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

[vektor]

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.

that's not the point, it's about one person in a free society having the right to do something while another person has those same rights revoked because of biological and genetic differences. The argument that a society needs to protect marriage to save our reproductive rate is beyond absurd, in the realm of absolute delusion and lunacy.

If 1% of the population is genetically homosexual restricting their personal freedoms effects reproduction rates how exactly? If anything reproduction rates need to slow down as the exponential growth curve of the population will soon exceed the finite resources the earth can provide. I just don't understand how you can say what you did... it's a sentence from a magical world where you don't think logically. I'd like to know how not giving 2 gay men a piece of paper that is legally binding will help women become impregnated with a child that becomes a member of society. If anything the scientific research shows that straight couples that get divorced, and thus the child is raised by a single mother, increases the childs chance of being homosexual if its a boy. This isn't conjecture, if your true point is that society needs to be saved from homosexual people not having babies you should be arguing that straight couples aren't allowed to divorce, because scientifically that's the logical argument to make. It is always just easier to ignore empirical data and go with the bible though.

I've got a degree in psychology and the actual research makes the biased and uneducated opinions of people against homosexuality harder to handle. Everyone here that hasn't done hard research on empirical studies needs to stop talking and go read because there is too much hatred and ignorance being thrown around in the public domain. I could write a 5 page essay here that explains exactly how and why homosexuality occurs in humans but I implore to go find the information yourself, if you are strongly anti-homosexual go read a lot and spend some time around a gay person, I guarantee your perspective will change. On the Kinsey scale I'm as straight as they come, there's no need to be so damning of the rights of those who are different, gay people getting married will not lead to the apocalypse.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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

What are people protesting?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

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?

This isn't about having the right to vocalize something, clearly he has that right. I don't think anyone has debated that issue or at the very least, I have not.

It does not bother you that this person, and other people like him, try to fight against the rights that all people deserve, yet some people, like your sister, don't have? Him speaking out about it isn't just a casual, private conversation, this is a public announcement to encourage support for his side of the issue.

If there was no group of people who fought against those rights, I can pretty much guarantee they would have them already.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

What are people protesting?

Certainly not his right to free speech. Of course, free speech is not the same thing as consequence free speech.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Rathji

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.

As stated above, questions of the good within a liberal democracy can only really be "solved" by appealing successfully to natural rights. In the case of straight marriage this is so clearly cut, that it's not even a useful example for the discussion.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Certainly not his right to free speech. Of course, free speech is not the same thing as consequence free speech.

For sure. But the government shouldn't be punishing people for exercising their free speech, no matter what they're saying. The market is a completely different story, which is why the vast majority of corporations avoid making public statements on controversial issues.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by vektor

that's not the point, it's about one person in a free society having the right to do something while another person has those same rights revoked because of biological and genetic differences. The argument that a society needs to protect marriage to save our reproductive rate is beyond absurd, in the realm of absolute delusion and lunacy.

If 1% of the population is genetically homosexual restricting their personal freedoms effects reproduction rates how exactly? If anything reproduction rates need to slow down as the exponential growth curve of the population will soon exceed the finite resources the earth can provide. I just don't understand how you can say what you did... it's a sentence from a magical world where you don't think logically. I'd like to know how not giving 2 gay men a piece of paper that is legally binding will help women become impregnated.

You misunderstood completely.

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

Protect it from what?

It's like protecting the right to walk, or talk, or sneeze. It's going to happen. Men and women who want to get together and get married and have babies are going to do it. You can't take it away and you can't threaten it, but we always hear words like "protect" and "threaten".

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

This isn't about having the right to vocalize something, clearly he has that right. I don't think anyone has debated that issue or at the very least, I have not.

It does not bother you that this person, and other people like him, try to fight against the rights that all people deserve, yet some people, like your sister, don't have? Him speaking out about it isn't just a casual, private conversation, this is a public announcement to encourage support for his side of the issue.

If there was no group of people who fought against those rights, I can pretty much guarantee they would have them already.

I think it is ignorant. But is that all this is....some people who are upset at public comments? It seems like there is more.

[Nuje]

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.

If it were about reproduction, you would have to ban marriage for the sterile. What if one person in a marriage is sterile? You are robbing our society of a fertile person. You can't have that!! You'd also have to put restrictions on birth control, ban vasectomies, etc. These things would have to be written into the laws if reproduction was the issue.

Of course, it's not, so no such rules are in place. The only thing left is disagreeing with the combination of genitals in a particular marriage. I think you can see how ridiculous it sounds to deny someone the right to marriage based on that.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

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.

One is not exactly free to say what they want, and nor should they. If he is spreading hate, he should not be allowed to say what he wants.
Discriminating against gay people should not be allowed through free speech, in the same way that discriminating against other minorities - whether visible or not.

We do not allow discrimination based on religion, which is a choice. Why do we condone discrimination based on sexual orientation, which for the vast majority of gay people is not a choice?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by peter12

As stated above, questions of the good within a liberal democracy can only really be "solved" by appealing successfully to natural rights. In the case of straight marriage this is so clearly cut, that it's not even a useful example for the discussion.

Ok, for you since the last example was a little to confusing, lets change it to something that doesn't violate any natural rights.

A car and a truck who want to make little car babies. Fortunately for our example, cars and trucks have no natural rights, so they won't interfere with understanding the real issue at hand, because getting over that hurdle was a real problem.

So a mechanic installs a AI brain into the car and into the truck. they make wonderful car and truck babies, and grow to a large population. Then in a, Micheal Bay directed, cross between Terminator: Salvation and Maximum Overdrive they take over the planet and kill all those people bitching about human rights.

Now that we have just cars and trucks living happily, making car and truck babies, a couple cars, A Smart Car and a Mini Cooper if you are wondering, decide they want to stop putting their tailpipe in the box of the truck and instead want to put it in the hatch of the car. All the Model T and Ford Fairlane cars and trucks are appalled and they start doing crazy stuff like not letting the Smart cars get gas at the stations on Main Street and they start forcing the Mini Coopers off the road and into the bridge embankment.

Things carry on for years like this, and the old Model T cars begin to die and the Ford Fairlanes are so out of their engines that they can't even take a oil change without someone to hold their dipstick for them. Now, some of the other cars and trucks start to realize that it really isn't fair to the Smart Cars and Mini Coopers, so they start to treat them like regular cars.

Eventually, enough people support the Smart Cars and Mini Coopers that they start to get the ability to go to the gas station on Main Street and are not quite as afraid to take the turnpike late at night. However, what the Smart Car and the Mini Cooper really want to do is park in the same garage and be able to visit each other while they are getting body work done at the local shop. However, there are still many old cars that can't even get 2 miles to the gallon, who are bellowing near toxic exhaust as they putter along the road, who have just enough clout to stop them from doing this.

So the Mini Cooper and Smart Cars don't have the same rights as the other cars, so wouldn't that be unfair? Shouldn't we allow them to be able to use the same garage? After all it is a double garage!

[BloodFetish]

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.

Cripes, I read your post twice, and the second time substituted Scientologist for Christian. Creepy.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I think it is ignorant. But is that all this is....some people who are upset at public comments? It seems like there is more.

These people are upset that there is a segment of society that is fights against the rights of a group of people that they feel deserves them and that these comments are part of that fight.

I really wonder if you are just trying to separate the 2 issues to make a point. The reality is, you can't be happy this guy is talking about this stuff and truly support the position of equal rights for gay people.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Ok, for you since the last example was a little to confusing, lets change it to something that doesn't violate any natural rights.

A car and a truck who want to make little car babies. Fortunately for our example, cars and trucks have no natural rights, so they won't interfere with understanding the real issue at hand, because getting over that hurdle was a real problem.

So a mechanic installs a AI brain into the car and into the truck. they make wonderful car and truck babies, and grow to a large population. Then in a, Micheal Bay directed, cross between Terminator: Salvation and Maximum Overdrive they take over the planet and kill all those people bitching about human rights.

Now that we have just cars and trucks living happily, making car and truck babies, a couple cars, A Smart Car and a Mini Cooper if you are wondering, decide they want to stop putting their tailpipe in the box of the truck and instead want to put it in the hatch of the car. All the Model T and Ford Fairlane cars and trucks are appalled and they start doing crazy stuff like not letting the Smart cars get gas at the stations on Main Street and they start forcing the Mini Coopers off the road and into the bridge embankment.

Things carry on for years like this, and the old Model T cars begin to die and the Ford Fairlanes are so out of their engines that they can't even take a oil change without someone to hold their dipstick for them. Now, some of the other cars and trucks start to realize that it really isn't fair to the Smart Cars and Mini Coopers, so they start to treat them like regular cars.

Eventually, enough people support the Smart Cars and Mini Coopers that they start to get the ability to go to the gas station on Main Street and are not quite as afraid to take the turnpike late at night. However, what the Smart Car and the Mini Cooper really want to do is park in the same garage and be able to visit each other while they are getting body work done at the local shop. However, there are still many old cars that can't even get 2 miles to the gallon, who are bellowing near toxic exhaust as they putter along the road, who have just enough clout to stop them from doing this.

So the Mini Cooper and Smart Cars don't have the same rights as the other cars, so wouldn't that be unfair? Shouldn't we allow them to be able to use the same garage? After all it is a double garage!

So, what you're saying is, anyone who drives a Smart Car or Mini Cooper is gay.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

So, what you're saying is, anyone who drives a Smart Car or Mini Cooper is gay.

Yep. Coolest people I know.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

These people are upset that there is a segment of society that is fights against the rights of a group of people that they feel deserves them and that these comments are part of that fight.

I really wonder if you are just trying to separate the 2 issues to make a point. The reality is, you can't be happy this guy is talking about this stuff and truly support the position of equal rights for gay people.

When did I say I was happy he was talking about this stuff?

[Rathji]

You said that people who were upset about it were "gigantic fools."

So the obvious assumption is that, unless you are calling yourself a gigantic fool, that you are not at all concerned with what he said. There isn't a line here where you can stand and say you are neither happy or upset about it. Either you support his position or you don't (or you are lying).

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You said that people who were upset about it were "gigantic fools."

So the obvious assumption is that, unless you are calling yourself a gigantic fool, that you are not at all concerned with what he said. There isn't a line here where you can stand and say you are neither happy or upset about it. Either you support his position or you don't (or you are lying).

No, I said the people that were making such a public display over it were fools based on Textcritic's theory that it will only incur sympathy for the company and Cathy. I agree with his theory.

Not every reaction is a smart one.

I'd watch your tone insinuating that I'm a liar or a bigot. You've come awfully close twice now.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

No, I said the people that were making such a public display over it were fools based on Textcritic's theory that it will only incur sympathy for the company and Cathy. I agree with his theory.

Not every reaction is a smart one.

I'd watch your tone insinuating that I'm a liar or a bigot. You've come awfully close twice now.

Was not intended to be as such, I apologize.