Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

07/28/2012 06:46:04 PM · #5751

Not everybody is a libertarian Shannon. If you require this of him or me or others, then you will go home disappointed.

07/28/2012 07:00:09 PM · #5752

The difference between between libertarianism and actively fighting against the rights of others could not be more stark, and I'm indeed disappointed by your cognitive dissonance.

07/28/2012 07:08:07 PM · #5753

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Doc, the dude's calling down hellfire and damnation on us. He says we, as a nation, will suffer God's wrath because we have the temerity to accept as fellow souls those who would choose to park their gear in non-standard orifices. He's backing this up by requiring that employees of his (very large and successful) company pay at least lip service to his beliefs if they want a job with Chik-Fil-A.

You find this defensible at what level, exactly? This is straight from the Jim Crow Lawbook. It's just not about color anymore...

It's possible I'm missing something that he's done. Let me list what I'm aware of:

He's gone on the record to say he is against gay marriage. He's done this with both subtle and outspoken language.
He's donated his own money to a group that I'm guessing works to prevent the legalization of gay marriage.
He's prevented gay couples from attending business couples retreats. Was this in a state where gay marriage was recognized? I don't know the details here. (do note this means that he has obviously hired gays).
He fired a Muslim because he wouldn't participate in a company led prayer.
He revoked a franchise of someone who got a divorce.

Frankly, of all those I think the Muslim bit is the most questionable, but also the least relevant to the discussion.

Here's what I am not aware he has done:

Not served someone because they are gay.
Not hired someone because they are gay.

Both of those are difficult to defend for a simple business, but I'm not aware he's done this. Where have I run afoul?

07/28/2012 07:09:34 PM · #5754

Originally posted by scalvert:

The difference between between libertarianism and actively fighting against the rights of others could not be more stark, and I'm indeed disappointed by your cognitive dissonance.

But interestingly this isn't a right in all but a handful of states. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

07/28/2012 07:14:42 PM · #5755

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But interestingly this isn't a right in all but a handful of states.

Like the states that encompass Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/28/2012 07:19:09 PM · #5756

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc, the dude's calling down hellfire and damnation on us. He says we, as a nation, will suffer God's wrath because we have the temerity to accept as fellow souls those who would choose to park their gear in non-standard orifices. He's backing this up by requiring that employees of his (very large and successful) company pay at least lip service to his beliefs if they want a job with Chik-Fil-A.

You find this defensible at what level, exactly? This is straight from the Jim Crow Lawbook. It's just not about color anymore...

It's possible I'm missing something that he's done. Let me list what I'm aware of:

He's gone on the record to say he is against gay marriage. He's done this with both subtle and outspoken language.
He's donated his own money to a group that I'm guessing works to prevent the legalization of gay marriage.
He's prevented gay couples from attending business couples retreats. Was this in a state where gay marriage was recognized? I don't know the details here. (do note this means that he has obviously hired gays).
He fired a Muslim because he wouldn't participate in a company led prayer.
He revoked a franchise of someone who got a divorce.

Frankly, of all those I think the Muslim bit is the most questionable, but also the least relevant to the discussion.

Here's what I am not aware he has done:

Not served someone because they are gay.
Not hired someone because they are gay.

Both of those are difficult to defend for a simple business, but I'm not aware he's done this. Where have I run afoul?

Sadly, if this is man's actions are a reflection on how "Christians" believe they should behave, then theirs is a sad state of affairs indeed.

Ray

07/28/2012 07:27:49 PM · #5757

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Where have I run afoul?

By defending the indefensible. If McDonald's donated millions to groups trying to overturn laws against racial segregation, banned Jews from company retreats and fired Christians for refusing to kneel and swear oaths to Allah, you would be applauding Huckabee and Santorum as they trip over themselves to organize boycotts.

07/28/2012 07:59:50 PM · #5758

Double post

Message edited by author 2012-07-28 20:04:51.

07/28/2012 08:01:46 PM · #5759

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where have I run afoul?

By defending the indefensible. If McDonald's donated millions to groups trying to overturn laws against racial segregation, banned Jews from company retreats and fired Christians for refusing to kneel and swear oaths to Allah, you would be applauding Huckabee and Santorum as they trip over themselves to organize boycotts.

Possible. We've both agreed boycotts are tools available to the consumer.

07/28/2012 08:04:19 PM · #5760

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:
[quote=DrAchoo]But interestingly this isn't a right in all but a handful of states.

Like the states that encompass Boston, Chicago and San Francisco.

Quite right. But they only have a handful of their 1,600 stores in these areas. They may have to play by different rules in those states. Certainly he can still be against gay marriage. He can still donate his money where he wants. The only thing he might not be able to do is keep spouses from attending the retreats.

BTW, let's be clear of what we're talking about. I didn't see a link above, but I see two possibilities we're talking about.

One, the company has a retreat for franchise owners or managers or whatever at some location. The policy is that spouses may attend and the company picks up the tab. If you have a live-in girlfriend or a same-sex partner, you are out of luck because they are not spouses (assuming this is in a state that doesn't/didn't recognize same-sex marriage).

Two, the company has a retreat for couples that both work for the company. People in same-sex relationships are forbidden from attending.

In my mind the first is perfectly reasonable if that's the way they want to roll. The second would be different and I'd think that was not proper. So which was it?

Message edited by author 2012-07-28 20:24:50.

Mousie

07/29/2012 01:04:50 PM · #5761

DrAchoo, I guess from now on you won't be complaining about tone if people say something like "religion is tearing apart the USA in an entirely unamerican fashion over petty entitlements and privileges because it's inherently bigoted, exclusionist, and insane... blinding it's followers to even the most vitriolic assertions of their peers, a worrisome recipe for a second Holocaust".

Because, you know, if I were to say that I'd just be supporting secularism.

I eagerly await this change in your approach.

07/29/2012 01:26:25 PM · #5762

If you said that you'd be a little more prosaic than usual. ;). Go ahead. You've said as much before. Just stop bitching about Cathy and his words. If you dish it, you have to take it.

Just to be clear, I don't like that language either. I've already intimated that I would never personally say what Cathy did. So, between you, Cathy, and myself, I'm the only one to avoid inflammatory speech.

Well, I'm off to church. Maybe,like Chick-fli-a this thread should close on Sunday.

Message edited by author 2012-07-29 13:46:37.

Mousie

07/29/2012 02:01:23 PM · #5763

How many times will I need to explain that I'm bitching about how people like you are representing Cathy's words, before it sticks? Have I not been clear up until now?

At least you've switched from using phrases like "support traditional marriage" to "against gay marriage", so I guess in a way I can enjoy a bit of success, despite your protestations that there's no difference between the two.

It's just so absurd, this blatant false dichotomy, even setting aside the bigotry. I support traditional marriage. I'm all for it! It's only a zero-sum game for conservatives. Unfortunately, the direct implications of your stance suggest that I don't support traditional marriage, because I disagree with Cathy's bigotry.

You've asked how he could support traditional marriage without throwing gays under the bus... well gosh, maybe he could learn something or two from a sorry deviant. I support it, and I haven't once had to denigrate gays to do so. It's called effing support for a reason. I support it so much that I've modeled my life as close to it as is possible for me to do. You know. I got married.

Message edited by author 2012-07-29 14:05:08.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/29/2012 03:32:58 PM · #5764

Originally posted by Mousie:

You've asked how he could support traditional marriage without throwing gays under the bus... well gosh, maybe he could learn something or two from a sorry deviant. I support it, and I haven't once had to denigrate gays to do so.

In case that wasn't clear enough, I think we can safely assume that you support Protestant Christianity. Does that make it OK to speak out against allowing people to practice other religions and donate money to ban mosques and synagogues? Because that would be the exact same intolerance, hate, discrimination and bigotry you're so desperately trying to disown.

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

07/29/2012 03:56:13 PM · #5765

I had this very debate with an Evangelical acquaintance of mine and after dancing and dancing around semantics and view points and on and on... it came to the point where he actually said that I shouldn't be able to get "married" as an atheist. Yes, I can't use the word marriage, even in a straight relationship, because I'm atheist. I can have "civil union:. How much more arrogant can you get?

So yes, people really do go down that ridiculous rabbit hole.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/29/2012 04:19:45 PM · #5766

It's like "they" have absconded with the word "marriage" and perverted its meaning to support their own worldview. Boggles the mind. Don't these people realize that the religious concept of "marriage" is piggybacked on to a civil, secular contract? And how do they get around the "marriage is between one man and one woman" idea when they have to confront the religions that allow polygamy? It seems to me that this sewage backs all the way up to the inevitable statement "any union not sanctioned by our Lord Jesus Christ is not a valid marriage..."

It's ludicrous.

07/29/2012 04:44:22 PM · #5767

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Don't these people realize that the religious concept of "marriage" is piggybacked on to a civil, secular contract?

Nope. If you inform an evangelical that churches were not involved in marriage for hundreds of years after Jesus, you'll either get a blank stare or ignorant denial.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/29/2012 05:40:02 PM · #5768

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, I'm off to church. Maybe,like Chick-fli-a this thread should close on Sunday.

...There you go again... trying to impose your religious views on the rest of us. :O)

Ray

escapetooz

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

07/29/2012 06:13:17 PM · #5769

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Don't these people realize that the religious concept of "marriage" is piggybacked on to a civil, secular contract?

Nope. If you inform an evangelical that churches were not involved in marriage for hundreds of years after Jesus, you'll either get a blank stare or ignorant denial.

Yes because admitting culture has changed, especially religious culture means... GASP that whether or not you believe God's word is infallible and unchanging is irrelevant in the face of changing cultural interpretations of said word. Anyone who used the bible for ill in the past wasn't a "real" Christian or other lame excuses that ignore that the people using the bible for ill today are just as "unreal" and eventually equality WILL win out and people will realize using the bible against gays is just as vile as using it against blacks. End of story.

And that just hurts their brains. They want things simple and laid out black and white. Nice and easy.

07/29/2012 07:11:55 PM · #5770

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I'm surprised at you Robert. You should know better than this. If we're talking about marriage in the western world or specifically in the Judeo-Christian tradition we are going to understand that in the beginning there was no distinction between religious and civil. The culture was a theocracy and there was no such thing as "secular". So when we have Jewish marriage contracts recovered from the period of the Babylonian exile there is no way we can understand them as "secular" in any way we understand that word now.

Message edited by author 2012-07-29 19:13:05.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/29/2012 08:21:42 PM · #5771

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You most certainly would have to limit yourself to the Judeo-Christian traditions since the union between consenting individuals predates this group by thousands of years.

The next time you have the opportunity to speak someone familiar with Native American history, do take the time to ask them about marriages and whether or not they discriminated against same sex couples... you might find the answer quite surprising.

Ray

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/29/2012 08:33:07 PM · #5772

Originally posted by scalvert:

If you inform an evangelical that churches were not involved in marriage for hundreds of years after Jesus, you'll either get a blank stare or ignorant denial.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we're talking about marriage in the western world or specifically in the Judeo-Christian tradition we are going to understand that in the beginning there was no distinction between religious and civil. The culture was a theocracy and there was no such thing as "secular".

^ Looks like we're going with ignorant denial. Until the Council of Trent in 1545, Christian marriages were by mutual verbal consent (verbum), without any priest or even a witness, and often arranged. To this day, you can be legally married with zero church involvement.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/29/2012 08:37:13 PM · #5773

You can say whatever you want, Jason, but you're speaking ONLY to the Judeo-Christian tradition. And, while there's evidence that the Christians were getting into the marriage business in an official way as far back as the 8th century, it's a fact that the Sacrament of Marriage didn't enter the church's canon until the Council of Trent in 1563.

Look, "marriage" has been going on, in many forms, officially and otherwise, for at LEAST 4,500 years. It's ridiculous that the Christian church is trying to own the concept, which is essentially what's happening here.

I know I'm guilty of a little hyperbole with this statement, and I know it's just a hard-core fringe of the Church that's doing this, but geeze louise... When you make these arguments, you're like an enabler of unmitigated bullcrap, Jason. These people do NOT represent what you believe; they're irrational zealots with an entirely unacceptable agenda. But it's like because they self-identify as "Christian" (and what would the Lord really think of their beliefs and behaviors? Have you asked yourself that?) you feel a compulsion to whitewash their nonsense for the rest of us.

Message edited by author 2012-07-29 20:37:22.

07/29/2012 09:25:05 PM · #5774

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Look, "marriage" has been going on, in many forms, officially and otherwise, for at LEAST 4,500 years. It's ridiculous that the Christian church is trying to own the concept, which is essentially what's happening here.

I'm not trying to make some argument that Judeo-Christianity invented marriage. What I am saying is that the term "secular" likely has zero meaning more than say 400 years ago (and even then it would have been in its infancy of development). So I'm just calling it revisionist to claim that marriage was completely happy as a religionless institution (the very definition of secular) when marriage has been around, like you say, for millennia before "secular" was even invented.

It just sounded like you were saying that secular marriage was somehow foundational to religious marriage and it makes no sense when we know religious marriages existed at the very least two thousand years before secular was even a concept.

Message edited by author 2012-07-29 21:34:06.