So, there's this chicken place...

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Stele wrote:

That's exactly what gay people want, the right to marry anyone. People are born gay, just as they are born with skin pigments and other racial features. We're all people, we all deserve the same rights.

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*. If that wasn't the case, don't you think most persecuted gay people would just stop being gay? Think how much easier their lives would be! Again, think forward to fifteen years from now, when this will be looked at the same way arguments against Interracial marriage are today.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Stele wrote:

That's exactly what gay people want, the right to marry anyone. People are born gay, just as they are born with skin pigments and other racial features. We're all people, we all deserve the same rights.

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Well, even racism is a choice, right? A black person CHOOSES to marry a white person. They don't have to do that. They CHOOSE to sit at the counter or at the front of the bus or use the same water fountain. I mean, it's not about skin color, they can choose to live a certain way.

par wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

If you really think not boycotting every anti gay company is hypocritical then the solution is to start boycotting. Not stop.

We can agree to disagree then I hope? Because I disagree with you.

PAR

Do you not think it's hypocritical to want to boycott something but not do it?

SixteenBlue wrote:
par wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

If you really think not boycotting every anti gay company is hypocritical then the solution is to start boycotting. Not stop.

We can agree to disagree then I hope? Because I disagree with you.

PAR

Do you not think it's hypocritical to want to boycott something but not do it?

No, I said there are other ways to deal w/ the overall situation other than boycotting things that I believe will make much more impact than withholding my small amount of money spent in their company.

PAR

par wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
par wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

If you really think not boycotting every anti gay company is hypocritical then the solution is to start boycotting. Not stop.

We can agree to disagree then I hope? Because I disagree with you.

PAR

Do you not think it's hypocritical to want to boycott something but not do it?

No, I said there are other ways to deal w/ the overall situation other than boycotting.

PAR

You could treat it like a carbon tax and donate an equivalent amount of money to pro-gay rights causes every time you eat there.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Stele wrote:

That's exactly what gay people want, the right to marry anyone. People are born gay, just as they are born with skin pigments and other racial features. We're all people, we all deserve the same rights.

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do.

You can stop there, because that's wrong. Both forms of discrimination are based on who you are. What you look like and what you do are only pieces of the puzzle.

Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course.

That's not really how I see it-- more that the justice system is there to ensure that some individuals cannot take advantage of or deny others their rights.

The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Again, this is based on a false assumption.

Tanglebones wrote:
par wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
par wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

If you really think not boycotting every anti gay company is hypocritical then the solution is to start boycotting. Not stop.

We can agree to disagree then I hope? Because I disagree with you.

PAR

Do you not think it's hypocritical to want to boycott something but not do it?

No, I said there are other ways to deal w/ the overall situation other than boycotting.

PAR

You could treat it like a carbon tax and donate an equivalent amount of money to pro-gay rights causes every time you eat there.

Yes, thinking outside the main-steam is usually how things actually get done.

PAR

DSGamer wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Gravey wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Oh. Then why is it worth mentioning at all?

Because a not insignificant number of Americans believed it was their religious or civic duty to line-up for a chicken sandwich in the fight against equality. Because members of a nation that believes itself, quite vocally, to be the greatest and most free nation in the world has, at the behest of a man who would have led that nation, behaved in a way that's as insulting as it is laughable. And because the rest of the world already has such dim view of the US that it reflects on the whole nation

So without completely derailing by getting into the meat of your statements, some people in the US hold opinions you don't agree with and you're attempting to slut-shame the entire country.

Noted, I guess.

?

I don't think that's what he said.

Quite.

It's not the beliefs, it's the behaviour—Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. Like the original article said, it's a joke. The "slut-shaming" metaphor is completely inappropriate.

Just to be clear, my opinion of the US, while probably easily guessed at, is irrelevant. It's also separate from my opinion of individual Americans, almost all of whom I know are you guys and gals. I'm trying to speak from outside the debate, which might mean putting harsh words in the world's mouth but not, I believe, inaccurate, in terms of the image August 1 projected.

mcdonis wrote:

Yep the mayors have a right to free speech until they proclaim they are going to discriminate in carrying out their elected tasks.

WRONG! They can still say whatever the hell they want! It's once they start taking actions that there's something to go after. I don't disagree that putting pressure to prevent a company from building in a city is wrong, but this happens all the time! Cities fight to keep strip bars out, to keep liquor stores from opening, to keep other types of businesses from being opened. This happens all the time.

mcdonis wrote:

What scares me in your statement is "Why should I tolerate on any level". I don't like what a lot of organizations are trying to do, yet I don't demand those whom believe the way they do not be allowed to make money or exist. That is hate

Why should I tolerate on any level a company whose actions have had the proven result in a harmful and utterly ineffectual form of psychotherapy being bolstered via financial donation? Exodus may have stopped this (thankfully), but Chick-Fil-A was donating to them for a long time prior to that.

Why should I tolerate on any level a company whose actions have had the proven result in laws being created and almost passed in foreign countries that would cause me to be killed if I visited and didn't hide my sexuality well enough?

If it's hate to stick up for my own rights, my own life? Then yeah, I'll drink the haterade until the day I die.

Rubb Ed wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Yep the mayors have a right to free speech until they proclaim they are going to discriminate in carrying out their elected tasks.

WRONG! They can still say whatever the hell they want! It's once they start taking actions that there's something to go after. I don't disagree that putting pressure to prevent a company from building in a city is wrong, but this happens all the time! Cities fight to keep strip bars out, to keep liquor stores from opening, to keep other types of businesses from being opened. This happens all the time.

Look at Walmart's attempts to move into NYC for another example of this.

Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Lawrence v. Texas has made the 'behavior you don't approve of' legal throughout the land. Your argument is baseless. I don't think I can respond to this post further without violating the CoC.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Can you give examples of these behaviors that you would consider equivalent that require stripping people of their rights?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Can I ask when you chose to be straight instead of gay?

Rubb Ed wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Can I ask when you chose to be straight instead of gay?

Apparently it doesn't matter if you were born gay. They still disapprove your actions. You know, your actions of being.

I'd also like to see an example where we strip someone of their rights when they haven't broken any laws.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

I'm still trying to make sense of your initial statement that what makes me gay is something I do. Can you elaborate on that?

Rubb Ed wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Can I ask when you chose to be straight instead of gay?

Can I respectfully ask when I said being straight or gay was a choice? Actions are choices, the fact that a predisposition to that action exists isn't in and of itself a justification for those actions. Please re-read my argument.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Can I ask when you chose to be straight instead of gay?

Can I respectfully ask when I said being straight or gay was a choice? Actions are choices, the fact that a predisposition to that action exists isn't in and of itself a justification for those actions. Please re-read my argument.

So it's not being born gay that's the problem? You can be gay all you want, you just aren't allowed to actually love another person of the same sex?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Can I ask when you chose to be straight instead of gay?

Can I respectfully ask when I said being straight or gay was a choice? Actions are choices, the fact that a predisposition to that action exists isn't in and of itself a justification for those actions. Please re-read my argument.

I read your argument fine. I'm asking when you chose to be straight because your saying the behavior in question (acting upon my sexual orientation) is something that should, by nature of the fact that lots of people don't like them, cause my rights to be stripped.

So I'm asking when you consciously chose to be part of the group that doesn't indulge in those behaviors. Please answer my question.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

I've found this is a difficult argument to make without people grabbing the pitchforks, so right off - I'm not making any direct equations to homosexual sex. So, consider an action that you personally and society believes is wrong. The person accused says "I'm born this way, you're just discriminating against me for who I am. Also, racism was a thing in the 1950s." Is that a valid defense? No, it's sidestepping the argument. There are plenty of people born with predispositions to behavior we don't approve of. We routinely strip those people of their rights when they engage in those actions.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of valid arguments someone can make in favor of gay marriage - I just don't think this one makes any sense.

Can I ask when you chose to be straight instead of gay?

Can I respectfully ask when I said being straight or gay was a choice? Actions are choices, the fact that a predisposition to that action exists isn't in and of itself a justification for those actions. Please re-read my argument.

Still not a valid argument, as the legality of the action in your hypothetical is based solely on the supposition of who the person is. If one woman can legally have sex with a man, why shouldn't another man be able to legally have sex with a man as well? If one man can legally marry one woman, why should one woman be disallowed the same right? That's a law based on who they are, not what they do. Denying one citizen the right to live the same life that is considered legal for another citizen is discrimination.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

But the action has no affect on you. Why do you care so much what consenting adults do in their free time? Pretend being gay is 100% choice. Would it matter? It's on the same plane as what kinds of sex acts a hetero couple chooses to engage in or what kind of food I eat or TV I watch. It's your personal life. As long as it doesn't affect you why are you put off by it? Where are you going with this?

SixteenBlue wrote:

If you really think not boycotting every anti gay company is hypocritical then the solution is to start boycotting. Not stop.

The following list is from jiveinthe415, a very outspoken, pro-gay website. Its a long one so I hope I do not get in trouble linking it but it does keep people from going off site to see what I'm talking about.

Personally, this is why I do not think boycotting/protesting any single company for their actions (here its charitable contributions) is a valuable and/or even remotely worthwhile use of anyone's time, let alone verbally and sometimes physically forcing this stance on others (i.e. the people getting arrested). If you honestly believe that refusing to spend your money at one place that does what you are upset about makes a difference to the cause, then in reality you really should do it to all the others as well and research who they are.

I try to live my life everyday w/ acceptance... hell not even acceptance (because that requires a conscious decision to see "differences" in people) but actual belief that people have the right to be who they want. To me, I think this will make more of a difference than refusing to spend an incredibly infinitesimal amount of money to such a large company (or companies).

Doing other things like volunteering or donating to the local Gill Foundation would make so much more an impact for the cause than me withholding earnings from a large corporation. With that said, it is totally your right to withhold your business from them and I applaud your effort in doing so.

PAR

1-800-Florals
123 Print
123Inkjets
1800 Any Lens.com
1800-Get-Lens
1928 Jewelry
3 balls Golf
39 Dollar Glasses
4 inkjets
4 Wheel Parts
4checks.com
911 HealthShop.com
aBaby.com
ABCMouse.com
AbeBooks
AbestKitchen
Abt Electronics
AccessoryGeeks
ACDSee
Ace Hardware
Active Forever
ActiveMusician
Adagio Teas
Adorably
Advanced Auto Parts
Aeropostale
Ahnu Footwear
Air & Water
Akademiks
Alibris
All Beds Inc.
All-Battery
Allen Edmonds
Allergy Be Gone
American Diabetes
Anaconda Sports
Ancestry.com
Animal Den
Anna's Linens
Apples of Gold
Appleseeds
Applian Tech Inc
Appliance Parts Pro
Aqua Hotels and Resorts
AquariumsDirect.com
Armoire Superstore
Art.com
Artistic Labels
Ashford.com
AsianFoodGrocer.com
AT&T Wireless
Auditions Shoes
Auto Anything
Auto Check
Auto Parts WHSE
Avanquest Sftwre
Avenue
Avg
Axl's Closet
Baby Age
Baby Bunch
Baby Earth
Bake Me A Wish
Bargain Catalog Outlet
Barnes & Noble
Barse
BarStools.com
Baseball Express
Baseball Savings
Bass Pro Shops
Batteries.com
Baymont Inn & Suites
Bealls Dept Store
Beauty Bridge
Beauty Trends
Beauty.com
BeBe
Becker Surfboards
Bed and Bath Store
Bed and Breakfast
BeddingStyle.com
Bellacor
Belle Chic
Best Buy Eyeglasses
Best of New York
Best Personalized Jewelry
Best Priced Furniture
bidz
Big Mans Land
Big Outlets
Bigelow Chemists
Bigger Books
BikeBandit.com
Bird Baths
Blair
BlindsExpress.com
Blooming Bulb
Boaters World
Body Post
Book Closeouts
Book Hotel Rooms
Bookbyte
Bookcases Inc.
Bookit
Books Free
Booksonline.com
Boscovs
Botanic Choice
Bowflex
BraceShop.com
Breck's
Brian Tracy
Brick House Security
Brookstone
Brylane Home
Budget Conferencing
Build Direct
Bulk Office Supply
Bunches of Books
Butter Super Soft
butterflyphoto.com
Cabelas
Candy Direct
Canvas Lifestyle
Canvas On Demand
Carbonite
CarParts.com
Carrot-Top Industries
Cascio Interstate Music
Cashmere Boutique
Cellularfactory.com
Cesars Way
Chadwicks
Cheap Air
CheapOair.com
Cheapostay
Checks In the Mail
Checks Superstore
Chefs Catalog
Cherrybrook
Chesapeake Bay Crab Cakes & More
Chicago Steak Company
Choice Hotels
Christopher & Banks
Circuit City
Claire's
Clon Communications
Closet Organizer Source
Coffee.org
CoffeeCup Sftwre
Coins of America
College Book Renter
Comfi Phonecards
Comfort First
Community Coffee
Compact Appliance
Complete Tax
CompUSA
Constant Contact
Constructive Playthings
Cookies Kids
Cooking.com
Cosmetic America
Coupons.com
Course Smart
Cribs.com
Cruise Direct
Cruiser Customizing
Cultural Elements
Current Catalog
Current Labels
Danskin
David's Cookies
Day-Timer
Days Inn
Deal Chicken
Dealyard.com
Decal Girl
Dell Home & Office
Dell Small Business
Deluxe Business Products
Dennis Kirk
Dental Plans
Department of Goods
DERMAdoctor.com
Destination Maternity
Dickies
Dicks Sporting Goods
Dinette
Direct Gardening
Direct TV
Discount School Supply
Discount Watch Store
DiscountGolfWorld.com
DiscountOfficeItems.com
Discovery Channel
Disney Store
diViene
DJ Premium
Dockers
Dollar Tree
Domestications
Dr Leonard's/Carol Wright Gifts
Drugstore.com
Duncraft Wild Bird Superstore
Duracell Direct
E.L.F. Cosmetics
Earphone Solutions
Eastbay
Eastern Mtn Sports
eBags
eBatts
eBooks
eCampus
EDGE Tech Corp
Edwin Watts Golf
eFax
eHarlequin
eHealthInsurance
eInvite
Electric Fireplaces
Elephant Drive
Elizabeth Arden
eMusic
Entirely Pets
eshaki
ESPNShop.com
eSportsonline
Event Decor Direct
Everyday Outfitters
Everything- -Furniture
eVitamins
eWatches.com
ExclusivelyWeddings.com
Extended Hotel Stay
Exterior Accents
Eye Buy Direct
Eye Save Sunglasses
F-Secure US
Fairytale Brownies
Family Christian Bookstore
Famous Footwear
Fandango
Fans Edge
Fare Buzz
Fashion Bug
Fathead
Favor Affair
Fila
Fine Jewelers
Fleurop
Flower
FlowerDelivery.com
Flowers Across- -America
Flowers Fast
Fonts
Foot Petals
Football America
Footsmart
Forzieri
Fox Rent A Car
Fragrance Net
fragrance x
Frames Direct
FromYouFlowers.com
FTD
Fujitsu Computer
Furniture Super Source
FYE
G by guess
Gaiam
Game Fly
Game Shark Store
Gander Mountain
Gardener's Supply
Gardens Alive
Geico
Get Organized
Gevalia
Giant Party Store
GIANTmicrobes
Gift Baskets.com
Gift Card Mall
Gift Tree
Giftcards.com
Giga Golf
Golden mine
Golden State Fruit
Golf Now
Golf Outlets
Golf Shoes Plus
Golfballs.com
Good Sam Club
Gordons Jewelers
GourmetGiftBasket
Great Big Canvas
Great Call - Jitterbug
Great Skin
GreatAmericanDays
Green Tree Coffee and Tea
GSM Nation
Guitar Center
Gummy Lump Toys
Gurney's Nursery
H.Bloom
Haggar
Hair Products
Hammacher Schlemmer
Hand Held Items
Hanna Andersson
HansonEllis Favors
Harry & David
Hawaiian Airlines
Hay House, Inc.
Hayneedle.com
HBO Store
Health Plans of America
HearthSong
Heartland America
Herbs Pro
Hessnatur
Highlights for Children
Hirecko Golf
Holabird Sports
Hold n Storage
Home and Patio Decor Center
Home Bars Inc.
Home Decorators
Home Depot
HomeOfficeSolutions.com
Hooked On Phonics
Horizon Fitness
Hotel Group- -Reservations
HotelsCombined.com
Hotwire
House of Brides
Howard Johnson
HSN
Hudson Reed
Ice Jerseys
Identity Direct
iFloor.com
IGIGI
iLighting Source
In The Swim
IndustrialSupplies.com
Inhabit
Ink Garden
Ink Grabber
Ink Plus Toner
Ink Smile
InkjetSuperstore.com
Interstate Batteries
Intuit Small Business
Iolo Technologies
iRobot Store
Irv's Luggage
Island Surf
ITCFonts
Ithaca Sports
J&R Computer
JC Whitney
Jeep Parts
Jelly Belly
Jessica London
Jewelry.com
Jimmy Jazz
JoAnn Fabric
Johnston County Cured Hams
Jos. A. Bank
Journelle
JourneyEd.com
Journeys
Just Lenses
JustFlowers.com
Justice/Limited Too
JustStrollers.com
Kabloom
Kaplan SelfTest
Katom Restaurant Supply
KGB Deals
King Size Direct
Kitchen Collection and Le Gourmet Chef
Kmart
Knet golf
Kohl's
LabelDaddy.com
Lane Bryant
Last Minute Travel
LeftLane Sports
Lego
Lenovo
Lens.com
Let's Talk
Levis
Lexington Law
Life Extension
Lifestride
Lighting by Gregory
Lillian Vernon
Limoges Jewelry
Little Giant Ladder
Little Miss Matched
Loehmanns
Loop 18
Lord & Taylor
LoserKids.com
Luggage Guy
Luggage Pros
Lugz
Lumber Liquidators
Luxury Designer Handbags
Luxury Link
Mac Connection
MacMall
Macy's
Magic Cabin
Maidenform
Manhattan Fruitier
Mantels Direct
maps.com
Maryland Square
Mattel
Max studio
MCM Electronics
Medifast
Melissa & Doug Educational Toys
Metrostyle
Michael Stars
Miles Kimball
MindWare
Mister Art
Mixbook
Mizuno USA
Motorcycle Center
Movie Goods
Mozy Remote Backup
Mrs. Fields Cookies
Music notes
Music Space
Music123
Musicians Friend
Mvelopes Personal
My Gofer
My Jewelry Box
My Wedding Favors
MyStrollers.com
Nascar.com
Naturalizer
Nautica
Nearly Natural
Neato
Net 10 Wireless
Net Zero Internet
Netaya
New York & Co.
Newspaper Archive
NFLShop.com
NGC Golf
NGC Golf
NHL
Nothing But Softwr
Novica
Nuance
O2 Gear Shop.com
Office Depot
Office Max
Old Time Candy Company
Omaha Steaks
One Share
One Travel.com
Oneida LTD - Flatware
OneStopPlus.com
Online Sports
Only Natural Pet
OnSale
Organic Beauty Now
Organize
Orvis
Otel.com
Otter Box
Outdoor Living
Outdoorplay
Overnight Prints
Pacific Coast Feather Company
Pacific Sun
Panasonic
Paragon Sports
ParkSeed Co
Parts Express
PastaCheese
Pauls TV
Payless Car Rental
Payless Shoes
PC Mall
PC Security Shield
Performance Products
Perfume Country
Perfume Emporium
Perfume.com
Perky Pet Bird Feeders
Perry Ellis
Personalization Mall
Pet Source
Petco
PetSmart
pH ion
Philosophy
Picaboo
PictureFrames.com
Pinemeadow Golf
Pingo
Pink Mascara
Pinnacle
PlanetShoes.com
Popcornopolis
PoshTots
Precious Moments
Printplace.com
PrintRunner.com
Pro Board Shop
Prom Girl
Puma
Punch! Software
PurchaseTix
Puritan's Pride
Radio Shack
Raiden tech
Ramada
Razor Reef Surf Shop
Razorgator
Re Stock it
Reading Eggs
Real Cyclist
Realty Trac
Reeds Jewelers
Register.com
Relax The Back
Restaurant.com
Resume Rabbit
Resume Zapper
RevZilla.com
Richart Chocolate
Ritz Camera
Road Runner Sports
Roamans
Robeez Footwear
Rockbottom Golf
Rockler Woodworking
Rockport
Rooms to Go
Ross-Simons
Roxio
Rubbermaid.com
Rug Doctor
Rush my passport
S&S WorldWide
Safety Glasses USA
Sally Beauty Supply
Salmon Cove
Sam's Club
Satelite Direct TV
Scan Cafe
Scented Monkey
Score Big
Scrubs 123
Sears
Sears Outlet
Second spin
See's Candies
SendFlowers.com
Serenity Health
Sesame Street
Shabby Apple
Sharper Image
Shindigz
Shoe Box
Shoe Buy
Shoe Steal
ShoeMetro.com
Shoes.com
Shop PBS
ShopKitchenAid
Shopko
Shoplet
Shutterfly.com
Sierra Trading Post
Silk Flowers
Silverts
Simon & Schuster
Singer 22
Sirius XM
Sit stay
Six Flags
Skin Care RX
Sky Mall
Slip Cover Shop
Smarthome, Inc.
Smile Makers
Smith + Noble Window Treatment
Smith Micro Software
Smithsonian Museum Store
Smoky Mountain Knife Works
Snapfish
Soda Club USA
Soft Surroundings
Soft Surroundings Outlet
Solutions
SOS Online Backup
Spa Finder
Speedo
Sperry Top Sider
Spiritual Cinema
Sports Endeavors
Sports FanFare
Sports Memorabilia
Spreadshirt
Springhill Nursery
Stacks and Stacks
Staples Copy & Print
Starbucks
Sticker Giant
Stila Cosmetics
Stoneside Blinds and Shades
StrawberryNET
Stroller Superstore
Summit Hut
Sun Jewelry
Super 8
Super Media Store
SuperJeweler
Suppliesoutlet.com
Sur La Table
Swap a lease
Swarovski.com
Swimsuits for all
Szul
T-Mobile
TAB.com / Pets United LLC
Tabasco Store
Tafford Uniforms
Tassimo
Taylor Gifts
Teacher Created- -Resources
Team Express
Textbook Stop
textbookx.com
TGW.com The Golf Warehouse
The Children's Place
The Diamonds Factory
The House
The Land of Nod
The Limited
The NBA Store
The Orchid Boutique
The Perfume Spot
The Pfaltzgraff Co
The Shade Store
The Shelving Store
The Space Store
The Sportsman's Guide
The Teaching Company
The Watchery
TheLadders.com
Therawear
Things You Never- -Knew Existed
Thomas Pink
Thrifty-Rent-A-Car
Tickco
Ticket Liquidator
Ticket Network
Ticket sNow
Ties.com
Tiger Direct
Time and Gems
Time Life
Tires-easy
TJ Formal
Tog Shop
Toshiba
Total Gym Direct
Total Vac
Tracfone Wireless
Travelodge
Trend Micro
Trip Advisor
Tsubo Footwear
Ultra Diamonds
Unbeatable Sale
Unique Vintage
University Books
US Outdoor
VacationHomeRent
Vera Bradley
Verisign
Verizon Wireless
Verseo
Vet Approved RX
Vision Decor
Vision Direct
VISITicket
Vitamin World
Viva Terra
Vons
Wallis
Walmart
Warner Bros Shop
Watch Zone
Waterford, Wedgwood, and Royal Doulton
Wedding Channel Store
Weforia
West Marine
Wetsuit Wearhouse
What a Beautiful Life
White Canyon
White Smoke
Wild About Tickets
Willow Ridge
Willygoat Inc.
Wingate by Wyndham
Wireless Emporium
Wolfermans
Wolfgang's Vault
Women Within
World Class Ink Supply
World Market
Worldwide Sport
YOOX
Your Home Supply LP
zChocolat.com
Zip Recruiter
Zone Alarm
Zulily

Rubb Ed wrote:

I read your argument fine. I'm asking when you chose to be straight because your saying the behavior in question (acting upon my sexual orientation) is something that should, by nature of the fact that lots of people don't like them, cause my rights to be stripped.

I didn't say they *should* cause your rights to be stripped, I'm saying that the fact that it's a predisposition on your part doesn't work as a justification for why it's okay. I'm not sure how much plainer I can say it. Keep in mind this stemmed from pages of KKK comparisons, which as I pointed out is discrimination based not on an action, but an outwardly visible and passive expression of genetics. Apples and oranges.

So I'm asking when you consciously chose to be part of the group that doesn't indulge in those behaviors.

Well obviously the act of having sex is a conscious choice for everyone - right?

DSGamer wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

But the action has no affect on you. Why do you care so much what consenting adults do in their free time? Pretend being gay is 100% choice. Would it matter? It's on the same plane as what kinds of sex acts a hetero couple chooses to engage in or what kind of food I eat or TV I watch. It's your personal life. As long as it doesn't affect you why are you put off by it? Where are you going with this?

For what it's worth I think I know your answer. I imagine it's in the vicinity of comparing engaging in sex with protest. Both just things a person chooses to do so they cancel each other out. And "why are people getting a hard time for supporting CFA, but aren't allowed to criticize the gay lifestyle?". Am I correct? I'm seriously trying to understand what your point is.

Sorry, that's not my intention. I'll let it drop.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

I read your argument fine. I'm asking when you chose to be straight because your saying the behavior in question (acting upon my sexual orientation) is something that should, by nature of the fact that lots of people don't like them, cause my rights to be stripped.

I didn't say they *should* cause your rights to be stripped, I'm saying that the fact that it's a predisposition on your part doesn't work as a justification for why it's okay.

Why does it need a justification? Rubb's orientation and actions don't hurt anyone or break any laws.

DSGamer wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

Nope. The discrimination is based on *who you are*.

I don't agree, that's a feel-good aphorism that you're only applying because you already believe the underlying action isn't wrong.

But the action has no affect on you. Why do you care so much what consenting adults do in their free time? Pretend being gay is 100% choice. Would it matter? It's on the same plane as what kinds of sex acts a hetero couple chooses to engage in or what kind of food I eat or TV I watch. It's your personal life. As long as it doesn't affect you why are you put off by it? Where are you going with this?

For what it's worth I think I know your answer. I imagine it's in the vicinity of comparing engaging in sex with protest. And why are people getting a hard time for supporting CFA, but aren't allowed to criticize the gay lifestyle. Am I correct? I'm seriously trying to understand what your point is.

SallyNasty wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Well obviously the act of having sex is a conscious choice for everyone - right?

I think you are being so deliberately obtuse as to be offensive.

Read WipEout's post. He gets the point, and he argues against it exactly the way I would have (I'm glad I hit refresh before hitting post, in fact).

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

I read your argument fine. I'm asking when you chose to be straight because your saying the behavior in question (acting upon my sexual orientation) is something that should, by nature of the fact that lots of people don't like them, cause my rights to be stripped.

I didn't say they *should* cause your rights to be stripped, I'm saying that the fact that it's a predisposition on your part doesn't work as a justification for why it's okay. I'm not sure how much plainer I can say it. Keep in mind this stemmed from pages of KKK comparisons, which as I pointed out is discrimination based not on an action, but an outwardly visible and passive expression of genetics. Apples and oranges.

So I'm asking when you consciously chose to be part of the group that doesn't indulge in those behaviors.

Well obviously the act of having sex is a conscious choice for everyone - right?

You don't seem to get it. The action isn't what makes them gay. There are both gay and straight virgins out there right now, all over the world.

CheezePavilion wrote:

Read WipEout's post. He gets the point, and he argues against it exactly the way I would have (I'm glad I hit refresh before hitting post, in fact).

And then the response is that sex between a man and a woman and man and a man is not the same thing and they'll just continue grasping at straws trying to find some justification for their bigotry.

I'm kind of tired of having to play these kinds of games. When we look back at the civil rights movement we don't see a complicated civil/political issue. We see tolerance overcoming racism. Can we just skip to that stage of this game too?

SixteenBlue wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Read WipEout's post. He gets the point, and he argues against it exactly the way I would have (I'm glad I hit refresh before hitting post, in fact).

And then the response is that sex between a man and a woman and man and a man is not the same thing and they'll just continue grasping at straws trying to find some justification for their bigotry.

Great, but we're not arguing with some amorphous 'they'. We're arguing with NormanTheIntern. Let's at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he's asking a legitimate question and deserves and legitimate answer. It seemed that's all he was looking for the last time I had a conversation with him about gay rights. YMMV.