Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are you for real? Is this honestly the only function of marriage in our mind? And what by your estimation precisely constitutes a family? Do you not consider my friends without children to conform to the correct definition of a family.

You sure do spout a lot of rhetoric without thinking very carefully about the words you are using to do so.

On the contrary, I am pretty sure he does.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by 10W30

I lurk here a lot and log in to post infrequently, but I LOVE it when you post on this topic Text. I always feel a little smarter after I read something you wrote.

Thanks. Thanks for the stuff you have written in the past and thanks in advance for the stuff I will be reading in the future.


Now, if I can get my little chide in and slip back out of here:

Gay people DON'T lie with man the way they do with women anyway, do they? In a certain context that verse seems to be against bi-sexual folks as a kind of "pick one and stick to it, but don't lie with one like you do with the other".

Anyhow, that is just a bit tongue in cheek as the bible is of little relevance for rules in my life, and more of a fascinating collection of documents. Fascinating in the sense of how polarizing it is and can be for people and groups.

+1.

Reading Textcritic's posts are like reading text porn. Great writer whether you agree with him or not.

I also look forward to reading his future posts, and also feel like I've learnt something after reading any one of his posts.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Anyone who self-identifies themselves as a redneck is probably going to make an ignorant comment or two. Redneck isn't exactly a term of endearment.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

...In short, let the market sort it out. Let this guy be destroyed by an angry base of consumers with money, and good consciences, who decide to cross the street and eat at McDonald's, instead of Chick-Fil-A.

This sounds good, but I fear that it fails to adress the reality of the current situation, in which the religiously motivated lobby is so strong and so dedicated as to have the opposite effect. In actual fact, Chik-Fil-A (I can't believe I accidently called it "Chik-A-Flik" in a previous post!) is likely to benefit from their very public apparent opposition to gay marriage. As many as the boycotters may number, you can be absolutely certain that there will be at least as many patrons who will go out of their way to support this establishment, precisely because of its owner's social views.

We are talking about a Christian sub-culture that builds their own schools, hospitals—even neighbourhoods— produces their own radio, television, and film. Hell, this is a movement that goes so far as to publish their own one-stop inventory of businesses, so as to protect their members from ever having one of those unnecessary and unpleasant encounters with some one or some establishment that might happen to fall "outside the Kingdom" (http://www.shepherdsguide.ca/). I happen to live within this sub-culture, and I can readily attest that the insider/outsider construct—while in many respects implicit—is fiercely and consistently operative. I can't tell you how many times a celebrity, a business, or an organization is glowingly identified as "Christian" or "Evangelical" by my peers, as if to suggest that it belongs on a higher plane: Filma produced by "Christian filmmakers" are better because they self-identify as Christians. Food in "Christian" owned and operated restaurants is better precisely because they self-identify as Christians. When Justin Bieber publicly proclaimed his own faith, it suddenly became inappropriate in my social circles to criticize his music.

Ideally, we could let the market dictate the fate of openly outspoken bigots, but I fear that in our own religiously fragmented society, the market's true power is usurped by dangerous ideologies.

[Displaced Flames fan]

1. Who cares what Dan Cathy thinks or who he donates money to? If you don't want to contribute to his donations don't buy his product. You won't be missing much. He has every right to believe what he believes and donate money to where he wants. People have every right to not buy his product because of it. Government does not have the right to impede his ability to open a store based on his beliefs. Sorry.

2. Who cares what Tim Thomas thinks period?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This sounds good, but I fear that it fails to adress the reality of the current situation, in which the religiously motivated lobby is so strong and so dedicated as to have the opposite effect. In actual fact, Chik-Fil-A (I can't believe I accidently called it "Chik-A-Flik" in a previous post!) is likely to benefit from their very public apparent opposition to gay marriage. As many as the boycotters may number, you can be absolutely certain that there will be at least as many patrons who will go out of their way to support this establishment, precisely because of its owner's social views.

We are talking about a Christian sub-culture that builds their own schools, hospitals—even neighbourhoods— produces their own radio, television, and film. Hell, this is a movement that goes so far as to publish their own one-stop inventory of businesses, so as to protect their members from ever having one of those unnecessary and unpleasant encounters with some one or some establishment that might happen to fall "outside the Kingdom" (http://www.shepherdsguide.ca/). I happen to live within this sub-culture, and I can readily attest that the insider/outsider construct—while in many respects implicit—is fiercely and consistently operative. I can't tell you how many times a celebrity, a business, or an organization is glowingly identified as "Christian" or "Evangelical" by my peers, as if to suggest that it belongs on a higher plane: Filma produced by "Christian filmmakers" are better because they self-identify as Christians. Food in "Christian" owned and operated restaurants is better precisely because they self-identify as Christians. When Justin Bieber publicly proclaimed his own faith, it suddenly became inappropriate in my social circles to criticize his music.

Ideally, we could let the market dictate the fate of openly outspoken bigots, but I fear that in our own religiously fragmented society, the market's true power is usurped by dangerous ideologies.

I agree, which is why I think these folks getting all caught up in what he believes are gigantic fools.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think these constant comparisons between the plights of black people and gays are out of place and out of touch with reality. Gay people have never been denied basic rights like voting, property rights, and have never been used as slaves either.

This comment explains a lot about you. It's pretty narrow and it tries to break things into two columns with nothing in between. It reminds me of a petulant 14 year old.

I hope you realize gay people include black people, women, etc... people of all kinds. The whole point about this ridiculous debate between homosexuality and religion is that there are no columns. When taking negative action towards gay people, you're doing that to everyone. It's basic, straight-up intolerance.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I agree, which is why I think these folks getting all caught up in what he believes are gigantic fools.

What if someone decided that all straight people should not be married and was able to muster enough political support for it to be one of a couple dominant political/social positions on the topic? Would it bother you if this same movement wanted to return to a previous way of life, when you being straight was something that you feared to expose for fear of losing your rights, your job, or even your life?

Would you keep your mouth shut and be totally unoffended when the obviously idiotic supporters of this movement loudly declared their support?

If you could, then all the power to you, but the country you live in was founded upon people fighting for their rights, and expecting that to change is foolish, because it never will.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

This comment explains a lot about you. It's pretty narrow and it tries to break things into two columns with nothing in between. It reminds me of a petulant 14 year old.

I hope you realize gay people include black people, women, etc... people of all kinds. The whole point about this ridiculous debate between homosexuality and religion is that there are no columns. When taking negative action towards gay people, you're doing that to everyone. It's basic, straight-up intolerance.

It pretty much sums it up on him.

There are so many issues why this is actually important, because many places in the US are trying to limit the rights of gay people under the guise of marriage. If it were "ok, you guys can't marry, but everything else is equal" then it wouldn't be an issue, but right now it's:

• not allowing pensions or benefits to long term partners, (check out the late Sally Ride - American hero, and her partner of 27 fricken years isn't able to get survivor benefits)
• not allowing hospital visits for same sex partners,
• allowing people to be fired for no other reason than they are gay (or perceived to be gay)
• allowing bullying to be protected under Freedom of Speech
• not allowing same sex couples to go through US customs together

I added the last one in because of an issue my roommate and his long-term boyfriend years had right here at YYC. Basically he and the bf went up to US customs at the airport for their vacation to Cali - like they've done many times - and were told they could not go through together as they were not "members of the same family." Fair enough.

What happened next was pretty shocking, the bf was taken into a room alone and grilled for 90 minutes about why he didn't have a copy of the itinerary with hotel names and return flight details, etc., and why he let some other guy pay for his trip (because my roommate wanted the points, duh). When he told them to go get the information from his partner of 6 years (at the time) they refused, and continued to berate him. Finally, with 5 minutes left before boarding, they let him go to get through security and make the flight. Of course, my roomie was beside himself when he found out what happened. Now they always take two copies of everything for the simple fact they might not be able to go through a line up together.



The point of that story is that not everything is equal, and by allowing gay couples all the same privileges as anyone else, it will help prevent people from abusing whatever authority they feel they have AND provide recourse when they do.



It's not about making everyone embrace gay people, but it does ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equally, something which is currently not happening in the so-called Land of the Free right now.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by peter12

He didn't even accurately characterize libertarians. The OP, like many, seems to believe that liberalism requires monolithic state regulation of society. It is precisely the opposite that is true.

I really do believe that someone who is a private business owner should be able completely in accordance with his conscience within the reasonable limits set out by the law, and the constitution.

However, I also completely support consumers boycotting the services of this business owner, and ruining him completely.

In my view, liberal society is a far better regulator of social mores or manners than government.

This, exactly. The Chick-Fil-A guy can say whatever he wants about anything, as long as he's not actively discriminating (refusing to hire/serve). He should still be able to open a restaurant anywhere a restaurant would be otherwise allowed, just as Chicago residents are free to not buy his chicken if they disagree with his opinion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This sounds good, but I fear that it fails to adress the reality of the current situation, in which the religiously motivated lobby is so strong and so dedicated as to have the opposite effect. In actual fact, Chik-Fil-A (I can't believe I accidently called it "Chik-A-Flik" in a previous post!) is likely to benefit from their very public apparent opposition to gay marriage. As many as the boycotters may number, you can be absolutely certain that there will be at least as many patrons who will go out of their way to support this establishment, precisely because of its owner's social views.

We are talking about a Christian sub-culture that builds their own schools, hospitals—even neighbourhoods— produces their own radio, television, and film. Hell, this is a movement that goes so far as to publish their own one-stop inventory of businesses, so as to protect their members from ever having one of those unnecessary and unpleasant encounters with some one or some establishment that might happen to fall "outside the Kingdom" (http://www.shepherdsguide.ca/). I happen to live within this sub-culture, and I can readily attest that the insider/outsider construct—while in many respects implicit—is fiercely and consistently operative. I can't tell you how many times a celebrity, a business, or an organization is glowingly identified as "Christian" or "Evangelical" by my peers, as if to suggest that it belongs on a higher plane: Filma produced by "Christian filmmakers" are better because they self-identify as Christians. Food in "Christian" owned and operated restaurants is better precisely because they self-identify as Christians. When Justin Bieber publicly proclaimed his own faith, it suddenly became inappropriate in my social circles to criticize his music.

Ideally, we could let the market dictate the fate of openly outspoken bigots, but I fear that in our own religiously fragmented society, the market's true power is usurped by dangerous ideologies.

I think that moving forward there are a lot of interesting applications of liberal theory to the current reality.

As a "political theorist," I would argue that the souls or psyche's of human beings are reflected in the regimes they live in. That is, I follow Aristotle or even Plato by saying that the city is the soul writ large. So, that is my level of analysis, and it applies to liberal societies insofar as the philosophers who essentially wrote our souls into our regimes had a very specific idea about what they were doing to the human soul that would make it particularly amenable to liberalism.

So, in regards to what you are talking about, I believe that you feel that the power of the religious lobby (no doubt, true) has somehow created a faction that significantly differs from what could be considered the "Good," or the "Just" way of doing things. The reality of liberalism is that there is no objective standard beyond safety, stability, or order, right? We don't have the divine right of monarchical authority, and we have abandoned the classical rationalism, which attempted to logically explain political orders.

So, there is really no convincing means to disrupt or legislate against these religious groups. We have to simply live and let live. Conversely, this standard applies to them as well, which is why the gay marriage has been so convoluted, particularly in the American context. The state, simply, should not be involved, and the logical next-step is to remove all federal, and state legislation on the governance of marriage.

If you look at say John Locke's discussion of the family in the 2nd Treatise, you will find no reference to morality, other than the simple fact that parents must treat their children like any other investment. From the liberal perspective, marriage is a financial, not a moral contract, and thus, it should (note the normative language) be freely accessed by all consenting individuals.

Political realities are always different, but they can be accessed by an inquiring mind somewhat beyond the realm of partisan opinion.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

What if someone decided that all straight people should not be married and was able to muster enough political support for it to be one of a couple dominant political/social positions on the topic? Would it bother you if this same movement wanted to return to a previous way of life, when you being straight was something that you feared to expose for fear of losing your rights, your job, or even your life?

Would you keep your mouth shut and be totally unoffended when the obviously idiotic supporters of this movement loudly declared their support?

If you could, then all the power to you, but the country you live in was founded upon people fighting for their rights, and expecting that to change is foolish, because it never will.

What are you talking about? How does this situation have ANYTHING to with what you just said?

How is protesting Chik-Fil-A 'fighting for their rights'? What is the right they are fighting for? The right to not have to hear that a corporate CEO is a neandrethal in his thinking? How is Cathy infringing on anyone's rights?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MRCboicgy

It's not about making everyone embrace gay people, but it does ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equally, something which is currently not happening in the so-called Land of the Free right now.

I agree! But what does that have to do with Chik-Fil-A and Dan Cathy?

[Flash Walken]

Dan Cathy is a faggy name, btw.

[MRCboicgy]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I agree! But what does that have to do with Chik-Fil-A and Dan Cathy?

Well if you read who I quoted and the preceding quote in the thread, you'd see I was responding in a roundabout way to Mikey.

And the fact is, someone can be fired for being gay in many parts of the States, including at Chik-fil-a

Not a difficult connection IMO

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

What are you talking about? How does this situation have ANYTHING to with what you just said?

How is protesting Chik-Fil-A 'fighting for their rights'? What is the right they are fighting for? The right to not have to hear that a corporate CEO is a neandrethal in his thinking? How is Cathy infringing on anyone's rights?

Chik-Fil-A is the group that is supporting the idea that only one group of people can get married (and the obvious extension is that other groups can't).

I assume that will clarify any confusion you experienced reading my post.

If not, here is the tl;dr:

What if it was straight people who suddenly couldn't get married, would it bother you if there were people speaking out about how it should stay that way?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Chik-Fil-A is the group that is supporting the idea that only one group of people can get married (and the obvious extension is that other groups can't).

I assume that will clarify any confusion you experienced reading my post.

If not, here is the tl;dr:

What if it was straight people who suddenly couldn't get married, would it bother you if there were people speaking out about how it should stay that way?

I always find this statement to be incredibly bizarre as there is a clear reproductive function attached to straight marriage, and thus, it is naturally just that societies should legally protect straight marriage for the sake of its own survival.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by peter12

I always find this statement to be incredibly bizarre as there is a clear reproductive function attached to straight marriage, and thus, it is naturally just that societies should legally protect straight marriage for the sake of its own survival.

Ok, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I was giving an, obviously fictitious, example where he would (presumably - who knows, maybe he is gay himself) be the one being discriminated against so he might understand why someone might be upset.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Chik-Fil-A is the group that is supporting the idea that only one group of people can get married (and the obvious extension is that other groups can't).

I assume that will clarify any confusion you experienced reading my post.

If not, here is the tl;dr:

What if it was straight people who suddenly couldn't get married, would it bother you if there were people speaking out about how it should stay that way?

No, it wouldn't. People are idiots. I understand, though, not all people don't care what other people think about them. Dan Cathy is one person who owns a goofy fast food chain. He's nobody. I don't care what he thinks about me, my lifestyle, the fact that I have a lesbian sister, her lifestyle, etc. etc. etc.


That said, he has every right to believe what he wants and vocalize it. Just like you and I do. Would you agree?

[MarchHare]

That said, he has every right to believe what he wants and vocalize it. Just like you and I do. Would you agree?

Is there anyone in this thread who said he doesn't have the right to express his (bigoted) opinions?