Chick-Fil-A President: Men shouldn't eat other men's chicken

#251
#251
volinbham said:
Let me try to explain (BTW - it's not my personal view but I've talked to many who hold it and I'm just trying to present that side).

Legal marriage is two components: 1) rights/benefits/privileges and 2) a symbolic relationship that is being legally recognized.

If you believe marriage means a man and woman being joined in a committed relationship and someone demands that it means more than that then you may feel that some of the meaning is lost.

To flip it around - I've heard many gay marriage advocates argue that civil unions are insufficient primarily because they don't carry the symbolic meaning of "marriage".

The symbolic meaning has clear value to people on both sides. One group wants to extend it and one wants to keep it the same. By definition, expanding it means that those that saw value in it meaning one man and one woman have had that value altered.

You may argue that it shouldn't matter but in the end it does matter. Likewise you could argue that gay couples shouldn't care about the word "marriage" so long as they get the privileges/benefits that straight couples get but clearly the word itself matters.

As I said at the beginning this isn't my position but I can see the merit in the argument - some traditional marriage advocates feel that the symbolic meaning of one man and one woman is core to the idea and being forced to change that then diminishes their rights so that some other group can claim the same symbolism.

That's about the best I can explain it. If that still doesn't make sense (even if you don't agree) then I'll just leave it at that.

As an analogy - if you are a Medal of Honor winner then the symbolism of that has a particular value. If a group of people who've also won medals demand that their accomplishments also be recognized as Medals of Honor then you might thing the symbolic meaning of your accomplishment has been changed. Not a great analogy I know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. No offense intended, but there is nothing new in your very good rehash of people's views.

Having seen, firsthand, the exact same arguments used for and against interracial marriage(or even interracial dating) in the 60's, I guess I'm still just amazed that people have not/will not learn anything from our very recent past. I believe than many opponents of gay marriage use this "my marriage will somehow mean less" argument as a last resort when nothing else has been effective. It was used heavily in the 60's.
 
#252
#252
Danl said:
Thanks for the explanation. No offense intended, but there is nothing new in your very good rehash of people's views.

Having seen, firsthand, the exact same arguments used for and against interracial marriage(or even interracial dating) in the 60's, I guess I'm still just amazed that people have not/will not learn anything from our very recent past. I believe than many opponents of gay marriage use this "my marriage will somehow mean less" argument as a last resort when nothing else has been effective. It was used heavily in the 60's.
Click to expand...

The distinction I see here is that we do have a traditional definition of marriage that is one man/one woman. It says nothing about race. Claiming interracial marriage changes the meaning of marriage was done but doesn't have a basis in the long used and accepted definition.

A bit tangental but if I was 1/16 African American and 15/16's Caucasian should I demand that I be legally recognized as African American? If I'm not are my rights being violated? Why should full AA's care if I am defined as AA? It doesn't affect them?
 
#254
#254
volinbham said:
The distinction I see here is that we do have a traditional definition of marriage that is one man/one woman. It says nothing about race. Claiming interracial marriage changes the meaning of marriage was done but doesn't have a basis in the long used and accepted definition.

At the time, homogenous marriage was claimed to be "biblically traditional" and interracial marriage was touted as the single biggest threat to traditional family values. Where have we heard this more recently?

A bit tangental but if I was 1/16 African American and 15/16's Caucasian should I demand that I be legally recognized as African American?

I truly don't know.

If I'm not are my rights being violated?

Again, I don't know.

Why should full AA's care if I am defined as AA?

I don't think they should.

It doesn't affect them?

That is correct. It does not.
Click to expand...

.
 
#256
#256
Kind of ironic that up until a few months ago Obama made the exact same comment as the Chick-fil-A dude. Oh how I remember the protests, the banning of him from cities, the calling him a bigot...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#257
#257
volinbham said:
Let me try to explain (BTW - it's not my personal view but I've talked to many who hold it and I'm just trying to present that side).

Legal marriage is two components: 1) rights/benefits/privileges and 2) a symbolic relationship that is being legally recognized.

If you believe marri,age means a man and woman being joined in a committed relationship and someone demands that it means more than that then you may feel that some of the meaning is lost.

To flip it around - I've heard many gay marriage advocates argue that civil unions are insufficient primarily because they don't carry the symbolic meaning of "marriage".

The symbolic meaning has clear value to people on both sides. One group wants to extend it and one wants to keep it the same. By definition, expanding it means that those that saw value in it meaning one man and one woman have had that value altered.

You may argue that it shouldn't matter but in the end it does matter. Likewise you could argue that gay couples shouldn't care about the word "marriage" so long as they get the privileges/benefits that straight couples get but clearly the word itself matters.

As I said at the beginning this isn't my position but I can see the merit in the argument - some traditional marriage advocates feel that the symbolic meaning of one man and one woman is core to the idea and being forced to change that then diminishes their rights so that some other group can claim the same symbolism.

That's about the best I can explain it. If that still doesn't make sense (even if you don't agree) then I'll just leave it at that.

As an analogy - if you are a Medal of Honor winner then the symbolism of that has a particular value. If a group of people who've also won medals demand that their accomplishments also be recognized as Medals of Honor then you might thing the symbolic meaning of your accomplishment has been changed. Not a great analogy I know.
Click to expand...

Great post. Want to shack up with your same sex partner? Fine by me. Want the same "rights" as married couples? Fine by me as well. Want to call it a marriage, which is a union between God, 1 man and 1 woman ? That's where I have a problem. He clearly states that He will have no part in that abomination. Sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#258
#258
n_huffhines said:
It's not really about politics IMO, it's about being a tolerant and accepting (dare I say Christ-like?) person.

A Christ-like person would act like Christ right?

Christ made it very clear that marriage is for one man and one woman so I am grateful that Chik-fil-A is Christlike at least in it's view of marriage.
Click to expand...
 
#259
#259
volinbham said:
Kind of ironic that up until a few months ago Obama made the exact same comment as the Chick-fil-A dude. Oh how I remember the protests, the banning of him from cities, the calling him a bigot...
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

:hi:

He's right you know.:thumbsup:
 
#260
#260
marcusluvsvols said:
Great post. Want to shack up with your same sex partner? Fine by me. Want the same "rights" as married couples? Fine by me as well.

That certainly wasn't what you were stringently opposed to via voting just a few short months ago, is it?

Want to call it a marriage, which is a union between God, 1 man and 1 woman ? That's where I have a problem. He clearly states that He will have no part in that abomination.

No one is asking Him or you to have any part in it.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you don't know the truth. Get over it.
 
#262
#262
volinbham said:
Kind of ironic that up until a few months ago Obama made the exact same comment as the Chick-fil-A dude. Oh how I remember the protests, the banning of him from cities, the calling him a bigot...
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of all those things and probably would have been then too :) (but not just for those remarks)
 
#263
#263
marcusluvsvols said:
Great post. Want to shack up with your same sex partner? Fine by me. Want the same "rights" as married couples? Fine by me as well. Want to call it a marriage, which is a union between God, 1 man and 1 woman ? That's where I have a problem. He clearly states that He will have no part in that abomination. Sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Well don't let them get married in your church. It's a legal term.
 
#265
#265
marcusluvsvols said:
Great post. Want to shack up with your same sex partner? Fine by me. Want the same "rights" as married couples? Fine by me as well. Want to call it a marriage, which is a union between God, 1 man and 1 woman ? That's where I have a problem. He clearly states that He will have no part in that abomination. Sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it.
Click to expand...

It is a semantics game. I have never heard a gay person define marriage in the religious sense of the word like Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc do.

This whole debacle is over lazy language use by both sides. The right is lazy not to emphasis religious marriage and the left is lazy not to use emphasis secular marriage or the term "civil union" whenever talking about the topic in the political arena. Religious marriage does not, nor will ever have anything to do with the government.
 
#266
#266
marcusluvsvols said:
Great post. Want to shack up with your same sex partner? Fine by me. Want the same "rights" as married couples? Fine by me as well. Want to call it a marriage, which is a union between God, 1 man and 1 woman ? That's where I have a problem. He clearly states that He will have no part in that abomination. Sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Well I appreciate the compliment on my post but I was not referencing this to God or God's word.

I don't think God's word should be what our laws are about.

I was saying that it's a bit misleading to frame this as about only one side of the argument's rights.
 
#267
#267
n_huffhines said:
It's not really about politics IMO, it's about being a tolerant and accepting (dare I say Christ-like?) person.
Click to expand...

Please show the class where this man said anything about discriminating against homosexuals. His company doesn't discriminate in the hiring process or the serving of customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#269
#269
volinbham said:
Yep - funny too that the side demanding tolerance makes such sweeping negative generalizations about the other side...
Click to expand...

Hallelujah. Amen. Debate over. It's not like Mr Cathy went out of his way to condemn homosexuality, he was asked in an interview and gave a pretty general answer. It's the media that is at fault for making this an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#271
#271
My sister (who is a lesbian) posted this on facebook:

549697_10150938736621793_1506402259_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#272
#272
Come on, a Christian company being anti gay is as shocking as the SEC winning a national Title. We all knew this was happening. I don't eat there anyway. I do wonder what is going to happen on campus with students protesting the company. Craziness!!!
 
#273
#273
The reaction from the mayors of Chicago and Boston is troubling. Strong arming private citizens due to their beliefs?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top