Just a thought...

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
As you all know, the gay and lesbian community today will be holding kiss-ins at Chick-fil-A's across the country. I support their right to protest and stand up for their beliefs, just as I support Cathy's right to state his opinion on gay marriage. Personally I side with equality on this issue. If the government is going to be involved in marriage by providing special rights/privileges/tax bene's to couples, then it should not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I would think that the gay and lesbian community is witnessing a very powerful opportunity here presented by some Dem mayors in this country.

If the gay and lesbian community came out hard against the moves by Dem mayors to prohibit Chick-fil-A from opening stores by saying: 'We are here trying to support equal opportunity and the Constitution, we abhor the move (no matter how well intended) to deny Cathy/Chick-fil-A the opportunity to expand his business in this country based on his religious beliefs. While we disagree with Cathy's position, it does not justify a violation of his Constitutional rights.'

The question I pose to the board is this:

What effect do you think that would have on the general populace's mindset?

discuss...
 
Not much I don't think. Most folks against gays base their opinions on gay marriage or homosexuality on religion and it takes a lot to change those sorts of opinions.
 
leaningright said:
Not much I don't think. Most folks against gays base their opinions on gay marriage or homosexuality on religion and it takes a lot to change those sorts of opinions.
Click to expand...

I think the hardcore would be that way, but I think for those who disagree with gay marriage based on religious views who are more moderate/tolerant would at least do a double take on a response like that. At worst, they may feel inclined to toss a little respect to the GLBT community for protesting Cathy's position while at the same time standing up for his right to believe what he does.

Then again, it could just be that I thought this up that makes me think it is a super awesome strategy to win hearts and minds. :)
 
Let's be clear here. By "Some" Democratic Mayors you mean a grand total of three. The Mayors of Boston, San Francisco and Chicago. That's three out of probably several thousand Democratic mayors. So I think it would be safe to call the actions by three Democratic Mayors as being Not Representative. So I would posit that gay activist denouncing the actions of a grand total of "three" Democratic Mayors would have a net sum of "zero" on the general populaces mindset.

That meannig that most people would hold the views they currently have about both issues. Gay Rights and Free Speech. Personally I don't think any sort of rhetoric or reasoning would change hardly anyones minds.

I think what would change the minds of those who oppose gay marriage is actually knowing gay people.

Homophobia in the USA is an issue that confounds me. I don't get it. I travel abroad and I don't even see remotely the fear and hatred towards gays that exists in this country. It's really quite shocking when you think about it.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Let's be clear here. By "Some" Democratic Mayors you mean a grand total of three. The Mayors of Boston, San Francisco and Chicago. That's three out of probably several thousand Democratic mayors. So I think it would be safe to call the actions by three Democratic Mayors as being Not Representative. So I would posit that gay activist denouncing the actions of a grand total of "three" Democratic Mayors would have a net sum of "zero" on the general populaces mindset.

That meannig that most people would hold the views they currently have about both issues. Gay Rights and Free Speech.
Click to expand...

Dear Mutt... yes, three Dem Mayors of three of the largest cities in the country... thanks for nitpicking. That was the entire point of my OP, to talk about the number of Dem mayors. I never stated it was representative of all Dem mayors throughout the country. So take your pathetic straw man and run along home if you don't wish to add any value to the thread.
 
Superfreak said:
Dear Mutt... yes, three Dem Mayors of three of the largest cities in the country... thanks for nitpicking. That was the entire point of my OP, to talk about the number of Dem mayors. I never stated it was representative of all Dem mayors throughout the country. So take your pathetic straw man and run along home if you don't wish to add any value to the thread.
Click to expand...
Well actually that is what I was saying. You're question is based upon a premise that is a strawman. Look in the mirror Tinkerbell.
 
What did these three mayors say? Did they simply present an opinion, or did they suggest using government power to harm CFA?
 
Jarod said:
What did these three mayors say? Did they simply present an opinion, or did they suggest using government power to harm CFA?
Click to expand...
That's a good question. As far as I know all three Mayors stated that "Chik-Fil-A" was not welcome in their city. They didn't say they would take legal measures to prohibit them though one could interpret their comments as an implied threat to do so.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well actually that is what I was saying. You're question is based upon a premise that is a strawman. Look in the mirror Tinkerbell.
Click to expand...

It is not a strawman you moron. It is a fact. You got your panties in a twist because I said 'some' instead of an exact number. I said 'some' because I while I knew of the big ones, I wasn't sure if others had or had not done so and I didn't want to get into a discussion on the exact number. It doesn't matter one bit if it was 1 or 101... you friggin idiot.
 
They prob should not say that, but unless they took action they likely did nothing legally wrong.
 
"IF" these mayors took legal action against CFA, they would be doing the same thing some tried to do to the Mosque in NYC a few years back.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's a good question. As far as I know all three Mayors stated that "Chik-Fil-A" was not welcome in their city. They didn't say they would take legal measures to prohibit them though one could interpret their comments as an implied threat to do so.
Click to expand...

You are such an idiot... in the cases of Boston and Chicago, they stated they would BLOCK Chick-fil-A from opening in their cities. Since then the mayor of Boston has recanted... you see someone told him it would violate the Constitution. Though he continues to say it will be

The Alderman in Chicago stated the same thing... and Rahm went along with it.
 
Contrary to what the Left want you to think, I don't believe this has to do with hatred of gay people at all. Now granted, it is most likely a true homophobic bigot would likely be opposed to gay marriage, that doesn't mean that everyone opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe or bigot. I was rather surprised to read yesterday, where local 'celeb' (if you can call him that) Antoine Dotson (Hide yo wife, hide you kids...) who is 100% flaming gay to the max.... said he supported the Biblical view of marriage... one man, one woman. He was at Chick-Fil-a on Whitesville Dr. in Huntsville, to support Cathy's right to free speech. "That's what freedom is all about," he said. Yeah, I am sure he is the exception and not the rule, but the point is made, not all who support traditional marriage are homophobes.

I would say, a good 30% of my personal friends are gay or bisexual. I have always been a creative person working in creative fields, and therefore, have been around many gay people. I have often been mistaken for being gay, simply by the association with friends who were. And I have seen my gay friends discriminated against because they were gay. In fact, I think I have been discriminated against because someone thought I might be gay. So there are certainly homophobic people out there, and I won't say that many of them weren't at Chick-Fil-a yesterday. But there are a LOT of people out there, who may even BE gay, who support and respect the Biblical definition of marriage.

I think this is an area where our Federal government has somehow entangled itself in something it shouldn't be sanctioning. It is very much a Church and State argument, but instead of it being addressed as this, it is used by the left to foment hate and divisiveness, to call names and ridicule. This has become the left's MO of late... cajole you into believing like them, or reap the consequences, mofo!

You're absolutely right, this is a golden opportunity for the left, OR THE RIGHT, for that matter. This argument needs to be resolved by first pointing out, it is not the Federal government's responsibility to sanction marriage of any kind. And even State governments don't have such a right, because this is fundamentally a part of religious freedom of expression, and falls in that category most appropriately, by our traditional definitions. We have the inalienable right as free people to express our religious beliefs however we please, it's not up to the government to tell us how or to mandate it by law.

I have often proposed an amicable solution to this, by enacting comprehensive civil unions legislation. Whereby, the "government" both Federal and State, would not be permitted to issue licenses for marriage any longer, and in place of this, would only be allowed to issue 2-party civil union contracts, with no parameters regarding relationship, whether it's gay, traditional matrimony, domestic partners, friends, family... whatever, as long as it's two consenting legal-age adults, they can obtain this contract. It will serve the same purposes as traditional marriage currently serves, it wouldn't be an "in addition to" thing, it would just be the way we did things going forward, divorcing government from the marriage sanctioning business. No more "Gay Marriage" or hoopla... but the thing is, I don't think anyone wants this to be resolved.

I think the Left wants to continue using this as a wedge issue against the right. As long as they can get a rise out of the Bible-thumpers, they will! Because they view this as something that will eventually fracture the moderate/indies away from the more socially conservative base, and voila! Success! They don't give two shits about gay people and their little gay problems, this is about a political juggernaut remaining viable politically. Activism is the key, and how the hell can you do that if you solve the problem?
 
Most Major demoninations of Christanity allow Gay Marriage, so Dixie you should stop calling it the Biblical Defination, because there is plenty of debate about that.

It might be YOUR OPINION of the Biblical defination of marriage, but it is not the definative biblical defination.
 
Dixie said:
Contrary to what the Left want you to think, I don't believe this has to do with hatred of gay people at all. Now granted, it is most likely a true homophobic bigot would likely be opposed to gay marriage, that doesn't mean that everyone opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe or bigot. I was rather surprised to read yesterday, where local 'celeb' (if you can call him that) Antoine Dotson (Hide yo wife, hide you kids...) who is 100% flaming gay to the max.... said he supported the Biblical view of marriage... one man, one woman. He was at Chick-Fil-a on Whitesville Dr. in Huntsville, to support Cathy's right to free speech. "That's what freedom is all about," he said. Yeah, I am sure he is the exception and not the rule, but the point is made, not all who support traditional marriage are homophobes.

I would say, a good 30% of my personal friends are gay or bisexual. I have always been a creative person working in creative fields, and therefore, have been around many gay people. I have often been mistaken for being gay, simply by the association with friends who were. And I have seen my gay friends discriminated against because they were gay. In fact, I think I have been discriminated against because someone thought I might be gay. So there are certainly homophobic people out there, and I won't say that many of them weren't at Chick-Fil-a yesterday. But there are a LOT of people out there, who may even BE gay, who support and respect the Biblical definition of marriage.

I think this is an area where our Federal government has somehow entangled itself in something it shouldn't be sanctioning. It is very much a Church and State argument, but instead of it being addressed as this, it is used by the left to foment hate and divisiveness, to call names and ridicule. This has become the left's MO of late... cajole you into believing like them, or reap the consequences, mofo!

You're absolutely right, this is a golden opportunity for the left, OR THE RIGHT, for that matter. This argument needs to be resolved by first pointing out, it is not the Federal government's responsibility to sanction marriage of any kind. And even State governments don't have such a right, because this is fundamentally a part of religious freedom of expression, and falls in that category most appropriately, by our traditional definitions. We have the inalienable right as free people to express our religious beliefs however we please, it's not up to the government to tell us how or to mandate it by law.

I have often proposed an amicable solution to this, by enacting comprehensive civil unions legislation. Whereby, the "government" both Federal and State, would not be permitted to issue licenses for marriage any longer, and in place of this, would only be allowed to issue 2-party civil union contracts, with no parameters regarding relationship, whether it's gay, traditional matrimony, domestic partners, friends, family... whatever, as long as it's two consenting legal-age adults, they can obtain this contract. It will serve the same purposes as traditional marriage currently serves, it wouldn't be an "in addition to" thing, it would just be the way we did things going forward, divorcing government from the marriage sanctioning business. No more "Gay Marriage" or hoopla... but the thing is, I don't think anyone wants this to be resolved.

I think the Left wants to continue using this as a wedge issue against the right. As long as they can get a rise out of the Bible-thumpers, they will! Because they view this as something that will eventually fracture the moderate/indies away from the more socially conservative base, and voila! Success! They don't give two shits about gay people and their little gay problems, this is about a political juggernaut remaining viable politically. Activism is the key, and how the hell can you do that if you solve the problem?
Click to expand...

Do you agree that trying to prohibit CFA's in certian cities is akin to trying to prevent a Mosque in NYC?
 
Jughead said:
Do you agree that trying to prohibit CFA's in certian cities is akin to trying to prevent a Mosque in NYC?
Click to expand...

YOU WEREN'T IN FAVOR OF PREVENTING A MOSQUE IN NYC!

That's the WHOLE goddamn point here, you moron! You think it's fine and dandy to prohibit CFA in certain states, because the owner is opposed to same-sex marriage.... whereas, Muslims believe homosexuals should be EXECUTED, but have the right to build their Mosque wherever! It's like this glaring monumental fucked-up hypocrisy that is almost unbelievable... only from the left, could we find such a thing.
 
Dixie said:
YOU WEREN'T IN FAVOR OF PREVENTING A MOSQUE IN NYC!

That's the WHOLE goddamn point here, you moron! You think it's fine and dandy to prohibit CFA in certain states, because the owner is opposed to same-sex marriage.... whereas, Muslims believe homosexuals should be EXECUTED, but have the right to build their Mosque wherever! It's like this glaring monumental fucked-up hypocrisy that is almost unbelievable... only from the left, could we find such a thing.
Click to expand...

IM NOT IN FAVOR OF PREVENTING A CFA IN CHICAGO !
Im the one being consistant on this issue.
 
Jughead said:
Most Major demoninations of Christanity allow Gay Marriage, so Dixie you should stop calling it the Biblical Defination, because there is plenty of debate about that.

It might be YOUR OPINION of the Biblical defination of marriage, but it is not the definative biblical defination.
Click to expand...

CITE???

Uhm... I believe it is MUCH MORE than simply MY OPINION, moron.
Did you miss all the pictures from Chick-Fil-a from around the country yesterday?

Yes, pretty much definitively, most denominations of Christian religion oppose homosexual marriage. Not all... but most.

Let it also be noted, very FEW Christian denominations condemn people who are homosexual. While many teach homosexual behavior is sinful and wrong, they do not condemn those who engage in the sin... (love the sinner, hate the sin.) In that regard, many Christian churches welcome gay people, even openly gay people, into their congregations and even their ministries in some cases. But this is not to be mistaken for a Christian view that condones or supports homosexuality. It's more a Christian view that believes in tolerance, forgiveness and love.

Of course, Christophobes and Christian-bashers don't discriminate, they are 'equal-opportunity' bigots.
 
Jughead said:
IM NOT IN FAVOR OF PREVENTING A CFA IN CHICAGO !
Im the one being consistant on this issue.
Click to expand...

Well why aren't you at your liberal blog sites demanding that Rahm Emmanuel apologize and rescind his stupid remarks?

Why aren't you posting one thread after another about this outrage you have? That's usually what yo do, isn't it?

I'm not seeing one thing you've posted to defend Chick-Fil-a or Cathy, or condemn Chicago or the Left.

So no... you're pretty fucking NOT being consistent!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top