GreecePwns wrote:Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".
so you're an anarchist? because imposing morals is all the state does.
In this country, it's supposed to do so without the aid of religion.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
GreecePwns wrote:Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".
so you're an anarchist? because imposing morals is all the state does.
In this country, it's supposed to do so without the aid of religion.
i agree 100%
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
GreecePwns wrote:Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".
so you're an anarchist? because imposing morals is all the state does.
In this country, it's supposed to do so without the aid of religion.
i agree 100%
That's the problem...what type marries what type is irrelevant outside of religion and certain abuse and health concerns.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
GreecePwns wrote:Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".
so you're an anarchist? because imposing morals is all the state does.
In this country, it's supposed to do so without the aid of religion.
i agree 100%
That's the problem...what type marries what type is irrelevant outside of religion and certain abuse and health concerns.
it makes one wonder why the state is involved in marriage at all...
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
GreecePwns wrote:Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".
so you're an anarchist? because imposing morals is all the state does.
In this country, it's supposed to do so without the aid of religion.
i agree 100%
That's the problem...what type marries what type is irrelevant outside of religion and certain abuse and health concerns.
it makes one wonder why the state is involved in marriage at all...
We are in complete agreement on this issue, I believe (acknowledging the exceptions I mentioned above).
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:I would support the decision on gay marriage if it passed here, that is to say I would respect the opposing position in their victory. But you gotta ask, will the other side respect our victory if we win? OF COURSE THEY WON'T!
Thank you for some honesty for once; thats all I was after.
Now of course in my opinion that makes you a bigot; but ive never said theres anything too wrong with that kind of bigotry - its your opinion and you are more than entitled to it; who am I to tell you what to think.
And its the nature of the argument that one side is going to be happier/more accepting than the other:
- On one had nothing really changes other than "those queer folk" having more rights - regardless of how you feel about them having those rights, it makes little or no difference to your daily life
- On the other hand you are denying someone something that will directly affect their life
I mean look at you and I; we are on either side of the coin. Both of us would be just as accepting if the decision went against us. But in the case where I was gay I can tell you I would be much less accepting in defeat, and much more celebratory in success.
And this is the key to why it shouldnt be a democratic decision. Why would you let 100% of the population vote on an issue that, pragmatically speaking, only directly affects less than 10% of the population?
Sure theres indirect effects such as the [subjective] weakening of the churches version of marriage, but is an indirect effect equal to a direct effect?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Woodruff wrote:We are in complete agreement on this issue, I believe (acknowledging the exceptions I mentioned above).
The government being involved gives marriage more "weight" or "legitimacy" for us non-religious types I believe (if thats what you guys are talking about).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Woodruff wrote:We are in complete agreement on this issue, I believe (acknowledging the exceptions I mentioned above).
The government being involved gives marriage more "weight" or "legitimacy" for us non-religious types I believe (if thats what you guys are talking about).
See, I don't get that. For me, all of the "weight" or "legitimacy" comes from my intent to spend the rest of my life with my wife.
Now, that ignores the reality of today, wherein the government being involved impacts your life in very significant ways, which is why most non-religious people do get married these days (rather than opting for living together or even "common law marriages").
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote: I would support the decision on gay marriage if it passed here, that is to say I would respect the opposing position in their victory. But you gotta ask, will the other side respect our victory if we win? OF COURSE THEY WON'T!
So if your state votes that blacks and whites can no longer marry, or Christians and Jews cannot marry.. that is OK?
(not that that would every have happened in our history... )
Woodruff wrote:We are in complete agreement on this issue, I believe (acknowledging the exceptions I mentioned above).
The government being involved gives marriage more "weight" or "legitimacy" for us non-religious types I believe (if thats what you guys are talking about).
See, I don't get that. For me, all of the "weight" or "legitimacy" comes from my intent to spend the rest of my life with my wife.
Now, that ignores the reality of today, wherein the government being involved impacts your life in very significant ways, which is why most non-religious people do get married these days (rather than opting for living together or even "common law marriages").
Yeah, but its a cultural thing rather than any rational behaviour. My parents got married, my friends got married, everyone I know has "officially put a stamp on their realationship by getting married". (Personally my parents also got divorced and didnt really like each other, so I have no special attachment to marriage and am abivilent on the issue; my wife however is far more of a cultural-traditionalist than I )
It also is a cultral practice that on the surface seems to be good for the population. Thus it tends to be encouraged (which I guess is where the state involvement came from in the first place). (I cant actually comment on whether it is good for the population as I have nfi).
Sure in a perfect world we are all immune to these cultral drivers and get married for the same reasons as you. But the divorce rate points quite clearly at imperfection.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Phatscotty wrote:I would support the decision on gay marriage if it passed here, that is to say I would respect the opposing position in their victory. But you gotta ask, will the other side respect our victory if we win? OF COURSE THEY WON'T!
Thank you for some honesty for once; thats all I was after.
I have said this ALL along. As you can see, it's not very easy to communicate with crazy people blabbering all over the posts.
Last edited by Phatscotty on Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Phatscotty wrote: I would support the decision on gay marriage if it passed here, that is to say I would respect the opposing position in their victory. But you gotta ask, will the other side respect our victory if we win? OF COURSE THEY WON'T!
So if your state votes that blacks and whites can no longer marry, or Christians and Jews cannot marry.. that is OK?
(not that that would every have happened in our history... )
any man can marry any woman, regardless of race or religion.
Why do I have to keep lecturing Progressives about these things?
Woodruff wrote:We are in complete agreement on this issue, I believe (acknowledging the exceptions I mentioned above).
The government being involved gives marriage more "weight" or "legitimacy" for us non-religious types I believe (if thats what you guys are talking about).
See, I don't get that. For me, all of the "weight" or "legitimacy" comes from my intent to spend the rest of my life with my wife.
Now, that ignores the reality of today, wherein the government being involved impacts your life in very significant ways, which is why most non-religious people do get married these days (rather than opting for living together or even "common law marriages").
Yeah, but its a cultural thing rather than any rational behaviour. My parents got married, my friends got married, everyone I know has "officially put a stamp on their realationship by getting married". (Personally my parents also got divorced and didnt really like each other, so I have no special attachment to marriage and am abivilent on the issue; my wife however is far more of a cultural-traditionalist than I )
Ok, I can absolutely see the "traditionalist" rationale for getting married, particularly when acceptance of family is involved.
Lootifer wrote:It also is a cultral practice that on the surface seems to be good for the population. Thus it tends to be encouraged (which I guess is where the state involvement came from in the first place). (I cant actually comment on whether it is good for the population as I have nfi).
I tend to believe it is good for society in general, as it provides for some stability.
Lootifer wrote:Sure in a perfect world we are all immune to these cultral drivers and get married for the same reasons as you. But the divorce rate points quite clearly at imperfection.
Lies! It's all lies!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Phatscotty wrote:I would support the decision on gay marriage if it passed here, that is to say I would respect the opposing position in their victory. But you gotta ask, will the other side respect our victory if we win? OF COURSE THEY WON'T!
Thank you for some honesty for once; thats all I was after.
I have said this ALL along. As you can see, it's not very easy to communicate with crazy people treading all over the posts.
You seldom answer direct questions.
But since you will now be pushed to answer question or admit im correct... lets have some fun. Ill try not to breach any of your privacy (im not looking to do that, im just looking to understand your viewpoints, I like understanding different peoples views as I feel it makes me personally a better person).
1) What type of organisation funds your new public speaking and promotion role? (im looking for church, political group, goverment, private company or something generic like that, details arent neccessary).
2) If your state (Minnisota isnt it?) had a law that said black people were only allowed to have a relationship with other black people would you work to overthrow this law or support a group that did?
3) In the scenario where Ron Paul doesnt run as an indy, what way will you vote?
4) Would you support a group that pushed for a state vote to outlaw homosexuality?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Phatscotty wrote: I would support the decision on gay marriage if it passed here, that is to say I would respect the opposing position in their victory. But you gotta ask, will the other side respect our victory if we win? OF COURSE THEY WON'T!
So if your state votes that blacks and whites can no longer marry, or Christians and Jews cannot marry.. that is OK?
(not that that would every have happened in our history... )
any man can marry any woman, regardless of race or religion. Why do I have to keep lecturing Progressives about these things?
Probably because your lecture is dumn and stupidl.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
WOW! I read page 1, then jumped to page 7 of this thread. I get the impression that I didn't miss much worth reading! As usual, the special interest groups have rushed to judgement and jumped on the bandwagon, spreading false information to try to lead their "cause". This is a non-issue at best. But the main stream media are so desperate to validate their mere existence, they will run with false stories like this just to get a few people to watch their shows/read their papers! I've never eaten at a Chic-fil-A, but that's because we don't have one where I live. I should also mention that I don't give a flying f*ck what 2 people do in the privacy of their home, as long as they keep me out of it and don't try to push their beliefs on me! Peace!
Media Invents Story That Chick-fil-A President Condemned Gay Marriage
Like I pointed out at the very beginning, the CEO did not even mention the words "gay marriage", he said he supported traditional values. You guys have let your hatred and bigotry get the best of you to the point where it doesn't even matter if he said it or not.
Last week, reports emerged that Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy had condemned gay marriage. It's no secret that the company is run by devout Christians, but this still caused an uproar. Boston's mayor threatened to deny the company business permits, celebrities condemned the company, and the Muppets announced fast food chain wouldn't be able to license any new toys for their kids meals.
One small problem: The president of Chick-fil-A never actually said anything condemning gay marriage. Here's how CNN reported the story:
(CNN)–The fact that Chick-fil-A is a company that espouses Christian values is no secret. The fact that its 1,600 fast-food chicken restaurants across the country are closed on Sundays has long been testament to that.
"Guilty as charged,", Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit.
"We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that," Cathy is quoted as saying.
But Terry Mattingly at the website GetReligion (where I am an occasional contributor) notes that if you look at the original context of the interview, Cathy wasn't asked about gay marriage nor did he say anything about it. Here's the actual interview CNN and others cited from the Biblical Recorder and that was carried by the Baptist Press:
“We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, “There is no such thing as a Christian business.”
“That got my attention,” Cathy said. Roach went on to say, “Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me.”
“In that spirit … [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are,” Cathy added. “But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”
And here's what Cathy says about marriage:
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …
“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
To say that Cathy condemned gay marriage is stunningly dishonest. And yet, Cathy's had to endure headlines such as, "Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-fil-A Franchise from City over Homophobic Attitude" -- and that headline comes from Time, which is allegedly one of the more responsible media outlets.
CNN, Time and many other news organizations owe Cathy and Chick-fil-A some serious corrections and/or clarifications. It should further cause news organizations -- particularly in the wake of ABC's absurd speculation that the Aurora killings were done by a Tea Partier and many news organizations falling for Greenpeace's intentionally deceptive campaign against Shell Oil -- to reflect on why these kinds of egregrious media errors habitually reflect left-wing political narratives.
More Bias from CNN, which had to make a statement concerning their bias and incivility, AGAIN!
Here is how the cowardly CNN handled their latest blunder
CNN says it wasn't editorializing when it used the pop song "Stupid Girls" to introduce a segment about Sarah Palin on Sunday.
Pop star Pink was heard singing the lyrics, "stupid girl, stupid girls" just before a photo was shown onscreen of Palin posing with her husband Todd at a Chick-fil-A outpost in Texas.
Palin had posted the photo on Twitter and Facebook to show support for the fast-food chicken chain, which is under fire from gay rights groups after CEO Dan Cathy said his company supports "the biblical definition of the family unit."
In an emailed statement, CNN said it didn't mean to wade into the controversy with its song choice.
"The music selection was a poor choice and was not intended to be linked to any news story," a CNN spokesperson said. "We regret any perception that they were planned together."
This isn't the first time there has been controversy over the music used to introduce a politician on TV.
Last year, Jimmy Fallon's house band The Roots welcomed then-presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann to “Late Night” with a snippet of the Fishbone song, "Lyin' Ass B-." Fallon later quipped that the band was "grounded" and Ahmir "Questlove" Thompson confirmed they were being asked to run all its song choices past the network after the incident.
Chicago's Cardinal George on anti- Chick-Fil-A bigotry: "I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval."
natty dread wrote: So, what you're saying is, black people should only be allowed to marry black people?
you judge people by race before even noticing their gender?
the depth of your racism is impressive. at least you aren't a sexist, though
Be careful - that point whistling over your head could hurt of you caught it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
The main issue is that some people view majority rule, or the acts of a politician, only as legitimate, so far as the acts of that politician conform with their own worldview of the 'good life.' Needless to say, even if such acts discriminate against a company (e.g. Chick-Fil-A can no longer open shop at place X), this discrimination is still deemed acceptable.
Others say, respect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of voluntary association and commerce.
libertarian stance: Although I don't support the messages espoused by Chick-Fil-A, I still support the latter's message because the best way to a civil and free society is through promoting change on a voluntary basis. This can be done through 'voting' with one's money, such as the choice of buying Chick-Fil-A products or not. Or, this can be through protesting in front of Chick-Fil-A for political reasons A, B, or C. Nevertheless, the unacceptable path of promoting change is through involuntary exchange, i.e. appealing and supporting the state in their removal of the governed people's choice in this matter.
One major caveat: initiating violence against others is impermissible. Is Chick-Fil-A initiating violence against gays for funding organizations which seek to prevent gays from marrying? This does cause them harm, but are the means violent? They seem non-violent to me. Is their goal violent? I'm undecided. Violence typically entails physical harm, so it depends on how you construe physical harm...
And, is the institution of all marriages the sole property of any religion? Under their jurisdictions, it is, but only within their own jurisdictions, and not the jurisdiction of all people (i.e. federal political boundaries). Any religion doesn't have the legal right to dictate marriage for other jurisdictions, so they're campaigning seems without any legal basis.
One major caveat: initiating violence against others is impermissible. Is Chick-Fil-A initiating violence against gays for funding organizations which seek to prevent gays from marrying? This does cause them harm, but are the means violent? They seem non-violent to me. Is their goal violent? I'm undecided. Violence typically entails physical harm, so it depends on how you construe physical harm...
Most people draw the line well short of physical violance.
Also, the idea that people truly are able to fight big corporations by "fighting with their feet" is belied by corporations like Walmart. In many communities, people just don't have any other option. To claim that making the decision to not pay triple or more for the same goods (including gas/travel expenses), when you are making barely above minimum wage or perhaps even on public assistance is really a "free choice" is silly. And that small choice is only possible IF you even have access to reasonable transportation (which many areas do not).
When Walmart is able to "convince" local leaders to give them phenomenal tax breaks.. for the privilage of destroying local businesses, its not about freedom or real choice, its about a big corporations having the money and tools to get what they want, never mind what is really best in the long term for an area.
In this case, if he has the right to speak.. then other people have the right to say they dislike the speech, and to act accordingly.