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.
This.
Government should only have civil unions for ALL. Let the churches do what they want and call it what they want, but don't recognize it unless it is a Civil Union license.
Or.... just keep calling it marriage and let any 2 consenting adults (18+) enter into it if they wish. Why anyone would waste their $ fighting against it is beyond me.
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 ...
That doesn't make sense. You think this community doesn't have "civil rights", but you can't decide how exactly to get them those "rights"? You have to go to them and ask them "if we get you every right that married heterosexual couples have, but leave out the word marriage, is that enough to satisfy your rights"? Seriously? You can't know at the outset? I think you do know, you just don't want to say it.
So, I'll say it. You know, in the end, it's about the word. Because they can get those equal rights if they forfeited the word. But, why does this word even matter? Under the example I provided of a civil union (with equal legal rights to a married couple) you get them all the rights under the law except they drop the word as a concession... why does the word matter "to them"? We know why it matters to the Christians who are upset about it - it's religious to them, it's part of their faith. That definition is part of their religion and it's definition has fit for 1000s of years. So, why does it matter to the gay and lesbian community to get included? They've never had it in the past. Why do they need that word now?
It's ridiculous. This is not a battle to get equal "rights".... It's an attempt to force an entire society to condone a type of relationship. That's what I don't get. If it was about money or law, I get that. But, forcing viewpoints on right and wrong? That will never happen. Sects of people trying to force government to control it's people's beliefs on right and wrong. Government can't control people's beliefs no matter how hard they try. Totalitarianism... never really works.
I don't know why I even posted in here. This issue is so retarded. Give them the legal and monetary rights, concede the word marriage. Then the problems over. Everyone's happy.
Or, better yet, just get government out of marriage for heterosexuals. Then, bing, bang, boom... problem solved. Government should never be involved in these types of institutions. There's no point.
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 ...
That doesn't make sense. You think this community doesn't have "civil rights", but you can't decide how exactly to get them those "rights"? You have to go to them and ask them "if we get you every right that married heterosexual couples have, but leave out the word marriage, is that enough to satisfy your rights"? Seriously? You can't know at the outset? I think you do know, you just don't want to say it.
So, I'll say it. You know, in the end, it's about the word. Because they can get those equal rights if they forfeited the word. But, why does this word even matter? Under the example I provided of a civil union (with equal legal rights to a married couple) you get them all the rights under the law except they drop the word as a concession... why does the word matter "to them"? We know why it matters to the Christians who are upset about it - it's religious to them, it's part of their faith. That definition is part of their religion and it's definition has fit for 1000s of years. So, why does it matter to the gay and lesbian community to get included? They've never had it in the past. Why do they need that word now?
It's ridiculous. This is not a battle to get equal "rights".... It's an attempt to force an entire society to condone a type of relationship. That's what I don't get. If it was about money or law, I get that. But, forcing viewpoints on right and wrong? That will never happen. Sects of people trying to force government to control it's people's beliefs on right and wrong. Government can't control people's beliefs no matter how hard they try. Totalitarianism... never really works.
I don't know why I even posted in here. This issue is so retarded. Give them the legal and monetary rights, concede the word marriage. Then the problems over. Everyone's happy.
Or, better yet, just get government out of marriage for heterosexuals. Then, bing, bang, boom... problem solved. Government should never be involved in these types of institutions. There's no point.
Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
That doesn't make sense. You think this community doesn't have "civil rights", but you can't decide how exactly to get them those "rights"? You have to go to them and ask them "if we get you every right that married heterosexual couples have, but leave out the word marriage, is that enough to satisfy your rights"? Seriously? You can't know at the outset? I think you do know, you just don't want to say it.
So, I'll say it. You know, in the end, it's about the word. Because they can get those equal rights if they forfeited the word. But, why does this word even matter? Under the example I provided of a civil union (with equal legal rights to a married couple) you get them all the rights under the law except they drop the word as a concession... why does the word matter "to them"? We know why it matters to the Christians who are upset about it - it's religious to them, it's part of their faith. That definition is part of their religion and it's definition has fit for 1000s of years. So, why does it matter to the gay and lesbian community to get included? They've never had it in the past. Why do they need that word now?
It's ridiculous. This is not a battle to get equal "rights".... It's an attempt to force an entire society to condone a type of relationship. That's what I don't get. If it was about money or law, I get that. But, forcing viewpoints on right and wrong? That will never happen. Sects of people trying to force government to control it's people's beliefs on right and wrong. Government can't control people's beliefs no matter how hard they try. Totalitarianism... never really works.
I don't know why I even posted in here. This issue is so retarded. Give them the legal and monetary rights, concede the word marriage. Then the problems over. Everyone's happy.
Or, better yet, just get government out of marriage for heterosexuals. Then, bing, bang, boom... problem solved. Government should never be involved in these types of institutions. There's no point.
what are you talking about!? ... i said it's up to the lgbt community to decide ... how is that not deciding!? ... sure, it's about a word ... i have no problem agreeing to that summation ...
i do think you are mistaken to think that this is simply a battle over a word because in most places - civil unions aren't even allowed ... your so called concession that would make everyone happy isn't allowed in most states ...
you do understand what it means to be a "progressive" right? ... gay people were persecuted and outcast from society for so long ... only through social changes is it perceived to be ok to be gay but yet "in this day and age" we still have gay people being ostracized whether its bullying or in their attempts to get "married" ...
Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.
Draw the comparison. It's a word. They are free to do every single thing anyone else does. And they can do here, there or wherever they want.
The alignment of this topic with segregation is just plain ignorant.
Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.
Draw the comparison. It's a word. They are free to do every single thing anyone else does. And they can do here, there or wherever they want.
The alignment of this topic with segregation is just plain ignorant.
How so?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
what are you talking about!? ... i said it's up to the lgbt community to decide ... how is that not deciding!? ... sure, it's about a word ... i have no problem agreeing to that summation ...
Uh oh... here comes the dreaded "!?" and the more "!?"... watch out everyone.
What I'm talking about is exactly what I said. You can't simply say "_____ is what they need to get equal rights". You place in a caveat... "it's up to them to decide". I say - that's really, really weak.
i do think you are mistaken to think that this is simply a battle over a word because in most places - civil unions aren't even allowed ... your so called concession that would make everyone happy isn't allowed in most states ...
I think it would be if they conceded the fight for the word. Anyway, it was a hypothetical.
you do understand what it means to be a "progressive" right? ... gay people were persecuted and outcast from society for so long ... only through social changes is it perceived to be ok to be gay but yet "in this day and age" we still have gay people being ostracized whether its bullying or in their attempts to get "married" ...
Billions of people, groups and otherwise have been persecuted and outcast over the history of time. That has nothing to do with now and this dumb Chick-fil-A stuff. Today. If people attack physically or verbally a person of this persuasion they are either in jail or ostracized, and rightly so. This is not even an issue of tolerance. You know that. People tolerate just fine. It's an issue of a word. More deeply, it's an issue of condoning a relationship via government stamp of approval. There's a big difference between tolerance and condoning.
You can't make someone "condone" lifestyle choices. No matter how much you want to.
People have different viewpoints, and you can't can't AND SHOULDN'T try to change that. That's actually called "tolerance". Kinda comes full circle, and reiterates why this discussion is so stupid.
Giving it a different name with the same rights sounds a lot like the "separate but equal" issues that were introduced during the civil rights movement.
Draw the comparison. It's a word. They are free to do every single thing anyone else does. And they can do here, there or wherever they want.
The alignment of this topic with segregation is just plain ignorant.
Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage whatsoever?
what the!? ... clearly you haven't been reading inlet's posts ...
ok, you got me.
ahem ...
Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage or civil unions whatsoever?
Personally, I don't want government involved in marriage or civil unions. I was simply commenting on civil unions being a method to solve this dumb dispute.
If we're providing the same rights (equal) with a different name (separate) it seems to continue to add to the division. By not allowing people access to the same things with the same names (words) it continues to add to the notion that they are "different" or "less than."
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Personally, I don't want government involved in marriage or civil unions. I was simply commenting on civil unions being a method to solve this dumb dispute.
...
I agree with that...
Or how about stripping the government/legal 'rights' of married couples?
Either way... make it equal for everyone... married, single, divorced.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
What I'm talking about is exactly what I said. You can't simply say "_____ is what they need to get equal rights". You place in a caveat... "it's up to them to decide". I say - that's really, really weak.
you can call it weak ... i could care less ... clearly they are the ones most affected by the religious intolerance - i don't see a problem with letting them decide what is in their interests ...
I think it would be if they conceded the fight for the word. Anyway, it was a hypothetical.
i would say you'd be wrong ... there are plenty of people who don't want gay people to have those rights under any term whether it be civil unions or domestic partnerships ...
Billions of people, groups and otherwise have been persecuted and outcast over the history of time. That has nothing to do with now and this dumb Chick-fil-A stuff. Today. If people attack physically or verbally a person of this persuasion they are either in jail or ostracized, and rightly so. This is not even an issue of tolerance. You know that. People tolerate just fine. It's an issue of a word. More deeply, it's an issue of condoning a relationship via government stamp of approval. There's a big difference between tolerance and condoning.
You can't make someone "condone" lifestyle choices. No matter how much you want to.
People have different viewpoints, and you can't can't AND SHOULDN'T try to change that. That's actually called "tolerance". Kinda comes full circle, and reiterates why this discussion is so stupid.
i was simply responding to you saying that gays didn't care a thousand years ago about marriage - why should they care now ...
If we're providing the same rights (equal) with a different name (separate) it seems to continue to add to the division. By not allowing people access to the same things with the same names (words) it continues to add to the notion that they are "different" or "less than."
Couple responses:
Under this scenario...
They get the same rights, with different names - true. I don't see how that divides because...
1) They get the same rights, which is what they were "after".
2) ...intrinsically, they are "different" (not less than or greater than)... just different. Two men declaring their relationship forever is "different" than one man and one women doing the same, as is two couples declaring their love to all of the above forever. No matter how much some want to wish the"facts" away; it's a horrible, horrible truth... they are all different. So, one way to settle this, is to acknowledge that and move on.
Bottom line though - it's not equatable to separate, but equal. They aren't denied any rights under this scenario. They can do what they want, where they want, when they want. Just like a hetero married couple. In fact, if they want to say to their friends/family they are "married"... go ahead. But, under they law, they'll be united. Big difference? No. They aren't segregated whatsoever. Simply put, a different name is placed on the relationship, because like I said earlier, the horrible, horrible truth is... it is in fact, different.
Anyway, this is my attempt to solve this issue. Like I've said before, the government should just revoke all marriages. Leave it to the private/religious/spiritual sphere to take care of "granting" this label.
I havent really been following this much, but I was under the impression that if I knew all the inner workings of the assholes that run the companies I purchase products from, I'd be naked and fucking hungry.
I still think supporting the causes that Chick-fil-a does is pretty bad, but I dont go there anyway.
"Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:
"1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.
Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?
2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?
3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?
4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?
5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?
There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?"
I havent really been following this much, but I was under the impression that if I knew all the inner workings of the assholes that run the companies I purchase products from, I'd be naked and fucking hungry.
I still think supporting the causes that Chick-fil-a does is pretty bad, but I dont go there anyway.
"Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:
"1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.
Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?
2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?
3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?
4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?
5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?
There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?"
Thanks for posting.
I know he made these comments at church. Was it the fucking Westboro Baptist Church? Fuckin' bigot.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Personally, I don't want government involved in marriage or civil unions. I was simply commenting on civil unions being a method to solve this dumb dispute.
...
I agree with that...
Or how about stripping the government/legal 'rights' of married couples?
Either way... make it equal for everyone... married, single, divorced.
Agreed as well.
Though Danny and I are as committed for life as any couple who've formally made those vows, we may choose to never marry (and I do get the irony that we CAN marry and have it recognized in the eyes of the law). It's crazy that rights are automatically granted just for that act - especially when so many marriages fail anyway. Maybe some would take it more seriously if they had to go through the separate steps on their own (drawing up a will, being considered next of kin, etc.), rather than having them given.
Perhaps this is a tangent...just thinking out loud.
Also to JP re this:
"I havent really been following this much, but I was under the impression that if I knew all the inner workings of the assholes that run the companies I purchase products from, I'd be naked and fucking hungry."
Uh huh. We'd also not have a mortgage with a lender nor gas in our car :P
On the one hand, ignorance can be bliss - can be easier and simpler. I think it's about where and with whom one chooses their battles.
I havent really been following this much, but I was under the impression that if I knew all the inner workings of the assholes that run the companies I purchase products from, I'd be naked and fucking hungry.
I still think supporting the causes that Chick-fil-a does is pretty bad, but I dont go there anyway.
"Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:
"1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.
Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?
2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?
3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?
4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?
5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?
There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?"
If we're providing the same rights (equal) with a different name (separate) it seems to continue to add to the division. By not allowing people access to the same things with the same names (words) it continues to add to the notion that they are "different" or "less than."
Couple responses:
Under this scenario...
They get the same rights, with different names - true. I don't see how that divides because...
1) They get the same rights, which is what they were "after".
2) ...intrinsically, they are "different" (not less than or greater than)... just different. Two men declaring their relationship forever is "different" than one man and one women doing the same, as is two couples declaring their love to all of the above forever. No matter how much some want to wish the"facts" away; it's a horrible, horrible truth... they are all different. So, one way to settle this, is to acknowledge that and move on.
Bottom line though - it's not equatable to separate, but equal. They aren't denied any rights under this scenario. They can do what they want, where they want, when they want. Just like a hetero married couple. In fact, if they want to say to their friends/family they are "married"... go ahead. But, under they law, they'll be united. Big difference? No. They aren't segregated whatsoever. Simply put, a different name is placed on the relationship, because like I said earlier, the horrible, horrible truth is... it is in fact, different.
Anyway, this is my attempt to solve this issue. Like I've said before, the government should just revoke all marriages. Leave it to the private/religious/spiritual sphere to take care of "granting" this label.
I showed you mine, so thank you for showing me yours
I appreciate your thoughts on this and your ideas about resolving the issue and about governmental involvement in marriage. Fundamentally I struggle with the idea that same sex marriages are any different than heterosexual marriages (aside from the matching vs. complementary genitalia - but even that isn't always the case). Sexual orientation and gender identity are really on a continuum, although we like to put people in certain slots because this gives us an idea of how we should view them. In the end, they're people. So you have two adults wanting to enter into a marriage and all that entails. I think it's sticky to base these rights on sexual orientation and gender. What if a biological man and woman get married and one partner changes gender after the fact? Does that void the marriage? Or if the reverse happens - does that legitimize it? I really just can't see what the fundamental differences are. We also know that there is a whole lot of power in words because they shape and reflect how we see people and things. That's why the names we use to refer to a group of people continues to evolve and can result in heated feelings and conflicts. To give a different name to an entity that is fundamentally the same maintains it as somehow *different.*
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I find it bizarre that the debate over same-sex marriage has come down to what food you eat. There's no Chick-fil-A near me, I had never even heard of it until this controversy started, and if there was, I wouldn't eat there now that all of this insanity is going on, but if we are going to boycott Chick-fil-A, we need some consistency. Because everyone buys shit that is made in China, where gay couples have no rights at all. Gay people in China weren't even legally allowed to have gay sex until the 90's... should we protest all products made in China? Because obviously we won't. Who knows what other companies have CEOs who are against gay marriage? Should we begin an inquisition? Do we need to know the stance of every CEO... maybe FedEx supports gay marriage and UPS doesn't? How far are we supposed to go with this?
I think within a generation same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. Let it play out in the courts of law instead of the food courts.
I find it bizarre that the debate over same-sex marriage has come down to what food you eat. There's no Chick-fil-A near me, I had never even heard of it until this controversy started, and if there was, I wouldn't eat there now that all of this insanity is going on, but if we are going to boycott Chick-fil-A, we need some consistency. Because everyone buys shit that is made in China, where gay couples have no rights at all. Gay people in China weren't even legally allowed to have gay sex until the 90's... should we protest all products made in China? Because obviously we won't. Who knows what other companies have CEOs who are against gay marriage? Should we begin an inquisition? Do we need to know the stance of every CEO... maybe FedEx supports gay marriage and UPS doesn't? How far are we supposed to go with this?
I think within a generation same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. Let it play out in the courts of law instead of the food courts.
I think it'll go as far as the Hate groups want to take it, gay people are not going to back down at this point in history.
I find it bizarre that the debate over same-sex marriage has come down to what food you eat. There's no Chick-fil-A near me, I had never even heard of it until this controversy started, and if there was, I wouldn't eat there now that all of this insanity is going on, but if we are going to boycott Chick-fil-A, we need some consistency. Because everyone buys shit that is made in China, where gay couples have no rights at all. Gay people in China weren't even legally allowed to have gay sex until the 90's... should we protest all products made in China? Because obviously we won't. Who knows what other companies have CEOs who are against gay marriage? Should we begin an inquisition? Do we need to know the stance of every CEO... maybe FedEx supports gay marriage and UPS doesn't? How far are we supposed to go with this?
I think within a generation same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. Let it play out in the courts of law instead of the food courts.
I think it'll go as far as the Hate groups want to take it, gay people are not going to back down at this point in history.
And neither are a lot of straight allies. The Chick-fil-a debate has been interesting because so many of the supporter of cfa the other day were attempting to claim that they were supporting freedom of speech. What a load of shit argument that is, and they also know it. What they were doing was supporting speech that they agree with, but they weren't going to come out and say it. If you against it, then come out and say it: "hey, I got in line with 400 other people for junk food because I agree with the guy". It's gradually becoming more shameful to be against gay marriage, and they cling to these outdated ideals.
I havent really been following this much, but I was under the impression that if I knew all the inner workings of the assholes that run the companies I purchase products from, I'd be naked and fucking hungry.
I still think supporting the causes that Chick-fil-a does is pretty bad, but I dont go there anyway.
"Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:
"1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.
Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?
2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?
3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?
4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?
5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?
There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?"
thanks JP!
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I haven't actually had time to read this thread, so maybe this has already been covered, but I have three things to say about the issue:
1. I love(d) Chick-fil-A. I think I might have been its biggest fan. When they closed down the only Chick-fil-A in my town several years ago, I had my radio DJ sister start a whole campaign to bring them back. They recently finally opened one by my house and I couldn't have been more excited. Their food is fucking delicious!
2. I keep hearing people say that the owner is just one guy who just voiced his opinion and we shouldn't fault Chick-fil-A for that. So I did a little bit of research into that. Turns out that's not true. He not only voiced his opinion, but he financially supported groups that work to encourage the legal system to deny civil rights to a whole group of people. And, more importantly, it wasn't just the actions/opinion/money of one random guy; it was actually the Chick-fil-A corporation that donated millions of dollars to these groups.
3. I'm so sick of hearing people say that boycotting Chick-fil-A is somehow a violation - or at least attempted stifling - of free speech. Boycotting IS free speech. People just throw "free speech" around all the time without a care in the world about what it means - just to get people all riled up. No one is oppressing anyone's free speech here. Please move along to a more thoughtful and accurate argument.
3. I'm so sick of hearing people say that boycotting Chick-fil-A is somehow a violation - or at least attempted stifling - of free speech. Boycotting IS free speech. People just throw "free speech" around all the time without a care in the world about what it means - just to get people all riled up. No one is oppressing anyone's free speech here. Please move along to a more thoughtful and accurate argument.
agreed.....
glad you are back
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
Again, you are completely missing the point. I've done it more than 1 time for more than 1 person. Really, we are getting no where.
This.
Government should only have civil unions for ALL. Let the churches do what they want and call it what they want, but don't recognize it unless it is a Civil Union license.
Or.... just keep calling it marriage and let any 2 consenting adults (18+) enter into it if they wish. Why anyone would waste their $ fighting against it is beyond me.
That doesn't make sense. You think this community doesn't have "civil rights", but you can't decide how exactly to get them those "rights"? You have to go to them and ask them "if we get you every right that married heterosexual couples have, but leave out the word marriage, is that enough to satisfy your rights"? Seriously? You can't know at the outset? I think you do know, you just don't want to say it.
So, I'll say it. You know, in the end, it's about the word. Because they can get those equal rights if they forfeited the word. But, why does this word even matter? Under the example I provided of a civil union (with equal legal rights to a married couple) you get them all the rights under the law except they drop the word as a concession... why does the word matter "to them"? We know why it matters to the Christians who are upset about it - it's religious to them, it's part of their faith. That definition is part of their religion and it's definition has fit for 1000s of years. So, why does it matter to the gay and lesbian community to get included? They've never had it in the past. Why do they need that word now?
It's ridiculous. This is not a battle to get equal "rights".... It's an attempt to force an entire society to condone a type of relationship. That's what I don't get. If it was about money or law, I get that. But, forcing viewpoints on right and wrong? That will never happen. Sects of people trying to force government to control it's people's beliefs on right and wrong. Government can't control people's beliefs no matter how hard they try. Totalitarianism... never really works.
I don't know why I even posted in here. This issue is so retarded. Give them the legal and monetary rights, concede the word marriage. Then the problems over. Everyone's happy.
Or, better yet, just get government out of marriage for heterosexuals. Then, bing, bang, boom... problem solved. Government should never be involved in these types of institutions. There's no point.
<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="
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
what are you talking about!? ... i said it's up to the lgbt community to decide ... how is that not deciding!? ... sure, it's about a word ... i have no problem agreeing to that summation ...
i do think you are mistaken to think that this is simply a battle over a word because in most places - civil unions aren't even allowed ... your so called concession that would make everyone happy isn't allowed in most states ...
you do understand what it means to be a "progressive" right? ... gay people were persecuted and outcast from society for so long ... only through social changes is it perceived to be ok to be gay but yet "in this day and age" we still have gay people being ostracized whether its bullying or in their attempts to get "married" ...
Draw the comparison. It's a word. They are free to do every single thing anyone else does. And they can do here, there or wherever they want.
The alignment of this topic with segregation is just plain ignorant.
<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="
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
what the!? ... clearly you haven't been reading inlet's posts ...
ahem ...
Am I the only person that doesn't want the government involved in marriage or civil unions whatsoever?
Uh oh... here comes the dreaded "!?" and the more "!?"... watch out everyone.
What I'm talking about is exactly what I said. You can't simply say "_____ is what they need to get equal rights". You place in a caveat... "it's up to them to decide". I say - that's really, really weak.
I think it would be if they conceded the fight for the word. Anyway, it was a hypothetical.
Billions of people, groups and otherwise have been persecuted and outcast over the history of time. That has nothing to do with now and this dumb Chick-fil-A stuff. Today. If people attack physically or verbally a person of this persuasion they are either in jail or ostracized, and rightly so. This is not even an issue of tolerance. You know that. People tolerate just fine. It's an issue of a word. More deeply, it's an issue of condoning a relationship via government stamp of approval. There's a big difference between tolerance and condoning.
You can't make someone "condone" lifestyle choices. No matter how much you want to.
People have different viewpoints, and you can't can't AND SHOULDN'T try to change that. That's actually called "tolerance". Kinda comes full circle, and reiterates why this discussion is so stupid.
<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="
You first.
<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="
Personally, I don't want government involved in marriage or civil unions. I was simply commenting on civil unions being a method to solve this dumb dispute.
<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="
If we're providing the same rights (equal) with a different name (separate) it seems to continue to add to the division. By not allowing people access to the same things with the same names (words) it continues to add to the notion that they are "different" or "less than."
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I agree with that...
Or how about stripping the government/legal 'rights' of married couples?
Either way... make it equal for everyone... married, single, divorced.
Hail, Hail!!!
apparently, this is a problem for you!? ...
you can call it weak ... i could care less ... clearly they are the ones most affected by the religious intolerance - i don't see a problem with letting them decide what is in their interests ...
i would say you'd be wrong ... there are plenty of people who don't want gay people to have those rights under any term whether it be civil unions or domestic partnerships ...
i was simply responding to you saying that gays didn't care a thousand years ago about marriage - why should they care now ...
Couple responses:
Under this scenario...
They get the same rights, with different names - true. I don't see how that divides because...
1) They get the same rights, which is what they were "after".
2) ...intrinsically, they are "different" (not less than or greater than)... just different. Two men declaring their relationship forever is "different" than one man and one women doing the same, as is two couples declaring their love to all of the above forever. No matter how much some want to wish the"facts" away; it's a horrible, horrible truth... they are all different. So, one way to settle this, is to acknowledge that and move on.
Bottom line though - it's not equatable to separate, but equal. They aren't denied any rights under this scenario. They can do what they want, where they want, when they want. Just like a hetero married couple. In fact, if they want to say to their friends/family they are "married"... go ahead. But, under they law, they'll be united. Big difference? No. They aren't segregated whatsoever. Simply put, a different name is placed on the relationship, because like I said earlier, the horrible, horrible truth is... it is in fact, different.
Anyway, this is my attempt to solve this issue. Like I've said before, the government should just revoke all marriages. Leave it to the private/religious/spiritual sphere to take care of "granting" this label.
<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="
I still think supporting the causes that Chick-fil-a does is pretty bad, but I dont go there anyway.
Here's an article I stumbled on (truth to this?):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bad ... ref=topbar
"Here are five reasons why Chick-fil-A isn't what you think:
"1) Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.
Even if you oppose same-sex marriage, do you really want to support a company that advocates putting gay people in jail, or "exporting" them, just because they're gay?
2) Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy didn't merely say he supports traditional marriage. Dan Cathy said if you support gay marriage, you "are inviting God's judgment on our nation," and that we "shake our fist at Him" when we do. Dan Cathy also said same-sex marriage is the result of a "deprived" mind and called it "twisted up kind of stuff."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you really think gay marriage is "inviting God's judgment on our nation"? Haven't we all heard enough blame from those who claim to speak for the Lord, like after Katrina or, more recently, after the shooting in Aurora, Colo.?
3) Chick-fil-A supports organizations that have claimed they can change gay people into straight people -- "pray away the gay" -- despite the fact that practically every major medical organization has stated that this is not only impossible but dangerous and harmful.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you support fake "science" that is known to harm the very people it claims to help?
4) The media keep saying Chick-fil-A has never discriminated, but the truth is that Chick-fil-A has been sued over a dozen times for employment discrimination. That's what a leading business publication, Forbes, stated in 2007, when they also called Chick-fil-A a "cult" and reported that Chick-fil-A's founder and CEO Truett Cathy said he wanted to hire married people because they are more industrious and productive. Truett Cathy has also said he would probably fire someone who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support what some call a "cult" whose CEO says he would fire employees for "being sinful"?
5) Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There's a line between the "free exercise of religion" and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be "stay home" moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that's not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that's not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.
Even if you don't support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be "stay home" moms against their will?
There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?"
Thanks for posting.
I know he made these comments at church. Was it the fucking Westboro Baptist Church? Fuckin' bigot.
Though Danny and I are as committed for life as any couple who've formally made those vows, we may choose to never marry (and I do get the irony that we CAN marry and have it recognized in the eyes of the law). It's crazy that rights are automatically granted just for that act - especially when so many marriages fail anyway. Maybe some would take it more seriously if they had to go through the separate steps on their own (drawing up a will, being considered next of kin, etc.), rather than having them given.
Perhaps this is a tangent...just thinking out loud.
Also to JP re this:
"I havent really been following this much, but I was under the impression that if I knew all the inner workings of the assholes that run the companies I purchase products from, I'd be naked and fucking hungry."
Uh huh. We'd also not have a mortgage with a lender nor gas in our car :P
On the one hand, ignorance can be bliss - can be easier and simpler. I think it's about where and with whom one chooses their battles.
Good info thanks ..
I appreciate your thoughts on this and your ideas about resolving the issue and about governmental involvement in marriage. Fundamentally I struggle with the idea that same sex marriages are any different than heterosexual marriages (aside from the matching vs. complementary genitalia - but even that isn't always the case). Sexual orientation and gender identity are really on a continuum, although we like to put people in certain slots because this gives us an idea of how we should view them. In the end, they're people. So you have two adults wanting to enter into a marriage and all that entails. I think it's sticky to base these rights on sexual orientation and gender. What if a biological man and woman get married and one partner changes gender after the fact? Does that void the marriage? Or if the reverse happens - does that legitimize it? I really just can't see what the fundamental differences are. We also know that there is a whole lot of power in words because they shape and reflect how we see people and things. That's why the names we use to refer to a group of people continues to evolve and can result in heated feelings and conflicts. To give a different name to an entity that is fundamentally the same maintains it as somehow *different.*
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I think within a generation same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide. Let it play out in the courts of law instead of the food courts.
I think it'll go as far as the Hate groups want to take it, gay people are not going to back down at this point in history.
And neither are a lot of straight allies. The Chick-fil-a debate has been interesting because so many of the supporter of cfa the other day were attempting to claim that they were supporting freedom of speech. What a load of shit argument that is, and they also know it. What they were doing was supporting speech that they agree with, but they weren't going to come out and say it. If you against it, then come out and say it: "hey, I got in line with 400 other people for junk food because I agree with the guy". It's gradually becoming more shameful to be against gay marriage, and they cling to these outdated ideals.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
1. I love(d) Chick-fil-A. I think I might have been its biggest fan. When they closed down the only Chick-fil-A in my town several years ago, I had my radio DJ sister start a whole campaign to bring them back. They recently finally opened one by my house and I couldn't have been more excited. Their food is fucking delicious!
2. I keep hearing people say that the owner is just one guy who just voiced his opinion and we shouldn't fault Chick-fil-A for that. So I did a little bit of research into that. Turns out that's not true. He not only voiced his opinion, but he financially supported groups that work to encourage the legal system to deny civil rights to a whole group of people. And, more importantly, it wasn't just the actions/opinion/money of one random guy; it was actually the Chick-fil-A corporation that donated millions of dollars to these groups.
3. I'm so sick of hearing people say that boycotting Chick-fil-A is somehow a violation - or at least attempted stifling - of free speech. Boycotting IS free speech. People just throw "free speech" around all the time without a care in the world about what it means - just to get people all riled up. No one is oppressing anyone's free speech here. Please move along to a more thoughtful and accurate argument.
glad you are back
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."