Chick-fil-A Vandalized in Torrance, CA ("Tastes Like Hate")

I find it odd that on an issue that is just about split 50/50 it is controversial for Chick-Fil-A to come out on one side of an issue but not controversial for Oreo to go on the other side of the same issue.

Exactly. There's no controversy when somebody claims they love teh gayz and think the entitlement base should be expanded to include gay marriage. Nobody so much as lifts a finger when anybody says that, but when CFA says they support traditional marriage, somehow it's a national outcry and they get labeled as a hate group.

Here's the question that gay "rights" advocates need to answer. Do they really care who people hate? Do they really care if an expression of hatred is being made toward a group, or is it about labeling the people who disagree with them as haters, bigots, intolerant, etc. As far as I know, they are the ones who most vigorously label people and call them names in this whole debate. It seems to me that they are the real haters, and I don't throw that word around loosely like the gay "rights" advocates do.
 
This has always been a peculiar topic here. One side throws out the entire concept of liberty and starts calling the other side hateful for expressing their personal values and beliefs. There is no debate as far as the government action goes because they have no authority to get involved. If a homosexual couple wants to get married then they can find a church or organization that will do it. Then those who do not agree with the church's/organization's actions can boycott/protest/etc. Thats it. End of story unless we as self proclaimed fans of liberty want to criminalize thoughts, values, and beliefs.

Except that many people here DO want the government to be involved because they want gays to have government marriage licenses instead of taking marriage licenses away from heterosexuals and making the "marriage license" meaningless and uncontroversial. They would rather add government than subtract government. They would rather discriminate against single people by enforcing government marriage contracts than achieve equality by abolishing state-funded, state-licensed marriage.
 
I don't care what people do in their personal lives. But marriage should be a sacred bonding of two hearts, and husband and wife should serve each other according to principles laid out in the Bible. Unfortunately marriage has been hijacked and redefined over and over. Rarely do people allow the true definition of marriage to guide them. It is no wonder that half of all marriages fail.

It's like Christmas. Originally a celebration of Christ's birth. Then came saint nick. Now your liberals freak out if a business says "merry Christmas" instead of "happy holidays!" you see? I guess that marriage and Christmas just seemed too fun, and the other kids on the playground had to come take the ball..

Do you really know how Christmas started? I'll give you a hint. All of these "holidays" with their fictional characters, such as easter (also purportedly a "Christian" holiday) and Halloween, started as pagan traditions. Christmas was never about Christ's birth. That's an excuse for Christians to celebrate it. Think about it, where in the Bible does Christ value His own birth so much? His death was a way more monumental thing to celebrate. Also, does anyone really know what Christ's birthday was? Who decided it would be December 25th?
 
Here's the question that gay "rights" advocates need to answer.

Do they really care who people hate?
Yes.
Do they really care if an expression of hatred is being made toward a group, or is it about labeling the people who disagree with them as haters, bigots, intolerant, etc. As far as I know, they are the ones who most vigorously label people and call them names in this whole debate.
Intolerance breeds intolerance.
It seems to me that they are the real haters, and I don't throw that word around loosely like the gay "rights" advocates do.
See what I mean.
 
Except that many people here DO want the government to be involved because they want gays to have government marriage licenses instead of taking marriage licenses away from heterosexuals and making the "marriage license" meaningless and uncontroversial. They would rather add government than subtract government. They would rather discriminate against single people by enforcing government marriage contracts than achieve equality by abolishing state-funded, state-licensed marriage.
Everyone here wants government out of marriage.
 
....................................
You know what this reminds me of? When people didn't want a permit given to that community center with a Muslim community room in the old Brookfield coat factory several blocks from where the twin towers were attacked. That was sort of in your face, imho, given the guy behind it, but even so, that is not the proper role of the state.

Dick Cheney?
 
Do you really know how Christmas started? I'll give you a hint. All of these "holidays" with their fictional characters, such as easter (also purportedly a "Christian" holiday) and Halloween, started as pagan traditions. Christmas was never about Christ's birth. That's an excuse for Christians to celebrate it. Think about it, where in the Bible does Christ value His own birth so much? His death was a way more monumental thing to celebrate. Also, does anyone really know what Christ's birthday was? Who decided it would be December 25th?

Thanks, I'll try to dig deeper on the history of the holidays. I still find it obnoxious that it is now politically incorrect to say Christmas... Off topic though..
 
Dick Cheney?

there were stories saying a guy who funded it was a sort of in your face type, take Perez on the gay marriage issue, for example. I can think Perez is revolting without thinking government should have any say in marriage. The guy paying for the center may have had an ax to grind, but the community who wanted it just wanted a community center -- for a long time, as I understand it. None of which has bearing on what the governmental role should be.
 
Gay people can get married. They just can't get a government license. Instead of "allowing" gay people to get a government license, which will raise taxes and lower freedom, how about we just get rid of government licenses for heterosexual couples. Sound good to you?

Actually, yes, that does sound good to me. The chances of that actually happening in our lifetime though, with the probably thousands of ways that marriage is entrenched in our laws, including the tax code, etc., are about slim to none. But yes in principle I totally agree, government shouldn't even be involved to begin with and the whole debate wouldn't even exist.
 
You don't get informed by listening to your family members arguing about it. Most people have very one-sided views. Having "real life experience" just doesn't fly around here.

And that was my point exactly, and why I was asking Angela if she actually knew any gay people who want to get married. Because most people do have very one sided views. And because you don't get informed by never talking to someone on the other side of the issue and only immersing yourself in information and arguments that only support one side of the debate.

I don't imagine myself to be some kind of gay rights debate scholar, but I think I know a hell of a lot more about both sides of the debate than the average person. Those who have no "real life experience" are the ones who are unable to see past one side or the other and see the merits of both sides.

Part of the problem with this conflict, this "culture war" going on, is that a lot of people opposed to gays getting equal rights don't even know any gays. (Well, they probably do know some, they just aren't aware of it.) Their religious and/or political leaders often do a good job of dehumanizing the opposition--that's a critical step in fighting any successful war, get your soldiers to forget the "enemy" is human too--and so a lot of people have never tried to put themselves into someone else's shoes. They don't know what these people are going through, or why they want to get married, or what it does to them and their children, to be second class citizens, not entitled to the same thing everyone else is.

Of course gay rights lobbyists are guilty of the same thing, getting their troops riled up against those evil Christians/bigots/haters/whatever label they throw out. Labels are great for instantly stripping people of their humanity.

I think the biggest problem, and probably the main cause for all this backlash and the resulting culture war, is the ridiculous idea that somehow people's kids might CHOOSE to become gay if it becomes too acceptable. And/or that if their kid is gay, that there is anything on earth they could do to prevent it.

That misconception (the issue of choice) causes people to fight against the whole "normalization" of homosexuality in society. I think for most people who live the homosexual lifestyle--not all, but the vast majority--they do NOT have a choice about being attracted to the same sex, they are incapable of feeling any attraction for the opposite sex. They cannot change their nature no matter how many times you tell them they're going to hell and no matter how many summers they spend at Jesus camp. It's how they were created. And it's silly that some people would expect them to live their lives devoid of happiness and fulfillment because they're unable to recognize that IS their nature, and for that person, homosexuality IS natural.
 
So nobody ever responded on the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda in my earlier post.

Family Research Council spent a lot of money lobbying Congress, urging them to NOT condemn that.

I don't think our government should be praising or condemning laws or politics in other countries, but they did. And then FRC came along and tried to get them to change their position on it.

FRC did this because 1. Congress should not be sending a message that Homosexuality is OK, and 2. By telling the government of Uganda not to kill gay people just because they're gay, our Congress is sending the wrong message.

So what this means is, FRC apparently thinks it's OK for a government to kill gay people just for being gay if that's what it takes to stop spreading the message that homosexuality is OK.

And I really don't think I'm twisting this or taking it out of context. It is what it is.

So everybody sidestepped my post on this, conveniently getting bogged down in SPLC and whatever. So I'm asking you to forget about labels, forget who is and who isn't a "hate group," just LOOK AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.

When Chick-Fil-A donates money to Family Research Council, is it really so inaccurate to say that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting real hate?
 
Actually, yes, that does sound good to me. The chances of that actually happening in our lifetime though, with the probably thousands of ways that marriage is entrenched in our laws, including the tax code, etc., are about slim to none. But yes in principle I totally agree, government shouldn't even be involved to begin with and the whole debate wouldn't even exist.

But you don't agree in practice? Is this like one of those "Communism would look good on paper" advocacies of freedom? I'll tell you what else is unlikely to be abolished in our lifetime: the Fed, many of the laws we have, the wars, the entitlement system. Saying we should give gays marriage licenses in the interest of equality is like saying we should give the Fed more control over the economy before we eliminate it. It simply doesn't make sense except from a bleeding heart perspective. However, if you agree and were just commenting that you think it won't happen soon, then I agree completely. I completely advocate getting the government out of marriage, no questions asked, first and foremost.
 
So nobody ever responded on the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda in my earlier post.

Family Research Council spent a lot of money lobbying Congress, urging them to NOT condemn that.

I don't think our government should be praising or condemning laws or politics in other countries, but they did. And then FRC came along and tried to get them to change their position on it.

FRC did this because 1. Congress should not be sending a message that Homosexuality is OK, and 2. By telling the government of Uganda not to kill gay people just because they're gay, our Congress is sending the wrong message.

So what this means is, FRC apparently thinks it's OK for a government to kill gay people just for being gay if that's what it takes to stop spreading the message that homosexuality is OK.

And I really don't think I'm twisting this or taking it out of context. It is what it is.

So everybody sidestepped my post on this, conveniently getting bogged down in SPLC and whatever. So I'm asking you to forget about labels, forget who is and who isn't a "hate group," just LOOK AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.

When Chick-Fil-A donates money to Family Research Council, is it really so inaccurate to say that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting real hate?


Never mind, you guys are off the hook. (Although I do find it interesting no one responded to the substance of what I was saying before and we got bogged down in the whole label end of things.)

According to FRC apparently they don't think it's OK to kill the gays.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006856-503544.html
 
So nobody ever responded on the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda in my earlier post.

Family Research Council spent a lot of money lobbying Congress, urging them to NOT condemn that.

I don't think our government should be praising or condemning laws or politics in other countries, but they did. And then FRC came along and tried to get them to change their position on it.

FRC did this because 1. Congress should not be sending a message that Homosexuality is OK, and 2. By telling the government of Uganda not to kill gay people just because they're gay, our Congress is sending the wrong message.

So what this means is, FRC apparently thinks it's OK for a government to kill gay people just for being gay if that's what it takes to stop spreading the message that homosexuality is OK.

And I really don't think I'm twisting this or taking it out of context. It is what it is.

So everybody sidestepped my post on this, conveniently getting bogged down in SPLC and whatever. So I'm asking you to forget about labels, forget who is and who isn't a "hate group," just LOOK AT THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.

When Chick-Fil-A donates money to Family Research Council, is it really so inaccurate to say that buying a chicken sandwich could be supporting real hate?

You're right, but nobody here is advocating what the FRC did. They may be defending them against the SPLC, but nobody supports the FRC, per se, I'm sure. It's really not relevant to this subject, so I don't think anyone is "sidestepping."
 
But you don't agree in practice? Is this like one of those "Communism would look good on paper" advocacies of freedom? I'll tell you what else is unlikely to be abolished in our lifetime: the Fed, many of the laws we have, the wars, the entitlement system. Saying we should give gays marriage licenses in the interest of equality is like saying we should give the Fed more control over the economy before we eliminate it. It simply doesn't make sense except from a bleeding heart perspective. However, if you agree and were just commenting that you think it won't happen soon, then I agree completely. I completely advocate getting the government out of marriage, no questions asked, first and foremost.

To be honest I'm undecided.

On the one hand, I would love to see government entirely out of marriage.

On the other hand, if that takes ten or twenty years to accomplish, is it right that gay people and their families should be denied the same thing the rest of us have?

I don't really know. I kind of lean toward saying, as long as the law recognizes marriage as a legal contract with tax benefits and other privileges, then everybody has to have equal treatment under the law. But the problem with that is, if we do that, then some people (myself included) might become complacent and not work toward the real goal of less government, getting government out of the equation entirely.

So I don't know if I can really decide. Given the time I think it would take to do the really right thing (many many years), neither option seems right.

And most people outside of this forum advocating against gay marriage are NOT doing it because they want less government. I think if half the people on this board using that argument were honest, they would admit that isn't their main reason for wanting to keep it illegal either, but it is a very convenient argument to use since it's the correct Libertarian position.

Just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. So I guess I don't have a good answer for you.
 
You're right, but nobody here is advocating what the FRC did. They may be defending them against the SPLC, but nobody supports the FRC, per se, I'm sure. It's really not relevant to this subject, so I don't think anyone is "sidestepping."

See my post just above yours -- if I had done just a little bit more homework before posting that, I wouldn't have. Point is moot, I was wrong about FRC's intention. But thanks for answering.
 
Back
Top