Hate in America, how history will judge us.

Jump to Last Post 1-25 of 25 discussions (141 posts)

61
Josakposted 11 years ago
I struggle with the gay rights issue, with most partisan topics I can see the other side of the argument and even have doubts about my own position, this is not one of them. The congregation of people getting together to celebrate their hatred of gays and equality at Chik Fila makes my bile rise I see not only the same feeling but the same people who I saw at KKK rallies many years ago and that is because they have the same aim and a new target, promoting inequality and second class citizenship.
I saw it all before too, in the interracial marriage debate years ago. I even hear the same argument all the time "soon we will be letting dogs marry" because somehow two people who love each other wanting to be bound together for life is the same as someone raping a dog, I guess in certain minds it is. I hear the same excuses too "I don't hate blacks/gays I am just defending marriage/our way of life"
In a few decades people will look back at this with revulsion and shame like we look back at Jim crow and interracial marriage supporters until then I will be remembering that every man is born equal. To people struggling with the hatred they face as homosexuals, especially gay youth who have a suicide rate six times the average, all I can say is I am sorry my countrymen are so ignorant and hateful I hope you can forgive them.
My last message is for the hubber who shall go unnamed who posted a video showing how god had punished with fatal natural disasters areas that supported homosexuality. Sir I extend to you what you as a Christian are supposed to extend to others, forgiveness, even though you don't deserve it, you use your faith as an excuse for hate but I am sure of one thing, if Jesus knew his followers were celebrating natural disasters which killed innocents, including children, as divine retribution he would weep.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I grew up being taught that gays were basically evil.
  
  Now I support their rights. Have hope for people who are stuck in the worldview of their childhood.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wonderful to see people of the conservative persuasion expressing the same sentiment
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Add me to the list of conservatives that supports gay rights.
  reply report
  78
  kirstenblogposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is lovely to see someone reject teachings that can be so damaging to society, I applaud you for it!
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Bravo! also.
  reply report
2. 79
  rcrumpleposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I completely agree. Growing up in the 60's, many of us believed that all men, were indeed, created equal, regardless of race, creed or color. This led to much discontent for those that had made attempt to raise us in a land of white superiority.
  If we were created in God's image, why then, are some acceptable and others not? The logic simply isn't there! It has to be an all or none issue.
  reply report
  88
  Paragliderposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Re "race, creed or color" - that raises an interesting question:
  Race and color, we are born into and can do nothing about. Most people now accept that both are irrelevant in matters of equality, i.e. discrimination on the basis of either is unjustifiable.
  But creed? Literally that which someone believes? Though we may be brought up within a belief system, as adults it is our responsibility to examine such belief systems critically and make personal choices for which we should then take responsibility. For belief systems are not all equal by any means. Some are better than others, by any normal ethical standards, and are therefore to be preferred.
  
  As an example, I think that anyone whose creed includes honour killings or stoning for adultery or picketing funerals should be discriminated against rigorously and prevented from accessing any position of authority.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. All religions and all civilizations aren't created equal. Some who call themselves civilizations aren't civilized at all. I wrote the Taliban off because of the way women are treated and because of their destruction of the ancient Bamyan Buddhist statues. Not to mention the fact that they provided a safe haven for Al Qaida.
  reply report
3. 60
  mp2525posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hear, hear!
  reply report
4. 60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How is it hate to resist government undoing a human institution that has transcended cultures, societies, governments and history itself? Would anything have been blown up to this proportion if politicians didn't seek to punish a company for its president's personal opinion - in clear violation of the 1st Amendment?
  
  i understand the emotions involved and the desire to see all people equal but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for removing the definition of marriage.
  
  No one is barred from getting married, as long as one is marrying a member of the opposite sex. That is the sole definition and criteria for marriage. One man, one woman. It does not bar people based on race, sexual orientation, income, wealth, ethnicity, national origin, age(except the age of consent), number of working limbs, blindness, deafness, disease, etc....
  
  If anything marriage is one of the most inclusive institutions in America. Time was when a man could not marry a woman if they were of different "races." That is long gone. Now it is perfectly inclusive. The government doesn't ask if you love each other, if you want children, if it is all about publically validating your sexuality, if it is about property, or income or what ever - as long as it isn't about fraud.
  
  Simple and objective marriage is one man and one woman and no other issues at all. How could it be more fair?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No institution is being undone it in no way affects your marriage or my marriage if gay people can get married end of story, the institution is shot to hell anyway given the divorce rate etc.
  
  I did not see government punishing Chick Filla if they did I don't support it, that has nothing to do with this issue or the boycott. It was people excersizing their rights to boycott.
  
  No one is barred from getting married except gay people, which is pure discrimination.
  
  Great so marriage is open to most people just not gay people, being somewhere around 5% of our population.
  
  There is absolutely no reason to continue to use government to force someone elses definition of marriage on people.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  [No institution is being undone it in no way affects your marriage or my marriage if gay people can get married end of story, the institution is shot to hell anyway given the divorce rate etc.
  
  1)divorce rates are unrelated to marriage itself as an intitution but rather reflect societies undervaluing of marriage and the presence of alternatives that have been made acceptable by changes external to marriage itself. Domestic partnerships, cohabitation, sexual liberation, women's independence, abortion, adoption, welfare, etc...have all for better or worse changed society so that alternatives to marriage exist where there wer none before.
  
  I did not see government punishing Chick Filla if they did I don't support it,
  2)http://www.examiner.com/article/chick-f … gay-stance
  
  that has nothing to do with this issue or the boycott. It was people excersizing their rights to boycott.
  3) I believe people should be able to patronize or not patronize who they wish - here you and I could not be in more agreement - but I do not choose to ascribe to those boycotting a business a visceral and brutal hatred.
  
  No one is barred from getting married except gay people, which is pure discrimination.
  4) homosexuals are not barred from marrying, the government does not ask if you are gey before issuing a marriage license.
  
  Great so marriage is open to most people just not gay people, being somewhere around 5% of our population.
  
  5)marriage is open to everyone except those who seek marriage for fraudulent reasons - like getting protection for deportation or because they are closely related - brother/sister, mother/son, etc...or already married or seeking marriage for multiple partners.
  
  There is absolutely no reason to continue to use government to force someone elses definition of marriage on people.
  
  It is an objective definition with no abiguity and no one is compelled to marry or not marry - it is perhaps, the least regulated and simplest activity in which people can engage with government attention
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously gay people don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender being as they can't mary who they wish they are effectively banned from marriage.
  
  I don't understand how you someone who talks endlessly about excessive government control can support using government to mke it illegal for gay people to get married.
  
  Denying people equality under the law (which includes marriage law) is always wrong.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously gay people don't want to marry someone of the opposite gender being as they can't mary who they wish they are effectively banned from marriage. I
  
  --- many people want to "marry" who cannot "marry" who they choose - does this mean all relationships that do not meet the definition of marriage should be permitted the state sanctioning of their contractual relationship?
  
  don't understand how you someone who talks endlessly about excessive government control can support using government to mke it illegal for gay people to get married.
  
  ---it is not illegal for someone homosexual to marry
  
  Denying people equality under the law (which includes marriage law) is always wrong
  
  ---many people are not allowed to marry, even when they are one man and one woman
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Last month in NC two men went in and filled out their form for a marriage license and were refused. "homosexuals are not barred from marrying, the government does not ask if you are gey before issuing a marriage license." So there goes that.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  Marriage is between a man and a woman - the government does not ask either if they are gay - so there goes that
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Marriage is only between a man and a woman to some, so the rest should be punished because our heavy handed government and the select over religious think they have been bad by being gay? Let's be honest here. WHO CARES WHAT SOMEONE DOES IN THEIR BEDROOM? Really why does keeping gays from marrying matter SO much to some. Is it a lack of their own lives? Is it boredom? Really? Please explain to me why you think the government should be allowed to tell people who they can marry. Are you in denial about that part? Your definition of marriage is limited since there are already some places where marriage is between man and man or women and women.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  Because marriage isn't about the bedroom or sex
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'd say it is considering the religious extreme is saying the reason marriage for gays shouldn't be allowed is because God said it was a sin for two men to have sex. These same people are saying it is the ACT of being gay that is a sin. So they are fighting against gay marriage because of what's going on in stranger's bedrooms.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Then Christians should have no objection to gay marriage since it is never mentioned in the bible only intercourse is.
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Good point!
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there,
  John 2:1
  
  marriage predates and transcends the bible
  
  though the old and new testaments speak extensivley about marriage, weddings, husbands, wives
  Hebrews 13:4
  Luke 20:34
  Matthew 24:38
  Judges 21:1
  Judges 12:9
  Leviticus 21:4
  1 Corinthians 7:38
  
  that is beside the point marriage is not about the bible or jesus or moses or muhammed or you or me
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes and marriage transcends religion and it has evolved beyond the exclusion of people for wanting to marry someone of the same sex.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Marriage is about one man and one woman - if it becomes about anything else it is no longer marriage. Calliing a dog a cat does not make a dog a cat. Again, no one is barred from marrying.
  reply report
  93
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What don't you get about the fact it has already become something else? GAY PEOPLE ARE ALREADY MARRIED!!! So I guess the dog is now a cat. The point is why everyone doesn't catch up to whats already happening. You know what never mind. There is no getting through! Waste of my energy. Feel free to have the last word! I'm done wasting my time with someone who thinks their way must be the only way!
  report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No it's not, marriage is about binding people who love each other together for life. Several countries and states already allow gay marriage and soon gay marriage will simply be marriage.
  report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you want the government to define what love is? What is love? How does one write love into law? What is binding? Can government sanction the binding of one person to another, legitimately, isn't that slavery?
  
  Best question really is What is love and why do you want government to define it?
  report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I am a little disappointed in your Marxist scholarship. Marx wrote all about marriage and it wasn't about love for him either.
  report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Things like Brittany Spears getting married for a couple of hours does way more to damage the antiquated institution of marriage than does two gays who commit for a lifetime.
  reply report
5. 61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why is disagreement considered hatred?
  In similar fashion you are called racist if you disagree with our President.
  I don't hate anyone but I disagree with a lifestyle. I am not a hater. I just know what I like.
  I certainly don't agree with whomever whatever video you refer to had to do with. Nor the fools from Westboro Baptist.
  I suspect most of the folks yesterday weren't haters either but that's the politically correct thing to call them so there it is.
  They set a world record yesterday so I suspect I am not the only one who feels that way. No I didn't eat there.
  Couldn't get anywhere near the place.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  JS - when disagreement holds others in a negative judgmental light, despite the fact that they've done nothing harmful - it borders on hatred.
  
  It creates divisions and attempts to set one group of people above another group, for no valid reason.
  
  Imagine if the protests were not against gays, but about Christians. Then, imagine that you were a Christian who had to walk quickly past the protestors for fear they'd single you out - as an evil one. Then, multiply that experience by about 500 and you'll be closer to seeing the harm done to others. A similar thing happened about 60 years ago - there was a disagreement about Jews and whether they were good for society. That disagreement led to some hateful actions, indeed.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I like you JS. I think you are a decent guy. However, I don't think you are fully comprehending how you come across to someone who is gay, or a supporter of gay rights. I don't equate you with someone who is completely bigoted towards homosexuals like others I have seen on here.
  
  You see homosexuality as a choice, just like being drunk, or committing a violent act against a helpless victim. It's easy to say you aren't hating anyone, because it would be absurd to say you hated a drunk or someone who had anger problems. You would just hate the particular acts (not every act) they were performing when they were drinking or fighting.
  
  The thing is, homosexuality is not a choice at all. Just ask yourself when you chose to be attracted to women, and also, if you could ever be attracted to a man. I think the answer will help clarify where gay-rights supporters are coming from.
  reply report
  0
  HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think being gay is a choice. I have a gay child. My child has been traumatized by unthinking and unfeeling people who say that he is wrong or bad for being who he is.
  
  You cannot judge a person and pin labels on them without causing them emotional damage. I've done more to support gay rights in the past decade than most gay people have.
  
  I think you may have misread my intent - because I might be one of the staunchest supporters of gays on these forums.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  NOOOOOOOOOOOO. I wasn't referring to you. I took you as supporting gay rights. I have a gay brother. I'm extremely grateful that your son has a father that will accept him as he is.
  
  I don't think being gay is a choice either. All I was saying is, some people look at it as a choice, and attempt to equate homosexuality to other "immoral" actions. When they do this, they are unwittingly condemning part of the person's humanity, even if they do not MEAN to do so.
  
  There are the bigots and homophobes, and there are people who just need to reflect on the issue a little more.
  reply report
6. 84
  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Although I recognize that I cannot speak for an entire group of people, I believe that the VAST majority of these people did not gather at Chick-fil-A to hate homosexuals. I believe the main focus of the gathering was to support Chick-fil-A and their upholding of Christian views.
  
  *sigh*
  
  But I do not fail to see your point. I don't think there is hope for humanity to ever be fully accepting of everyone and everything. Are you Ghandi? Are you Jesus? Then you probably aren't without judgement and hate.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "their upholding of Christian views."
  
  In my book those weren't authentic Christian views at all. The Christian church that I grew up in has gay and women priests and bishops.
  reply report
  84
  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't care about your book or your church. The point I was trying to make is that these people were supporting what they thought was a good cause, and I sincerely doubt that millions of people buy chicken at Chick-fil-A because they hate gays. Yes, some people do, but the majority? Probably supporting free speech, Christianity, and a business they like.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Freedom of speech does not imply one should support the speaker monetarily, those people gathered to celebrate that this organization opposes equal treatment under the law and contributes a lot of money to making sure that equality is prevented.
  
  As for Christianity I must have missed the "thou shalt support businesses who discriminate against gay people".
  reply report
  84
  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  They are supporting a CHRISTIAN business because they are CHRISTIAN.
  
  You don't have the right to speak for a large group of people any more than I do. I think it's sad that you (others) would honestly believe that THAT MANY people gathered to support an organization because they hate gays. They likely support the organization for the good things it brings to the table, such as honoring their faith by giving all employees of Sundays, or they think the business has a right to say that they "support traditional marriage" under the Bill of Rights, or maybe they just like chicken? I'll patronize Chick-fil-A or KFC simply because I will enjoy some Southern style chicken every once in a while.
  
  Making a blanket statement about a large group of people like this honestly just makes what is probably a majority of GOOD people look evil. Yes, I am not saying that there weren't homophobes and gay haters that gathered at Chick-fil-A just because they hated gays. But many people probably just happen to like Chick-fil-A.
  
  *Edit: Let me sum this up for you.... I'll eat at Chick-fil-A. That does NOT mean I hate gay people. It means I like chicken and I find the price to be acceptable. Having someone telling me that I in no doubt hate gays because I patronize a business is a little hateful, don't you think?
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You do realize all this was referring to Chick Filla appreciation day right? When they sold record quantities. Now I would still not support spending there on any other day knowing the business subsidizes anti gay organizations but it's different, the people I was referring to were those who went to the day designated for celebrating the "traditional marriage" comment and yes they were hateful, from what I saw and from the many interviews and reports from employees.
  reply report
  84
  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was just that.... Chick-fil-A Appreciation. Appreciation.
  
  Do you honestly think the media would bother interviewing the regular, boring person, who says "I appreciate Chick-fil-A"? They interview extremes. Makes the news more interesting. I would argue that most of the people who attended Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day probably were there to appreciate Chick-fil-A.
  
  And another problem I see with both sides of the argument is that people assume this:
  
  Supporting Traditional Marriage >>> Hating Gays
  Supporting Gay Marriage >>> Hating Christianity
  
  I think it is very possible for people to support something without hating the other thing. I can support Democrats without hating Republicans, and vise versa. How is this any different?
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Chick Fillay has every right to support what ever they wish, and I have every right to refrain from patronizing them. They apparently have made a business decision that they will gain more customers who oppose gay equality than they will lose from supporters of gay equality. My impression is that the tide is running out on them.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Many people used to believe that school, employment and housing discrimination were a good cause, also.
  reply report
  72
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hey there, Ms. Kathleen.
  
  I truly believe all people are entitled to embrace their own opinions. I recognize your right to willingly believe “that the VAST majority of these people did not gather at Chick-fil-A to hate homosexuals,” even though you and I both know you have no way of knowing if this is true. You are also willing to believe that contributing money to oppose and to obstruct the rights and liberties of a segment of Americans is upholding Christian views. Surely, you realize such “Christian views” are un-American, undemocratic, and, to say the very least, so un-Christ-like.
  
  Many Christian churches recognize and preside over same-gender marriage ceremonies and many denominations ordain gay ministers and install them and their spouses in hundreds of congregations around the world. Consequently, what you believe is not a universally accepted “Christian view” but rather a widely held personal view.
  
  All the same, Ms. Kathleen, I welcome your perspective and I thank you for submitting it for our consideration.
  reply report
7. 0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I have sympathy for people who WANT to accept homosexuality, but have a psychological journey to travel before doing so. I am young, and have a gay brother, so I don't deal with those hurdles. But for those working on themselves, I am open if you need to talk.
  
  However, I do not have any sympathy for people who are against it, and are not trying to change. It is homophobia, plain and simple. Like you said, history will severely condemn these people, and I will not feel bad for them when their legacy in history is known for discrimination.
  reply report
78
kirstenblogposted 11 years ago
It staggers the mind.
reply report
60
BobbiRantposted 11 years ago
I think too many people thing 'might is right' which has been America's creed for far too long. Why Americans have turned to bitterness and hate is beyond me, but it is wrong on so many levels. Great topic.
reply report
93
peeplesposted 11 years ago
I too find it sickening. People picking and choosing which parts of their bible they want to use to justify their hate. Had chik-fil-a donated the 5 million to the KKK instead the media would be treating this like what it is. Sadly homosexuals are the new "easy" target. Even sadder is how many black people also go against gays. Considering what their ancestors went through it would seem they would take up for the homosexuals. Instead they pretend what they are doing is somehow different. Truly sad!
reply report
0
Tawadiposted 11 years ago
Josak, perhaps what the people who participated in the Chik-fil-a appreciation day were doing was standing up not against gays but rather free speech, the First Amendment.

Dan Cathey, while you may not agree with his words, has just as much right to say them as you do in support of your favorite causes.

Do you not support the freedom of speech? For everyone? Even those you don't agree with or vise versa?

Would it not make your bile rise as well if your words were attacked as Cathey's were because it's your right to say them?
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Free speech has a very clear definition, it means the governemnt can not punish people for expressing themselves or prevent them from doing so, it does not say that individuals do not have a right to respond to that expression, the CEO's rights were in no way violated, he made an ignorant comment and people are upset at him for it. None of that violated the first amendment full stop. Same goes for the KKK rallies, should they be arrested for spreading their filth? No, should they be ignored and boycotted? Yes.
  
  No it would not upset if people disagree with me and even if it did, it's their right to do so.
  
  The people there were supporting hate not the first amendment which was not in any way relevant.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I understand where you're coming from, Josak. However, I don't think the appreciation day was anything more than support for the First Amendment. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
  
  As for the KKK rallies, no, they shouldn't be arrested but I wouldn't mind seeing them get a good ole country ass wuppin' either. I dislike racism in all forms.
  reply report
2. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Josak, perhaps what the people who participated in the Chik-fil-a appreciation day were doing was standing up not against gays but rather free speech, the First Amendment."
  
  Perhaps, but very doubtful.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So for a person to say they don't support gay marriage is the same as that person saying they hate gays? To me, that appears to be a huge, and might I add ridiculous, leap. Knee-jerk, childish, and immature also come to mind.
  
  I don't mean you but rather this whole conversation.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I don't hate black people i just think they should live separately/have different rights/we should protect our own culture. See how that goes? I remember those same excuses, now it's I don't hate gays I just don't think they should have the same rights and equality under the law as straight people.
  
  Call it hate, call it discrimination, call it evil (I do) but the result is the same this group of people whoever they might be don't deserve the same treatment they should be second class citizens.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, lets get this out there right now.
  
  I have a family member that's gay. I'm not against gays as I believe a majority of them are born "gay." I do not believe in gay marriage as it is against my faith.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Several things
  #1 Where in the bible does it say gay people should not be married?
  
  #2 In the bible it says you should kill them yet you presumably are not.
  
  #3 Where in the bible does it say you should decide on other people's behalf if they can get married or not, I would understand if Christians don't want to get same sex marriages but that is no excuse for reaching into the personal lives of others and forcing them to comply with your beliefs.
  
  #4 how is it any of your business what someone else wants to do with their lover?
  
  #5Why do you think it's Ok to deny people equality under the law based on your personal faith?
  
  #6 Discrimination and hate is still discrimination and hate whether your faith tells you to do it, a book tells you to do it or a person tells you to do it. Just because it's in your faith is absolutely no excuse.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I will get back to you, Josak. I'm at work and training someone. I did not want you to think I was ignoring your good questions.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +++
  reply report
82
Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago
Free speech is a right under the Constitution afforded to all American citizens but I must say that many abused that right yesterday in light of the comments coming out of the gay/lesbian community with regard to the Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day Event, which by the way, was not in any fashion driven by that business. Some of the commentary was unfit to publish on many social sights and ran a gambit filled with hate and ill-will like, "I pray that everyone who eats there gets sick and dies". The right to free speech also comes with an element of responsibility for what is said. Had such words been spoken in reverse I cannot imagine the rage that would have ensued. This CEO simply established in interviews with a Christian publication the basis for the beliefs within the company beginning with why the business was closed on Sundays. The CEO tied those actions to the founding families deep belief in the teaching of the Bible and his statements were simply an example of what is going on in the world today versus the Christian teachings of the Bible. His statements did not condemn the actions so much as it questioned whether those actions would stand up to God's scrutiny in their challenge to the Bible. Certainly, there was no basis to say that the business had any desire to classify its clientele or interfer in their lives. Amazingly, all the ruckus coming out of this has been from the gay/lesbian side. Had it not been raised, the whole inteview would likely have seen little exposure limited primarily to the readers of such publications. The fact that Chik-Fil-A saw an outpouring of customer base yesterday indicates the level to which an extremely large portion of this nation agrees with those same teachings of the Bible. In effect, what you are calling for here is for organized religion to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like and toss the rest aside all the while claiming to following the teachings of the Lord. It simply does not work that way and it is the obvious reason why there is a distinct separation between church and state. WB
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  #1) No actually the company donates millions to groups interfering in people's lives by fighting against gay rights.
  
  #2) No one is asking people to change their faith, marriage is no longer a religious institution but a state one, all anyone is asking is for people to mind their own business and their own lives and stop denying others equal rights.
  
  #3) there is not a single christian who follows American law who does not pick and choose from the bible, I don't see women being stoned for not being pregnant on their wedding day for example, so that argument is completely groundless.
  
  #4) In the bible it says we should kill gay people is that OK too?
  
  "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
  
  But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
  
  Yes any moral society absolutely expects religious people to pick and choose.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  #4) In the bible it says we should kill gay people is that OK too?
  
  Please provide book, chapter, and verse for this one, Josak.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
  
  Done.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  #1) No actually the company donates millions to groups interfering in people's lives by fighting against gay rights.
  
  ---do they actually seek to deny homosexuals the vote, freedom of movement, employment, speech, religion, keeping and bare arms, etc... if so than you may have a point
  
  #2) No one is asking people to change their faith, marriage is no longer a religious institution but a state one, all anyone is asking is for people to mind their own business and their own lives and stop denying others equal rights.
  
  ---marriage is neither a religious nor state institution, it a civilizational one, no one is denied marriage, only the conditions of marriage are defined
  
  #3) there is not a single christian who follows American law who does not pick and choose from the bible, I don't see women being stoned for not being pregnant on their wedding day for example, so that argument is completely groundless.
  #4) In the bible it says we should kill gay people is that OK too? "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
  
  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7
  
  Last I checked Christians were following Christ Jesus
  
  Yes any moral society absolutely expects religious people to pick and choose
  
  Hardly
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Last I checked Christians were following Christ Jesus
  
  Yes any moral society absolutely expects religious people to pick and choose
  
  Hardly
  
  for...
  
  Christ never mentions homosexuality at all so that is complete and utter hypocrisy, homosexuality is condemned in the old testament which is where it says we should kill gay people and non virgin women etc. etc.
  
  We absolutely without any doubt expect and demand people pick and choose from their faith, be it Muslims not getting Sharia or Christians not killing gay people.
  
  It is a simple fact.
  reply report
2. 61
  Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is the effort by Chicago government to bar Chik Fil A from Chicago because of the personal views of its president. That is a clear infringement of the 1st Amendment.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Nope Congress passed no law to abridge the freedom of speech so the first amendment was not violated, as the mayor pointed out, free speech is a right but zoning is not and local governments are fee to not allow businesses they don't want in their area, many places have done that with Walmart for example.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  States and localities are bound by the 1st Amendment.
  
  If the expressed purpose for the zoning is to punish someone for their expressed position - as this was - than it is a violation. That would be fun to see fought out in the courts - I am betting against Chicago government on that. Also, if you find a business objectionable, protest them until they leave.
  reply report
  79
  Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Wizard, Both have the right, as individuals, to boycott any company, for any reason...with their money...don't like a company? Don't buy their products or services. What you can't have is a business denied the right to open or operate a business because of their religious beliefs...
  Besides, as I have written ina hub, the marriage licensing by the State is the real issue.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Boycott who you wish. Liberals are not a large enough group to bankrupt Chik Fil A - especially now.
  reply report
  79
  Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Under, I support them and ate there 2 times this week...2nd Amendment.
  reply report
79
Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago
Gay Rights? The Constitution does not guarantee ANYONE, gay or straight, the right to marry...in fact the whole concept of a marriage license was not instituted until the 1920's and it was for racist reasons. The government should not be in the marriage business at all. I wrote a Hub on this very topic. It is a simple fix.
There should be no debate over the what the government says is marriage, as it it not the federal governments job, nor Constitutional jurisdiction, to do so.
reply report
1. 93
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I couldn't agree more with this. Sadly the government does have their nose in it. Until they no longer do many of us with have to keep fighting to assist all people in having the same abilities in life.
  reply report
79
Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago
As to the concept of "hate" being at the heart of the overwhelming financial support shown at Chick-fil-A yesterday (world record fast food single day sales)...it isn't about hatred, but rather support of his 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion. He has the right to answer a question posed to him in an honest fashion and people have the choice to either eat there or not. It's that simple.
reply report
1. 93
  peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  And people have a right to disagree with his stance also!
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The first amendment prevents federal government from restricting free speech, celebrating intolerance at a fast food restaurant has nothing to do with that. That was about a group of people getting together to support keeping others as second class citizens.
  reply report
  79
  Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Second class citizens? What actual Rights have they been denied? 1st Amendment? No...2nd Amendment? No...etc? No...
  Please explain what Rights a gay person has been denied...marriage is not a right, whether gay or straight.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  clearly not a right
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It occurs to me that if marriage is a right than why does it require a license? I want to be a funeral director and the government is denying me the right to be a funeral director, hair dresser, lawyer, chiropractor, dog, private investigator, etc....
  reply report
  79
  Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Under, read my hub on that subject...
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  ''The gay rights movement is NOT about “equality' or “love”. They have, indeed, hv ALWAYS had, those. Gay rights is about MONEY.
  
  "Monetary Benefit #1:;Tax returns : For those who file , hv you seen the difference between 'married filing jointly' and 'married filing separately'? This benefit is to help those who produce and raise children. And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children. Naturally, gays do not produce children
  
  "Monetary Benefit #2:: Pension plans that go to spouses after death. This benefit is primarily for those moms out there who gave up careers to produce and raise children. And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children.
  
  "Monetary Benefit #3: Medical Plans for the spouse. Again, this is to benefit the family unit. Gays do not produce families.
  
  "The ave. child will cost over $220,000 to raise from birth to 18. Naturally, gays , on ave., have a MUCH higher standard of living than heterosexuals ... since they do not have to bear the financial burden of raising children."
  
  It is about equal treatment under the law as required by the 14th Amendment.
  reply report
61
Wizard Of Whimsyposted 11 years ago

reply report
60
S Leretsehposted 11 years ago
The gay rights movement is NOT about “equality' or “love”. They have, indeed, hv ALWAYS had, those. Gay rights is about MONEY.

Monetary Benefit #1:;Tax returns : For those who file , hv you seen the difference between 'married filing jointly' and 'married filing separately'? This benefit is to help those who produce and raise children. And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children. Naturally, gays do not produce children

Monetary Benefit #2:: Pension plans that go to spouses after death. This benefit is primarily for those moms out there who gave up careers to produce and raise children. And what do societies NEED to perpetuate themselves? Children.

Monetary Benefit #3: Medical Plans for the spouse. Again, this is to benefit the family unit. Gays do not produce families.

The ave. child will cost over $220,000 to raise from birth to 18. Naturally, gays , on ave., have a MUCH higher standard of living than heterosexuals ... since they do not have to bear the financial burden of raising children.
reply report
1. 66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  True. And that's where their legal argument based on equal treatment under the law comes into play.
  reply report
61
Xenonlitposted 11 years ago
The haters think that "freedom of speech" allows them to bombard us with outrageous speech. We have to let them know that we will come right back and bombard them with viral exposure and with zero money for their unnecessary junk food and other useless business interests.

I will go to Popeyes and KFC or I will make my chicken sandwiches from scratch, including the bread. It will all taste better knowing that it will keep that trashy brand confined to the welfare states.

As for gay marriage, everyone has a right to their opinion and belief, including those perverted deviants who are calling themselves "christians". Everyone has a right to love who they love, but only if the lover chooses to love back.

No one has the right to demand that I join them in their deviant religious beliefs. Also, how many of the "christian right" are child abusers, child molesters, rapists or closeted gays themselves?

How hypocritical that would be! Closeted gay "christian" extremists who push anti gay hatred!

They usually have an excuse for every evil that they do, so I won't be surprised to find out that there are more scandals to be revealed.

They do not have the right to incite hate, to suborn violence, or to divide a nation that was once great before they started mouthing off. All they are doing is setting themselves up for another fifty years of being irrelevant big shots confined to dirty dealings in deteriorating welfare states.

The rest of us will still call the real shots in this country.
reply report
1. 79
  Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Can you quote one thing that the owner of Chick-fil-A said in the interview that was able to "incite hate, to suborn violence"?
  As to your "bombard...viral exposure" and "zero money"...I'm sure they thank you for the free advertising and the World Record breaking sales on August 1st.
  Freedom of speech is alive and well...
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So if a Chik Fil A is fire bombed this week end whose fault will it be?
  
  Saying "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”
  
  Is that hate? Sounds like concern for our lack of humility - something everyone should be concerned about.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's an absurdity, that's what it is. This is the 21st century, not the dark ages and it's about time we stopped pretending we know what God [whatever that means] thinks about anything.
  
  How *arrogant* to believe we have any special insight into God's opinion about marriage, or anything else for that matter. We...us humans, created that institution and we can redefine it to be inclusive of gays if we have the will. The whole gay debate is a striking example of how religion can cast such a murky haze over clear moral thinking.
  reply report
57
udontnomiposted 11 years ago
It doesn't matter how history remembers you, History forgets more than it remembers. it is important how you live today.
reply report
60
Cody Hodgeposted 11 years ago
Mitch makes a great point regarding marriage licenses.

Typically, people are denied rights, or excluded from certain practices because of fear.

So, what are the Christians scared of?
reply report
82
Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago
Marriage is not a right...it is a priviledge just as driving an automobile is a priviledge and not a right...it requires a license which can be taken away if abused.
reply report
1. 0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So the heterosexual community has severely abused that privilege. It's time to revoke!
  reply report
61
NubianGoddessposted 11 years ago
this is a truth by truth. I agree that creed is not equal, because in American if your creed follows somekind of Christian belief then it is ok. but if your creed fall outside then you are now subjected ti inferiority complexes. you have to justify why, when ither don't have to justify why.
reply report
1. 60
  undermyhatposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You will have to include Isalm and many other religious traditions because homosexuality is not condoned by most religions. Though that is really immaterial to the conversation about marriage as a secular thing.
  reply report
59
kaykaymarieposted 11 years ago
I believe that religion, your parents, your friends, no one, should hold you back from being with the one you Love. It does not matter what gender you are; Love is Love. Period. I'm glad that you're doing this. It probably means a lot to people, who are out there, struggling with this... I'm a Christian; a Baptist, actually. Some things in the Bible just aren't right, to me, and probably, a lot of people out there. I'm speaking for myself when it comes to that. I don't believe that you should stay with someone, even if, they're beating on, just because you made vows to stay together, in the name of The Lord. I hope this goes well for you. Bye.
reply report
59
kaykaymarieposted 11 years ago
they're beating on you, *
reply report
57
Suzie Crumcakesposted 11 years ago
It isn't that anyone hates gays, it is just that they don't liked to be creeped out. I don't understand why gay people like to think people hate them. Most people don't care one way or the other what you do behind closed doors. I think it is more intimate and romantic to keep it there. If you knew what I did for my man, then you would never be happy with what you got now.
reply report
1. 0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I wish you were right. Many religious conservatives do care though, unfortunately, as is evidenced by their voting to outlaw same-sex marriage.
  
  You're obviously not going to enjoy being with a person of the same gender if you are heterosexual, but homosexuals wouldn't enjoy being with someone of the opposite sex. There's no hate in that aspect, only in the fact that people call it immoral, and vote to discriminate against homosexuals.
  
  This did make me laugh though, for whatever that's worth :p.
  reply report
  57
  Suzie Crumcakesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I don't hate gays, and I want them to know it. Remember this though. If you show all kinds of public displays of affection, like kissing and getting jiggy, then it just isn't cool. I don't need to see that. My Mama told me it looks cheap. It is cheap. Grownups should know better. If you are trying to shock someone, then don't be shocked when they are shocked.
  
  I'm glad you laughed. Everyone is so serious anymore.
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Then why exactly are people attempting to prevent gay marriage and even constitutionally outlawing it in several states?
  reply report
57
Suzie Crumcakesposted 11 years ago
Wait a minute, Josak. What do you mean us. You are not an American.
reply report
1. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  #1 Yes I am
  #2 Why would that matter
  #3 It's pretty offensive
  reply report
  57
  Suzie Crumcakesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  1. You are a citizen of the USA? I don't think so. An american? Yes . . . South American.
  
  2. It's not your business.
  
  3. I suppose you are the only one allowed to be offensive. You are trying to bait the bear with this sketchy post. If you don't stick your nose in other people's business, then you wont get offended when they tell you to butt out.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The point of this post of course being if you don't think like we do it's hate.
  You should therefore be regulated.
  reply report
  0
  Tawadiposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Plain spoken and to the point. I like that, Suzie!!!
  reply report
61
JSChamsposted 11 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  S Leretsehposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Very nice... The DEMS carved out 'aggrieved' groups in America (blacks, females,gays) ... they do have their limit for support of the party's 'you done me wrong' agenda.
  reply report
  61
  JSChamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well it's silly. So a sandwich now has the ability to hate?
  
  The man didn't even say he hated gays. He just said he believes in traditional marriage.
  reply report
  72
  Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hi there, Mr. Chams. It is so nice to hear from you this evening.
  
  So, what is silly? If I may point out that no one has said anything about a sandwich having the ability to hate. No one, that is, but you.
  
  Corporate president Dan Cathy appeared on the Ken Coleman talk show. He said, “I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about," {1} Our nation will received God’s judgement and he prays for our generation’s prideful, arrogant attitude! His opinion and he is welcome to it.
  
  You say, “The man didn't even say he hated gays.” Many people are in denial when it comes to what this company says. Here is a situation where actions speak louder than words. Through its WinShape Corporate charity foundation, Chick-fil-A donates to the Family Research Council, an organization listed in 2010 as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. {2} The FRC filed a report revealing it had spent $25,000 to lobby Congress against "CIVH.Res.1064 Ugandan Resolution Pro-homosexual promotion." This proposed congressional resolution condemned the Ugandan government's legislative efforts to make homosexuality an offense punishable by death.
  
  I guess some would say it is not hate to pay someone to oppose a US bill intended to condemn punishing homosexuals with death but, just the same, that is how Chick-fil-A pays others to speak for them. The president of FRC, Tony Perkins, has said publicly about gays, “They are intolerant. They are hateful. They are vile. They are spiteful...pawns of the enemy” {3} and Chick-fil-A supports that hate speech with cash donations.
  
  Thanks again, JSChams, for posting your opinions. I think I will just stick to the facts.
  
  {1} http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp
  {2} http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … ate-group/
  {3} http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … fNVgJ4rwMo Mark 0:48
  reply report
  60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Didn't a bunch of believers in traditional marriage just outlaw gay marriage in North Carolina and other states recently?
  
  A real tolerant bunch....
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely, it clearly says in Corinthians "thou shalt sell chicken and use the proceeds to deny homosexuals equality under the law" so obviously they have no choice.
  reply report
  0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. Racism, sexism, and homophobia aren't problems? If you say so. Thanks for clarifying.
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Who exactly is supporting buying oil from Saudi? When was the last time we had a Saudi apreciation day when they murdered some gay people?
  reply report
60
Six G Eddieposted 11 years ago
You don't know nothing about hate in America. That's what I hate about foreigners who want to step up and talk smack like they know something. Do gay teenagers commit a lot of suicide? Hello? They hate being gay.
reply report
1. 0
  Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Xenophobic much?
  reply report
2. 61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Who is this even addressed to? If it is me I am not a foreigner, more to the point I think I know a goldfish with more humanity and compassion than you appear to have.
  reply report
87
Will Apseposted 11 years ago
I have problems with gay 'marriage'. I certainly have no problem with gay civil unions and full equality in the law etc etc. Gay marriage is another issue. 'Marriage' relates to an institution that is pretty much the property of christian churches around the world.

So, convince the majority of Christians to accept gay marriage in their churches, fine.

Impose a law that essentially appropriates an institution and offends so many worshipers- just wrong and deeply undemocratic.

If you believe that Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, etc have the right to have their beliefs respected, how can you even think of showing such disrespect to Christians?
reply report
1. 60
  Cody Hodgeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure if that was sarcastic or not. If not....
  
  It's not about accepting gay marriage in churches. It's about allowing gays to enjoy that full protection under the law.
  
  Christians are free to believe whatever they want in church. However, they don't get to decide who has rights under the law and who doesn't.
  reply report
2. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Uh...
  
  Marriage, politically, is nothing more than a union. Any religious connotations for the word have no place in politics.
  
  And no, marraige is not a Christian-only topic.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Christians clearly disagree. And marriage has a particular meaning for them. Civil authorities have respected Christian thought to date. If you want to make changes in that get some agreement first.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Whether they disagree or not is not the point, equality under the law is, it's not something we can skirt around it's fundamental to a moral society for everyone to be equally represented under the law and currently that is not the case.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Laws rest on consent. If you want to bring all laws into disrepute (a serious possibility) go ahead and legislate in ways that alienate huge swathes of the population.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Designing laws around public opinion is just popularism. If this was the way things always got done,there would have been few social progressions.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You can get beyond populism. Though it is difficult when media is dominated by special interest groups And even more difficult when the religious leadership of a country is of such poor quality.
  
  I would suggest tackling the pressing issues of media moronity and religious leaders who can smile and smile and still a villain be.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't matter. Christian's don't have a monopoly on marriage.
  
  The law has respected the opinion of the people, in general. We have a form of democracy, that's what happens.
  
  Just because something has been law or tradition doesn't make it right.
  
  Any two adults should be allowed to marry each other. There is no logical argument otherwise.
  reply report
3. 78
  kirstenblogposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Marriage does not belong to christianity, it is not the 'property' of christian churches. Marriage was around long before christianity, is an institution of union for muslims, hindu's, atheists, buddists, and EVERYONE else. How totally disrepsectful of everything non-chirstian to claim marriage to be christian property! Arrogance of the highest order.
  
  It's called separation of church and state, one of the foundation stones of democracy. What you do and don't do, what you allow and don't allow in your church is your business only, what is in LAW is everyones business. Religion dictating what is allowed to be law and what isn't is undemocratic. Keep your hateful beliefs to yourself, and keep them the hell outa law! I don't have to go to your church but I have to live with the laws of the land, so keep your church BS where it belongs, in church.
  
  It is christians showing such disrespect to everyone else by claiming the institution of marriage to be their 'property'.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  The issue is why are gays so keen to use the word marriage? Why is civil union, even if it came with all the legal trappings such a second class institution?
  
  Some devout gays may be desirous of holy blessing for their sexual relationship. In other words only a church wedding with a preacher or priest assuring them of divine approval would satisfy.
  
  For others, it is the need for approval of the communities they live in. And in the US that will mean, in most cases the approval of Christians.
  
  You cannot legislate approval.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why not? Should black students who were finally allowed to go to white schools have been called 'school atendees' instead of students?
  
  By creating a different title for it, you are saying that homosexual unions aren't equal to heterosexual unions.
  
  It is the desire for equal rights. There is no good argument for not allowing gays to marry. Any argument against it is saying that they aren't equal to heterosexuals.
  
  You can legislate against approval. Not everyone approved of desegregation/integration. Not everyone approved of giving blacks the right to be their own person.
  
  You have to stop thinking of marriage as a Christian ceremony, it's not.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It is really about how much the state should get itself involved in religious issues. If the state offers full legal rights to gay couples, equivalent to the rights that married couple enjoy, that is certainly just and within its remit.
  
  If gays need the whole blessed in heaven thing they will need to change peoples attitudes by persuasion.
  
  There is also the issue of how much more bitterness you need to inject into politics. And also how many more wedge issues liberals want to offer conservatives on a plate.
  reply report
  61
  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's simply the justness of equality, gay people are equal in every way to straight people so they should be able to marry too. There is also a simple societal and personal value to being married it carries a gravitas and respect that a civil union does not. I can't blame gay people for wanting to feel that.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +++We can agree on this if little else.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think that would be a bit much to expect.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This wish is the one I most have sympathy with. Sadly, it is unlikely to be realized anytime soon and until it is, the term 'gay marriage' will be pretty meaningless.
  reply report
  84
  Jane Bovaryposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Not to those gays who don't require religious approval.
  reply report
  66
  Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Why? Several faiths have been performing same sex marriages for a while. The problem is the DOM and retromingent state laws.
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago
I view gay rights the same way I view polygamy. I have no problem with either one.
reply report
84
Jane Bovaryposted 11 years ago
*Agreeing with Jaxon 100%* (unusually). It's about whether or not there's any good reason why gays should be denied marriage, not about whether this or that group approves or not.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, most people are surprised to know my social stances
  reply report
71
lone77starposted 11 years ago
Any action based on hate, divisiveness or judgment is an abomination.

Is homosexuality wrong? Likely it is. But any attachment to these Homo sapiens bodies is not good. The aim of the rescue mission is to use these human bodies to help in the extraction of the true, spiritual self from the darkness of physical reality.

Love is the answer. Jesus promoted love even of thieves, whores and adulterers. But he also said to one adulteress, "go and sin no more."

God's wrath came down on Sodom and Gomorrah, but I seriously doubt if this had anything to do with gays. The connection of sodomy to that event is likely a false relation or an incomplete one, at best.

The reason for Noah's Flood is something that has troubled me for half a century. But a few years ago, I may have discovered the real reason for the Flood and the real date: 27,970 BC. The reason had to do with sex -- with the "daughters of man" -- but only because it threatened God's plan for spiritual liberation from this physical realm. Without Homo sapiens, we don't stand much of a chance at escape, because planning is nearly impossible while we are asleep -- and all of us are asleep, spiritually. Without a body to hold continuity of consciousness, all we have are disjointed dreams and nightmares. So, who were the "daughters?" They were enough like Homo sapiens to be "fair." But different enough to prevent the formation of religious dialog and perhaps even civilization itself. I discovered a new timeline in Genesis. And this led me to the identity of the "daughters," through science. Neanderthal!

Just as Homo neanderthalensis proved to jeopardize our building of civilization, the actions at Sodom and Gomorrah also threatened civilization's future. Homosexuality would never have threatened civilization, unless everyone became gay (no offspring). But what would threaten civilization would be another hybrid species. If the Sodomites were committing bestiality (sex with animals), and if the unthinkable actually happened -- human-animal offspring, that would likely have been enough to warrant divine intervention.

God still loves the perpetrators of evil, but He does not love their actions or the fruits of their evil labor. Those things are counterproductive. They don't aid in the awakening of the true spiritual selves (souls).
reply report
1. 57
  Suzie Crumcakesposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Excuse me, but they were into all kinds of stuff. You are smart. You like to use big words and fancy concepts. How about a simple Sunday school lesson? The people were bent on all sorts of evil. Poor Abraham begged God to spare the city. I bet he was like you. He could not bear the pain of the destruction that they were bringing on themselves. There was only one righteous man, Lot. What happened when the angels came to get Lot out of there before the big blow? The men of the town, who were all hanging out on the streets looking for a party, told old Lot to send out the "strangers" (males) so they could sex it up with them. What did they say when Lot protested their deviant desires and bad manners? That's right, they said, "Who are you to judge us?"
  
  Sound familiar?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Hate in America, how history will judge us.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Hate in America, how history will judge us.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies