Ok. You really do like Chick-Fil-A sandwiches, but you feel guilty about eating them since, as a good liberal, you know you are supporting an anti-gay CEO. Or, you love Oreos. Dunked in milk, or with double stuff, but you cannot believe they are supporting gay pride month. How can you possibly eat Oreos again?
Ted Frank has the answer.
Buy chicken offsets!
Hi! I’m Ted Frank and I love the chicken sandwiches at Chick-fil-A. But I also like my gay-married friends and don’t like the guilt of indirectly supporting Chick-fil-A’s stance on gay rights. And I know there are lots of other people in the same boat. So I’ve started ChickenOffset.com. Every time you buy a chicken-sandwich meal at Chick-fil-A, you can buy an “offset” here. You can print out the receipt and demonstrate to your friends that the money you gave for LGBT youth more than compensates for the profits you put in Chick-fil-A’s coffers. $1 gets you 1 chicken-meal offset; $6 for ten offsets. We promise to send at least 90% of the proceeds (and will almost certainly send more than that) after our minimal expenses to It Gets Better and the Williams Institute. We promise your offsets will provide far more money to non-profits that support gays than buying a sandwich at Chick-fil-A ends up putting in the pockets of anti-gay-rights organizations. We promise to update this site with data about how much money has been donated.
How long can it be until we have Oreo offsets, or Alec Baldwin offsets for when you really want to see that new show, but cannot stand that guy? Innovation stagnation in the US? Does not exist.
I’m not liberal and ate at Chick-fil-a today. AND, I don’t like Oreos. No problems here.
Neither for me. How can you tolerate non-crispy fried chicken? If I have to have a chicken sandwich, I get the Wendys spicy, cripy which is actually crispy half of the time. Maybe it is a local thing and they are actually crispy elsewhere? Heading down to VA soon, so maybe I will go to a CFA there to see if different.
Steve
I agree about the sandwiches. Wendy’s is the best of the major fast food joint in my book. When 12 years old, Dave Thomas got his first job working as a busboy at Regas restaurant in my hometown of Knoxville. At that time, it was considered the best restaurant in town. Maybe that had some influence on him.
Is that where he got the idea for the Frosty? Nothing like a chocolate Frosty to go with the spicy chicken sandwich. I am still surprised that no one has copied it, at least as far as I know.
Steve
I’ve never eaten at Chik-fil-a. But, now that you mention it, maybe I should go out and buy some Oreos, before I go back into chemotherapy and lose my appetite again.
Just one somewhat serious question; WHY the need to “show our support” PRO or ANTI ANYTHING? It seems to serve no useful purpose, unless it’s to simply let others know the source of our conformity – “I conform to the pro-gay, anti-patriarch, anti-capitalist brigade,” or “I conform to the meat-eating, anti-marxist, hetero, anti gay-marriage brigade.”
Sure it makes it easier for friend and foe to identify us easier, but is that really all of it?
It appears that there are many people who put a premium on “pro-gayness.” A premium I might add that is as entirely “faith-based” as any religious premium on “anti-gayness/anti-sodomy.”
Is there a way to tell which is “right” and which is “wrong?”. . . .(And NOT one steeped in the Bible or Marx’s idiotic Manifesto)
I don’t believe so. I believe both positions seem to be somewhat arbitrary and capricious.
If you hate you some Chic-Fil-A because the CEO don’t like him no gay marriage, then, it would logically seem that you’ve REALLY gotta hate you some Islam – and NOT just “jihadists,” NOT just fundamentalist Muslims, but regular old, run-of-the-mill “gay-hating” Islam. I mean you know they stone gays in even the most “moderate” Arab-Muslim nations, don’t you?
Now, IF by comparison, an American being “against gay marriage” is being “anti-gay,” or “gay-hating,” then homosexuals don’t suffer ANY discrimination/persecution at ALL here! In fact, they would appear to suffer LESS than almost any other group today, perhaps save for black males, perhaps.
The really terrible thing about all this is (and I’m not sure most “pro-gay” folks here know this, or not, or even care) that (at least most of the gay and bi-sexual people I know) insist on the societal taboos around gayness as that’s part of the “subterranean appeal” of it all. The whole concept of “gayness,” revolves around it being taboo and “outside the norm.”
This crusade to make it part of the “plain old vanilla,” just don’t seem to sit right with the actual “homosexual community” themselves, but screw them right!?
I mean where do they get off acting like this is “all about them” or anything?
Just saying…
Just one somewhat serious question; WHY the need to “show our support” PRO or ANTI ANYTHING?
Sure it makes it easier for friend and foe to identify us easier, but is that really all of it?
Yeah, pretty much that.
I’m told that most folks have a sense of tribalism in varying degrees that leads them to identify themselves as members of groups. As a corollary to this, identifiers develop in which people recognize others as being members of their group, enemies to the group, or neutral to the group along with various levels of related intensity.
Presumably, this all developed during a time when humans really did live in small tribal groupings and such things were relevant to survival and reproductive success when actual enemies resided in close proximity.
Because this is original state of affairs is not particularly relevant to modern Westerners – discounting those who live in pathological environments such as inner city slums – this drive is sublimated into non-life and death matters such as football teams, preferred automobile manufacturers, and as shown here, political preferences.
I also find it tiresome, but it does seem that enough other people find it to be important enough that it behooves people like us to be aware of the general details.
If you hate you some Chic-Fil-A because the CEO don’t like him no gay marriage, then, it would logically seem that you’ve REALLY gotta hate you some Islam – and NOT just “jihadists,” NOT just fundamentalist Muslims, but regular old, run-of-the-mill “gay-hating” Islam.
Most explanations I’ve read suggest that the objection is that profits from the CFA franchises make their way to the owner who then uses part of that money to fund organizations that directly oppose same sex marriage and similar issues of interest to the sort of folks who find those issues important.
So in your analogy with the Islamists, the consistent action would be to decline to purchase goods and services from those who fund jihadists.
Yes, I think you’re right that tribalism explains a lot of it, but that can get dangerous when some people thinktheirneighbors are “the enemy” based on what bumper sticker they have on their car.
People are definitely individually free to make their buying decisions for any or no reason at all. It just seems lemming-like to join a “boycott,” but, then again, I never was much of a joiner.
What I find really intersting, maybe more “amusing,” is how so many of us find ways to rationalize our contradictions. Anti-corporate Leftists flocking to MSNBC the VERY Corporatist mouthpice of first GE, now Comcast. If you want to look at what the prevailing Corporatist ethos is, just look at the news and entertainment media.
What I still don’t get about the gay-rights movement is that a CEO who may give to causes they don’t like is a “good target,” but they’ll go out of their way to ignore the fact that an entire religion (Islam) seems dedicated to wiping homosexuality off the face of the earth and does that in at least 7 nations. ..without a peep out of the pro-gay marriage forces here, probably because they don’t want to be considered “intolerant”? If so, then why not “tolerate” Mr Cathy as well?
It’s like with the environment. The SAME people who scream over “Big Oil,” seem to deliberately NOT want to know how those Big Energy conglomerates routinely use many “Environmental Groups” as lobbyists to reduce energy access, artificially lower supply and spike profits.
How has the environmental movement “hurt” Big Energy?. . .I guess by delivering them record profits every year! Yeah, that’ll learn’em.”
Yes, I think you’re right that tribalism explains a lot of it, but that can get dangerous when some people thinktheirneighbors are “the enemy” based on what bumper sticker they have on their car.
Yeah, sad but true. Especially in an atomized society where folks don’t know anything else about their neighbors except for those tribal signifies.
If so, then why not “tolerate” Mr Cathy as well?
Because it is easier to avoid buying a specific chicken sandwich than it is to avoid buying petroleum products that come from those Arab nations? Other than that, no idea.
“Yeah, sad but true. Especially in an atomized society where folks don’t know anything else about their neighbors except for those tribal signifies.” (JE)
.
.
Yes, it is sad, and it can get dangerous the more polarized people are.
Right now NO ONE represents working people and no one has for decades. BOTH Parties keep the electorate playing “team sports” over ancillary issues, so they don’t focus on the government/corporate shuffle going on. We STILL have an overly complex and archane tax system that benefits only a select few and we have massive debts and deficits because no one believes they can get re-elected if they make any hard decisions.
Awhile back there was an almost comical exchange between the CEOs of the Big Energy Corporations and Congress. Te CEOs all looked pretty peeved to be there before their obvious underlings…when one guy earns $200K and the other $43 MILLION….the guy earning $200K (whether he’s a Senator or House member) is the rich guy’s cabana boy.
Saturday Night Live did a skit on that exchange with the Oil Execs bullying Congress with threeats of “You want the oil, don’t you? Do you want to see the lights to go out?” It would’ve been a lot funnier IF it weren’t so grounded in the truth.
I know we all do rely on energy AND foreign imported energy, but it’s just odd that people generally not shy about looking to reform cultures they see as recalcitrant don’t even verbally address the issues of Islamic views on gays and women. I HOPE it’s not merely mindless “tolerance,” maybe it’s they seem so far away and that they aren’t “doing that here,” so we don’t have to see it every day.
“It appears that there are many people who put a premium on “pro-gayness.” A premium I might add that is as entirely “faith-based” as any religious premium on “anti-gayness/anti-sodomy.””
And here I thought that most of us were simply making the point that citizens of this country should be entitled to all the rights of citizenship. I never dreampt that I was engaging in some bizarre sort of faith based activity.
“Now, IF by comparison, an American being “against gay marriage” is being “anti-gay,” or “gay-hating,” then homosexuals don’t suffer ANY discrimination/persecution at ALL here! In fact, they would appear to suffer LESS than almost any other group today, perhaps save for black males, perhaps.”
Of course, it is entirely valid for us to compare what occurs in this nation with what occurs in others and decide that what happens here is fine because it is better than there. By that standard, we certainly treat our dissidents better than Syria. Maybe we should clamp down a bit more?
“The really terrible thing about all this is (and I’m not sure most “pro-gay” folks here know this, or not, or even care) that (at least most of the gay and bi-sexual people I know) insist on the societal taboos around gayness as that’s part of the “subterranean appeal” of it all. The whole concept of “gayness,” revolves around it being taboo and “outside the norm.””
As so often is the case, JMK, you make assertions and assume their accuracy with no evidence from data to support them. The nebulous “people I know” really does not rank very high on the credibility scale. Perhaps you could come up with some sort of poll or other data based source to support what would appear to be a self destructive action on the part of gay citizens.
I really do not know all that many gay and lesbian persons. However, those I do know are simply asking to be full citizens able to engage in contracts (marital), defense of the nation that they love to serve, and to walk down the street without having to watch out for hooligans intending to do them harm.
I can’t count myself as a CFA boycotter as I have never actually been to one and don’t eat at any fast-food restaurants other than the occasional guilty pleasure of Taco Bell. I suspect this is also the case for many of my friends who posted Anti-CFA political quips and pictures on FB. But I am having a dilemma concerning my absolute #1 favorite store in the world Anthropologie. I recently learned it is owned by a major Santorum supporter.
Agghhh! A boycott that might actually require some sacrifice!
I only go there about once a year or so to spend my birthday gift certificates. Can someone please create an Anthropologie off-set?
“And here I thought that most of us were simply making the point that citizens of this country should be entitled to all the rights of citizenship.” (ETH)
.
.
Seriously?!
Is THAT the argument you really want to go with?
Alright then, here’s my issue with that (in my view) rather simplistic way of looking at the issue – it is itself entirely arbitrary and capricious.
As that great Russian novelist Fyodor. . .something-something (I’m sorry, but those Russian names do not often roll off my tongue so easily, as I am linguistically challenged) put it best, when he said, “If god is dead than everything else is permitted.”
Which is EXACTLY the point that Nietzsche made before him, basically that IF you’re going to throw out god (RELIGION) than the “moral code” that sprang from those (religious) strictures must also, logically, be jettisoned.
Now I’ve always accepted that.
I’ve chronicled (somewhat painfully and laboriously) how I came to surrender my childhood’s faith via trauma and subsequently came to question EVERYTHING, especially everything related to religion, which includes, of course, morality and ethics.
I hope you can see my dilemma here Ed.
While I (a self described “free wheeling dude”) accepts homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy, etc., as “ALL valid ‘alternative lifestyles’ worthy of legitimacy and respect,” I’ve found, to my shock and chagrin, that many (actually MOST of those I’ve run across) who espouse “gay rights,” DO NOT accord the same legitimacy to these other sexual “deviations.”
That makes their position entirely arbitrary and capricious. . .not to mention “faith-based, now doesn’t it?
As a matter of fact, it actually brings into question that thorny old question of “age of consent” laws.
You see, IDEALLY to support “gay rights,” you logically should hold to the consistent belief that ALL sexual deviancies (things that “deviate from the norm”. . .I figured I’d save you the trouble of looking it up) are “equal.” THAT seems a branch too far for many people.
Now, I don’t know your views vis-a-vis polygamy, bestiality, necrophilia, etc., but I can assure you polls or no polls the vast, even the overwhelming majority (probably well over 3/4s) of those who support “gay rights” oppose the same legitimacy for necrophiliacs,bigamists and those who practice a little harmless bestiality from time to time and THAT is entirely faith-based, arbitrary and capricious!
You see? I don’t get precisely WHERE such “moral underpinnings” are coming from! Such folks CANNOT first dispose of the strictures against one deviancy (homosexuality) and then use those SAME strictures to oppose others. . .at least NOT with a straight face!
Now, sadly, all such discussions tend to lead back to a somewhat contentious (though from my perspective enjoyable) discussion we had here about the source/roots of morality.
HMS vehemently disagreed with my view that given that religion (the Judeo-Christian traditions) are the source of the Western moral code, just as Islam is the source for the Sharia moral code, once we abandon religion, what Fyodor D… said actually holds true.
HMS held to the view that, Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” is the basis of ALL human morality and we seemed to ultimately had to “agree to disagree.”
In retrospect, I blame myself.
As is obvious, I am not as eloquent, nor as adept a wordsmith as HMS and I believe, ultimately, I failed to make clear my position – briefly that (1) there exist numerous moral codes in the world – the Judeo-Christian code differing significantly from the Sharia code AND (2) that numerous people openly eschew any such moral codes and NOT solely out of pursuit of personal gain, but simply because such strictures, even the “Categorical Imperative” itself. Kant said, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law,” which seems very close to “The Golden Rule,” (“Treat others as you would WANT to be treated”). . .you can plainly see that any number of people abjectly reject that principle, despite how well they themselves might wish to be treated by others.
At any rate, not wishing to revisit what was a troubling discussion for many, I will say that, given my belief that Fyodor was right, that once the underpinnings of a moral code are gone, there remains no logical or reasonable means to continue to uphold it in “special cases.”
And YET, that is precisely what so many do! IF you support “gay rights,” and oppose the same legitimacy for bestiality and necrophilia, then you’ve chosen (arbitrarily and capriciously) to retain SOME, but NOT ALL of that disposed of moral code. That’s fatally illogical.
It’s not the “acceptance of deviancy” that I take issue with, but merely the arbitrary and capricious stance that accepts SOME deviancies, but not others.
.
.
.
.
“I really do not know all that many gay and lesbian persons. However, those I do know are simply asking to be full citizens able to engage in contracts (marital), defense of the nation that they love to serve, and to walk down the street without having to watch out for hooligans intending to do them harm.” (ETH)
.
.
OK, sassy Sally has had me question my initial impulse in responding to such things, BUT I must tell you, THIS is exactly the kind of simplistic and quite frankly idiotic argument that tends to boil my blood a bit.
You’ve clearly implied there are no laws that protect homosexuals from violent predators (“. . .those I do know are simply asking to be full citizens…and to walk down the street without having to watch out for hooligans intending to do them harm.”), which is to say, you’ve asserted that the country you CHOOSE to live in has declared a veritable “Open Season” on gays. PLEASE! What are the dates? I know when duck and deer season start but where and when do we have “gay season?”
Seriously, is THAT your final answer, on that?
So, in your opinion, laws against assault, robbery, rape, etc., are NOT enforced when homosexuals are victimized?
I can assure you that they are not only vigorously enforced they are more tightly enforced (that is, with GREATER penalties) than such crimes against you or I would be!
You see, if a person attacks a homosexual, such acts are generally classified a “Thought Crime”. . .I mean “Hate Crime”. . .SAME difference. The purpose of such Thought Crimes are to punish the alleged motive rather than the act itself. In other words, a gay being mugged is more likely to get classified a “Hate/thought Crime,” whereas a black guy unfortunate enough to have been mugged by another black guy is, as the saying goes, “sh*t out of luck.”
Now, since it IS indeed possible that you’re completely unfamiliar with “Hate/thought Crimes” statutes, I will hold back any judgment as to any. . .(how to put this diplomatically). . .diminished capacity.
As to the debate over whether “marriage” is a “right,” that has two sides both believing themselves to be both “moral” and “right.” The fact that you can apparently ONLY see your own side as “right,” is not at all surprising that’s a common cognitive failing today given people aren’t routinely taught actual critical thinking techniques in school.
Religious Christians, Jews and Muslims ALL tend to believe that marriage is (1) a religious institution and (2) that homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy, necrophilia and a whole bunch of other sexual peccadilloes are verboten. . .and are “sins.” Most such religious people have NO issue with governmental marriages (a/k/a “Civil Unions”). they WILL NOT accept any “right” to a “Church Wedding”. . .AND what’s more the 1st Amendment seems to quite clearly back them up on that – “religious freedom” and all that.
Well, at least they’re logically and morally consistent!
Like the Catholic Church being OPPOSED to BOTH abortion AND Capital Punishment. They’re logically and morally consistent on the subject of a “reverence for life.”
Me, I reject the idea that “all life is sacred.” I SUPPORT both unfettered abortion, on the grounds that ANY unwilling parent, is at that moment also an “unfit parent,” AND Capital Punishment on the grounds that some crimes require that the perpetrator forfeit their lives. So, I TOO am logically consistent on that issue.
AGAIN, that so many thoughtless people (folks who haven’t thought the matter through) seem to see “opposition to gay marriage,” and even “gay adoption” as “anti-gay” and “persecuting gays,” shows how overly tolerant and weak-kneed a culture we’ve become.
Check Saudi Arabia (http://current.com/entertainment/wtf/89592119_in-7-countries-homosexuality-the-death-penalty.htm). . .now THAT’S “persecuting gayness.”
Probably it is not worth the time it takes to address your verbally diarrheic diatribe. However, here goes
The author you had in mind is Dostoyevsky. I need for you to explain a couple things to me. First, what relationship is there between the existence (or death) of a mythical being and human morality. Surely, you do not expect me to believe that you believe man incapable of comprehending a moral structure in the absence of such a mythical entity. If indeed, you believe that to be a prerequisite for morality, they there is really no reason for us to continue to discuss as we are beyond polar difference.
On a later tach, you state, “You’ve clearly implied there are no laws that protect homosexuals from violent predators… ” In all fairness, to you you have apparently not read any of my opinions on not only the redundancy of hate laws but their (to me) unconstitutional nature. Or maybe you believe that, as long as there is a law against violent predation, there will be no predation. That does seem a bit short sighted. Or maybe, you believe those citizens who have been attacked and injured or killed because of their sexual orientation should take solace in the fact that their attackers were breaking the law. I am perfectly satisfied with the laws against violence. I am not satisfied with the leadership of our nation that creates an atmosphere in which those inclined to violence believe it appropriate to do so against “others” whether those others are of a different race, sexual orientation, national origin, or religion. Frankly, the polemics of our political leaders seems to me to be a catalyst for some of those.
Opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption may or may not be “anti gay.” However, when applied to law abiding citizens of this nation, those actions are overtly unconstitutional.
You once again raise another nation’s criminal law enforcement as an example of why our status is so much better (Saudi Arabia in this case). I really fail to see why those of you on the far right find it so nice to be “better” than despotic regimes. I guess that gays who are only spit upon should be happy that they were not stabbed. Or, using another group of whom I had a number of friends, soldiers returning from Viet Nam who were spat upon should have been happy that they were not imprisoned as was the case in the Soviet Union after WWII.
“I need for you to explain a couple things to me. First, what relationship is there between the existence (or death) of a mythical being and human morality.” (ETH)
.
.
That’s very clearly NOT what Fyodor said!
In fact, I made that all too clear.
Like Nietzsche before him, he used “god” generically to MEAN “religion.”
Fyodor’s statement, “If god/religion is dead than everything else is permitted,” presciently portends the “end of Western morality.”
What Fyodor clearly said was,as I carefully translated; IF you’re going to throw out god/(RELIGION) than the “moral code” that sprang from those (religious) strictures must also, logically, be jettisoned.
You’d now have to argue something like, “Our moral code don’t spring from religion.”
To which I would assert (CORRECTLY) “Oh YES it DID, and no you DID-ANT go there.”
Fact IS, our entire Western moral code has sprung from that Judeo-Christian tradition, just as the Islamic moral code has sprung entirely from and is encoded in Sharia Law.
.
.
.
.
“….maybe you believe that, as long as there is a law against violent predation, there will be no predation.” (ETH)
.
.
That’s exactly the IDIOTIC argument I was pointing out to you. It’s hard NOT to get angry over such simplistic arguments. It’s clearly just lazy thinking on your part.
I’m sure all here know, for instance, that black males commit more so-called ” hate crimes” than any other group (see FBI crime data for that – the FBI reported in their 2008 statistics that 61.1 percent of the hate crimes were committed by whites and 20.2 percent by blacks, but 74.3% of America is white and 12.3% of America is black or African American, so blacks are nearly twice as likely to commit a hate crime as are whites). . .but there is NO Constitutional Right for ANY of us to be “free from predation.” If there were we could each sue the federal and various state governments for “failing to protect us.”
We CAN’T, simple as that, because no government has ever made such a ridiculous promise/guarantee.
IF a run of the mill gay male, or lesbian should be “free from predation,” then the rest of us should ALSO be “free from predation” as well, BUT very clearly that simply “ain’t the case anywhere!”
Moreover, gays are no more targeted for “hate crimes” than are Asians, or other sub-groups and in many locales LESS SO (see San Francisco’s black-on-Asian racist violence).
You’re grasping at straws here Ed.
.
.
.
.
“Opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption may or may not be “anti gay.” However, when applied to law abiding citizens of this nation, those actions are overtly unconstitutional.” (ETH)
.
.
No they’re NOT!
Try coming up with EXACTLY which one of the Bill of Rights’ 10 Amendments covers that. That will require an explicit guarantee of Marriage. . .which would, you’d believe include polygamists, etc.
I can’t find that one. . .help me out on that one.
Oddly enough, do you know what the very 1st Amendment really DOES guarantee?
Yes, “Freedom OF religion,” which means religions are free to practice their “faiths” as they please, to preach what they please (ie “homosexuality is sinful, etc) and to Marry only those they accept into their folds – Christian Churches can’t be forced to Marry Jews, Muslims or gays, etc. . .at least according to that pesky 1st Amendment..
.
.
.
“I really fail to see why those of you on the far right find it so nice to be “better” than despotic regimes.” (ETH)
.
.
That ISN’T any “regime,” there Ed. I know you don’t quite get this, but it’s ISLAM that punishes gayness, NOT any “regimes.” TODAY 93 nations around the world criminalize homosexuality. . .many of them Islamic nations (the vast majority of Muslim nations), criminalize homosexuality.
.
.
.
Look, you clearly need to take more time to consider making a more cogent, aceptable argument – it is simply impossible to claim “homosexuality” is “moral,” when claiming other sexual deviancies (bestiality, polygamy, necrophilia, etc) to be “immoral,” as so many misguided folks (apparently, including YOU) do now-a-days.
On this issue, I am clearly more open-minded and “liberal”/tolerant than YOU are. . .so I’d check the mirror for that “far-Right-winger” you’re looking around for.
I realize that you really have a difficult time thinking coherently so will try to keep this fairly simple. Your state, “Yes, “Freedom OF religion,” which means religions are free to practice their “faiths” as they please, to preach what they please (ie “homosexuality is sinful, etc) and to Marry only those they accept into their folds – Christian Churches can’t be forced to Marry Jews, Muslims or gays, etc. . .at least according to that pesky 1st Amendment..” Please go read the amendment again. It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Now try to think clearly. This is not a guarantee to be religious. It is a statement that Congress may not make a law establishing a religion or prohibiting free worship (exercise). The push to make single sex marriage illegal is a religious based “exercise” forcing some citizens to live according to the proscriptions of those citizens who worship a God of their invention that dislikes same sex relations. I have absolutely no fear that any church will be forced to provide blessings to marriages that the God of their invention does not like. The same judiciary that should have long ago prevented imposition of their bigotry on others will prevent forcing them to do that which they do not believe right. Please take some time to think this through on your own without influence of the loud mouths of the right. You seem to be moderately sound of mind so should be able to comprehend it. Of course, if you really are bigoted and just attempting to camoflage that behind a bunch of verbiage, then I am wasting my time and electrons.
I have not provided any information on my positions on bestiality, polygamy, necrophilia, etc. As always, you have decided in your own mind what I believe and then proceeded to argue with that imagined position. I have provided my position in regard to homosexuals being able to engage in civil contracts without constraint from “rules” established by persons who invented a God and then imbued that God with a bunch of rules for us to live by.
As I said, there is no point in our discussing human ethics in general since you appear convinced that, in the absence of a God, there is no ethics for humans. Nihilism has never been very successful and I find it sad for its followers. Argue to your heart’s content as to that, I will not try to dissuade you as it is not worth the effort.
In closing, your final paragraph is sort of a continuation of your usual braggadocio and grandiosity. Try an extra xanax, it might help.
Ed, you seem to be under he mistaken impression that we disagree about many things merely because I’ve gently corrected you over a “diagnosis from distance,” “arguing against your own stated premise” by bringing up yet ANOTHER widespread homosexual child-sex scandal to highlight why “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights,” etc.
Only a friend (like me) would tell you your face is dirty or that you have spinach in your teeth…
Fact IS, we agree on most issues, but quite frankly, given your demeanor and your penchant for arguing against what you claim to believe, I’m not sure I’d want you on my side, but we don’t get to choose our ideological mates now do we?
You seem a little fuzzy on the 1st Amendment. It DOES indeed enshrine absolute religious liberty – the government not only can’t establish a national religion, it CANNOT in any way abridge or modify any religious teachings, nor even look to dissuade its citizens from belonging to any given religion.
Moreover, such things as preaching that “sodomy is sin,” is protected by the “Free Speech” clause of that same Amendment, just as it protects NAMBLA (you know, that homosexual group that’s seeking to legalize pedophilia) from governmental reprisals (persecutions, prosecutions, etc) for what it preaches. Europe doesn’t have such restrictions on their governments do routinely meddle in religious affairs.
Of course, even here in the USA, a private entity (ie. a company or corporate entity) CAN release (fire) an employee for making ANY comments that corporate entity feels reflects badly on that entity or merely engenders controversy, the way Disney-owned WABC radio fired Bob Grant over “unbecoming comments” and the Turner Enterprises-owned Atlanta Braves fired/released John Rocker a number of years back over some inflammatory comments regarding NYC. . .the 1st Amendment ONLY protects us from governmental action.
Another thing you seem to misunderstand is that there is no “push to make same-sex marriage illegal.” The “push,” as you so quaintly call it, is by supporters of same-sex marriage to make legal something that has never been so – to wit, same-sex marriage.
I point that out only because the distance between reality and what you’ve erroneously claimed is so cavernous. Same-sex marriage opponents are NOT trying to make illegal something that’s now legal, they are looking to keep something that’s NOT been legal or recognized from being “legalized” – huge difference.
As to morality, yes, Western morality/ethics DOES indeed spring from the Judeo-Christian traditions. That’s why, for instance, Western morality enshrines the Judeo-Christian “reverence for all life,” as opposed to Sharia morality, with its mandated public executions, amputations and “honor killings,” which does not enshrine that same “reverence for life” into its moral code.
As Fyodor and Friedrich both noted, once god/religion is dead, the basis for such moral codes comes into question.
If we’re not going to base our “new morality” on logic, we are left ONLY with inconsistent superstition. I simply choose logic myself.
As I’m sure you’re aware, logic is always CONSISTENT, while superstition changes, depending on the prevailing whims and fears of the day.
As an example, the Catholic Church is morally CONSISTENT in an “old school,” “Olde Morality” kind of way – it is opposed to abortion and capital punishment for the SAME reason – that “reverence for all life.”
I too am consistent, as I SUPPORT abortion on demand (because I believe that an unwilling parent is also an “unfit parent” at THAT time) and capital punishment because I consistently DON’T accept a “reverence for ALL life.”
People who hold LOGICALLY inconsistent views like, opposing capital punishment and supporting abortion, OR supporting capital punishment and opposing abortion are largely superstition-driven. Inconsistency is the hallmark of superstition, just as consistency is the hallmark of sound logic.
What side you’re on doesn’t matter nearly so much as that you are logically consistent in your views. I can and do respect Catholics and other religious people who consistently hold to that “reverence for all life,” even though I don’t entirely agree with them on that. I can communicate much easier with them than I can with those driven by superstition.
You seem to be one of those inconsistent superstitious people. You derided Romney’s forebears for going to Mexico to, in your view, avoid prosecution for polygamy, when in fact, there were many reasons that they went to Mexico instead of say, Utah (where polygamy wasn’t prosecuted), so that seemed to indicate an antipathy for polygamy on your part – an illogically inconsistent view for someone claiming to support gay rights.
I’ve often said (even right here) that for years (decades now) I’ve observed that the vast majority of the most angry and revolting people I’ve met have been fellow “liberals.” While I’ve rarely, if ever encountered derision or even direct proselytizing from Conservatives, even “Conservative Christians,” I’ve encountered anger and insults over relatively minor disagreements with fellow “liberals.”
As an example, of all the people here, DaD probably finds my own views more antithetical, probably more revolting than anyone else here, and yet I’ve never had an insulting exchange with him. . .AND yet, I have a few very minor disagreements and took some offense at you bringing up a homosexual child-sex scandal that appeared to indict gays as pedophiles and you jump ugly over that.
OK, I’ve seen your previous exchanges with others and you’re pretty much that way generally. . .but that DOES NOT help our side Ed!
The idea should be to try and make our arguments as persuasive as possible to bring others to our side. For whatever reasons, “liberals” do a much worse job of that than do Libertarians and Conservatives. WHY?
Why has there never been a “liberal” or even Left-of-Center Milton Friedman, someone who can translate these ideas and make them compelling?
I’ve said this for a very long time, “IF you believe your neighbors are “the enemy” because they have a Carter or Reagan bumper sticker. . .now an Obama or a Bush or Romney bumper sticker, then you are part of what’s wrong with America.”
That “team sports” mentality doesn’t fit politics and ideology well at all. If you can be made to hate a nazi, you can just as easily be made to hate the little old lady next to you in the supermarket aisle. WHY? Because you’re basing your hate on something you’ve read or watched on TV…your opinions havebeen molded by someone else with an agenda unknown to you.
Ironically enough, that’s how the Third Reich was able to do what it did – it lied to people.
When I was a kid, I grew up on a block with a lot of German-Americans, many of them 1st generation. They were, for the overwhelming most part, an industrious and fastidious people, always working, mostly humble and decent. Later I wondered, “these…their kind were the supporters of the 3rd Reich?”
Read Andy Andrews book “How Do You Kill 11 Million People?” (http://www.amazon.com/How-You-Kill-Million-People/dp/0849948355/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344789484&sr=1-1&keywords=how+do+you+kill+11+million+people) The answer is that they were lied to. Few Germans knew of death camps and those who even knew of the “work camps,” DIDN’T want to know much.
Even the Jews, ESPECIALLY the Jews were lied to, told that they were going to better living conditions because the Soviets were approaching from the east. They were told to pack their belongings and were even charged a fare (if they had it) for the cattle car train rides. . .otherwise they’d have never gone so peacefully and orderly to their deaths.
It’s important that we don’t fall into demonizing our neighbors over minor issues like religion, gay rights, gun rights, etc. and I certainly don’t want you to think for a moment we’re not on the same side.
I sort of expected that you would miss the point. Your statement, “things as preaching that “sodomy is sin,” ” in regard to the first amendment ignores the issue that being free to preach and state your religion’s beliefs is not the same as enacting laws requiring others to live according to that church’s tenets. It really is not difficult. Please try to think it through.
Once again, you seem to decide what I believe and even create what I have said from your fertile mind, “You seem to be one of those inconsistent superstitious people. You derided Romney’s forebears for going to Mexico to, in your view, avoid prosecution for polygamy,…” If you can find where I said such a thing or indicated this to be my belief, please post it. The statement does not ring any bells in my memory nor does it especially resonate with my position.
Look, your attempts to somehow anger me (e.g., once again resurrecting your accusation of armchair diagnosis based on my suspecting a possible diagnosis of schizophrenia) from an unrelated string or making inaccurate statements about my beliefs based upon your own imagination, or meandering thoughts about the third reich will not be successful. It might be more helpful were you to attempt to organize your OWN thoughts and present them in a logical manner. If you wish to know my specific position on a specific issue, please ask rather than making up what you think I might believe and then arguing with that position.
“I sort of expected that you would miss the point. Your statement, “things as preaching that “sodomy is sin,” ” in regard to the first amendment ignores the issue that being free to preach and state your religion’s beliefs is not the same as enacting laws requiring others to live according to that church’s tenets. It really is not difficult. Please try to think it through.” (ETH)
.
.
Ironically enough, it’s YOU who misspoke and appear to misunderstand, for to be accurate, they’re actually the very SAME issue – advocacy for gay marriage and freedom of religion are BOTH 1st Amendment issues. Interestingly enough, the ONLY reason gay-rights supporters have a 1st Amendment right to say and advocate for what we want, is because those opposed are free to say and advocate for whatever THEY want…such things work “both ways.”
Church’s tend to preach “sodomy is sin.” They also tend to preach “hate the SIN, but love the SINNER.” However, church’s are NOT responsible for the 60+% of Americans polled opposing gay marriage, BUT religious organizations MUST be free to practice their religions as they see fit. You brought up the subject of “limited religious freedom,” which was incorrectly framed on your part. While Europe’s governments CAN intefer in religious affairs…ours clearly CANNOT.
Look, I haven’t been at all disagreeable here, I’ve merely taken rightful issue with, and pointed out a few things you misspoke about, such as;
Your claim that, “The push to make single sex marriage illegal is a religious based “exercise” forcing some citizens to live according to the proscriptions of those citizens who worship a God of their invention that dislikes same sex relations.”
.
.
There is no push to make something now LEGAL, illegal. Opponents of “gay marriage” are opposed to the state REDEFINING marriage and making legal, what is not now, nor ever been before legalized. It is the advocatesof “gay marriage” that are making the “push” to legalize something that’s never been recognized/legalized. There’s a HUGE difference between that and what you said.
.
.
OR your claim that there are no laws that protect homosexuals from violent predators (“. . .those I do know are simply asking to be full citizens…and to walk down the street without having to watch out for hooligans intending to do them harm.”), which was a ridiculous and absurd assertion, as there is NO Constitutional Right for ANY of us to be “free from predation.”
If there were we could each sue the federal and various state governments for “failing to protect us.” We CAN’T, simple as that, because no government has ever made such a ridiculous promise/guarantee. IF a gay male, or lesbian should be “free from predation,” then the rest of us should ALSO be “free from predation” as well, BUT very clearly that simply “ain’t the case anywhere!”
.
.
AND your claim that, “Opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption may or may not be “anti gay.” However, when applied to law abiding citizens of this nation, those actions are overtly unconstitutional.”
.
.
When there is absolutely NO Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees same-sex marriage. That bizarre assertion would be a claim that previous generations “just didn’t read the Constitution correctly and that the Founders didn’t understand what they wrote!”
.
.
.
ALL of those are erroneous assertions and the result of some sloppy thinking, which can be easily fixed by simply not making such ridiculous assertions. You’re also misdirecting your anger and frustration at me (the messenger) for merely helpfully making you aware of some of these errors.
You seem unable to comprehend any words but your own and those are pretty much an echo of their predecessors. Further discussion is a waste of energy. If you wish to state something new that we can discuss and, more important, present it as your ideas not as refutations of what your imagination has decided is my ideas, I will be happy to discuss further with you. If not, feel free to continue shouting into your echo chamber. I really do wish that you would read the actual first amendment rather than what ever source you are using.
In closing, I will once again attempt to respond to your repeated assertion contained in this paragraph,
“There is no push to make something now LEGAL, illegal. Opponents of “gay marriage” are opposed to the state REDEFINING marriage and making legal, what is not now, nor ever been before legalized. It is the advocatesof “gay marriage” that are making the “push” to legalize something that’s never been recognized/legalized. There’s a HUGE difference between that and what you said.”
The issue is not legalizing something illegal, the issue is correcting the erroneous making illegal something that should have never been made illegal. Laws enacting religious proscriptions are simply unconstitutional in this nation. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that enacting a law based on a religious proscription is “making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.”? If we had a law requiring all persons to refrain from eating meat during lent, would you consider it constitutional and not legitimate to pass legislation negating that law?
“The issue is not legalizing something illegal, the issue is correcting the erroneous making illegal something that should have never been made illegal. Laws enacting religious proscriptions are simply unconstitutional in this nation. Why is it so difficult for you to understand…” (ETH)
.
.
Well, because YOU actually and initially said THIS, “The push to make single sex marriage illegal is a religious based “exercise” forcing some citizens to live according to the proscriptions of those citizens who worship a God of their invention that dislikes same sex relations.”
Clearly, that sloppily worded statement premises that same-sex marriage is and has been legal and some (meanies) are seeking to make it illegal. That’s a ridiculously absurd premise…because…well because it’s simply not true.
Ed, here’s an idea, whatever side you’re really on, just argue the reverse. I mean that.
Maybe you’re posting in anger (I don’t know why…I haven’t even responded in kind to any of your insults), but whatever you’re doing, you’re NOT helping yourself or the side your supporting.
The fact is that 93 nations (nearly half of the world’s 192 countries) not only marginalize homosexuality, but actually criminalize it! Many more marginalize it and simply do not recognize homosexually as having any legal standing. That SHOULD indicate that the acceptance/rejection of homosexuality is very clearly NOT just a “religious issue” – which is yet another silly and erroneous assertion by yourself.
For some inane reason you’ve based your entire premise on the ridiculous premise that “We all know that homosexuality should’ve ALWAYS been accepted,” a premise that is so stultifyingly naive that it’s impossible to take you at all serious after something like that.
The “acceptance of homosexuality” is, among other things, a signal of the breakdown of the “traditional Western moral order.”
What will take the place of the Judeo-Christian principles that had forged the foundation of Western morality will either be consistent logic or inconsistent superstition.
Support for consensual homosexuality based on “doing no harm to those involved” (logically) DEMANDS that other sexual alternatives that also “do no harm” be considered equally legitimized.
Suffice to say, it’s a major break with the past and a step in a direction that is rife with moral hazards and inherent risk, NOT something to be so frivolously taken as a given.
I get the distinct impression that you’ve allowed your emotions to cloud your judgment, which has led you to take some ill-advised positions you’d have otherwise avoided. As I’ve said from the start, you’re on my side on this Ed, though I do believe that you may well be an inconsistent “superstitionist,” like those who SUPPORT abortion and OPPOSE capital punishment, or SUPPORT gay rights, but OPPOSE polygamy,which is fine (not logically consistent), but fine.
I get the impression you feel I’m having sport with you, when all I’m really trying to do is get you to ammend some extremely flawed, patently absurd premises that serve to hurt our overall argument.
I think I was the one who mentioned Romney’s ancestors having fled to Mexico to practice polygamy without fear of prosecution. I wasn’t exactly deriding him for the fact, just some of his followers. It is a fact that his ancestors did run off to Mexico to practice plural marriage. Which is interesting since I think Mexico forbids it too, they just don’t put a whole lot of energy into enforcing the law, as opposed to the US, which actually fought a war over it. Anyway, you owe JMK an apology.
Unfortunately, WiredSisters, it was JMK who decided that I had made that mention of Romney’s forbears. In his usual manner of assuming what others believe, he decided that I am, therefore, opposed to polygamy. In truth, I made no mention of Romney’s forbears nor indicated in any of my prior commentary my position on polygamy. Certainly, he may owe you an apology for having made aspersions about the comment. I have grown so weary of his meandering commentary, inability to present his own viewpoints rather than inventing other persons’ viewpoints and attacking those imaginary ideas, and his self aggrandizing ideation that I am probably going to cease (again) responding to his verbiage. I very much enjoy to and fro discussion with persons who present cogent thoughts in an objective manner without attempting to irritate, insult, or otherwise engage in juvenile conversation.
Indeed, some of Romney’s ancestors moved to Mexico and some engaged in polygamy. I am not entirely certain we know if they did so in order to escape US law or in order to seek other economic benefits or maybe to seek a place that would not attempt to assassinate them for their beliefs and practices. It might be of some benefit to research that material but I am not all that interested.
Ed, that’s an entirely unfair and self-serving depiction that does a disservice to you because of its blatant dishonesty.
EVERY point I’ve called you on has been accurate.
Earlier on,you DID make a “diagnosis from afar,” As your own words showed.
You DID indeed “argue against your own premise” in foolishly bringing up yet ANOTHER homosexual child sex scandal to highlight how “gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than straights.”
And here, you’ve simply abandoned and ran away from every foolish argument that you’ve made on same-sex marriage;
Starting with your claim that, “The push to make single sex marriage illegal is a religious based “exercise” forcing some citizens to live according to the proscriptions of those citizens who worship a God of their invention that dislikes same sex relations,” where there’s been NO “push” to make something now LEGAL, illegal. Opponents of “gay marriage” are opposed to the state REDEFINING marriage and making legal, what is not now, nor ever been before legalized. It is the advocatesof “gay marriage” that are making the “push” to legalize something that’s never been recognized/legalized. There’s a HUGE difference between that and what you said.
OR your claim that there are no laws that protect homosexuals from violent predators (“. . .those I do know are simply asking to be full citizens…and to walk down the street without having to watch out for hooligans intending to do them harm.”), which was a ridiculous and absurd assertion, as there is NO Constitutional Right for ANY of us to be “free from predation.”
If there were we could each sue the federal and various state governments for “failing to protect us.” We CAN’T, simple as that, because no government has ever made such a ridiculous promise/guarantee. IF a gay male, or lesbian should be “free from predation,” then the rest of us should ALSO be “free from predation” as well, BUT very clearly that simply “ain’t the case anywhere!”
AND your claim that, “Opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption may or may not be “anti gay.” However, when applied to law abiding citizens of this nation, those actions are overtly unconstitutional.” When there is absolutely NO Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees same-sex marriage. That bizarre assertion would be a claim that previous generations “just didn’t read the Constitution correctly and that the Founders didn’t understand what they wrote!”
Those are but a few of the incredibly inane and poorly thought-out claims you’ve made and instead of either defending them OR better still amending them, you’ve simply ran away from them.
I’ve been very patient with you and haven’t once insulted you despite the factthat you’ve not only wrong but petulantly so.
Ed, you SHOULD’VE done your usual “bail out” dozens of posts ago, before you compounded a few simple, though glaring errors with an avalanche of others. Your main mistake is in hinking that I enjoy…basically editing your material for you,or “schooling you.” I really don’t find it either amusing or pleasurable at all.
“I think I was the one who mentioned Romney’s ancestors having fled to Mexico to practice polygamy without fear of prosecution…Which is interesting since I think Mexico forbids it too, they just don’t put a whole lot of energy into enforcing the law, as opposed to the US, which actually fought a war over it. Anyway, you owe JMK an apology.” (WS)
.
.
If that was indeed you WS, then I was wrong in thinking that ETH had said that.
That was my error, not his.
The reason I’ve given Ed such a hard time is that he doesn’t seem to consider the shift that sexual-freedom/liberation brings and the moral changes it introduces.
Logically, there are two possible standards which can be used to define sex as “sin”/crime – one is the standard of harm, the other is the standard of consent.
Consensual homosexuality obviously clearly passes the latter standard and while male homosexuals do seem to have shorter lifespans than average (In 1994, an obituary study revealed that the median age of death for homosexual males was 42 and for lesbians was 49. Source: Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, ” The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic, ” Omega Journal of Death and Dying,” 1994), we can assume those so engaged are willing to take any comensurate risks. Pedophilia is criminalized because minors CANNOT give legally accepted consent.
There are obvious legitimate concerns over consent with both bestiality (does an animal that engages in such consent count as “implied consent”?) and necrophilia (does a deceased person have to give consent when no harm can be done to that body?) have a number of issues surrounding consent, less regarding “harm.”
However polygamy, like homosexuality can be and often IS both consensual and does little if any harm.
Once we accept one alternative expression, it gets increasingly difficult to justify NOT accepting others. Polygamy would appear to be a given, since it passes the “harm” & “consent” barriers easily.
It’s a thorny issue that gets even thornier and it shouldn’t be taken as flippantly as some folks appear to take it.
Finally, a thoughtful comment with only one side swipe unconnected with the point you are making. Congratulations. And, by the way, good thinking.
“In closing, your final paragraph is sort of a continuation of your usual braggadocio and grandiosity.” (ETH)
.
.
There’s actually nothing either grandiose nor is there any bravado in noting the very obvious observation that On this issue (legitimizing various sexual abberations), I am clearly more open-minded and “liberal”/tolerant than YOU are.” I am pro-gay (AND other sexual deviancies), pro-gun, pro-abortion, pro-economic freedom (free market), pro-FAIR Tax (NRST). . .basically pro-FREEDOM. You seem “pro-gay” enough, though your claims of “not knowing many” could raise a red flag and your deriding Romney’s forebears for,in your view, avoiding prosecution for bigamy (without a hint of sympathy for the Romney’s and other Mormon’s “wrongful prosecution” over that sexual-freedom issue) – polygamy is something else that we, as pro-sexual freedom supporters should also defend.
I am merely “duly noting” all that with the above observation. I can happily assure you that there was no grandiosity involved and certainly no braggadocio intended. I think you have me all wrong (what else is new)…you’re actually on my side, and, for my part, I’ve ONLY been looking out for you. Seriously, I’ve steadfastly sought to help out and clear things up.
I HOPE it’s not merely mindless “tolerance,” maybe it’s they seem so far away and that they aren’t “doing that here,” so we don’t have to see it every day.
I think that probably has a lot to do with it.
Just stumbled across this piece while getting my daily dose of Borowitz. Maybe protests have some function after all. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2012/08/my-week-at-chick-fil-a.html
For those not wanting to travel to the site, here is the best paragraph:
“Lots of excitement when TV truck from Channel 7 ran over foot of reporter from Channel 4. Fundamentalist Christian counter-protester (who also happened to be a paramedic) administered first aid to Channel 4 reporter while SuperMeg (as I call her) held her head and used yoga techniques to help her relax. People of different beliefs working together, that’s what makes America great! Afterwards, Chick-fil-A sends out free bucket of Chick-n-Strips and extra large order of Waffle Fries for everyone! We can disagree without being disagreeable!”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2012/08/my-week-at-chick-fil-a.html#ixzz24xUhTNmt