Liberal Logic 101

[BigSkyBears]

Living in Atlanta and being evangelical, I have a passing knowledge of the Cathy family and have met them. Several of my friends work for Chick-Fil-A corporate.

I have been to a marriage enrichment weekend which is funded by the Cathy family. They do believe in traditional marriage and support it with their money and time.

Believe that while these folks believe that homosexuality is a sin, they go out of their way to treat everyone equally. While all people are hypocrites and to some degree descriminate against those with differing beliefs, within both the Christian and the gay community (which are not always mutually exclusive), I believe the Cathy's or Chick-Fil-A do so less than about anyone.

As stated earlier, these people consider all to be sinners, including themselves and in need of God's grace. They do not hold one standard for themselves and another for others.

Why do they have that law-suit against that Kale farmer in Vermont? I don't think that's very "Christ-like."

[Chizzang]

But their good graces end when they support the denial of other's freedom.

You guys need to stop saying that. Nobody is being denied freedom by virtue of how marriage is defined, HOWEVER it is defined. If this guy was pushing for a law outlawing homosexual behavior he'd be pushing for denial of freedom. But he's not. He is simply saying he thinks marriage should be defined as a certain type of union between one male and one female. Opting not to confer a recognition upon a relationship is not a denial of freedom. The people involved are still free to have their relationship.

The fact that married couples have certain benefits unmarried couples do not have isn't a denial of freedom either. You're not being denied freedom by virtue of someone opting not to provide you with benefits.

As I've written before, if marriage is defined at all in any way other than one that allows marriage between any combination and number of individuals the definition will not fit some relationships some people want to have.

Calling it "hate speech" is ridiculous too. We've gotten to the point where "hate" is defined as disagreeing with liberals/progressives. At least that's the way it is with liberals/progressives. Good GOSH the brainwashing of the culture by the "homosexuality is normal" movement has really been effective.

Not so fast there johnny....
First of all - I don't think anybody in the homosexual equal rights crowd - would have a strong debate about civil unions
as long as States allow civil unions that are providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples (period)
That's where the "Equal Rights" part comes in

Beyond that it's all just semantics - it's about spousal / partner rights

Second:
I do not in any way think Homosexuality is Normal
I also do not believe it's an abomination against nature - as it appears in nature as well
It simply is - it is - try saying that out loud Johnny "Homosexuality is"

Nothing we can do will stop it from occurring
We can't torture it out of people - we can't burn them like Witches
We can only humiliate them and strive to separate them from the rest of society (if that's your goal)
If that's GOD's will or whatever the Religious Right stands on as an Anti-homosexual platform

But meanwhile - Gay is not going away - it is a small part of "The World" that you can choose to do battle with or simply let it be... The funny thing is if we just gave Homosexuals equal rights and nobody cared it would basically disappear
It's only a tiny percentage of the population - by fighting that community you strengthen it...

In my world:
Here's your civil unions, good luck, have a nice life - Just let it be... and move on...

[dbackjon]

No worries LB. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But they will be called out when they monetarily support groups that attempt to deny the rights of others. And this goes both to the mayors and Chick Fil A.

Peace.

That's how you see it. They see homosexuality as a sin and by supporting these groups they believe they're helping maintain a level of morality in society as well as save people from an eternity of damnation. I don't agree with that perspective but I understand that they're not trying to deny the rights of others. You have a different perspective than they do and only time will tell who's right.

Where the same Baptist preachers that used the bible to defend slavery and Jim Crow laws not trying to deny the rights of others? Even if they thought God was telling them to do so?

[UNI88]

That's how you see it. They see homosexuality as a sin and by supporting these groups they believe they're helping maintain a level of morality in society as well as save people from an eternity of damnation. I don't agree with that perspective but I understand that they're not trying to deny the rights of others. You have a different perspective than they do and only time will tell who's right.

Where the same Baptist preachers that used the bible to defend slavery and Jim Crow laws not trying to deny the rights of others? Even if they thought God was telling them to do so?

Jon, I'm not trying to justify their position and I'm definitely not agreeing with it. I'm just trying to look at if from their perspective. IMO, time will show that they're wrong just as slavery and Jim Crow laws were wrong but they don't and won't see that now. It doesn't mean they're right it just puts their position in a different perspective. This is America and they have a right to express themselves both verbally and financially. I oppose their position but recognize their right to express it.

[Chizzang]

Where the same Baptist preachers that used the bible to defend slavery and Jim Crow laws not trying to deny the rights of others? Even if they thought God was telling them to do so?

Jon, I'm not trying to justify their position and I'm definitely not agreeing with it. I'm just trying to look at if from their perspective. IMO, time will show that they're wrong just as slavery and Jim Crow laws were wrong but they don't and won't see that now. It doesn't mean they're right it just puts their position in a different perspective. This is America and they have a right to express themselves both verbally and financially. I oppose their position but recognize their right to express it.

That which we RESIST grows stronger and PERSISTS
When the Church (in whatever form) makes enemies out of a group of people - the inadvertent side effect is to strengthen that very group they mean to destroy

True Example:
Personally I Think Religious Fundamentalists are DANGEROUS to the American dream
Frankly they are a global threat to all humans on Earth
As they tend to be the most violent unreasonable and angry humans

If I set out to oppose them and create forces against them - they will grow - fact
Nothing creates growth like having a common enemy

[kalm]

You guys need to stop saying that. Nobody is being denied freedom by virtue of how marriage is defined, HOWEVER it is defined. If this guy was pushing for a law outlawing homosexual behavior he'd be pushing for denial of freedom. But he's not. He is simply saying he thinks marriage should be defined as a certain type of union between one male and one female. Opting not to confer a recognition upon a relationship is not a denial of freedom. The people involved are still free to have their relationship.

The fact that married couples have certain benefits unmarried couples do not have isn't a denial of freedom either. You're not being denied freedom by virtue of someone opting not to provide you with benefits.

As I've written before, if marriage is defined at all in any way other than one that allows marriage between any combination and number of individuals the definition will not fit some relationships some people want to have.

Calling it "hate speech" is ridiculous too. We've gotten to the point where "hate" is defined as disagreeing with liberals/progressives. At least that's the way it is with liberals/progressives. Good GOSH the brainwashing of the culture by the "homosexuality is normal" movement has really been effective.

Not so fast there johnny....
First of all - I don't think anybody in the homosexual equal rights crowd - would have a strong debate about civil unions
as long as States allow civil unions that are providing state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples (period)
That's where the "Equal Rights" part comes in

Beyond that it's all just semantics - it's about spousal / partner rights

Second:
I do not in any way think Homosexuality is Normal
I also do not believe it's an abomination against nature - as it appears in nature as well
It simply is - it is - try saying that out loud Johnny "Homosexuality is"

Nothing we can do will stop it from occurring
We can't torture it out of people - we can't burn them like Witches
We can only humiliate them and strive to separate them from the rest of society (if that's your goal)
If that's GOD's will or whatever the Religious Right stands on as an Anti-homosexual platform

But meanwhile - Gay is not going away - it is a small part of "The World" that you can choose to do battle with or simply let it be... The funny thing is if we just gave Homosexuals equal rights and nobody cared it would basically disappear
It's only a tiny percentage of the population - by fighting that community you strengthen it...

In my world:
Here's your civil unions, good luck, have a nice life - Just let it be... and move on...

Good post. Another path would to be allow churches to marry whom ever they want and for the state to recognize those contracts. Don't want to marry gays in your church? Fine, it's your church. But remember, it's not just YOUR state.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes that was a good post that you quoted.

I do not approve of homosexuality but they deserve the same considerations or rights as everyone else. Let them have their civil unions.

[JohnStOnge]

Where the same Baptist preachers that used the bible to defend slavery and Jim Crow laws not trying to deny the rights of others?

Slavery and Jim Crow laws obviously deny rights. They bear upon what people may actually do. Slavery obviously denies liberty. Jim Crow laws mandated that people HAD to disciminate. Like this one from Louisiana:

"Any person who shall rent any part of any such building to a Negro person or a Negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a Negro person or Negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

That is an infringement upon what someone who owns a rental property may do with their rental property.

Defining marriage in heterosexual terms is NOT a prohibition of someone doing what they want to do. It's just saying that what they do won't be recognized as having a certain status.

[Skjellyfetti]

And post-Reconstruction laws that said a black person couldn't marry a white person?

[JohnStOnge]

And post-Reconstruction laws that said a black person couldn't marry a white person?

Not a denial of liberty. The denial of libety would've come in when the black person and white person opted to live together.

[Skjellyfetti]

You have an interesting definition of liberty....

[death dealer]

Nice job using the quote function.

Whose family is supposed to be inbred again?

much better. and I have absolutely no comeback.

[UNI88]

Defining marriage in heterosexual terms is NOT a prohibition of someone doing what they want to do. It's just saying that what they do won't be recognized as having a certain status.

From a civil perspective, marriage is a contract. Telling a male that they can only enter into this particular contract with a female and vice versa is not a prohibition? The government can't tell you that you can't sell your property to another male why can they tell you that you can't marry another male?

The government should just get out of the marriage business all together and recognize civil unions. Individual religious institutions can decide if they want to call that civil union a marriage or not.

As 89 questioned in another thread, it does get sticky when you ask why can't multiple individuasl enter into a civil union contract.

[Chizzang]

And post-Reconstruction laws that said a black person couldn't marry a white person?

Not a denial of liberty. The denial of libety would've come in when the black person and white person opted to live together.

John,
You can't be serious
One group of people can freely do what they want
and another (completely based on skin color) cannot do the exact same act

By definition John, That is a DENIAL of Liberty (period)

I feel sincere embarrassment for you sometimes John

[kalm]

No worries LB. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But they will be called out when they monetarily support groups that attempt to deny the rights of others. And this goes both to the mayors and Chick Fil A.

Peace.

Agreed, and we all (me and you included) will be called out. I was serious in my inquiry above:

Would you be so kind as to let me know what the so called anti-gay groups you referenced above are and how they have denied others their freedom?

I would like to know who these groups you referenced are and how these groups are denied freedom to gays. If I am convinced I will address it directly with people I know who work at Chick-Fil-A.

CFA is an affiliate of Family First who's designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law center and who, among other things, protested Disney for extending benefits to partners of gay employees. CFA also gives money to Focus on the Family who shouldn't need an introduction.

That was just a quick google search and I'm sure your friends are aware of these associations. Or perhaps they are distracted by the word "family" in a group's name.

[Ibanez]

And post-Reconstruction laws that said a black person couldn't marry a white person?

Not a denial of liberty. The denial of libety would've come in when the black person and white person opted to live together.

John, you are lost. Denial of marriage to anyone is a denial of liberty. Spin it how you like, but by saying you can't marry someone you love, you can't live with someone you love, you can't go to a restaurant, or sleep in a motel because you are gay or black is a denial of liberty.

[LeadBolt]

Agreed, and we all (me and you included) will be called out. I was serious in my inquiry above:



I would like to know who these groups you referenced are and how these groups are denied freedom to gays. If I am convinced I will address it directly with people I know who work at Chick-Fil-A.

CFA is an affiliate of Family First who's designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law center and who, among other things, protested Disney for extending benefits to partners of gay employees. CFA also gives money to Focus on the Family who shouldn't need an introduction.

That was just a quick google search and I'm sure your friends are aware of these associations. Or perhaps they are distracted by the word "family" in a group's name.

Again, I'm not sure I concede to your definitions of those of the infamous SPLC without checking them out for myself. Your unwarranted slap at my friends with the family crack is typical.

If these groups are promoting violence against gays, looking at prohibiting them from living together, going out in public together, slurring them verbally or in written form, or prohibiting them from practicing their sexual preference in the privacy I will bring it up.

If it is an economic argument about forcing employers to grant benefits to gay couples or simply one of changing the definition of marriage from the long term societal norm for their self esteem I will not.

At a time when many on the left are claiming hetro-sexual marriage is an unnecessary hold over of religious tradition and an unneeded piece of paper, it is interesting they insist on going beyond civil unions of gays to calling it marriage.

[89Hen]

But their good graces end when they support the denial of other's freedom.

Kalm, every single person living in this country supports the denial of somebody else's freedom in some regard every day.

[JohnStOnge]

You have an interesting definition of liberty....

Think about it. Suppose one guy and two women go to a justice of the peace and say, "We want to get married." The justice of the peace says, "no."

Did the justice of the peace take any liberty away? Did he tell them they can't physically do anything that they want to do? Did he tell them that they can't consider themselves married in their own eyes or before whatever God they believe in? Did he tell them they can't live in the same house? Did he tell them they can't have three way sex?

No. He did not. He simply said that the State will not recognize their relationship as "marriage."

Now, you could say that maybe liberty is denied if one of them gets in an accident and the other two want to visit her in the hospital. Maybe the hospital says "no" whereas if they were all married to each other it would say "yes." But that is a different issue. The issue is one of whether or not people who really care about other people should be barred from seeing them in the hospital just because they're not married to them. For instance: A man and a woman can be living together having made the decision not to get married. And they may care about each other very much. If one isn't free to go see the other in the hospital it is a denial of liberty. The problem isn't the marriage issue. The problem is that there is a requirement that there be a marriage in order to allow the visit.

Besides, issues like that could be solved for homosexuals by the civil unions concept. But the homosexual lobby isn't satisfied by that. And the reason is that it's not really about the practical advantages of being married. It's about perception. The desire is to have homosexuality be perceived as normal when it's not. So the civil unions concept is not acceptable.

[JohnStOnge]

ohn, you are lost. Denial of marriage to anyone is a denial of liberty. Spin it how you like, but by saying you can't marry someone you love, you can't live with someone you love, you can't go to a restaurant, or sleep in a motel because you are gay or black is a denial of liberty.

There are a lot of scenarios in there. But marriage is a recognition. If somebody else has to do something for you, having them opt not to do it is NOT a denial of your liberty. Can you not see that?

The restaurant and motel examples are interesting too. If I own a restaurant and you say that I must serve someone who I don't want to serve, that is a denial of MY liberty. A person's liberty does not include the right to force someone else to deal with them. Same with the motel.

We have been so indoctrinated into the egalitarian world view that we don't even think about such things.

If I ask a girl out on a date and she says "no," is that a denial of my liberty? Of course not. Forcing her to say "yes" would be a denial of HER liberty. And the same principle applies anytime you ask someone else to do something for you, recognize you in some way, or associate with you.

Among the examples you cited, the only definite denial of liberty is "...can't live with someone you love." Understand that I'm not talking about a law saying that a homosexual or a Black can't stay at a hotel or eat at a restaurant. That WOULD be a denial of liberty because the hotel or restaurant should be free to decide upon who it will accommodate. But a restaurant or hotel owner opting not to serve someone, for any reason, is an exercise of liberty on the part of the restaurant or hotel owner. And liberty is denied when you take that option away.

[JohnStOnge]

Now for a lighter moment:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsJHqstP ... re=related[/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

ohn,
You can't be serious
One group of people can freely do what they want
and another (completely based on skin color) cannot do the exact same act

By definition John, That is a DENIAL of Liberty (period)

So, again, is it a denial of liberty to say two women and a man can't be recognized by the State as married?

Again: No one is denying your liberty simply by opting not to recognize a relationship you have in a certain way. Can you not see that?

This indoctrination is extremely difficult to overcome.

[youngterrier]

They hate homosexuals. The perspective you are talking about is just a bunch of BS they use so that they sound legitimate.

Nope. You are wrong. These guys are true believers. JSO is spot on.

So the likes of Al Queda aren't homicidal? Look, I'm all for giving people the "excuse" of believing things because their religion says so, but that doesn't mean that said beliefs aren't what they are.

If someone endorses the concept of genocide on religious principles, they're still a genocidal maniac, despite their epistemology.

[youngterrier]

I agree with Bloomberg.

But it's been reported that Chick Fil A has donated millions to various anti-gay groups which, again, is certainly their right. Just like it's my right to ridicule them for their lack of grace and love. Decide whether you believe in the ideals of "all men created equal", "the pursuit of happiness", and "liberty and justice for all" or don't. You don't get to have it both ways and you look kind of foolish hiding behind the liberty excuse.

this is the crux of the issue. I was boycotting Chic-fil-a before it was cool, and I honestly don't give a shit what their employees believe in, but the fact that the organization itself donates to institutions that are of questionable moral character makes me withdraw my business from them.

Technically, every donation per year is a fraction of a penny from me, and I'm not going to be a part of said donation.

As for the progressive thing, I don't give a shit. Perhaps they called it McCarthyism because of the charges that said organizations were socialistic were not necessarily justified, but I don't give enough of a shit to dispute that.

Either way, this whole fiasco has proven to me that corporations are the moral equivalent of politicians, saying shit they don't necessarily agree with to sway you over for your support, financial or otherwise. It's just a big power grab. It's not just Chic-fil-a, it's other places like Target or JC Penny pandering to gays in advertising, just to name a couple.

[youngterrier]

But their good graces end when they support the denial of other's freedom.

You guys need to stop saying that. Nobody is being denied freedom by virtue of how marriage is defined, HOWEVER it is defined. If this guy was pushing for a law outlawing homosexual behavior he'd be pushing for denial of freedom. But he's not. He is simply saying he thinks marriage should be defined as a certain type of union between one male and one female. Opting not to confer a recognition upon a relationship is not a denial of freedom. The people involved are still free to have their relationship.

The fact that married couples have certain benefits unmarried couples do not have isn't a denial of freedom either. You're not being denied freedom by virtue of someone opting not to provide you with benefits.

As I've written before, if marriage is defined at all in any way other than one that allows marriage between any combination and number of individuals the definition will not fit some relationships some people want to have.

Calling it "hate speech" is ridiculous too. We've gotten to the point where "hate" is defined as disagreeing with liberals/progressives. At least that's the way it is with liberals/progressives. Good GOSH the brainwashing of the culture by the "homosexuality is normal" movement has really been effective.

Rights are just glorified privileges bro. And especially in social context, it's really not cool to deny people something as trivial as marriage (civil unions are a separate but equal thing, they don't allocate as many benefits by like a 4:1 ratio). Especially when said people denying said privileges/rights enjoy those themselves, it's more than kind of oppressive.