Gay Marriage, Freedom of Speech and Chicken Sandwiches

[DAS]

In what way did it make discrimination legal?

[Sagittarius Rising]

From my own personal experience, I know that there's no sense in trying to convince someone else to think the way that I do (or vice versa) when it comes to the issue of accepting homosexuality (as well as other volatile issues) but by the same token, I see no harm in discussing them either just so long as the conversation remains civil (the most difficult part). What I have learned however, is that I can let the opposing side know that just because we don't agree, it doesn't mean that I don't respect their views and beliefs. As I have mentioned, a recent discussion of this nature between myself and a friend did what I believed to be irreparable harm to our nearly 30 year long friendship because we are both so staunchly entrenched in our beliefs. Despite that, we are still trying to work through it. It would be a shame to throw away our friendship after so long but after he insulted myself and my family in the manner that he did I found it next to impossible for us to get back on speaking terms with each other but somehow we have managed to do so. To me, a friendship that's lasted that long is far more important than any discussion we may ever have that revolves around religion or politics. I've seen people on FB say, "de-friend me now if you don't believe in ____" but I'm not one of those people, at least not yet. I don't really see the point in being surrounded only by people you agree with.

Great post Jahfin and right to the heart of the matter.

A good example is I don't agree with TypeO's political stance, however I strongly believe he loves his country and his fellow human being as I do. I also find him quite articulate and well informed and learn a great deal from seeing a viewpoint from the other side. Also, I am not a Mormon but I have several Mormon friends and though I do not hold their belief system I cannot deny the Mormon community as a whole is an exemplary example of family life and have always admired the Mormons for this strength.

So, there you go, me a liberal non-religous person liking a consevative Mormon and admiring his family values and passion for what he believes in.

And I believe in gay marraige, after all it affects no one. The religous sanctity of a marraige is up to the church, if the church wishes to deny marraige to anyone that is their right. The view of marraige from the states perspective is a totaly different matter, in that case it is a simple contract which provides certain benefits granted by societies laws. As such gay marraige is no different than hetero marraige and should be allowed.

To me though the idea of traditional marraige is way to fluid and subject to the interpretation of the culture itself. Even if you narrow it down to traditional American marraige, what does that mean? We have every religous organization, every race, and every culture represented in the US so who is to say what is traditional and what is not? I sure don't want to go down that road!

[Jahfin]

In what way did it make discrimination legal?

If I have to explain that to you then it's going to become even more painfully obvious that you aren't paying attention.

[DAS]

If I have to explain that to you then it's going to become even more painfully obvious that you aren't paying attention.

I assume because it forbade gay marriage. The truth of the matter is that every person and people group is treated differently based on the decisions they make. That isn't discrimination. Someone can go back and say their born that way but there is no evidence of it and such should be dealt with according to the best evidence, namely that it is a lifestyle chose.

[Electrophile]

Did you choose to be straight? Were you given the option of a big ol' hard dick and a vagina, and chose the vagina?

[docron]

Did you choose to be straight? Were you given the option of a big ol' hard dick and a vagina, and chose the vagina?

[did she say option]?

[Jahfin]

I assume because it forbade gay marriage. The truth of the matter is that every person and people group is treated differently based on the decisions they make. That isn't discrimination. Someone can go back and say their born that way but there is no evidence of it and such should be dealt with according to the best evidence, namely that it is a lifestyle chose.

Amendment One is a clear cut case of discrimination being passed into law, a law that just so happens to be unconstitutional.

*Edited to add, I'm sure you've heard the old saying about using the word "assume". In that regard, that's why I've provided a link to more information about Amendment One in several of my posts. I suggest that you and others that aren't familiar with it please take the time to click on the link so you can familiarize yourself with it. First of all, it does not make gay marriage illegal in the state of North Carolina, gay marriage is already illegal here which is an aspect of Amendment One I've addressed in several of my previous posts. Also, as I've previously mentioned, I'm guessing a whole lot of other people "assumed" that Amendment One made gay marriage illegal in North Carolina which is why they voted for it. Those same people also apparently didn't realize that in addition to rights to benefits being taken away from gays, that it did the same thing to straight couples. I saw a lot of people that were in favor of the Amendment saying that wasn't true, that it was more "scare tactics" on the part of the people who were opposed to the Amendment. Know what happened the day after Amendment One passed in North Carolina back in May? Same-sex couples and straight couples in civil unions were stripped from sharing health care, visitation rights, coverage of prescription medication, and other domestic partnership benefits.

[Lake of Shadows]

I think it's wrong to compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement because in the long run what homosexuals are after is a pointless title and a minor tax cut. The civil rights movement was about something of actual value.

It's obviously much more than a pointless title and a minor tax cut, or people on both sides of the debate wouldn't feel so strongly about it.

From Jahfin's post about Amendment One:

...Same-sex couples and straight couples in civil unions were stripped from sharing health care, visitation rights, coverage of prescription medication, and other domestic partnership benefits...

Imagine if your long-term partner of many years, with whom you've been in a long-term monogamous relationship , got sick and went to the hospital... and you weren't allowed to visit because you weren't kin/immediate family. Meanwhile, cousin Doofus can sail in whenever he wants to. THAT kind of thing is why people care about it. Nobody wants to be treated like they're 'not as good as' ...

[jimmie ray]

So they have money and you don't. Would it be less of a problem if they were athletes and musicians, as opposed to fashion designers? I struggle to pay my bills too, but the fact the lesbian couple down the street doesn't, has nothing to do with me. In fact, the fact they're lesbians means jack and squat. They have more money than me. There's lot of people, gay and straight, who can say that.

My black coworker likes to boast that there "ain't no gay in the hood". Of course he's deluded, but that impression comes from there being few gay supporting voices in minority or lower class areas. What me and him see is celebrities and silver spoon types demanding so much more, while they already have too much to be truly appreciative of anything in life.

[Electrophile]

My black coworker likes to boast that there "ain't no gay in the hood". Of course he's deluded, but that impression comes from there being few gay supporting voices in minority or lower class areas. What me and him see is celebrities and silver spoon types demanding so much more, while they already have too much to be truly appreciative of anything in life.

The reason there are so few gay supporting voices in minority areas are one, African-American churches are pretty homophobic and two, black men in this country are shit on enough, a gay black man would be even more targeted.....so you don't see as many "out" black men compared to whites. If you want to extend that minority tag to cover Hispanics as well, Hispanics are predominantly Roman Catholic, and we all know how the church views gays. So you're about as likely if not less so, to see an out Hispanic man. I think the most high-profile openly gay Latino man is Ricky Martin.

All that being said, what does that have to do with the rich vs. the struggling middle class? I agree that it can be infuriating to see already wealthy people collect even more money while people struggle, but sexuality has nothing to do with that.

[docron]

The reason there are so few gay supporting voices in minority areas are one, African-American churches are pretty homophobic and two, black men in this country are shit on enough, a gay black man would be even more targeted.....so you don't see as many "out" black men compared to whites. If you want to extend that minority tag to cover Hispanics as well, Hispanics are predominantly Roman Catholic, and we all know how the church views gays. So you're about as likely if not less so, to see an out Hispanic man. I think the most high-profile openly gay Latino man is Ricky Martin.

All that being said, what does that have to do with the rich vs. the struggling middle class? I agree that it can be infuriating to see already wealthy people collect even more money while people struggle, but sexuality has nothing to do with that.

[did she say predominately]?

[Walter]

[did she say predominately]?

...and just before the end of the 5th line too...

[TypeO]

Great post Jahfin and right to the heart of the matter.

A good example is I don't agree with TypeO's political stance, however I strongly believe he loves his country and his fellow human being as I do. I also find him quite articulate and well informed and learn a great deal from seeing a viewpoint from the other side. Also, I am not a Mormon but I have several Mormon friends and though I do not hold their belief system I cannot deny the Mormon community as a whole is an exemplary example of family life and have always admired the Mormons for this strength.

So, there you go, me a liberal non-religous person liking a consevative Mormon and admiring his family values and passion for what he believes in.

And I believe in gay marraige, after all it affects no one. The religous sanctity of a marraige is up to the church, if the church wishes to deny marraige to anyone that is their right. The view of marraige from the states perspective is a totaly different matter, in that case it is a simple contract which provides certain benefits granted by societies laws. As such gay marraige is no different than hetero marraige and should be allowed.

To me though the idea of traditional marraige is way to fluid and subject to the interpretation of the culture itself. Even if you narrow it down to traditional American marraige, what does that mean? We have every religous organization, every race, and every culture represented in the US so who is to say what is traditional and what is not? I sure don't want to go down that road!

Thanks, Saggy (couldn't resist - from another thread IIRC, or possibly even earlier in this thread, who can keep up?).

And now here's the real mind-blower -

I actually don't oppose gay marriage.

All of my criticism in this thread has been directed at the bullying tactics of the LGBT supporters during this whole Chick-Fil-A thing.

I believe same-sex couples do deserve to be able to get benefits, etc. - all the rights afforded to any other married couple.

I don't hate or dislike gay people.

My wife has a few cousins who are or have been gay, and it doesn't matter.

I DO dislike the fast-tracking of gay culture (by way of entertainment, afternoon TV, movies, TV shows, etc.) into almost everything I see on TV in order to convince everyone how "mainstream" it is.

I am already tired of the "gay" stereotype characters.

Comedians have been making the same basic jokes and impersonations since at least the 80s, and it was funny.

Then the 90s and it got more outrageous, and still funny.

By the 2000s, it wasn't much of a joke anymore, as Gay (yes, the capital G) became less unusual, and the humor was becoming rather stale and repetitive.

And now in the past few years, people are actually embodying the stereotype - Cojo, the guy on Entertainment Tonight who appeared to be added to the show for no other reason than being flamboyantly gay.

Practically the same with Carson Kressley.

I'm no expert on gay culture, but it would seem rather demeaning to be hired to "be gay".

I feel like a gay culture hipster - I was laughing at gay humor way before most people were!

(It's a joke. I'm not actually trying to flaunt my cred on gay culture.)

Someone else posted it already, but when it's eventually passed, I can see the next step being insisting on churches conducting the ceremonies even if they're opposed to it.

And I think that's wrong.

Much like the Sandra Fluke ordeal.

It wasn't enough government had to fund her birth-control expenses, it had to be the Catholic Church funding it, i.e., forcing them to go against their beliefs.

And just like any other issue, right or left, it gets co-opted into the larger agenda, using it to gain ground for some as-yet undisclosed or not fully revealed future design.

It's the same with abortion, gun-control, etc.

Any ruling gives precedent to one side or another to further their agenda.

[Electrophile]

I never understood why the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. They hate abortion, and what causes fewer abortions than people using contraception? You'd think they'd be all for it.

[Arcane29]

I never understood why the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. They hate abortion, and what causes fewer abortions than people using contraception? You'd think they'd be all for it.

They see it as stopping conception and thus preventing something God intended to happen when people have sex.

Pretty much, only have sex when you want a baby, because contraceptions and pulling out are sins.

[DAS]

It's obviously much more than a pointless title and a minor tax cut, or people on both sides of the debate wouldn't feel so strongly about it.

From Jahfin's post about Amendment One:

...Same-sex couples and straight couples in civil unions were stripped from sharing health care, visitation rights, coverage of prescription medication, and other domestic partnership benefits...

Imagine if your long-term partner of many years, with whom you've been in a long-term monogamous relationship , got sick and went to the hospital... and you weren't allowed to visit because you weren't kin/immediate family. Meanwhile, cousin Doofus can sail in whenever he wants to. THAT kind of thing is why people care about it. Nobody wants to be treated like they're 'not as good as' ...

Personally I find the whole medical industry to be insane. I don't think a partner is important, I think anyone should be allowed in to see a sick friend or relative as long as the patient is okay with it. Also, I've never actually seen a case of this happening. I'm sure it does but I've been in a lot of hospitals not just for visiting people I know but I've visited with elderly people who didn't have much family to come and see them and they pretty much let people roam free around the facilities in the hospitals around here.

[DAS]

I never understood why the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control. They hate abortion, and what causes fewer abortions than people using contraception? You'd think they'd be all for it.

The Catholic Church isn't utilitarian nor are they graded absolutists. They see both as wrong so they oppose them for, in their opinion, being wrong.

[Electrophile]

They see it as stopping conception and thus preventing something God intended to happen when people have sex.

Pretty much, only have sex when you want a baby, because contraceptions and pulling out are sins.

That was half-sarcastic. I used to be Catholic, I'm aware of all that. Instead of the church worrying about whether Tim uses a condom when he fucks his girlfriend after school, how about they concern themselves with getting rid of priests who rape altar boys, instead of shuffling them off to another parish. I think that's a much better and more important usage of their time, instead of opining about gays and birth control.

[Arcane29]

That was half-sarcastic. I used to be Catholic, I'm aware of all that. Instead of the church worrying about whether Tim uses a condom when he fucks his girlfriend after school, how about they concern themselves with getting rid of priests who rape altar boys, instead of shuffling them off to another parish. I think that's a much better and more important usage of their time, instead of opining about gays and birth control.

Aaahh, sorry about the misunderstanding...

I enjoy how blunt you are when you speak...

[docron]

They see it as stopping conception and thus preventing something God intended to happen when people have sex.

Pretty much, only have sex when you want a baby, because contraceptions and pulling out are sins.

[if pulling out is a sin then Rick Santorum is FK'd]

[DAS]

[if pulling out is a sin then Rick Santorum is FK'd]

How exactly do you know what Santorum is doing with his Rick?

[beetleron]

in order to quell the controversy chik filet introduced a new chicken sandwich...........chik on chik filet

[Lake of Shadows]

Personally I find the whole medical industry to be insane. I don't think a partner is important, I think anyone should be allowed in to see a sick friend or relative as long as the patient is okay with it. Also, I've never actually seen a case of this happening. I'm sure it does but I've been in a lot of hospitals not just for visiting people I know but I've visited with elderly people who didn't have much family to come and see them and they pretty much let people roam free around the facilities in the hospitals around here.

You totally missed my point... or chose to ignore it. But... if you want to stick with my EXAMPLE... that kind of thing can (and does) happen when the patient can't express his/her wishes on visitors and some areas strictly limit visitors (ICUs, for example).

You seem to agree that a person with no legal standing should be able to visit someone if desired, even if not related. That's the whole point. Long-term partners have no legal standing in terms of health care insurance, FMLA to care for a sick partner, etc. etc. etc.

That is the whole point... maybe, maybe, if you ponder it a little bit... maybe you will start to understand why it's more than a "minor" tax break or a meaningless title.

One day, you may have a partner, and maybe you'll even marry your partner... and then maybe you WILL think a partner is important.

[dingo rock]

Yeah me to and I'd prefer to be a little bent than straight

[jimmie ray]

The reason there are so few gay supporting voices in minority areas are one, African-American churches are pretty homophobic and two, black men in this country are shit on enough, a gay black man would be even more targeted.....so you don't see as many "out" black men compared to whites. If you want to extend that minority tag to cover Hispanics as well, Hispanics are predominantly Roman Catholic, and we all know how the church views gays. So you're about as likely if not less so, to see an out Hispanic man. I think the most high-profile openly gay Latino man is Ricky Martin.

All that being said, what does that have to do with the rich vs. the struggling middle class? I agree that it can be infuriating to see already wealthy people collect even more money while people struggle, but sexuality has nothing to do with that.

O.K., so I've explained my disdain for those who who I see speaking openly and loudly for gay marraige, and seem to have not been so off target, yet. Now, my experience with being acquainted with openly gay people was that I have observed them all to have fluttered between being straight to bisexual to gay over the decades - and now have settled into being just gay. It seems like their choices hinged on what best suited their needs and desires at the time - there were no social pressures that I could tell were guiding them. I'm going to go out on a limb, and suggest that there are actually more bisexuals in the world than purely gay. And yes, many of them might be hiding in a hetero marraige and enjoying the full benefits and sexual menu, already. But I envision a society completely out of control in the future, with false marraiges between buddies who reap the benefits, bring whoever in and out their sex lives openly, and get to watch football afterwards without all the nagging. Fun stuff - but who's gonna foot the bill?