Hetero and Homo Discussion

[Nielk1]

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/08/01 ... story.html

I am sure you all have heard of this ridiculousness.

Many quotes, such as “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” show the complete hypocrisy of the situation.

Defying this business the right to operate in an area due to the beliefs of its owner is to discriminate against that owner and that business. The company and owner do not deny anyone service or employment based on their sexual orientation or marital status, gay or otherwise, and yet because the owner has a stance, he may be discriminated against? Would this same outrage occur if he was in support of gay marriage? If he was and people were trying to push his business out, then they would again be discriminating against him and his business simply for his views.

On the whole gay marriage thing, I say we solve the issue by removing any language of marriage from law and instead having only civil unions that have all the rights and privileges originally afforded to those in marriage . Then marriage is a case of tradition and a matter for the church in question and anyone can be legally union-ed under the law and received exactly equal legal treatment. This removed what is a word of religious tradition from the legal code and protects all people equally. It's a win-win. That is why it will probably never happen.

[HitchcockGreen]

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/08/01 ... story.html

I am sure you all have heard of this ridiculousness.

Many quotes, such as “There is no place for discrimination on Boston’s Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it,” show the complete hypocrisy of the situation.

Defying this business the right to operate in an area due to the beliefs of its owner is to discriminate against that owner and that business. The company and owner do not deny anyone service or employment based on their sexual orientation or marital status, gay or otherwise, and yet because the owner has a stance, he may be discriminated against? Would this same outrage occur if he was in support of gay marriage? If he was and people were trying to push his business out, then they would again be discriminating against him and his business simply for his views.

On the whole gay marriage thing, I say we solve the issue by removing any language of marriage from law and instead having only civil unions that have all the rights and privileges originally afforded to those in marriage . Then marriage is a case of tradition and a matter for the church in question and anyone can be legally union-ed under the law and received exactly equal legal treatment. This removed what is a word of religious tradition from the legal code and protects all people equally. It's a win-win. That is why it will probably never happen.

Actually, I believe what the mayor of Boston said that Chick-Fil-A weren't welcome in Boston, he didn't say they weren't allowed.
Personally, the anti-gay stance of the owner, and by proxy his business for supporting anti-same sex marriage groups is pretty lame, but that's his choice.
As far as abolishing the word "marriage" - well that seems a little silly.
Religion doesn't own the word, so we should probably stop acting as though it does.

[Nielk1]

As far as abolishing the word "marriage" - well that seems a little silly.
Religion doesn't own the word, so we should probably stop acting as though it does.

I believe that any issue that can be simplified down to human stupidity can be resolved with simple semantics. Plus, my solution would make marriage not a word of law either but simply a word of tradition. it just so happens that religion is some of the oldest traditions. And by definition marriage is simply a joining, it isn't that specific when you remove the legal baggage.

If people cannot stop squabbling over something, you take it from them. In this case, to preserve legal stability, you replace it.

[Red Devil]

hey, ya gotta draw the line somewhere: if they get rid of marriage being only between a man and a woman, then what's to stop people from wanting to legitimize marrying their sisters and brothers and llamas and sheep?

marriage is to ordain and protect the union between reproducing pairs of men and women - real woman, not pretend, wannabe women...

just because you love someone or something, doesn't mean you get to marry them/it.

edit: that posturing by the boston mayor is just an attempt to get votes any way he can.

[Baconboy]

hey, ya gotta draw the line somewhere: if they get rid of marriage being only between a man and a woman, then what's to stop people from wanting to legitimize marrying their sisters and brothers and llamas and sheep?

marriage is to ordain and protect the union between reproducing pairs of men and women - real woman, not pretend, wannabe women...

just because you love someone or something, doesn't mean you get to marry them/it.

edit: that posturing by the boston mayor is just an attempt to get votes any way he can.

Well said. This overreaction to C-F-A by the pro-gays is unjustified and somewhat ridiculous. If a religion calls for someone to think that homosexuality is a sin, then people of that religion will consider it a sin. There's no point to overreact and boycott one company for following religious beliefs made more than a thousand years ago! No one boycotts Jews wearing yamachas (however you spell it) to school or work! It's a religious freedom to believe what you believe and act upon your beliefs. If C-F-A donates money to anti-gay companies (what pro-gays call "hate groups") that's them acting upon their beliefs, which should not be looked down upon or protested against. C-F-A has ALWAYS been a Christian and religious company. Why are people being this surprised? Personally, I am anti-gay and I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't hate them and say hateful things to them, I just do not believe that their lifestyle is right. Even thought I'm anti-gay this Chick-Fil-A thing is out of hand. They have the right to do whatever they want with their money, and they have the right to hire who they want for the job.

[MrTwosheds]

Personally, I am anti-gay and I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't hate them and say hateful things to them, I just do not believe that their lifestyle is right

Well I'm not anti-gay, I don't believe its a sin. I don't hate them either, I just think they are being ridiculous and are in a state of denial about the reality of their lives and are actively trying to "troll" the rest of society because they feel victimised by the life choices they have made themselves. Allowing them to use a certain descriptive name (incorrectly) to describe their relationships will not really make any real difference to their lives at all and It will not earn them any greater acceptance by the communities they live in. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, calling it a Swan will not turn it into one.

The very basis of the United States of America is that the government is supposed to step out of the way. So things like this go against the very origin of this country.

Some things just need to be done at the national scale to work properly, Like running an army for example. Doing such things is what governments are for. Clearly your existing system is not serving all of your people well, or the issue would not have arisen.
I can understand opposing the way it is being done, but not that it is being done at all. Racist mass murder and slavery were also a part of the origins of your country, that does not make them the right way to do things.

[Zenophas]

hey, ya gotta draw the line somewhere: if they get rid of marriage being only between a man and a woman, then what's to stop people from wanting to legitimize marrying their sisters and brothers and llamas and sheep?

marriage is to ordain and protect the union between reproducing pairs of men and women - real woman, not pretend, wannabe women...

just because you love someone or something, doesn't mean you get to marry them/it.

edit: that posturing by the boston mayor is just an attempt to get votes any way he can.

A rather asinine, bigoted, and nonsensical point of view. But eh, I've seen worse.

[Ded10c]

-snip-

Religion as a personal belief is fine, but it should not be supported in any way by a company. That opens the gate for all kinds of bigotry.

I'm fine with religion, but when people try to push it upon others I will call them out about it. Religion is supposed to be a personal belief, not something you lecture others about.

[Nielk1]

The irony is that the company owner didn't lecture in any way through or at his establishment, instead, he is being lectured by others because his views got out.

[Iron_Maiden]

The thing there Ahadely is that is some religions (Abrahamic ones to be precise, Judaism, Islam, Christianity) It is said in Scripture to spread the word. This has been carried out in different ways over time, some good, some bad. Are you saying you are against this or it being spread by a financial enterprise?

[APCs r Evil]

he is being lectured by others because his views got out.

"One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say." - Will Durant

[HitchcockGreen]

hey, ya gotta draw the line somewhere: if they get rid of marriage being only between a man and a woman, then what's to stop people from wanting to legitimize marrying their sisters and brothers and llamas and sheep?

marriage is to ordain and protect the union between reproducing pairs of men and women - real woman, not pretend, wannabe women...

just because you love someone or something, doesn't mean you get to marry them/it.

edit: that posturing by the boston mayor is just an attempt to get votes any way he can.

A rather asinine, bigoted, and nonsensical point of view. But eh, I've seen worse.

Agreed. It's the same old tired straw man argument that has been thoroughly defeated time and time again.

Also, I'm just going to leave this right here:

http://web.archive.org/web/200810120742 ... 91429.html

...and this too:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/326232/ ... enting.htm

[Nielk1]

The very basis of the United States of America is that the government is supposed to step out of the way. So things like this go against the very origin of this country.

Unless you consider it a human right and equality issue. In which case, the right to marriage, however you apply theological belief behind the term, should be protected by the government as are other human rights.

The right to marriage. Is it a right, or a privilege? Legally, its a privilege. Furthermore, its irrelevant, because what is going on here is a man is being attacked, in some ways legally, for an opinion he holds. He could have Nazi beliefs, or pro gay marriage beliefs, and it would still be equally wrong what is happening to him and his buisness.

[Ded10c]

The thing there Ahadely is that is some religions (Abrahamic ones to be precise, Judaism, Islam, Christianity) It is said in Scripture to spread the word. This has been carried out in different ways over time, some good, some bad. Are you saying you are against this or it being spread by a financial enterprise?

It depends on what level "spread the word" is understood. The line should be drawn at education. Any further and you enter the territory of indoctrination.

I don't know what religious education is like in your country, but over here, most major religions are taught to some degree. The basic beliefs of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism are all taught from primary school (about 5-7 years onwards). Nobody is ever told that one religion is right. Now whilst I'm unsure of the state of religious education in your schools, I am led to believe that your country suffers from a greater amount of familial indoctrination than mine.

Nobody should ever be told that any religion is right, or taught religion (or atheism, for that matter) as fact.

[Red Devil]

it's laughable how the homosexuals (i won't use "gay" - it's a sell word) react with vitriolic fervor when saying heterosexuals hate them.

we don't hate them - we just find them ridiculous and repulsive is all.

to see a man - who is obviously a man, with male genitalia and no uterus and no ovaries - prance around like a little girl, believing in their mind that they are a girl, is just plain perverse and repulsive to us. then there's the guys who believe that the guys who think they're girls really are girls, so it's twice as ridiculous.

okay, laughable.

on the flip side, to see a woman - who is obviously a woman, with female genitalia, a uterus and ovaries - behave like a man because she thinks she is a man, is just plain ridiculous, really. then there's the women who believe that the women who think they're guys really are guys, so it's four times as ridiculous.

okay, laughable.

we don't hate them: they're nuts.