Chik-fil-A

[Skipjack]

For my part, I am so not interested in a topic that only affects a very small part of the population, that I cant even be bothered to think of a statement about the situation. It just is not worth the energy.
John Slough got funding for his fusion propulsion. Now that is important to me. Why isnt that part of the campaign and political debate?
Instead we are discussing some rich morons unimportant opinion about something unimportant.

[ScottL]

"Being educated is being liberal"?

Did you want to clarify that?

I can if you like. Higher education is repeatedly remarked and reinforced as a liberal institution producing liberal minded or "free-thinking" individuals. To be educated is being liberal. Hell, believing in science and the scientific method is being liberal any more. Pardon me if I don't join the ranks of those believing in Angels or the necessity to increaes the number of guns in our nation. I can't morally or respectfully join such groups and will glady remain free-thinking.

[paperburn1]

For my part, I am so not interested in a topic that only affects a very small part of the population, that I cant even be bothered to think of a statement about the situation. It just is not worth the energy.
John Slough got funding for his fusion propulsion. Now that is important to me. Why isnt that part of the campaign and political debate?
Instead we are discussing some rich morons unimportant opinion about something unimportant.

Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense.

[ladajo]

Well I think there is another great lie being challenged. That is the one about how many gay & lesbian folks are really out there.
So what did happen with the great counter-protest, "kiss in"? Apparently, if the extreme minority (not really even noticed at all) number of gay & lesbian's that went to chick-fil-a's or the facebook version is any measure, a total flop. To use CNN's words, "completely dwarfed" by the Appreciation Day. I think the gay & lebsian facebook page got about 14,000 "goings" out of 110,000 invites...and chik-fil-a's page posting over 6 million likes...
Of course that does not count how many customers showed up for the appreciation day. Which resulted in the company's largest sales day ever.

[JLawson]

Apparently out in Hollywood a Chik-Fil-A outlet had to call the cops. Not because of out-of-control crowds of kissers, but because the media was hounding the workers for sound bites.

Way I've looked at it, support for traditional marriage doesn't preclude supporting other types of marriage - any more than liking steak means you can't like vegetarian dishes.

There's 300 million people in the US. Seems to me like there's room for plenty of opinions - and if someone doesn't like yours, that's their problem.

Gay marriage is fine by me. Actually, I'm much more indifferent than caring about who's doing what to whom. Marry who you want, as long as it's legal - and don't forget to dissolve the marriage properly when/if you get tired of it. (Gay divorce being the last untapped legal market... for now!)

As Paperburn1 said - "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense."

Very true. I'd add 'or are indifferent' after 'disagree' - it seems you can't not have an opinion on this. You can't 'not care' - you're assumed to be a bigot or hater.

But indifference is just that. Don't force me to 'care' one way or the other - or you'll get me to care, all right. And it won't be for your position.

[GIThruster]

As Paperburn1 said - "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense."

Personally I think both these are banal and trite, as well as wrong. I've never met anyone who believes such nonsense. This is the standard progressive rubbish one gets from the time they're in kindergarden, but it's hard to call it adult thinking, either to act this way, or to believe people act this way.

Rather, people respond badly to having someone's private business shoved in their face. If you don't make your sexuality my business, then I don't care if you're gay. I've had gay friends for 33 years--since way before it was cool to come out of the closet, and I lived through the gay pride demonstrations in NYC with people wearing BDSM garb and nipple pinchers striding down Broadway. This kind of activity set the gay rights movement back 10 years and thoroughly embarrassed my gay friends. Kissing is public is just another form of getting in people's faces and forcing private business into public. It's stupid and it's going to create a back-lash.

You can make up whatever cheesy rhetoric you like about traditional folks being hateful, close minded or ignorant. All that does is polarize the people in the debate. When people accuse other people of being fearful, hateful, ignorant, close-minded, etc., all they've accomplished is to create an adversarial relationship and that's not the way to create friends, change nor to act like an adult. Both these above posts telling us about the lies in our society are childish, counterproductive statements that ultimately injure the gay rights movement.

[paperburn1]

As Paperburn1 said - "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense."

Personally I think both these are banal and trite, as well as wrong. I've never met anyone who believes such nonsense. ."

Well I am afraid I do agree on the banal and trite thing, (good word usage) but the community's at large both think you should have their belief system or you are the "enemy". Just by looking at the chats and blogs you can see a very strong bias in this direction. I am a strong believer in the castle doctrine. "What goes on in your home and causes no harm should be ignored"

[GIThruster]

In general I like the Castle Doctrine too, though it's important to recognize its exceptions. Terrorists building bombs in the privacy of their own homes are exceptions to the rule and there are others.

The trouble comes that marriage is not in the privacy of ones own home. Sex, yes. Marriage, no. Marriage is a social construct or sacrament, and if you want the seal of approval that brings, you have to play by society's rules. Our society doesn't allow for gay marriage and despite the attempts every year to make it legal, it has never come close.

It's important to note, the issue is not one of civil unions and granting the same rights to gay partners as one does to spouses. Most people think gays in civil unions ought to have the same special status as a spouse when visiting in hospital, etc. However, overwhelmingly people want marriage to remain between a man and a woman.

So far as people deciding those who disagree with are the enemy, it's easy to think of gays as enemies when they're busy getting in people's faces, telling them they're hateful, and otherwise acting out. It's hard to think of them as enemies when you're sharing lunch together, or a cup of coffee. This isn't rocket science. Play nice and people will like you.

[Diogenes]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will120103.asp


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp

[rj40]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. If we allow marriage, anything could happen. You start with one man and one woman and pretty soon some guy is gonna wanna marry a horse! And here we are.

Slippery slope. Slippery slope.

As far as the link to the Jewish world review -
The spouse and I cannot have kids, too old, I hope we are allowed to stay married. We are paying property tax, so that should at least help kids. Perhaps we are still a bit legit.

[seedload]

"Being educated is being liberal"?

Did you want to clarify that?

I can if you like. Higher education is repeatedly remarked and reinforced as a liberal institution producing liberal minded or "free-thinking" individuals. To be educated is being liberal. Hell, believing in science and the scientific method is being liberal any more. Pardon me if I don't join the ranks of those believing in Angels or the necessity to increaes the number of guns in our nation. I can't morally or respectfully join such groups and will glady remain free-thinking.

It was probably a mistake to tout your educated liberal tolerance in the same thread that you post something like this:

Yeah there are a lot of obese folks there working on clogging those arteries. Here's to their future coronaries and triple bypass surgeries, may they all rest in 5 piece. Just wish it weren't so many white people....ugh

Ya' know.

[Diogenes]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. If we allow marriage, anything could happen. You start with one man and one woman and pretty soon some guy is gonna wanna marry a horse! And here we are.

Slippery slope. Slippery slope.

As far as the link to the Jewish world review -
The spouse and I cannot have kids, too old, I hope we are allowed to stay married. We are paying property tax, so that should at least help kids. Perhaps we are still a bit legit.

One of the things which I have contemplated for decades is WHY customs exist. WHY do we have these particular social mores and customs?The obvious answer is that we tried a lot of other things before, and what survived to become custom were those things that worked out better than the alternatives. (Evolutionary survival of the fittest.)


Now here you come along with your ass-holish observation that since you as a couple can no longer have children, then your marriage is not justified in accordance with the most important aspect of marriage. What you are either unaware of from ignorance, or intentionally overlook for not fitting the narrative which you are attempting to employ, is that the Custom of Marriage is so old that it came from a time in which not so many people lived to an age that they could no longer have children. Indeed, for the last couple of thousand years, the Jews, the Arabs and the Christians were taught that couples could indeed have children into their old age.

Most people are aware of the story of Father Abraham, his Wife Sarah, and her servant Hagar.

Genesis 16

15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

Genesis 17
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

The story is related as an actual event culminating in the split between the Jews and the Arabs, with the Jews being the descendents of Sarah, and the Arabs being the descendents of Hagar. The point is, people believed this story, and so they chose not to second guess what might happen in a marriage between a man and a woman.

In the intervening years since, it became possible for people to realize that some young couples could not have children. Such a circumstance was regarded as a heartache for such couples and was thought to be a tragedy. However, the consensus of the time was that Children were a gift from God, and if it be God's will that a particular couple should or should not have children, who were others to gainsay it?

Childless marriages remained legitimate in the eyes of the community because the understanding of the community at that time was that it was in God's hands. We have the derived custom as a result.



On a related subject, you and your wife can still have children, albeit it might be a rather involved and expensive process should you chose to attempt it.

[Teahive]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp

Why is marriage a government concern in the first place? There are at least three reasons.

Let's examine those reasons, then.

First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.

Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. The inescapable fact that only women become pregnant means that male and female situations are never going to be the same, no matter how much "gender neutral" language we use or how much fashionable talk there is about how "we" are going to have a baby. Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.

Both arguments are very similar, and equally problematic. There is a difference between giving birth and bringing up children. The latter applies to homosexual unions, too. They might adopt, or bring their own children into a new relationship. And while the former may require a woman as well as a man as initiator (at least for now), it does not require marriage. Neither does joint responsibility.

If wellbeing of children and joint responsibility are important, which no doubt they are, then the logical precondition for specific support by society is quite simply, bringing up children.

Third, time has very different effects on men and women. As the years pass and women lose their physical attraction, men are typically rising in income and occupational status. It is usually easier for a middle-aged man to abandon his wife and make a second marriage with a younger "trophy wife" than for a woman to remarry equally as advantageously. Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.

These and other differences between the sexes simply do not apply when the people in a domestic union are of the same sex. When they are simply "consenting adults," they can consent on whatever terms they choose to work out between themselves. It is nobody else's business and should not be the law's business.

Key words here are "typically", "usually", "often". While these differences between the sexes exist statistically, for a specific couple they might in fact be reversed. Or a homosexual couple might represent different ends of the spectrum. A certain relationship arrangement being most common does not make it best for all couples, no matter their gender.

What prevents a heterosexual couple from working out terms between themselves with which they are both happy? If government is concerned with one partner being disadvantaged, it should create laws that consider the specific circumstances it wants to protect, not make sweeping generalizations.

Law need not mention gender at all. Judge people by their actions, not by their genetic makeup.

[rj40]

If I've said it once,...quote]

One of the things which I have contemplated for decades is WHY customs exist. WHY do we have these particular social mores and customs?The obvious answer is that we tried a lot of other things before, and what survived to become custom were those things that worked out better than the alternatives. (Evolutionary survival of the fittest.)


Now here you come along with your ass-holish observation that since you as a couple can no longer have children, then your marriage is not justified in accordance with the most important aspect of marriage. What you are either unaware of from ignorance, or intentionally overlook for not fitting the narrative which you are attempting to employ, is that the Custom of Marriage is so old that it came from a time in which not so many people lived to an age that they could no longer have children. Indeed, for the last couple of thousand years, the Jews, the Arabs and the Christians were taught that couples could indeed have children into their old age.

Most people are aware of the story of Father Abraham, his Wife Sarah, and her servant Hagar.

Genesis 16

15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

Genesis 17
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

The story is related as an actual event culminating in the split between the Jews and the Arabs, with the Jews being the descendents of Sarah, and the Arabs being the descendents of Hagar. The point is, people believed this story, and so they chose not to second guess what might happen in a marriage between a man and a woman.

In the intervening years since, it became possible for people to realize that some young couples could not have children. Such a circumstance was regarded as a heartache for such couples and was thought to be a tragedy. However, the consensus of the time was that Children were a gift from God, and if it be God's will that a particular couple should or should not have children, who were others to gainsay it?

Childless marriages remained legitimate in the eyes of the community because the understanding of the community at that time was that it was in God's hands. We have the derived custom as a result.



On a related subject, you and your wife can still have children, albeit it might be a rather involved and expensive process should you chose to attempt it.

Then it is ignorance.
I read this from George Will:

"So the "sanctity" of American marriage is problematic. The crucial question is: Because the public meaning of marriage — the reason there are laws about it — is procreation and child rearing, what would be the consequences of altering the public meaning of marriage by including same-sex unions?"

Will we get kicked out of marriage-dom? You say no. Thanks. But let me ask you this - what if a heterosexual couple intentionally do not intend to have children, do not intend to adopt, they let everyone know this and then both take medical measures to ensure they cannot have kids. Would you, if you had the power, work to keep them and people like them from getting married? Why or why not?

Also, I don't think the statment was ass-holish. Sorry if you think so. Maybe a bit tongue in cheek.

My first statement relates to, I think it's called a logical fallacy (maybe?), called Reductio ad absurdum. I don't know if it follows that allowing same gender folks to marry leads to what the cartoon shows. It is almost like saying that electing Rick Santorum (maybe next time!) will result in women loosing the right to vote. Both probably not true - but depending on what you believe to begin with, it may seem that way.

I am not sure I am trying to employ a narrative. Without some sort of input, or a background in history, I saw a way for someone to slip in and perhaps deny marriage to folks who cannot/ will not have kids. Ah! Perhaps that is MY Reductio ad absurdum! But it is good to be sure.

Do you ever visit or post at:
http://ricochet.com/
For the price of a cup of coffee once a month you can interact with a eclectic group of conservatives who may agree with you, but are very well prepared to seriously argue with you if they see a hole in your argument. Might be fun.

[Diogenes]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032400.asp

Why is marriage a government concern in the first place? There are at least three reasons.

Let's examine those reasons, then.

First of all, a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to produce additional people, who are neither consenting nor adults. The wellbeing of these children is important both for their sake and for the sake of the society as a whole, whose future these children represent. This consideration obviously does not apply to homosexual unions.

Second, men and women are inherently in very different positions within a marriage. The inescapable fact that only women become pregnant means that male and female situations are never going to be the same, no matter how much "gender neutral" language we use or how much fashionable talk there is about how "we" are going to have a baby. Laws must make them jointly responsible for the baby that she alone will have. This consideration likewise does not apply to homosexual unions.

Both arguments are very similar, and equally problematic. There is a difference between giving birth and bringing up children. The latter applies to homosexual unions, too. They might adopt, or bring their own children into a new relationship. And while the former may require a woman as well as a man as initiator (at least for now), it does not require marriage. Neither does joint responsibility.

If wellbeing of children and joint responsibility are important, which no doubt they are, then the logical precondition for specific support by society is quite simply, bringing up children..

I think where much difference of opinion creeps into any discussion is in the definitions of words and phrases. "Bringing up children" can mean more than one thing, and those differences are not equal.

The Welfare state produces a constant stream of children "brought up" to adulthood, but most often containing none of the proper software programing that would make them a harmless or even contributing member of society. By the same token, having homosexuals raise a child to adult hood might produce an adult human, but would it produce one at harmony with a functional society?A study says this is less likely.

One deficit is particularly worrying: Less than 2 percent of children from intact, biological families reported experiencing sexual abuse of some nature, but that figure for children of same-sex couples is 23 percent.

Third, time has very different effects on men and women. As the years pass and women lose their physical attraction, men are typically rising in income and occupational status. It is usually easier for a middle-aged man to abandon his wife and make a second marriage with a younger "trophy wife" than for a woman to remarry equally as advantageously. Since a woman has often invested years of her life in creating a home and family, the marriage contract is one way of trying to assure her that this investment will not be in vain.

These and other differences between the sexes simply do not apply when the people in a domestic union are of the same sex. When they are simply "consenting adults," they can consent on whatever terms they choose to work out between themselves. It is nobody else's business and should not be the law's business.

Key words here are "typically", "usually", "often". While these differences between the sexes exist statistically, for a specific couple they might in fact be reversed. Or a homosexual couple might represent different ends of the spectrum. A certain relationship arrangement being most common does not make it best for all couples, no matter their gender.

Hmmm... I often find it difficult to convey a complex idea, but the word "optimization" might get across the gist of it. People who are familiar with optimization realize that it is not the same thing as perfection. It is the weighing and adjusting of sometimes multiple factors to achieve the best balance that can be had given the competing influences.

With that in mind, I would argue that in a large statistical analysis of a given population, what has become the most common condition is very likely to be the optimized resultant of the competing vector forces.

Evolution works like that. Characteristics which aid in survival tend to be re-enforced. This concept works in social dynamics as well as with everything else. As water seeks the lowest level, so to do other dynamic social forces seek their own ground state. That ground state tends to be the optimized condition for the circumstances in which that society finds itself.

People often make the mistake of trying to judge a social dynamic on the basis of their very short life experiences, and as a result they allow a microscopic view of life dictate a macroscopic condition. (Social policy.)

A lot of writers have remarked that the sole constant of Leftest thought is the continuous demand for "change". Whatever is the current status quo must not be tolerated! It must be turned over or driven out! That "change" from optimum must yield a less than optimum result, doesn't bother them at all, *IF* they are even aware of the consequences. "Change" is an itch they feel they must scratch and they simply cannot help themselves.

Others suggest support for Gay marriage is solely for the purpose of undermining a powerful nation; That leftests only support it when it suits them, and the rest of the time they have no tolerance of it.

What prevents a heterosexual couple from working out terms between themselves with which they are both happy? If government is concerned with one partner being disadvantaged, it should create laws that consider the specific circumstances it wants to protect, not make sweeping generalizations.

The law is evolved. It has only been the last century or so that anyone gave any thought regarding legal protection for women. During an age in which the ability to fight and kill was paramount to deciding who owned what, a concern for those unable to compete in such a manner was not sensible. Women started acquiring rights at just the speed with which society was able to indulge such an idea.

As far as Sweeping generalizations go, for the most part they are true.

Law need not mention gender at all. Judge people by their actions, not by their genetic makeup.

There are many laws which divide by gender. A woman can decide whether or not a man pays child support for a child he does not want regardless of his feelings on the subject. She can decide whether he has a child, or nothing. How do you not divide such a law by gender?