So, there's this chicken place...

*Editing after response and consideration*

Sorry Norman - it is the internet. I automatically assumed you were heading down the trolling path, and that reflects worse on me than it does on you. It seems you were discussing in good faith, and I apologize if I didn't give you a fair shake.

This is a very personal issue.

My take on the whole matter is that it doesn't matter if you are for or against gay marriage. If you shop at Chik-Fil-A, knowing that they donate to anti-gay organizations - you are contributing to anti-gay agendas as well. Our politics are what we consume, and when you eat there - you aren't just eating a sandwich.

The end result is all that matters, not the intent of it all.

CheezePavilion wrote:
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.

I tried that. He wouldn't answer me. I'll happily engage him if he wants to answer. Here or over PM. I think there is an argument to be made that labeling someone's dislike for who you are as "hate speech" before they've actually done anything to you is dicey territory. That's the libertarian in me. Hate speech is a loaded term that puts people on the defensive frequently. So I think avoiding those loaded terms would make things easier. That said, he never answered my questions so I don't know if that's where he's coming from or if he's trolling people.

Number of states not recognizing Cathy's freedom of speech: 0
Number of times the federal government has not recognized Cathy's freedom of speech: 0

Number of state prohibiting recognition of my marriage to Rubb Ed: 44
Number of times the federal government has not recognized my legal marriage to Rubb Ed: Daily

Number of times in 2012 Cathy has been denied public accommodation (lodging) based on his sexual orientation: 0
Number of times in 2012 Rubb Ed and I have been denied public accommodation (lodging) based on our sexual orientation: 1

Number of states that allow termination of employment based on one's heterosexuality: 0
Number of states that allow termination of employment based on one's homosexuality: 29
Number of times Cathy has been fired for being heterosexual: 0
Number of times I have been fired for being homosexual: 1
Number of times Rubb Ed has been fired for being homosexual: 1

Amount of money that Cathy has donated to anti-gay causes including groups that would like to dissolve my marriage to Rubb Ed: approximately $2 million
Amount of money Rubb Ed and I have donated to anti-straight causes including groups that would like to dissolve Cathy's marriage to his wife: $0

Poor Dan Cathy.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

Number of states not recognizing Cathy's freedom of speech: 0
Number of times the federal government has not recognized Cathy's freedom of speech: 0

Number of state prohibiting recognition of my marriage to Rubb Ed: 44
Number of times the federal government has not recognized my legal marriage to Rubb Ed: Daily

Number of times in 2012 Cathy has been denied public accommodation (lodging) based on his sexual orientation: 0
Number of times in 2012 Rubb Ed and I have been denied public accommodation (lodging) based on our sexual orientation: 1

Number of states that allow termination of employment based on one's heterosexuality: 0
Number of states that allow termination of employment based on one's homosexuality: 29
Number of times Cathy has been fired for being heterosexual: 0
Number of times I have been fired for being homosexual: 1
Number of times Rubb Ed has been fired for being homosexual: 1

Amount of money that Cathy has donated to anti-gay causes including groups that would like to dissolve my marriage to Rubb Ed: approximately $2 million
Amount of money Rubb Ed and I have donated to anti-straight causes including groups that would like to dissolve Cathy's marriage to his wife: $0

Poor Dan Cathy.

Number of times Chik Fil A has turned away a customer based on their sexual orientation: 0
Number of times Chik Fil A has made a public statement that as a company they hate gays: 0
Number of laws Chik Fil A has drafted in order to keep homosexuals from getting married: 0

What did anyone expect would happen when a strongly Christian businessman, who's restaurant isn't even open on Sunday is interviewed by a specifically Christian magazine about the values that are in play in running his organization?

Dan Cathy wrote:

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

How did this even get to be a news item in the first place? Someone must have been digging pretty hard to want read the Baptist Press website.

I think what most of the people who flocked to the restaurants to support them were reacting against was the idea that politicians could bully a company or person to reject their personal belief that homosexuality is wrong. I realize that is an incredibly unpopular view on these boards, but we live in a country where the freedom exists for a person to believe that way. If one wants to change their minds, calling them names

3. Impetus: 87% likelihood asshole; 6% likelihood confused First Amendment supporter; 6% likelihood contrarian; 1% likelihood really, really likes Chik-fil-A. Effect: negative for boycott & people affected by policies of Chik-fil-A-supported groups.

and comparing them over and over to the KKK is probably not going to win anyone over.

Stop oppressing his religious freedoms, Phoenix!

Nomad wrote:

I think what most of the people who flocked to the restaurants to support them were reacting against was the idea that politicians could bully a company or person to reject their personal belief that homosexuality is wrong.

I wish I was more familiar with the Christian crowd you apparently run with than the ones I've grown up with, because your confirmation bias is nicer than mine.

Nomad wrote:

If one wants to change their minds, calling them names

3. Impetus: 87% likelihood asshole; 6% likelihood confused First Amendment supporter; 6% likelihood contrarian; 1% likelihood really, really likes Chik-fil-A. Effect: negative for boycott & people affected by policies of Chik-fil-A-supported groups.

and comparing them over and over to the KKK is probably not going to win anyone over.

Also, just wanted to say that I agree with your point here too.

Nomad wrote:

Number of times Chik Fil A has turned away a customer based on their sexual orientation: 0

Of course not. Did not Jesus say "A sale is a sale?"

Number of times Chik Fil A has made a public statement that as a company they hate gays: 0

Despite what some say, corporations and companies are not people, they require people to speak on their behalf. And as always, actions speak louder than words: Danno Chikflia had $2 million direct from his company to hate groups, like Phoenix Rev noted (and I think he downplayed it: $2 million represents what was donated in 2010 alone).

Number of laws Chik Fil A has drafted in order to keep homosexuals from getting married: 0

Yeah, they've just made massive donations to groups that support those laws, so they clearly wash their hands of the repercussions.

Spoiler:

The allusion is very deliberate.

I'm really disappointed, because I felt Rev's enraging numbers ought be the final word on the "oppression" of Danno Chikfila, and I wanted to come back to this:

Gravey wrote:
Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.


Thank you
, Gravey, for highlighting this, because it has been bugging me for days that I couldn't craft one of my typically dark and tasteless jokes out of the above situation, and this just perfectly explains why. It is a joke. At the word of a rich and hate-filled asshole, Americans flock to give money to another rich and hate-filled asshole for the privilege of vacuuming up processed, homogenized, engineered form-pressed slurry, and think themselves heroic. Obviously, it's already the best joke it could possibly be. You'd think it came from an edgy satirical sci-fi novel in the vein of Snowcrash or Super Sad True Love Story.

I speak with American authority to say your Canadian view is spot on.

Nomad wrote:

Number of times Chik Fil A has turned away a customer based on their sexual orientation: 0

Well, that certainly makes things better.

Since Rubb Ed will be spending the upcoming Labor Day weekend with me here in Phoenix, I will take great solace in knowing that should he become ill and be hospitalized and the hospital refuses to let me be by his bedside (since Arizona doesn't recognize our marriage), at least I can drown my sorrows at CFA.

Nomad wrote:

How did this even get to be a news item in the first place?

Because it's a presidential election year.

Nomad wrote:

I think what most of the people who flocked to the restaurants to support them were reacting against was the idea that politicians could bully a company or person to reject their personal belief that homosexuality is wrong. I realize that is an incredibly unpopular view on these boards, but we live in a country where the freedom exists for a person to believe that way. If one wants to change their minds, calling them names

3. Impetus: 87% likelihood asshole; 6% likelihood confused First Amendment supporter; 6% likelihood contrarian; 1% likelihood really, really likes Chik-fil-A. Effect: negative for boycott & people affected by policies of Chik-fil-A-supported groups.

and comparing them over and over to the KKK is probably not going to win anyone over.

The above perfectly sums up what's wrong with the folks that lined up to pretend that buying a chicken sandwich meant they were 'taking a stand' against something. In the end, the stand they were taking, along with so many others, was "Stop persecuting us!" which is ironic in the extreme.

edit: This is not a personal jab at you, Nomad, I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

In the end, this is like a lot of political debates. The instant people want to talk about how their feelings are hurt or that any manner of opposition makes them feel bullied, actual rational discussion is out the window. It's no longer a dialogue or even an argument, it's just "you should feel bad!"

edit2: In full disclosure, I have to say the whole CFA appreciation day was horrible and tasteless. Every person who smugly stood up and snapped a picture with their bags of whatever was simply proudly saying, "Hah, take THAT, you liberal hippie gays!" with the self-righteousness usually reserved for thinking of the children, or posting about some obscure cause on Facebook to impress your friends.

Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Number of times Chik Fil A has turned away a customer based on their sexual orientation: 0

Of course not. Did not Jesus say "A sale is a sale?"

Number of times Chik Fil A has made a public statement that as a company they hate gays: 0

Despite what some say, corporations and companies are not people, they require people to speak on their behalf. And as always, actions speak louder than words: Danno Chikflia had $2 million direct from his company to hate groups, like Phoenix Rev noted (and I think he downplayed it: $2 million represents what was donated in 2010 alone).

Number of laws Chik Fil A has drafted in order to keep homosexuals from getting married: 0

Yeah, they've just made massive donations to groups that support those laws, so they clearly wash their hands of the repercussions.

Spoiler:

The allusion is very deliberate.

I'm really disappointed, because I felt Rev's enraging numbers ought be the final word on the "oppression" of Danno Chikfila, and I wanted to come back to this:

Gravey wrote:
Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.


Thank you
, Gravey, for highlighting this, because it has been bugging me for days that I couldn't craft one of my typically dark and tasteless jokes out of the above situation, and this just perfectly explains why. It is a joke. At the word of a rich and hate-filled asshole, Americans flock to give money to another rich and hate-filled asshole for the privilege of vacuuming up processed, homogenized, engineered form-pressed slurry, and think themselves heroic. Obviously, it's already the best joke it could possibly be. You'd think it came from an edgy satirical sci-fi novel in the vein of Snowcrash or Super Sad True Love Story.

I speak with American authority to say your Canadian view is spot on.

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"? Is it completely wrong to show support for a company that is under fire for expressing support for a moral construct that you believe in? I'd probably that the CFA day probably didn't do much for the goal of reaching out in compassion to those who dont share the same views, but it not like these people were parading around with Fred Phelpsian signage.

It is possible to believe homosexuality is morally wrong and not be characterized a "hate-filled asshole." It's also possible to support a company that holds the same morals as you. The problem, however, is that those moral constructs that what's-his-bucket and his restaurants support, and thus the reason that Huckabee is called a hate-filled asshole, is that those religious beliefs are infringing upon and actively supporting the supression of civil rights of American citizens.

For those that went out to support CFA on Aug 1, as was stated upthread, they were at best ignorant of the whole situation, at worst actively discriminating against what they currently consider second-class American citizens.

Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Depends on your actions. Do you use corporate profits to fund hate groups, or rally followers to buy junk food in support of that other guy? Then No, it's not possible, and that's why I described Sir Chikfila and Huckabee in those terms. And I did because I don't believe the day they organized was about their beliefs, I belief it was about money--having lost the gay and friends of gay money, they thought to lock down the gay hating money. It's loathsomely craven. Now, please consider:

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

Well said.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Number of times Chik Fil A has turned away a customer based on their sexual orientation: 0

Of course not. Did not Jesus say "A sale is a sale?"

Number of times Chik Fil A has made a public statement that as a company they hate gays: 0

Despite what some say, corporations and companies are not people, they require people to speak on their behalf. And as always, actions speak louder than words: Danno Chikflia had $2 million direct from his company to hate groups, like Phoenix Rev noted (and I think he downplayed it: $2 million represents what was donated in 2010 alone).

Number of laws Chik Fil A has drafted in order to keep homosexuals from getting married: 0

Yeah, they've just made massive donations to groups that support those laws, so they clearly wash their hands of the repercussions.

Spoiler:

The allusion is very deliberate.

I'm really disappointed, because I felt Rev's enraging numbers ought be the final word on the "oppression" of Danno Chikfila, and I wanted to come back to this:

Gravey wrote:
Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.


Thank you
, Gravey, for highlighting this, because it has been bugging me for days that I couldn't craft one of my typically dark and tasteless jokes out of the above situation, and this just perfectly explains why. It is a joke. At the word of a rich and hate-filled asshole, Americans flock to give money to another rich and hate-filled asshole for the privilege of vacuuming up processed, homogenized, engineered form-pressed slurry, and think themselves heroic. Obviously, it's already the best joke it could possibly be. You'd think it came from an edgy satirical sci-fi novel in the vein of Snowcrash or Super Sad True Love Story.

I speak with American authority to say your Canadian view is spot on.

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"? Is it completely wrong to show support for a company that is under fire for expressing support for a moral construct that you believe in? I'd agree that the CFA day probably didn't do much for the goal of reaching out in compassion to those who dont share the same views, but it not like these people were parading around with Fred Phelpsian signage.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Depends on your actions. Do you use corporate profits to fund hate groups, or rally followers to buy junk food in support of that other guy? Then No, it's not possible, and that's why I described Sir Chikfila and Huckabee in those terms. And I did because I don't believe the day they organized was about their beliefs, I belief it was about money--having lost the gay and friends of gay money, they thought to lock down the gay hating money. It's loathsomely craven. Now, please consider:

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

Well said.

Are "hate groups" any group that supports the traditional definition of marriage?

Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Of course it is. But there is more here than just Cathy saying that he finds homosexuality morally wrong.

Again, Cathy has donated to anti-gay causes that aren't just stating moral objections to homosexuality, but are actively spreading lies about gays and lesbians and attempting to enact legislation that would reverse the progress gays and lesbians have made in achieving equality in America. One particular organization that Cathy donate to, the Family Research Council, has claimed:

1) repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would encourage gays to molest heterosexual service members.
2) homosexuality should be criminalized with harsh penalties.
3) gays disproportionately pose a greater threat to children than heterosexuals.
4) "gay pride" is akin to "adultery pride."
5) gay relationships are harmful and a threat to the public.

Cathy donated money to that group, and it completely strains credulity to say that donating money to such a group doesn't suggest any endorsement of such views.

Is it completely wrong to show support for a company that is under fire for expressing support for a moral construct that you believe in?

Would that be the same moral construct that allows groups like the FRC to lie about gays and lesbians or companies to fire people strictly because of their sexual orientation.

You can dress this up all you wish, but at the end of the day, Cathy got some criticism and a financial bonanza. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians are still second class citizens in America.

Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Depends on your actions. Do you use corporate profits to fund hate groups, or rally followers to buy junk food in support of that other guy? Then No, it's not possible, and that's why I described Sir Chikfila and Huckabee in those terms. And I did because I don't believe the day they organized was about their beliefs, I belief it was about money--having lost the gay and friends of gay money, they thought to lock down the gay hating money. It's loathsomely craven. Now, please consider:

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

Well said.

Are "hate groups" any group that supports the traditional definition of marriage?

There is no traditional definition of marriage. The bible is full of "marriages" that do not fit the "one man and one woman" for life idea. The "traditional definition of marriage" is just a tool to exclude gay people in modern society. So, in my opinion, yes.

nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"? Is it completely wrong to show support for a company that is under fire for expressing support for a moral construct that you believe in? I'd probably that the CFA day probably didn't do much for the goal of reaching out in compassion to those who dont share the same views, but it not like these people were parading around with Fred Phelpsian signage.

I don't expect or even ask for you to change your beliefs. All I want is for you to stop infringing on my rights by legislating your beliefs.

To be honest, I'd rather have people waving signs with Fred Phelps than giving money to organizations that actually prevent me from being treated as an equal citizen.

Damn it all, I just want to eat some delicious chicken nuggets. The service has always been excellent, comparable to full-service restaurants.
I am, once again, disappointed by Mike Huckabee though.

SixteenBlue wrote:

There is no traditional definition of marriage. The bible is full of "marriages" that do not fit the "one man and one woman" for life idea. The "traditional definition of marriage" is just a tool to exclude gay people in modern society. So, in my opinion, yes.

The idea of a "traditional marriage" is indeed a complete canard.

The overwhelming bulk of history has marriage completely unlike what marriage is in America today.

Historical "traditional marriage" includes the following:

  • Women as chattel.
  • Marriages for political alliances.
  • Marriages for military alliances.
  • Polygamous marriage.
  • Coverture.
  • A husband raping his wife with impunity.
  • Anti-miscegenation.

No thanks.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

There is no traditional definition of marriage. The bible is full of "marriages" that do not fit the "one man and one woman" for life idea. The "traditional definition of marriage" is just a tool to exclude gay people in modern society. So, in my opinion, yes.

The idea of a "traditional marriage" is indeed a complete canard.

The overwhelming bulk of history has marriage completely unlike what marriage is in America today.

Historical "traditional marriage" includes the following:

  • Women as chattel.
  • Marriages for political alliances.
  • Marriages for military alliances.
  • Polygamous marriage.
  • Coverture.
  • A husband raping his wife with impunity.
  • Anti-miscegenation.

No thanks.

Exactly. I don't buy the "traditional marriage" argument for a second. I also find it disgusting that something called "Focus on the family" and other "family values" groups would want to prevent anyone from doing exactly that.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Depends on your actions. Do you use corporate profits to fund hate groups, or rally followers to buy junk food in support of that other guy? Then No, it's not possible, and that's why I described Sir Chikfila and Huckabee in those terms. And I did because I don't believe the day they organized was about their beliefs, I belief it was about money--having lost the gay and friends of gay money, they thought to lock down the gay hating money. It's loathsomely craven. Now, please consider:

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

Well said.

Are "hate groups" any group that supports the traditional definition of marriage?

There is no traditional definition of marriage. The bible is full of "marriages" that do not fit the "one man and one woman" for life idea. The "traditional definition of marriage" is just a tool to exclude gay people in modern society. So, in my opinion, yes.

Nice to know that we can all live in harmony.....

Call me when folks want to actually accept and respect others who disagree with their opinions\beliefs.

mcdonis wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Depends on your actions. Do you use corporate profits to fund hate groups, or rally followers to buy junk food in support of that other guy? Then No, it's not possible, and that's why I described Sir Chikfila and Huckabee in those terms. And I did because I don't believe the day they organized was about their beliefs, I belief it was about money--having lost the gay and friends of gay money, they thought to lock down the gay hating money. It's loathsomely craven. Now, please consider:

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

Well said.

Are "hate groups" any group that supports the traditional definition of marriage?

There is no traditional definition of marriage. The bible is full of "marriages" that do not fit the "one man and one woman" for life idea. The "traditional definition of marriage" is just a tool to exclude gay people in modern society. So, in my opinion, yes.

Nice to know that we can all live in harmony.....

Call me when folks want to actually accept and respect others who disagree with their opinionseliefs.

Given that the people I don't accept and respect refuse to accept or respect gay people...I don't get your point. Please stop acting you like you are the victim in this situation.

mcdonis wrote:

Call me when folks want to actually accept and respect others who disagree with their opinionseliefs.

Call me when folks think that denying other human beings the basic right of being treated like equals ceases to be something to be proud of.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Call me when folks want to actually accept and respect others who disagree with their opinionseliefs.

Call me when folks think that denying other human beings the basic right of being treated like equals ceases to be something to be proud of.

I should probably stop posting because everyone else in this thread is doing it better than me.

SixteenBlue wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Depends on your actions. Do you use corporate profits to fund hate groups, or rally followers to buy junk food in support of that other guy? Then No, it's not possible, and that's why I described Sir Chikfila and Huckabee in those terms. And I did because I don't believe the day they organized was about their beliefs, I belief it was about money--having lost the gay and friends of gay money, they thought to lock down the gay hating money. It's loathsomely craven. Now, please consider:

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

Well said.

Are "hate groups" any group that supports the traditional definition of marriage?

There is no traditional definition of marriage. The bible is full of "marriages" that do not fit the "one man and one woman" for life idea. The "traditional definition of marriage" is just a tool to exclude gay people in modern society. So, in my opinion, yes.

Nice to know that we can all live in harmony.....

Call me when folks want to actually accept and respect others who disagree with their opinionseliefs.

Given that the people I don't accept and respect refuse to accept or respect gay people...I don't get your point. Please stop acting you like you are the victim in this situation.

I am when you classify an entire faith as a hate group

People respect your right to have those beliefs, but they don't have to respect you for having them. "But that's just my opinion!" isn't some magical invocation that protects you from criticism. That's not how free speech works.

SixteenBlue wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Call me when folks want to actually accept and respect others who disagree with their opinionseliefs.

Call me when folks think that denying other human beings the basic right of being treated like equals ceases to be something to be proud of.

I should probably stop posting because everyone else in this thread is doing it better than me. :)

I think that is my last post too, I like GWJ too much to keep reading this thread and feeling the way I do.

mcdonis wrote:

I am when you classify an entire faith as a hate group

Not an entire faith, just the ones that won't accept and grant equal rights to people of all persuasions. I believe some of the people in this thread arguing with you are of that exact same faith. A great Christian-oriented article (the 5 ways the church failed article) was posted and appreciated by everyone. This has nothing to do with your faith and has everything to do with discrimination. You are not being discriminated, you are discriminating. The fact that people don't respond positively to that is not hate and it's not an attack on your faith. It actually comes out of love for all of humanity and not just the ones that are born exactly like you.

mcdonis wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Nomad wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Is it possible for someone to believe that homosexuality is morally wrong without being characterized as a "hate-filled asshole"?

Depends on your actions. Do you use corporate profits to fund hate groups, or rally followers to buy junk food in support of that other guy? Then No, it's not possible, and that's why I described Sir Chikfila and Huckabee in those terms. And I did because I don't believe the day they organized was about their beliefs, I belief it was about money--having lost the gay and friends of gay money, they thought to lock down the gay hating money. It's loathsomely craven. Now, please consider:

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm just pointing out the persecution complex that you've highlighted here. It's a common tactic where actually someone is very much interested in not having their minds changed. They no longer wish to talk about the subject actually at hand (someone finding a problem with a company giving money to groups that actively work against gays, and deciding not to go there) and instead trying to shift the argument to something else where the moral high ground can be somehow reversed in their heads ("now you're stopping our free speech!" "we live in a country where you can say unpopular things, stop trying to make it otherwise!").

Well said.

Are "hate groups" any group that supports the traditional definition of marriage?

There is no traditional definition of marriage. The bible is full of "marriages" that do not fit the "one man and one woman" for life idea. The "traditional definition of marriage" is just a tool to exclude gay people in modern society. So, in my opinion, yes.

Nice to know that we can all live in harmony.....

Call me when folks want to actually accept and respect others who disagree with their opinionseliefs.

Given that the people I don't accept and respect refuse to accept or respect gay people...I don't get your point. Please stop acting you like you are the victim in this situation.

I am when you classify an entire faith as a hate group

Millions of Christians support the rights of gays and lesbians to get married to the people they love. Nobody is criticizing Christianity. People are criticizing Christianity for certain members of it using its supposedly morally-exalted position to denigrate and demean people they've decided just aren't as good as they are, just like others in the past used Christianity as moral justification for slavery, racism, and bans on interracial marriage.

mcdonis wrote:

I am when you classify an entire faith as a hate group

I would like some citation of this. As a member of the Christian faith, this forum has certainly challenged me because of my faith, but I have never been told that my realm of Christendom is part of a hate group.

Your statement that the entire faith has been classified as a hate group is completely inaccurate.