of these groups to deny me my rights are there ... then i support it and be done with it ... but until then - i think that they have every reason to fight this ...
as for the separation of church and state ... apparently easier said than done ...
The LBGT community has already said that isn't good enough. They want to get MARRIED like everyone else can.They aren't willing to accept it being something else, nor should they be expected to. It is NOT the same, and it would NOT amount to equal rights.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
how did i slant your post!?? ... read it yourself - are you saying that what you said isn't antagonistic!? ...
do you not think your "good people" have had that discussion!?? ... has it not been in the news for some time now as a matter of public discussion!?? ... i am more than happy to have that discussion - i don't see how it has any relevance here ...
ya ... it is more extreme and we got rid of it ... yet in this day and age ... we are still fighting for the civil rights of gay people ... what does that say!??
Newsflash, I wrote it I know what I meant by it. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Jeez, even on a topic where we can agree we can't fucking understand each other!
Newsflash, I wrote it I know what I meant by it. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Jeez, even on a topic where we can agree we can't fucking understand each other!
all you need to do is admit that saying "obama thinks its ok to kill babies" is in fact antagonistic and we can move on ... instead - you'd rather play the semantics card ...
Newsflash, I wrote it I know what I meant by it. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Jeez, even on a topic where we can agree we can't fucking understand each other!
all you need to do is admit that saying "obama thinks its ok to kill babies" is in fact antagonistic and we can move on ... instead - you'd rather play the semantics card ...
It wasn't. It's called context. And I never said anything about Obama. You are just missing the point here, which apparently I didn;t make clear enough (my bad), but you refuse to let it go (your bad).
Comments
I don't understand why government is involved in marriage at all. Government shouldn't be telling us what's right and what's wrong.... period. I mean they are government, after all.
That said, I don't understand what the ruckus is here. Under our constitution, this owner is entitled to an opinion on the subject, just like we are. Further, he's also entitled to speak out on his opinion, and if it's true he somehow donated to organizations that back laws regarding his opinion - he's entitled to do that. It's his money. It seems some just don't like his opinion on the subject.
Basically, I'm questioning the following:
1) Is he not allowed to have an opinion?
2) Is he not allowed to speak his opinion on the issue?
3) Is he not allowed to use his money as he pleases?
I believe he has a right to do all of the above. That said, I believe gay-rights advocates also have a right to:
1) Have an opinion
2) Speak their opinion
3) Use their money as they please
... Hence, why I don't understand the "severity" of this issue. It's equivalent to someone being upset about someone else's opinion on gay rights here on MT. This is one guy... the gay rights population has to come to terms with the fact that not every single person agrees with them, nor will they. No matter how strong they believe their case is, they can't force others to agree.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
don't forget the soggy bun and gooey pickles....
nothing says Jesus like a deepfried piece of chicken on a soggy bun...
But there are different ways to attack different issues. In the south, more drastic measures were needed as the rights that were being denied were far more important, imo.
Now, while it is still certainly an important issue, I think we are beyond the sit-in stage. It's time for continuous open dialogue. Because if you do, people will eventually see how silly they sound and start to wonder why they feel this way. it's only a matter of time.
well said...
however, I do find it funny that folks waited for hours for a mediocre sandwich...
what does you voting for obama have anything to do with this? ... i mean how can you begin to say we should have a frank and open discussion when you just said the president believes its ok to kill babies ... if that isn't antagonistic - what is?
and i'm not really sure where you are going with your 'good people' line ... 50 years ago ... good people didn't allow black people on the bus ... 100 years ago good people had slaves ... this religious intolerance is problematic because it infringes on other peoples human rights ... i'm not sure why that is so hard to get ...
again - if you don't believe gay people should marry ... fine ... i'm ok with that ... but once you start trying to influence gov'ts or anywhere else to take that belief and start oppressing other people - it becomes a problem ...
1. YES
2. YES
3. NO - not when that money is used to oppress people
would you be ok with me funding an organization that wants to ban white people from all public places?
I haven't really looked into it but I wonder how gay rights supporters spend their money,I mean on things other than gay rights support, are they all as squeeky clean as you make them out to be ? the poor picked on lgbt group that never hurt anybody ? I highly doubt it.
and why are we even talking about african american discrmination ? believe me I the last guy to care what color you are and just because I find lgbt "ICKY" doen't mean I would treat them differently than anybody else but I would not support their cause either.
Godfather.
I think you have a right to do what you want with your money. That doesn't mean I agree with what you do with it. But, I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do with your money.
Totalitarianism is not a good thing.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Too many shiny objects to distract us, there are. Yes, hmmm.
Good question. I think there's a slight difference here.
I think there's a difference between voicing an opinion on a potential law and potentially donating to fund that point of view... vs. .... someone who's trying to say he shouldn't voice his opinion or donate. He has freedom or speech and he's entitled to do what he wants with his money.
To my knowledge, this man is not saying gay rights side is not also entitled to their opinion or to spend their own money in the way they please. In fact, I'm pretty sure (although not positive) he's fine with them doing what ever they want to do. He just doesn't agree with a law and voiced his opinion.
I do think the gay rights side is exercising their freedom by protesting, I agree with that. But, I original point was not to say I don't understand gay rights protests in general, it was to say - I think this - "as an issue" is silly.... Remember the issue here is one person's opinion. One guy. I said it already, you can't change everyone's opinions or force them to agree with you.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Shhh, you're interrupting, I'm flipping back and forth between the Jersey Shore and the Kardashians while stuffing my face with chemically sweetened cola, GMO Doritos, and wiping my hands with these Federal Reserve notes because that's about all they are worth anymore.
Jesus, talk about antagonistic. Do you purposely try to slant my posts to annoy you? I'll bullet point it for you.
1) There are a lot of issues to consider when you are deciding who you support. Would you support someone in favor of gay marriage but wants to nuke Iran?
2) As far as my good people comment - I believe them to be reasonable and able to change their minds. I also believe they treat everyone with respect everyday in their personal dealings. They've just been told for so long that Jesus is against it so it's tough for them to go against Jesus. But, being good people, I think with open discussions continuing, they could understand that their position is wrong.
I believe not allowing Blacks on a bus or to drink from the same water fountain or go to the same school is more extreme than the marriage question. Some may disagree.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Last night on the news, they covered the hoopla at the CFA in Hollywood. I appreciate folks' passion on both sides of the issue - when openness of mind is involved. Thankfully, there were some there.
But then I had to shake my head at one dude who said that Cathy had no right to voice his views because (the dude believed) they're hateful. Whether Cathy's views are hateful or not is irrelevant to me - he has the right to express them. We have the right to disagree, or agree. Or not give a shit, too.
(I also don't get how PETA got themselves into the mix with signs encouraging people to become vegan, but that's another story)
It's funny that has now gone way over 2 people's heads so far.
And, I never said Obama, both you and polaris assumed.
On another note, good for The Abbey! I wonder if Prince of Dorkness has partaken of this yet? They're about five minutes from me.
http://www.wehodaily.com/2012/08/01/the ... age-fight/
how did i slant your post!?? ... read it yourself - are you saying that what you said isn't antagonistic!? ...
do you not think your "good people" have had that discussion!?? ... has it not been in the news for some time now as a matter of public discussion!?? ... i am more than happy to have that discussion - i don't see how it has any relevance here ...
ya ... it is more extreme and we got rid of it ... yet in this day and age ... we are still fighting for the civil rights of gay people ... what does that say!??
Probably been mentioned a quarter-trillion times, but would you be against gays receiving all benefits of a hetero married couple, yet calling it a something different... perhaps, a civil union or something?
Basically, I question - is it really all about "rights"? Or is about a group trying to wedge society (via government) into condoning a way of life that was previously shunned? Because if it was just about rights, the word marriage would be saved (for the people who think that matters) and I think the gay rights crowd would have a lot more support - so they would get all rights desired. Compromise is tough... "this day and age".
Easiest answer, however, is to get government out of marriage all together. I mean if it is a "word" issue, it comes down to what people "believe" that word means... and with "marriage" this mixes faith in with government. The worst part is we have government legislating definitions which are outside of it's scope. This would be no issue if churches and spiritual bodies would be the preeminent "marriage" institutions, not government.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
honestly - i would say it would be up to the lgbt community to decide that ... i don't believe that marriage is a religious term and even if it was ... it definitely isn't catholic term (there are some christian faiths that support gay marriage) ...
if the lgbt community said - we will accept civil unions and no longer feel like the imposition of these groups to deny me my rights are there ... then i support it and be done with it ... but until then - i think that they have every reason to fight this ...
as for the separation of church and state ... apparently easier said than done ...
Newsflash, I wrote it I know what I meant by it. So yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Jeez, even on a topic where we can agree we can't fucking understand each other!
all you need to do is admit that saying "obama thinks its ok to kill babies" is in fact antagonistic and we can move on ... instead - you'd rather play the semantics card ...
It wasn't. It's called context. And I never said anything about Obama. You are just missing the point here, which apparently I didn;t make clear enough (my bad), but you refuse to let it go (your bad).
ok ... who are you referring to then?