Oops, look like it backfired!

bravenrace wrote: 5. The same people that preach tolerance and coexistance are the ones lashing out at CFA for allegedly not doing that. They are also the same ones that lash out at anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Why do so many people deny the difference between wanting to RESTRICT the behaviour of other people (behaviour that can't possibly affect the restricters in any real way) and wanting to allow everybody to have equal access to the same benefits? Last I heard, exactly NOBODY was trying to eliminate heterosexual marriage. Don't like gay marriage? Don't have one. But DO NOT make laws against it so others cannot, just because YOU think it's icky.

Yes, both sides are expressing their opinions. Yes, both sides have the right to do so, which I fully support. But if you honestly can't see the fundamental difference between those opinions, there's just NO BERKING HOPE for humankind.

bravenrace wrote: A couple things I've noticed in the past few days: 1. People seem to get confused between a person stating support for the biblical definition of marriage and hating homosexuals. One doesn't mean the other.

I can understand how one can exist without the other, but the biblical definition of marriage effectively discriminates against homosexuals, even if you have nothing against them.

Also your points 4 & 5 are asking tolerant people to tolerate intolerance.

DoctorBlade wrote: I'll bet Sonic is about ready to support Traditional Marriage as well.

That's about all that could improve their sales.

In reply to GameboyRMH: I think what bravenrace was trying to point out with #5 is that the ones preaching tolerance aren't tolerating others' beliefs, thereby making themselves hypocrites.

GameboyRMH wrote:

bravenrace wrote: A couple things I've noticed in the past few days: 1. People seem to get confused between a person stating support for the biblical definition of marriage and hating homosexuals. One doesn't mean the other.

I can understand how one can exist without the other, but the biblical definition of marriage effectively discriminates against homosexuals, even if you have nothing against them. Also your points 4 & 5 are asking tolerant people to tolerate intolerance.

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Always has been. It doesn't discriminate against anyone, as anyone is welcomed to be married as marriage is defined. A definition that is also upheld in most courts of law, not just the Bible. Just because something isn't all inclusive doesn't mean it's discriminating.
I'd reply to your last comment, but it honestly didn't make any sense to me.

RealMiniDriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: I think what bravenrace was trying to point out with #5 is that the ones preaching tolerance aren't tolerating others' beliefs, thereby making themselves hypocrites.

See my post above. I'm all for tolerance, even of beliefs I don't share. Frankly, it wouldn't concern me if Chik-Fil-A refused to serve or hire homosexuals. It's their business; they can do what they want. They would lose me as a customer, but that's free choice on both our parts. Everybody gets to keep their core beliefs intact, without interference from the other.

But when they donate and support causes that are actively trying to restrict the freedoms of OTHERS, they are actively trying to take away the free choices of OTHERS. They are attempting to INFLICT their core beliefs on ME. Therefore, not tolerating their intolerant behaviour is 100% hypocrisy-free. As I said, if people can't (or won't) understand this fundamental difference, there's just no hope.

Let me put it another way:

I am a design professional, interested in and trained in design principles. I've done it all my life. Design is important to me; it is a fundamental part of who I am and good design is one of my core values.

I truly, deeply dislike the design of the Nissan Juke. I am visually offended every time I see one on the street. I don't like to see stories or articles that feature the Juke. It affronts my core values. Nissan is a lesser company in my eyes for having made the Juke.

Should I start a campaign to make the Juke illegal? I don't want to drive a Juke, so nobody else should be able to either. Maybe I can compromise, and it will be OK to drive a Juke, but only at night. Should I push for legislation to say that Nissan can't call the Juke a "CAR", because my Miata is already defined as a "CAR", and my Miata will be somehow made uglier and less acceptable if people are allowed to also call the Juke a car?

Of course not. That's ludicrous. Guess what? So is the entire stance against homosexual marriage.

RealMiniDriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: I think what bravenrace was trying to point out with #5 is that the ones preaching tolerance aren't tolerating others' beliefs, thereby making themselves hypocrites.

Yes, that's what I was trying to point out. I guess I didn't do it very well.

In reply to Duke: "But when they donate and support causes that are actively trying to restrict the freedoms of OTHERS, they are actively trying to take away the free choices of OTHERS. They are attempting to INFLICT their core beliefs on ME. Therefore, not tolerating their intolerant behaviour is 100% hypocrisy-free. As I said, if people can't (or won't) understand this fundamental difference, there's just no hope."

But it's okay for the other side to do the same? I'm only asking because you and I both know they do. In fact, if they didn't, then CFA wouldn't have any reason to either.
I don't agree with your statement, actually. Is every company and person that donates money to any cause doing the same thing? You're looking at it as some kind of discrimination, when what it really is is supporting a cause you believe in. Everyone has the same "freedom" of opportunity. Also, how is this inflicting anything on you or anyone else? Nobody is forcing you to believe anything or agree with anything. In this case it is also not taking away any freedom, because gay marriage is currently outside of the legal definition of marriage in most states. They are donating money to help keep it that way, because that's what they believe. Many other companies donate money to groups that are trying to change that law. It's not limiting freedom, it IS freedom.

Had no idea about the eat at CFA day, didn't make the news up here. I work right near one and drove past it a few times on my way to Costco and it was a normal day. No lines, no crowds, no one cared. I like that about Pittsburgh, if it doesn't involve the Steelers, Beer or Perogies, we don't care.

In reply to pinchvalve:

Just more evidence that you Steelers fans are shallow.

I support the free speech of CFA. I do not support them donating money to anti-gay groups.

Huffington Post said: Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

That being said, I will not put my money into CFA. If it was about their belief in traditional marriage? No problem. I'd eat there.

Ok I want to try to be as respectful as possible but to the anti gay marriage people please list ways you will be directly affected by gay marriage. And not liking it personally or having a religious objection to it isn't a valid point, so please humor me..

bravenrace wrote: But it's okay for the other side to do the same? I'm only asking because you and I both know they do. In fact, if they didn't, then CFA wouldn't have any reason to either.

So you really just don't get it? How is the pro-homosexual-marriage side "doing the same" in any way? I certainly don't "know they do".

No one is trying to make people HAVE gay marriages. No one is trying to make STRAIGHT marriages illegal. No one is even trying to make churches perform homosexual marriages. All they are looking for is equal consideration and equal treatment by the law.

If there is some miniscule portion of the homosexual population that wants to make heterosexuals hide their identity and wants to RESTRICT heterosexual marriage, then I disapprove of that just as strongly.

Nissan is forcing their view that the Juke and the Murano convertible are attractive cars on me. Do I deserve legal protection to prevent them from doing that?

I think that they all should be called "civil unions" for government and legal purposes. Wanna get married? Do it in a church.

N Sperlo wrote: I support the free speech of CFA. I do not support them donating money to anti-gay groups.

Huffington Post said: Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

That being said, I will not put my money into CFA. If it was about their belief in traditional marriage? No problem. I'd eat there.

^^^^ This. 100x, this.

rotard wrote: I think that they all should be called "civil unions" for government and legal purposes. Wanna get married? Do it in a church.

I bet if the LGBT community requested it in that terminology, the right just might have not been opposed to it so vehemently.

Duke wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: I support the free speech of CFA. I do not support them donating money to anti-gay groups.

Huffington Post said: Chick-fil-A has donated at least $5 million to organizations (including a certified hate group) that, among other things, depict gay people as pedophiles, want to make "gay behavior" illegal, and even say gay people should be "exported" out of America.

That being said, I will not put my money into CFA. If it was about their belief in traditional marriage? No problem. I'd eat there.

^^^^ This. 100x, this.

bingo!

pinchvalve wrote: Had no idea about the eat at CFA day, didn't make the news up here. I work right near one and drove past it a few times on my way to Costco and it was a normal day. No lines, no crowds, no one cared. I like that about Pittsburgh, if it doesn't involve the Steelers, Beer or Perogies, we don't care.

We should have an Eat Perogies and Drink Beer and Not Care About Fast Food Chains with Opinions on Social Matters Day. I would support the E36 M3 out of that Day.

Steelers, though...ehhh, have to leave that part out of it

RealMiniDriver wrote:

rotard wrote: I think that they all should be called "civil unions" for government and legal purposes. Wanna get married? Do it in a church.

I bet if the LGBT community requested it in that terminology, the right just might have not been opposed to it so vehemently.

Why should they have to? Is my Miata less of a car because people also call the Juke a car?

Again, understand, no one is trying to force churches to perform WHATEVER ceremony for homosexual couples. But why do a certain minority of heterosexual couples get to own the word "marriage"? Is my sister not "married" to her (male) husband just because she had the service performed by a judge? Is she even allowed to call him her "husband"?

Meh..... I don't eat it because it is crap:

http://foodbabe.com/2011/07/09/chick-fil-a-or-chemical-fil-a/

In reply to Duke: I'm not trying to take the "married" status away from a man and a woman that did it anywhere other than a church.

The point I'd like to make, and possibly rotard would agree, is that the way you present yourself has a lot to do with the results you get. The LGBT community wants the same tax breaks, health insurance benefits, etc. that a married man and woman get. The radical religious right doesn't want them destroying "the sanctity of marriage". If they would have asked, "Hey, can we get the same benefits by having a civil union?" they might have faired better than, "We want to get married, dammit!"

Look at it as a way of choosing your words wisely, to get what you want. For example, since you brought up cars and this is a car forum, after all, I wouldn't say to my wife, "Honey, I want to get a Miata, so I can drive like a hooligan." I'd meet with certain resistance. She'd be more agreeable to, "Honey, you know how I get a little cranky in the winter? I think if I had something to do, like a hobby, I'd be less of a burr under your blanket. A Miata would be fun to tinker on, in the cold months."

RealMiniDriver wrote: Look at it as a way of choosing your words wisely, to get what you want. For example, since you brought up cars and this is a car forum, after all, I wouldn't say to my wife, "Honey, I want to get a Miata, so I can drive like a hooligan." I'd meet with certain resistance. She'd be more agreeable to, "Honey, you know how I get a little cranky in the winter? I think if I had something to do, like a hobby, I'd be less of a burr under your blanket. A Miata would be fun to tinker on, in the cold months."

I think a more appropriate analogy would perhaps be: You can have your Miata honey, but you have to call it something else. And you have to change the way it looks so people don't recognize it as a Miata. And if you could please not compare your Miata to "real" Miatas or it will ruin the sanctity of "real" Miatas.

I also wonder if many companies are opposed to both gay marriage AND civil unions on the basis of cost alone. Adding a gay partner to benefits is not free, after all.

Do you guys really believe that no one is spending millions to lobby for gay marriage? It's inconceivable to me that anyone that has been paying attention would actually believe that the only money going into this issue is from the traditional marriage side.

Duke, let me try to explain to you what you are asking in the last paragraph of your past post. You ask why Churches would care. Here's why:

Christians believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This stems all the way back to Adam and Eve. Man and woman are designed to be compatible with one another. The Bible also teaches us that this is true. More importantly in today's world, we believe that the decline of family values is contributing to the decline in morals in the world.
Man and woman are different, and have different things to contribute to the family. We believe that children need all of the different things that the mother and father have to give them. When one is missing, the child doesn't get everything they need. This sometimes would apply to broken homes just the same as gay ones. Christians believe that eventually the world with basically self destruct and that at that time God will end it. We see the decline of family values as helping to lead us to that point.
I probably shouldnt' be writing this because I'm at work and typing off the top of my head, but you really seem to want to understand, so I'm trying. They are taught to love everyone, including homosexuals. That doesn't mean that they love or agree with that lifestyle.
Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles. We were fleeing from Britain to escape religious persecution. Religious American's are in a big way just trying to make sure this country doesn't end up like the one they escaped from. IOW, they are not so much against gay marriage as they are trying to preserve what has always been traditional marriage.

So since Home Depot, JC Penny's & Target have donated so much money to the LGBT community all the straight people ought to rise up in arms and protest them and not buy from them? What they've donated to the other side makes CFA's donations look like a drop in the bucket.

And the CFA issue isn't them discriminating in any way, it's because he had the audacity to speak his mind and beliefs. Last time I checked it was still OK to do that in America, even if what he had to say did not fit with your own personal beliefs.

This has proven a point about which groups are tolerant of others and which aren't, and hell has frozen over because I agree with Bravenrace 100%.

I'll bet Friday fizzles. There'll be a few statements equivalent to "Oh yeah." and that will be it.

And most of you are missing the point. What's the point of marriage when most straight people just live together? Follow the money, it's not about saying X is my partner, it's about being able to profit from that relationship with cheaper insurance coverage or even the ability to get insurance when you couldn't on your own. It's SS, it's death benefits, it's about the bennies, not about the ceremony it'self.

They same ones hollering they want to get married are the ones that decry that marriage is a failed institution and make fun of the married folks.

But once again, that's not the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is can a few Naziesque individuals control what we can or cannot say or think?

And the CFA issue isn't them discriminating in any way, it's because he had the audacity to speak his mind and beliefs. Last time I checked it was still OK to do that in America, even if what he had to say did not fit with your own personal beliefs.

I want to wear a sign around my neck that says "Supports Gay Marriage - Here for Free Food"