PDA

View Full Version : Jim Henson company and chick fil a sever ties over restaurant's anti gay views



mrveggieman
07-23-2012, 04:23 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/jim-henson-company-chick-fil-a-anti-gay_n_1694809.html

andrewhoya
07-23-2012, 04:56 PM
Great to see this. I have stopped eating there.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 10:40 AM
you guys do realize that the people working there are americans who need work? the employees will be the only ones to suffer when they start to downsize do to lack of business and I am sure all are not with chick fil a on this one, but they got to work!

AUTaxMan
07-24-2012, 10:41 AM
I doubt any boycott will significantly affect their sales.

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 10:44 AM
you guys do realize that the people working there are americans who need work? the employees will be the only ones to suffer when they start to downsize do to lack of business and I am sure all are not with chick fil a on this one, but they got to work!
Most of the workers at my Chik Fil A are high school kids who dont NEED the work.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 11:08 AM
that must be nice to not NEED to work

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 11:11 AM
You know what.....I'm doing a 180 on this and supporting the Boycott....

While some people might think this is hypocritical after the whole "Gay Oreos" nonsense, the big difference is that Chick-Fil-A is practicing EXCLUSION in their blatant BIGOTRY towards the gay community.

The Oreo thing was trying to support INCLUSION and thus the two sides are about RIGHT and WRONG.


It is WRONG for Chick-Fil-A to be Anti-gay and I'm glad that the Jim Henson company severed their ties with such a despicable company.


I said before I would still eat at Chick-Fil-A.....but after carefully reading the comments said by the President and watching how wrong this really is....I have changed my mind.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 11:15 AM
No chick fil a, is not a human and cannot exclude anyone, it is the owner views, which he has the rights to, but not the workers nor the suppliers who will bethe only ones to lose out in the end.

AUTaxMan
07-24-2012, 11:17 AM
What does it mean to be "anti-gay"? What did CFA do to get the "anti-gay" label?

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 11:24 AM
What does it mean to be "anti-gay"? What did CFA do to get the "anti-gay" label?
Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html

They are donating money to anti-gay groups.....

AUTaxMan
07-24-2012, 11:35 AM
Here you go:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html

They are donating money to anti-gay groups.....

What is anti-gay? If you don't support gay marriage, are you anti-gay? If you support entities that only support traditional marriage, are you anti-gay? Do you have to hate gay people to be anti-gay? Do you hate gay people if you don't support gay marriage? What is the liberal position on what it takes to be labeled as anti-gay?

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 11:36 AM
Chick-Fil-A Official Boycott website:

http://boycottchickfila.com/

They are planning a "Same-Sex Kiss day" @ Chick-Fil-A restaurants on August 3rd.

I wish them luck and I can't wait to see what CFA will do.

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 11:46 AM
Chick-Fil-A Official Boycott website:

http://boycottchickfila.com/

They are planning a "Same-Sex Kiss day" @ Chick-Fil-A restaurants on August 3rd.

I wish them luck and I can't wait to see what CFA will do.


I just took a look at it. I reposted it to my facebook page.

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 11:48 AM
Boycott's website note:

"I understand that Chick-Fil-A is a "christian" company and, just like you or I, can donate to anybody they please. My understanding is that they choose to donate to various extremist anti-gay groups.
When you give them your money they turn around and give that money to anti-gay groups.
You must decide which soul you want to feed."

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 12:00 PM
What is anti-gay? Not supporting rhe rights of those who are LGBT. If you don't support gay marriage, are you anti-gay? IMO yes. If you support entities that only support traditional marriage, are you anti-gay? IMO, yes. Do you have to hate gay people to be anti-gay? No, but most do. Do you hate gay people if you don't support gay marriage? Hate, no, but it does make you anti-gay. What is the liberal position on what it takes to be labeled as anti-gay?

My opinions.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 12:11 PM
well that makes me an ant-gay with good friends who are gay, I will let them know next time we go out (this weekend) that I am labeled as ant-gay.

and chick fil a is not anything, it is one person not the workers.

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 12:16 PM
Are you against those who are LGBT having the same rights of those who are straight?
well that makes me an ant-gay with good friends who are gay, I will let them know next time we go out (this weekend) that I am labeled as ant-gay.

and chick fil a is not anything, it is one person not the workers.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 12:31 PM
what rights?

if you are talking a traditional marriage that can result in children, i would say, lets see two gays produce children without outside help.

if two homosexuals want to be married, then that is their business, but can't we call it maybe homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage rather than just marriage, kind of like a gay bar or gay parade or gay rights?

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 12:34 PM
What is wrong with just calling it a marriage? How does it affect your everyday life if it is just a marriage? It shouldn't matter if it is two guys, two girls, or a guy and a girl. If they are married, they are in a marriage.
what rights?

if you are talking a traditional marriage that can result in children, i would say, lets see two gays produce children without outside help.

if two homosexuals want to be married, then that is their business, but can't we call it maybe homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage rather than just marriage, kind of like a gay bar or gay parade or gay rights?

boba
07-24-2012, 12:52 PM
You know what.....I'm doing a 180 on this and supporting the Boycott....

While some people might think this is hypocritical after the whole "Gay Oreos" nonsense, the big difference is that Chick-Fil-A is practicing EXCLUSION in their blatant BIGOTRY towards the gay community.

The Oreo thing was trying to support INCLUSION and thus the two sides are about RIGHT and WRONG.


It is WRONG for Chick-Fil-A to be Anti-gay and I'm glad that the Jim Henson company severed their ties with such a despicable company.


I said before I would still eat at Chick-Fil-A.....but after carefully reading the comments said by the President and watching how wrong this really is....I have changed my mind.



I think people forget that all he said was that he he supports traditional marriage. Seriously people, this isn't worse then oreo putting a rainbow. If they decided not to surve gay people, that would be different. A 91 year old man says he supports traditional marriage (and doesn't say anything directly against gays) and everyone freaks out, really?

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 12:52 PM
What is wrong with just calling it a marriage? How does it affect your everyday life if it is just a marriage? It shouldn't matter if it is two guys, two girls, or a guy and a girl. If they are married, they are in a marriage.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 12:54 PM
I think people forget that all he said was that he he supports traditional marriage. Seriously people, this isn't worse then oreo putting a rainbow. If they decided not to surve gay people, that would be different. A 91 year old man says he supports traditional marriage (and doesn't say anything directly against gays) and everyone freaks out, really?
Tons of people flipped out after Oreo did the rainbow saying they were never eating oreos again. How is this any different?

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 12:56 PM
CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:
After months and months in this forum, my first church.

boba
07-24-2012, 12:58 PM
Tons of people flipped out after Oreo did the rainbow saying they were never eating oreos again. How is this any different?


My whole point is that it isn't different. If you haven't, read the oreo thread.

duane1969
07-24-2012, 01:36 PM
What is anti-gay? If you don't support gay marriage, are you anti-gay? If you support entities that only support traditional marriage, are you anti-gay? Do you have to hate gay people to be anti-gay? Do you hate gay people if you don't support gay marriage? What is the liberal position on what it takes to be labeled as anti-gay?

If you don't embrace homosexuality whole-heartedly, if you do not entirely buy into the idea that people of the same gender having sex is natural, if you do not fully accept the liberal definition of marriage, if you do not take a psychotic militant hate-filled position towards anyone who isn't 100% pro-gay...then you are anti-gay.


Chick-Fil-A Official Boycott website:

http://boycottchickfila.com/

They are planning a "Same-Sex Kiss day" @ Chick-Fil-A restaurants on August 3rd.

I wish them luck and I can't wait to see what CFA will do.

Gotta love those radical liberals. They respond to a message of hatred and division by creating a website to promote hatred and division.


Are you against those who are LGBT having the same rights of those who are straight?

What rights do straight people have that gay people do not? Name one.

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 01:44 PM
If you don't embrace homosexuality whole-heartedly, if you do not entirely buy into the idea that people of the same gender having sex is natural, if you do not fully accept the liberal definition of marriage, if you do not take a psychotic militant hate-filled position towards anyone who isn't 100% pro-gay...then you are anti-gay.



Gotta love those radical liberals. They respond to a message of hatred and division by creating a website to promote hatred and division.



What rights do straight people have that gay people do not? Name one.


I don't know, lets start with the right to marry another consenting adult of their choosing.

duane1969
07-24-2012, 02:00 PM
I don't know, lets start with the right to marry another consenting adult of their choosing.

We have done this before. You should have figured it out by now.

Straight people do not have the right to marry. There is no law, no constitutional right and no constitutional amendment that protects or guarantees the right for straight people to marry.

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 02:02 PM
If you don't embrace homosexuality whole-heartedly, if you do not entirely buy into the idea that people of the same gender having sex is natural, if you do not fully accept the liberal definition of marriage, if you do not take a psychotic militant hate-filled position towards anyone who isn't 100% pro-gay...then you are anti-gay.



Gotta love those radical liberals. They respond to a message of hatred and division by creating a website to promote hatred and division.



What rights do straight people have that gay people do not? Name one.




Right now, gays and lesbians are actually denied 1138 rights given to heterosexuals. Here are some of the ways in which GLBT people are not equal under the eyes of the law:

Marriage: (http://gayteens.about.com/od/rightsandactivism/f/marriage.htm) In all but four states, same sex partners cannot legally wed.
Protection from Discrimination: In many states, you do not have the right to protection from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Joint Taxes: GLBT couples cannot file taxes jointly; as a result, taxes for a GLBT couple can be significantly higher.
Hospital Visitation: GLBT couples have no legal right to visit a spouse in the hospital and can be barred from entering the room by medical personnel.
Estate Taxes: GLBT couples cannot pass their estate to a spouse tax-free, which creates a huge tax burden that can result in the loss of a spouse's home or business.
Job Security: In a majority of states, employees can be fired just for being gay.
Immigration: GLBT partners are denied special consideration for the immigration of a spouse, often resulting in a painful separation when a loved one is from a foreign country.
Property Taxes: GLBT partners must pay property tax when transferring property between spouses.
Social Security: GLBT partners are not eligible to receive a spouse's Social Security pension or many other government benefits.
Medical Decisions: During a medical crisis, GLBT couples cannot legally make treatment decisions for their partners.
Domestic Violence: GLBT people cannot get domestic violence protection orders against a partner or former partner.



Here are some.

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 02:04 PM
We have done this before. You should have figured it out by now.

Straight people do not have the right to marry. There is no law, no constitutional right and no constitutional amendment that protects or guarantees the right for straight people to marry.
Are you really THAT literal Duane? Would you prefer for us to use the word 'privilege'?

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 02:08 PM
We have done this before. You should have figured it out by now.

Straight people do not have the right to marry. There is no law, no constitutional right and no constitutional amendment that protects or guarantees the right for straight people to marry.

You are missing the point. If a straight person can legally marry a person another consenting adult how is that not discrimination if a gay person cannot marry another consenting adult? If a gay person cannot legally marry another consenting adult then you should have no problem with straight people not being to legally marry either.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 02:10 PM
What is anti-gay? If you don't support gay marriage, are you anti-gay? If you support entities that only support traditional marriage, are you anti-gay? Do you have to hate gay people to be anti-gay? Do you hate gay people if you don't support gay marriage? What is the liberal position on what it takes to be labeled as anti-gay?

Anti-Gay = Against homosexuality in all forms. This does not mean not supporting gay marriage, it takes more than that to be truly anti-gay. Anti-Gay would be wanting homosexuality outlawed, I think, which would mean that, while all Anti-Gays are opposed to gay marriage, not everyone opposed to gay marriage is Anti-Gay. They are Anti-Gay Marriage. For example, I know a guy who doesn't care if you're gay, straight or whatever, but is opposed to gay marriage. He has his reasons, which I disagree with, but I would never in a million years call him "Anti-Gay". Supporting entities that don't support gay marriage does not make one Anti-Gay but, again, in and of itself only makes one Anti-Gay Marriage. Not supporting gay marriage does not mean you hate gays. I think a lot of people on the left see this backwards. A lot of people do believe these things make you Anti Gay or mean you hate gays. I think it's the other way around and it takes more than a stance on one issue, marriage, to make one Anti-Gay or a hater of gays or truly homophobic (I say truly because the term homophobic is often used to describe stupid things like cutting a homosexual off in traffic or some other truly non-homophobic act...kind of like "hate crime").

I imagine looking for the "Liberal" definition of "Anti-Gay" is an exercise in futility. I consider myself to be fairly liberal and as you can see in this thread, my views differ from other liberal's.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 02:15 PM
andrew, who said it was about me? though homosexuals do affect me, they often help decide where we go on vacation, where we go out to eat, who drives for the evening(usually me), but nothing negative. i am sure that i would not only go to their wedding but would help in many ways, heck i might even be in the wedding party.

but to change the definition of marriage for the few, makes no sense to me, how about a homosexual union instead?

there is no such thing as fair, this is for liberals who would like to redistribute the wealth( as long as it is not their wealth)

if you want to see homosexual discimination go to iran, iraq, or the other muslim ran countries, homosexuals are lucky to be here where most of us don't care what they do as long as they are not taking from us.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 02:16 PM
andrew, who said it was about me? though homosexuals do affect me, they often help decide where we go on vacation, where we go out to eat, who drives for the evening(usually me), but nothing negative. i am sure that i would not only go to their wedding but would help in many ways, heck i might even be in the wedding party.

but to change the definition of marriage for the few, makes no sense to me, how about a homosexual union instead?

there is no such thing as fair, this is for liberals who would like to redistribute the wealth( as long as it is not their wealth)

if you want to see homosexual discimination go to iran, iraq, or the other muslim ran countries, homosexuals are lucky to be here where most of us don't care what they do as long as they are not taking from us.

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 02:19 PM
andrew, who said it was about me? though homosexuals do affect me, they often help decide where we go on vacation, where we go out to eat, who drives for the evening(usually me), but nothing negative. i am sure that i would not only go to their wedding but would help in many ways, heck i might even be in the wedding party.

but to change the definition of marriage for the few, makes no sense to me, how about a homosexual union instead?

there is no such thing as fair, this is for liberals who would like to redistribute the wealth( as long as it is not their wealth)

if you want to see homosexual discimination go to iran, iraq, or the other muslim ran countries, homosexuals are lucky to be here where most of us don't care what they do as long as they are not taking from us.


Why do you keep going into the ills of muslim countries? Gays are not being treated fairly in our own country. Let's clean up our own house before we try to clean someone elses.

duane1969
07-24-2012, 02:20 PM
I am literal enough that when I hear the accusation that gays do not have the same rights as straights that I am logical enough to comprehend that what is really being said is that gays want rights that nobody else has.

And that list you provided of "rights" that gays do not have is entirely wrong. Gays have Federal protection from discrimination, filing joint taxes and estate taxes are not a right, hospital visitation is not a right, gays are protected from job loss due to sexual orientation by the same Federal law that protects them from discrimination, SS benefits are only available to family members and even step-children have difficulty getting them, and domestic violence is illegal for all people and if not then there are laws against assault and battery regardless of sexual orientation, just because there is not a specific law addressing gay domestic violence does not mean they have no pretection from battery.

I repeat. Gays have every right that straights do.

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 02:26 PM
andrew, who said it was about me? though homosexuals do affect me, they often help decide where we go on vacation, where we go out to eat, who drives for the evening(usually me), but nothing negative. i am sure that i would not only go to their wedding but would help in many ways, heck i might even be in the wedding party.

but to change the definition of marriage for the few, makes no sense to me, how about a homosexual union instead?

there is no such thing as fair, this is for liberals who would like to redistribute the wealth( as long as it is not their wealth)

if you want to see homosexual discimination go to iran, iraq, or the other muslim ran countries, homosexuals are lucky to be here where most of us don't care what they do as long as they are not taking from us.
1. How does two guys being married affect you?
2. It wouldnt be changing it for the few. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions who are gay.

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 02:27 PM
I'd just like a one word answer here- yes or no. Are those who are gay equal in our country to those who are not?
I am literal enough that when I hear the accusation that gays do not have the same rights as straights that I am logical enough to comprehend that what is really being said is that gays want rights that nobody else has.

And that list you provided of "rights" that gays do not have is entirely wrong. Gays have Federal protection from discrimination, filing joint taxes and estate taxes are not a right, hospital visitation is not a right, gays are protected from job loss due to sexual orientation by the same Federal law that protects them from discrimination, SS benefits are only available to family members and even step-children have difficulty getting them, and domestic violence is illegal for all people and if not then there are laws against assault and battery regardless of sexual orientation, just because there is not a specific law addressing gay domestic violence does not mean they have no pretection from battery.

I repeat. Gays have every right that straights do.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 02:29 PM
andrew, who said it was about me? though homosexuals do affect me, they often help decide where we go on vacation, where we go out to eat, who drives for the evening(usually me), but nothing negative. i am sure that i would not only go to their wedding but would help in many ways, heck i might even be in the wedding party.

but to change the definition of marriage for the few, makes no sense to me, how about a homosexual union instead?

there is no such thing as fair, this is for liberals who would like to redistribute the wealth( as long as it is not their wealth)

if you want to see homosexual discimination go to iran, iraq, or the other muslim ran countries, homosexuals are lucky to be here where most of us don't care what they do as long as they are not taking from us.

Ok, this is one of the stupidest arguments ever. Right up there with "Well, could you do any better?"
I don't need to be a master chef to know when my steak is overcooked and just because it's worse elsewhere doesn't mean it shouldn't be better here than it is now.

duane1969
07-24-2012, 02:30 PM
You are missing the point. If a straight person can legally marry a person another consenting adult how is that not discrimination if a gay person cannot marry another consenting adult? If a gay person cannot legally marry another consenting adult then you should have no problem with straight people not being to legally marry either.

I am not going to argue the definition of what is or is not discrimination. The claim is that gays do not have the same right to marry that straights do and that is an entirely flase claim because straights do not have the right to marry.

What's more, concerning the discrimination aspect, gays do not want the right to "marry", they want the legal rights that marriage provides. So this whole "we don't have the right to marry" crap is just that, crap. I support gays having the same rights as everyone else. I do not support a government sanctioned requirement that society accept the liberal definition of marriage.

duane1969
07-24-2012, 02:31 PM
I'd just like a one word answer here- yes or no. Are those who are gay equal in our country to those who are not?

Yes

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 02:31 PM
I'd just like a one word answer here- yes or no. Are those who are gay equal in our country to those who are not?

In most states they aren't allowed to marry the person they love, so I'd have to say no, they're not equal.

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 02:35 PM
Yes
I can honestly say that I am shocked that people actually think that way.

In most states they aren't allowed to marry the person they love, so I'd have to say no, they're not equal.
That's one of the most obvious facts that would lead me to say no as well.

duane1969
07-24-2012, 02:53 PM
I can honestly say that I am shocked that people actually think that way.

Well, using basic logic, I can not find a single right that gays are excluded from. So I must say "Yes" to your question.

What you did not ask me is if I think gays are treated fairly. To that I would answer "No". It is not fair that they are prevented from hospital visits with loved ones, it is not fair that they can not file joint taxes, it is not fair that gays can not be added to each other's health care...but none of that stuff is a right.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 02:57 PM
Well, using basic logic, I can not find a single right that gays are excluded from. So I must say "Yes" to your question.

What you did not ask me is if I think gays are treated fairly. To that I would answer "No". It is not fair that they are prevented from hospital visits with loved ones, it is not fair that they can not file joint taxes, it is not fair that gays can not be added to each other's health care...but none of that stuff is a right.

I posted one just above...

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 03:16 PM
Duane- reread the question. I said nothing about rights in post 37.

cardmasters
07-24-2012, 03:38 PM
Why can't we have unions where gay people can get all the benefits as a straight marraige and religious people get to keep marraige between man and women?

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 03:53 PM
so gays aren't religious and all that get married are?

gays haven't been getting married for thousands of years, but now it is unfair?

and marriage is all you have?

put your big boy pants on, there is no such thing as fair, it's an opinion.

what about polygamists?

size17shoes
07-24-2012, 03:56 PM
i wasn't aware of this situation until i found this post. Chick Fil-a is a southern christian restaurant chain and of course it wouldn't be supported. I love their breakfast sandwiches when i have the money to splurge on them. i have two stores near my work. Sorry to see J. Henson part ways but they should have understood what chick fil-a was about before they partnered up

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 04:02 PM
I say have the state sanction civil unions between consenting adults. It dosen't matter if it is between a man/woman man/man or woman/woman. The only catch is you can only have 1 civil union at a time. Everyone who is legally "married" has a civil union that is sanctioned by the state. If one prefers a traditional "marriage" ceremony one is free to go to their chosen house of worship and have one but that is only for show and the state must still sign off on it as a civil union. The beauty of that is church can marry whomever they want but it is only for show and the state (which is religiously neutral) must sign off all any civil unions.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 04:06 PM
Why can't we have unions where gay people can get all the benefits as a straight marraige and religious people get to keep marraige between man and women?
Anal sex...oral sex...lesbian sex...
If sex doesn't necessarily need a penis and a vagina, why does marriage necessarily need a man and a woman?

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 04:08 PM
Anal sex...oral sex...lesbian sex...
If sex doesn't necessarily need a penis and a vagina, why does marriage necessarily need a man and a woman?


On the cool it's not even all about sex. Some married people love each other but do not have sex with each other for whatever reason. If someone gets married just for sex then their marriage is doomed to fail.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 04:14 PM
On the cool it's not even all about sex. Some married people love each other but do not have sex with each other for whatever reason. If someone gets married just for sex then their marriage is doomed to fail.

I understand that, but I would imagine the majority of people against gay marriage are also against pre-marital sex, so sex does come into play.

And many, anti-gay Christians do get married just so they're allowed to have sex. And many anti-gay Christians have 3 or 4 divorces.

boba
07-24-2012, 04:21 PM
Gays actually have a right that straight people don't. If they are harmed or killed, on top of the normal charges, the suspect will face hate crime charges.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 04:22 PM
Yeah but the gay person is still injured/killed. Doesn't sound like much of a right. <br />
<br />
I mean, if I'm dead, what the hell to I care if the guy walks or fries?

cardmasters
07-24-2012, 04:47 PM
I am not very good with words and I was trying to say what mrvegieman just say. Also I have no problems with polygamist because it's none of my business. I just like it when people TRY to work together instead of my way or the highway.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 04:56 PM
I am not very good with words and I was trying to say what mrvegieman just say. Also I have no problems with polygamist because it's none of my business. I just like it when people TRY to work together instead of my way or the highway.

No, I got your point my point is why are people who throw around words like fundamentalist with zero thought, or claim the current President is a muslim with the flimsiest of "evidence" (I shudder to even call it that) so against calling to gays married?

I have never heard an argument that even made me think that gay marriage is a bad idea or that "marriage" should strictly be between a man and woman.

boba
07-24-2012, 05:48 PM
Yeah but the gay person is still injured/killed. Doesn't sound like much of a right.

I mean, if I'm dead, what the hell to I care if the guy walks or fries?

Nonetheless, it's still more of a right then any anyone here has listed that gays don't have.

^ Not sure if the sentence structure is correct haha, but you all get my point. : )

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 05:54 PM
Nonetheless, it's still more of a right then any anyone here has listed that gays don't have.

^ Not sure if the sentence structure is correct haha, but you all get my point. : )

Haha, I honestly have no idea how (in)correct that structure is, but yeah your point got across.

I suppose that argument can be made, but there is still the fact that heterosexuals can marry the person they love and cherish and respect anywhere while homosexuals probably can't, depending on where exactly they live. That is more of a non-right (for lack of a better term) than "hate crime" is a "right" (which I still say it isn't really, but I digress on that point).

...

Actually, the idea behind hate crimes actually limits gays more than heterosexuals. Hate crimes actually give white males more rights in a way. If I decide I want to commit a hate crime, I can do that against anyone except white males. But against a gay, minority, even against a woman, it can be called a hate crime. Minorities and gays and women can't commit hate crimes against white males. They have to find someone who's of a different "social minority" (is it really) than white male. It's easier for me to commit a hate crime than it is for a homosexual, just on the fact my options are wider. I have the right to more easily commit a hate crime than a homosexual does, which means that hate crimes actually take right from homosexuals than create more.

How's THAT for some roundabout logic? Hate crimes are stupid beyond belief, but that was kind of fun.

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 08:04 PM
Just wanted to share a quick personal story.

When I was still in High School (6 Years ago), me and my friends were talking about gay marriage, at the time I had no idea how Anti-Gay I really was until we were discussing these issues.

Something inside me just detested the idea of having gays marry, it wasn't because I was christian and I honestly HATED gays.


I didn't know why I hated gays though....was it because the idea of two men doing sexual acts made me feel uneasy?

Why should I care what they do in the privacy of their own house?

And I was a CLASS-A hypocrite....here I was hating gays and at home I was watching lesbians on my computer!


If people just examined their feelings, their beliefs they would see that allowing gays to marry will not change anything, it IS the correct thing to do and denying their rights is a terrible injustice.

Enough with the hate , enough with the double standards!

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 08:14 PM
See, I'm all for gay marriage, but in the end I am not upset by the fact that it's not legal everywhere. I don't see it so much as an injustice than a matter of "Why not?"

If the whole argument is the "God meant for marriage to blah blah blah" then there's no argument against it from the simple fact that many of the people who spout off about the sanctity of marriage as defined by God are in the middle or toward the end of a lifetime of many divorces and/or affairs. Many people who preach the sanctity of the word marriage have no respect for the sanctity of the act of marriage. If you don't want to legalize gay marriage, fine, but create a law saying that filing for divorce frivolously or repeatedly results in not being able to legally marry again. Do that and watch the divorce rate drop when remarrying several times becomes illegal. I have no problem with divorce, but if you're repeatedly getting divorced or divorce for stupid reasons, you should have your right to waste the courts' time taken away, because that's all you're really doing.

shrewsbury
07-24-2012, 08:29 PM
[QUOTE]I say have the state sanction civil unions between consenting adults. It dosen't matter if it is between a man/woman man/man or woman/woman. The only catch is you can only have 1 civil union at a time. [QUOTE]

though i agree with you veggie, we are ack to the fact that those who claim equality for all, are truly not for all, only what they accept. why just one, now we are discriminating against polygamists, so it is equal rights for all or not?

so it is ok for people to be against polygamists being married but not for gays? at least polygamists can reproduce without outside assistance.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 08:44 PM
I actually have no real problem with polygamy itself. While it's true that polygamy is surrounded with bad and illegal things (abuse of women and children and such) there are laws to protect from that. Kind of like how a drug user isn't hurting anyone but himself until a law besides possession and use is committed. As far as taxes, come up with a "joint multiple" section with it's own stipulations and be done with it.

And at least when you see a gay couple with a child you know it was wanted very very much.

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 09:04 PM
Right now, gays and lesbians are actually denied 1138 rights given to heterosexuals. Here are some of the ways in which GLBT people are not equal under the eyes of the law:


Marriage: (http://gayteens.about.com/od/rightsandactivism/f/marriage.htm) In all but four states, same sex partners cannot legally wed.
Protection from Discrimination: In many states, you do not have the right to protection from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Joint Taxes: GLBT couples cannot file taxes jointly; as a result, taxes for a GLBT couple can be significantly higher.
Hospital Visitation: GLBT couples have no legal right to visit a spouse in the hospital and can be barred from entering the room by medical personnel.
Estate Taxes: GLBT couples cannot pass their estate to a spouse tax-free, which creates a huge tax burden that can result in the loss of a spouse's home or business.
Job Security: In a majority of states, employees can be fired just for being gay.
Immigration: GLBT partners are denied special consideration for the immigration of a spouse, often resulting in a painful separation when a loved one is from a foreign country.
Property Taxes: GLBT partners must pay property tax when transferring property between spouses.
Social Security: GLBT partners are not eligible to receive a spouse's Social Security pension or many other government benefits.
Medical Decisions: During a medical crisis, GLBT couples cannot legally make treatment decisions for their partners.
Domestic Violence: GLBT people cannot get domestic violence protection orders against a partner or former partner.


Excellent, excellent post and the biggest reasons why I'm Pro-Gay Marriage.

The rest of you that keep supporting the denial of rights to gays....shame on you.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 09:22 PM
Alex, I have a question. If a civil union came with every right under law that a marriage does, would that be okay, or is the word marriage itself completely necessary?

boba
07-24-2012, 09:23 PM
Excellent, excellent post and the biggest reasons why I'm Pro-Gay Marriage.

The rest of you that keep supporting the denial of rights to gays....shame on you.

http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq190/bobafett94/photos/coolstory.jpg

andrewhoya
07-24-2012, 09:24 PM
Jay- what is your problem with two men getting married?
so gays aren't religious and all that get married are?

gays haven't been getting married for thousands of years, but now it is unfair?

and marriage is all you have?

put your big boy pants on, there is no such thing as fair, it's an opinion.

what about polygamists?

boba
07-24-2012, 09:24 PM
I actually have no real problem with polygamy itself. While it's true that polygamy is surrounded with bad and illegal things (abuse of women and children and such) there are laws to protect from that. Kind of like how a drug user isn't hurting anyone but himself until a law besides possession and use is committed. As far as taxes, come up with a "joint multiple" section with it's own stipulations and be done with it.

And at least when you see a gay couple with a child you know it was wanted very very much.


Well played, haha : )

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 09:33 PM
@Boba....saying you are against gay marriage means you are also against all the rights and benefits that marriage would entail to gay partners.

You are endorsing the denial of rights to other human beings, if you are perfectly fine with that, that's your choice.

I am not fine with that, and since I feel empathy for the gay community, I am saddened to see others go against them.

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 09:34 PM
Alex, I have a question. If a civil union came with every right under law that a marriage does, would that be okay, or is the word marriage itself completely necessary?
Yes, I think that would be OK, as long as every right under law is the same.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 09:39 PM
Yes, I think that would be OK, as long as every right under law is the same.

Ok, does this seem to be the general consensus? I just ask because so much of the argument is about the word and very little seems to be about anything else. Now I suppose the question is would conservatives go for it. I the gays are just as stuck on using the word as conservatives are on "preserving the meaning of marriage" then there's no hope.

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 09:46 PM
Ok, does this seem to be the general consensus? I just ask because so much of the argument is about the word and very little seems to be about anything else. Now I suppose the question is would conservatives go for it. I the gays are just as stuck on using the word as conservatives are on "preserving the meaning of marriage" then there's no hope.
From what I've seen is that conservatives are against ANY and ALL unions of homosexual partners no matter what word is used.

If I say "civil unions" and give them the exact same rights as "marriage" I think most people would be OK with that, but that's not what we're seeing.

North Carolina passed that BIGOTED law that defines ALL marriages and unions as 1 man and 1 woman.....how can gays ever hope to get any sort of compromise?

I find it so STUPID, IMMATURE, and utterly ASININE for conservatives to believe that the word "marriage" is somehow special.

AUTaxMan
07-24-2012, 10:15 PM
Anti-Gay = Against homosexuality in all forms. This does not mean not supporting gay marriage, it takes more than that to be truly anti-gay. Anti-Gay would be wanting homosexuality outlawed, I think, which would mean that, while all Anti-Gays are opposed to gay marriage, not everyone opposed to gay marriage is Anti-Gay. They are Anti-Gay Marriage. For example, I know a guy who doesn't care if you're gay, straight or whatever, but is opposed to gay marriage. He has his reasons, which I disagree with, but I would never in a million years call him "Anti-Gay". Supporting entities that don't support gay marriage does not make one Anti-Gay but, again, in and of itself only makes one Anti-Gay Marriage. Not supporting gay marriage does not mean you hate gays. I think a lot of people on the left see this backwards. A lot of people do believe these things make you Anti Gay or mean you hate gays. I think it's the other way around and it takes more than a stance on one issue, marriage, to make one Anti-Gay or a hater of gays or truly homophobic (I say truly because the term homophobic is often used to describe stupid things like cutting a homosexual off in traffic or some other truly non-homophobic act...kind of like "hate crime").

I imagine looking for the "Liberal" definition of "Anti-Gay" is an exercise in futility. I consider myself to be fairly liberal and as you can see in this thread, my views differ from other liberal's.

thanks. it's nice to have a civil and reasonable conversation on this subject.

AUTaxMan
07-24-2012, 10:20 PM
Here are some.

Marriage: In all but four states, same sex partners cannot legally wed.
Protection from Discrimination: In many states, you do not have the right to protection from harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Joint Taxes: GLBT couples cannot file taxes jointly; as a result, taxes for a GLBT couple can be significantly higher.
Hospital Visitation: GLBT couples have no legal right to visit a spouse in the hospital and can be barred from entering the room by medical personnel.
Estate Taxes: GLBT couples cannot pass their estate to a spouse tax-free, which creates a huge tax burden that can result in the loss of a spouse's home or business.
Job Security: In a majority of states, employees can be fired just for being gay.
Immigration: GLBT partners are denied special consideration for the immigration of a spouse, often resulting in a painful separation when a loved one is from a foreign country.
Property Taxes: GLBT partners must pay property tax when transferring property between spouses.
Social Security: GLBT partners are not eligible to receive a spouse's Social Security pension or many other government benefits.
Medical Decisions: During a medical crisis, GLBT couples cannot legally make treatment decisions for their partners.
Domestic Violence: GLBT people cannot get domestic violence protection orders against a partner or former partner.


From a legal perspective, I can shoot holes in most of these arguments. The issues I give actual credence to are Social Security and Estate Taxes, but the estate tax issue is overblown, since it is virtually impossible to lose a house because of estate taxes.

mrveggieman
07-24-2012, 10:25 PM
I really dont care what word the law uses. Everyone is still going to call their civil union a marriage and I have no problem with that. If a conservative wants to go out the way and call a gay marriage a civil union and not a marriage that's his problem.

Wickabee
07-24-2012, 10:29 PM
From what I've seen is that conservatives are against ANY and ALL unions of homosexual partners no matter what word is used.

If I say "civil unions" and give them the exact same rights as "marriage" I think most people would be OK with that, but that's not what we're seeing.

North Carolina passed that BIGOTED law that defines ALL marriages and unions as 1 man and 1 woman.....how can gays ever hope to get any sort of compromise?

I find it so STUPID, IMMATURE, and utterly ASININE for conservatives to believe that the word "marriage" is somehow special.

I understand your frustration, but if the gay community would focus less on "marriage" than the rights that come with it they could at least once and for all show the argument of a"changing the meaning of marriage" is as stupid and ultimately irrelevant as you and I know it is. I realize it's semantics, but sometimes one has to play those games. Basically I guess my point is shift the focus (publicly) from gay "marriage" to the rights associated with it.

JustAlex
07-24-2012, 10:50 PM
I understand your frustration, but if the gay community would focus less on "marriage" than the rights that come with it they could at least once and for all show the argument of a"changing the meaning of marriage" is as stupid and ultimately irrelevant as you and I know it is. I realize it's semantics, but sometimes one has to play those games. Basically I guess my point is shift the focus (publicly) from gay "marriage" to the rights associated with it.

OK, I can agree that the gay community should focus more on the rights and less on the word "marriage".

We need compromise, there's no doubt about it and maybe later in the future people can realize that marriage yes the word "Marriage" should be for hetero and homosexual consenting adults.

boba
07-25-2012, 01:23 AM
Yes, I think that would be OK, as long as every right under law is the same.

I don't really disagree with you, (although I think most of the rights other then SS that are brought up are irrelevant). My main issue is that most of these people want the word marriage. I fear that this will lead to ministers being forced to marry homosexual couples and not preach against homosexuality or losing their 501c3 status and other such things that I think would follow.

mrveggieman
07-25-2012, 08:00 AM
I don't really disagree with you, (although I think most of the rights other then SS that are brought up are irrelevant). My main issue is that most of these people want the word marriage. I fear that this will lead to ministers being forced to marry homosexual couples and not preach against homosexuality or losing their 501c3 status and other such things that I think would follow.

That wouldn't happen. Religious groups have always had the authority to determine who is worthy of getting married by them. And besides if they do it my way getting married at a church will only be a ceremony and will hold absolutely no legal standing. Any legal civil union can only be sanctioned by the state.

JerS86
07-25-2012, 09:46 AM
way to go muppet man!

as a vegan, i have no use for these slaughterhouses anyway.

mrveggieman
07-25-2012, 09:56 AM
way to go muppet man!

as a vegan, i have no use for these slaughterhouses anyway.

I am vegetarian, I love chick fil a's waffle fries but hate how chick fil a openly advocates denying the opportunity to get married to a certian precentage of our population. I'm kind of torn here.

andrewhoya
07-25-2012, 10:01 AM
I am vegetarian, I love chick fil a's waffle fries but hate how chick fil a openly advocates denying the opportunity to get married to a certian precentage of our population. I'm kind of torn here.
Stay strong and loyal to what you believe in.

boba
07-25-2012, 01:27 PM
That wouldn't happen. Religious groups have always had the authority to determine who is worthy of getting married by them. And besides if they do it my way getting married at a church will only be a ceremony and will hold absolutely no legal standing. Any legal civil union can only be sanctioned by the state.

I don't know if you have seen any of their rallies, but this is what they want. They want the word marriage and all the other things I listed. If they were fighting for their SS rights, I believe the majority would not have a problem giving it to them.

shrewsbury
07-25-2012, 01:30 PM
veggie, why be torn. he is just expressing his rights to his own opinions, it is not like he has closed his doors to homosexuals.

andrewhoya
07-25-2012, 01:34 PM
veggie, why be torn. he is just expressing his rights to his own opinions, it is not like he has closed his doors to homosexuals.
Im sure he would if he could.

boba
07-25-2012, 01:35 PM
veggie, why be torn. he is just expressing his rights to his own opinions, it is not like he has closed his doors to homosexuals.

Exactly, It's just like oreo.

Oreo posted a picture supporting gays, they where not excluding straights.
Chick-Fil-A made comments supporting straight people, they were not excluding gays.

We need to quit treating these 2 cases differently.

boba
07-25-2012, 01:37 PM
Im sure he would if he could.

How does anyone even come to conclusions like this? Have you actually read his interview? There is nothing hateful or disrespectful, he was just answering questions.

shrewsbury
07-25-2012, 01:38 PM
and that would be his right and none of your business

the guy can do what he wants with his stuff, so if you don't like having personal rights, be against it

but if he doesn't have the right to discriminate, what gives you the right?

andrewhoya
07-25-2012, 01:42 PM
How does anyone even come to conclusions like this? Have you actually read his interview? There is nothing hateful or disrespectful, he was just answering questions.
If you support anti-gay groups then I am pretty sure you want nothing to do with them.

andrewhoya
07-25-2012, 01:43 PM
Jay- what is your problem with two men getting married?
Bumping this back up.

boba
07-25-2012, 01:44 PM
If you support anti-gay groups then I am pretty sure you want nothing to do with them.

I'm pretty sure as long as they have money he doesn't care.

andrewhoya
07-25-2012, 01:51 PM
I'm pretty sure as long as they have money he doesn't care.
They have a huge number of supporters who are straight and have applauded the company for their anti-gay views, so they are set for awhile.

mrveggieman
07-25-2012, 01:58 PM
I don't know if you have seen any of their rallies, but this is what they want. They want the word marriage and all the other things I listed. If they were fighting for their SS rights, I believe the majority would not have a problem giving it to them.

If you are legally married to another adult you do have the right to their SS benefits, to make medical decisions for them, etc. Why should person be able to make legal decisions for their spouse but the other one can't?

Wickabee
07-25-2012, 02:00 PM
Exactly, It's just like oreo.

Oreo posted a picture supporting gays, they where not excluding straights.
Chick-Fil-A made comments supporting straight people, they were not excluding gays.

We need to quit treating these 2 cases differently.

I have to take issue with this. I'm straight and Chik-Fil-A's comment did absolutely nothing to support me in any way. The fact is the two are a little different. You're correct that Oreo did not exclude straight people while supporting gays. I wonder though, how you can say Chik-Fil-A saying they don't support gay marriage in any way supports straight people, mostly because I can't see how gay marriage is detrimental to straight people (other than being considered "icky"). I also have to wonder how you can say it didn't exclude gays. They came out and said, flat out, "We support the continuation of the exclusion of gays from marriage." My words, not his, but that's what he said in any words.
So to summarize, Oreo's was a message of support to one half (gays) with absolutely no exclusion to the other half. Chik-Fil-A's comment was one of support to one half of one half (straights opposed to gay marriage) which praised excluding gays from being able to marry.

At the same time, it's a chicken joint, just like the Oreo is a cookie. I don't care what a cookie says to me and I don't care what a batch of fries says to me. I wouldn't boycott the place but, as a Canadian, I won't have to make that decision anyway.

mrveggieman
07-25-2012, 02:06 PM
I have to take issue with this. I'm straight and Chik-Fil-A's comment did absolutely nothing to support me in any way. The fact is the two are a little different. You're correct that Oreo did not exclude straight people while supporting gays. I wonder though, how you can say Chik-Fil-A saying they don't support gay marriage in any way supports straight people, mostly because I can't see how gay marriage is detrimental to straight people (other than being considered "icky"). I also have to wonder how you can say it didn't exclude gays. They came out and said, flat out, "We support the continuation of the exclusion of gays from marriage." My words, not his, but that's what he said in any words.
So to summarize, Oreo's was a message of support to one half (gays) with absolutely no exclusion to the other half. Chik-Fil-A's comment was one of support to one half of one half (straights opposed to gay marriage) which praised excluding gays from being able to marry.

At the same time, it's a chicken joint, just like the Oreo is a cookie. I don't care what a cookie says to me and I don't care what a batch of fries says to me. I wouldn't boycott the place but, as a Canadian, I won't have to make that decision anyway.


CHURCH!! :love0030:
:love0030::love0030:

shrewsbury
07-25-2012, 02:46 PM
andy, sorry i missed your question

nothing is wrong with it, but if you don't have the option to procreate, then you shouldn't get the benefits of a marriage. raising kids takes a lot of money and is why tax breaks for married couples exist.

if you don't have kids then you can afford to pay for things others with kids cannot, kind of like the whole fair tax idea.

mrveggieman
07-25-2012, 02:57 PM
andy, sorry i missed your question

nothing is wrong with it, but if you don't have the option to procreate, then you shouldn't get the benefits of a marriage. raising kids takes a lot of money and is why tax breaks for married couples exist.

if you don't have kids then you can afford to pay for things others with kids cannot, kind of like the whole fair tax idea.


So per your logic if some is married who cannot have or does not want kids they should also not get any special tax breaks that married couples get?

Wickabee
07-25-2012, 02:59 PM
andy, sorry i missed your question

nothing is wrong with it, but if you don't have the option to procreate, then you shouldn't get the benefits of a marriage. raising kids takes a lot of money and is why tax breaks for married couples exist.

if you don't have kids then you can afford to pay for things others with kids cannot, kind of like the whole fair tax idea.

Um, gay couples can adopt. I've always said when you see a gay couple with a child you see a child that is very, very loved and wanted. Therefor, the fact they can't procreate does not mean they don't have kids.

andrewhoya
07-25-2012, 03:03 PM
andy, sorry i missed your question

nothing is wrong with it, but if you don't have the option to procreate, then you shouldn't get the benefits of a marriage. raising kids takes a lot of money and is why tax breaks for married couples exist.

if you don't have kids then you can afford to pay for things others with kids cannot, kind of like the whole fair tax idea.
There are tons of couples out there who cannot have kids-- tons of people have medical disorders and cannot create. Should they be denied benefits as well? Just because you dont have kids doesnt mean you dont have many other costs. What about the tons of people who take care of their parents and spend thousands on keeping them alive??

shrewsbury
07-25-2012, 04:34 PM
having the potential and wanting to are two different things. a married couple who both work and have no children should not get any tax breaks. wickabee, you are so very wrong if you think all gays who adopt are loving parents, and adoption is not the same as natural procreation.