Chick-fil-a

[Kershaw]

whose happiness does it invade? Does it invade your happiness? Why does it invade your happiness?

ERMAHGERD, ERT ERNVERDERS MAH HERPERNERS BERCERS I CERNT STERP THERNKIN ERBERT TW MAHN SERXIN. I THERNK ERBERT THERS ERL DA TERM.

[rwh11385]

Whose happiness does it invade? Does it invade your happiness? Why does it invade your happiness? Sounds like a personal problem.

Maybe it "bothers them". Kinda like how the concept of interracial marriage bothered people before it was legalized, accepted, and gotten over.

[kronus]

That's not my point, I'm not using it in that sort of phrasing, such as the wickipedia page said, the people were separate but equal. Not simply a word to describe something. Again, men and women are separate but equal entities, are they not?

You're missing the point. After a lot of years of segregation (and also the whole apartheid thing in South Africa) and generally shitty times, "separate but equal" has come to be know as a pretty stupid idea that doesn't work in any situation it's applied to.

[kronus]

Maybe it "bothers them". Kinda like how the concept of interracial marriage bothered people before it was legalized, accepted, and gotten over.

It bothers me that people with such bigotry exist. Can we make it illegal to have opinions like that?

[rwh11385]

It bothers me that people with such bigotry exist. Can we make it illegal to have opinions like that?

Me too.


I don't think you can make ignorance or bigotry illegal, you can only hope they exit society through attrition and they don't train their offspring with Glenn Beck and Rush as well as homeschooling. People like FunfGan drag down society, but at least they are the minority these days.

[Kershaw]

sadly, i dont think so. but im hoping one day soon most people will put bigotry in their past.

relevant: easy rider. what a great movie.

[kronus]

My point was that we can't, because legislating away people you don't like should not be an option in a functional democracy. Come on guys.

[Kershaw]

lolol, i know we are really heated right now, but im pretty sure that was a joke.

and i should have clarified, "sadly, i dont think funfgan is a minority."

[rwh11385]

and i should have clarified, "sadly, i dont think funfgan is a minority."

But those who think gay marriage shouldn't be legal are a minority these days.


Not that you ought to have to have a majority support to allow minorities to have equal civil rights...


Maybe if he was in a minority social group, or had an ability to empathize, then he could understand this topic greater.

[DaveNorCal]

If all the government offered to anyone was domestic partnership and "marriage" was strictly a church thing, if all the rights of that currently are defined as being the rights of married people went to domestic partnerships, and if government did not use the word marriage at all, then everyone's domestic partnerships or civil unions would be equal. Equal is equal. Unequal is not equal.
Regardless, the trend is inexorable and people fighting against marriage equality are on the wrong side of the tide of history, just like poeple who oppose interracial marriage.
Interstingly CFA supports a "biblical definition of marriage." Throughout most of the bible, polygamy was the definition of marriage. Just saying.

[rwh11385]

[FunfGan]

But those who think gay marriage shouldn't be legal are a minority these days.


Not that you ought to have to have a majority support to allow minorities to have equal civil rights...


Maybe if he was in a minority social group, or had an ability to empathize, then he could understand this topic greater.

I'm a white, middle class, male, Christian. How more of a minority could I be? ;)


Also, after spending most of the day researching and reading blah blah blah, here is my revised stand on this issue:

While I still do not agree with homosexuality in a numerous amount of ways, it seems hypocritical to consider them equal, and to treat them the same etc etc, yet deny them a simple right like marriage, or any sort of right in this kind of sense. Especially when it does nothing but create controversy on both sides of the issue. And although this country has many seemingly theistic elements in its Constitution and laws, the fact that I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, there is nothing that explicitly denies that freedom from a political perspective.

See, I'm not close minded or bigoted, it just takes personal research to convince me :D

[FunfGan]

Interstingly CFA supports a "biblical definition of marriage." Throughout most of the bible, polygamy was the definition of marriage. Just saying.

Hmm, really? I seem to recall an entire town that was wiped out for their sins, including polygamy, that they were given many chances, and shown many times that God was real. Albeit, that was the OT. But even in NT books, polygamy is punished many times...

[DaveNorCal]

Point is, there is no consistent biblical definition of marriage. CFA's definition of "marriage" is what CFA wants it to be and they justify it by calling it "biblical." CFA is entitled to its opinions and to support them with money but they won't be using my money. Boycotting is also a protected form of speech, one that was eventually heard loud and clear by Coors.

[rwh11385]

I'm a white, middle class, male, Christian. How more of a minority could I be? ;)


Also, after spending most of the day researching and reading blah blah blah, here is my revised stand on this issue:

While I still do not agree with homosexuality in a numerous amount of ways, it seems hypocritical to consider them equal, and to treat them the same etc etc, yet deny them a simple right like marriage, or any sort of right in this kind of sense. Especially when it does nothing but create controversy on both sides of the issue. And although this country has many seemingly theistic elements in its Constitution and laws, the fact that I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, there is nothing that explicitly denies that freedom from a political perspective.

See, I'm not close minded or bigoted, it just takes personal research to convince me :D

There we go. You're human, so you are capable of learning, reasoning, and adapting. Good job. :)