posted August 02, 2012 11:40 PM            

On a brighter note, Chick-Fil-A had a record setting business day...today.

posted August 03, 2012 09:10 AM            

Homosexuals are free to marry on the very same basis as everyone else. Any homosexual man can marry any woman of his choice...subject to health issues and issues of close family blood relatives. The same is true for lesbian women who can marry any man, subject to the same restrictions.....as everyone else.

There is no federal constitutional right to marry in the first place. At best, this is a state issue and the people of the various states have already spoken loudly and clearly every time homosexual marriage is placed on the ballot for a vote. This issue has been defeated every single time it's put to a vote of the people.

posted August 03, 2012 01:46 PM            

the rights to life, LIBERTY (to be oneself), and the pursuit of happiness apply equally to gay people and if they want to enjoy the LEGAL RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE they should be entitled with no interference from THOSE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND "different" ways of life and liberty. they infringe on NO ONE by being married, and give their children and others around them more security by so doing.

as to this:
Yeah, the level of anti-semitism is getting pretty thick here.

i am half jewish and i don't care if ami latches on to the idea that i must be lying because i don't agree with HER definition of jewish. booHOO. and she calls me delusional, so what? people who live in glass houses...

once again ARABS ARE JUST AS SEMITIC AS JEWS. indeed more so, since one does not have to be semitic to be jewish. judaism is a religion which encompasses a culture, but it is not a matter of race. ANYONE can become jewish by choice, not genetics. SEMITIC is a racial, not religious term.

however the level of GENERAL HATRED around here has gone way beyond my tolerance level. so i will leave you pigheads to congratulate each other on being the smartest, brightest, richest and MEANEST as you seem to enjoy.

posted August 03, 2012 01:52 PM            

quote:

---

so i will leave you pigheads to congratulate each other on being the smartest, brightest, richest and MEANEST as you seem to enjoy.

---

pigheads

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 03, 2012 02:03 PM            

just by doing a little math, ami, it is apparent that you cannot know a very large percentage of the world's jews.

i doubt whether you know even 1 million people let alone jewish ones. there are roughly 13-14 million jews in the world, a pretty steady number neither declining nor increasing in recent years.

posted August 03, 2012 02:08 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 03, 2012 02:09 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 03, 2012 02:12 PM            

i doubt whether you know even 1 million people let alone jewish ones. there are roughly 13-14 million jews in the world, a pretty steady number neither declining nor increasing in recent years.

so as i said, you can sit in your comfy ivory tower and tell yourself you know everything, but i disagree. and you make no attempt, because of this belief, to learn anything new, just call names and snark at people ... you and jwhop, the proud WASP, have more in common than either of you and i. it has nothing to do with your religion, but everything to do with your mind.

posted August 03, 2012 02:18 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 03, 2012 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercuranian:
yep, being against the zionist agenda is not the same as being anti-semitic.

---

They are the same. One just looks better but I don't want to go there.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 03, 2012 03:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
There was never an issue about Jews here before Ami came along.

---

With that comment you make yourself look smaller than you do with your political views, if that is possible

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 03, 2012 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mercuranian:
yep, being against the zionist agenda is not the same as being anti-semitic.

---

Indeed mercuranian.

This has turned into a gay marriage/ anti gay thread and left politics in the dust so I`m moving it to aquarius Rising... see you there

posted August 03, 2012 03:33 PM            

By Diane Brady on July 26, 2012

A few months ago, I had an interesting conversation with Bill Marriott. As a prominent Mormon-controlled venture, his hotel company was an obvious target in 2008, when the church vigorously supported California’s now-overturned ban on gay marriage. The Marriott International (MAR) chairman has never tried to hide his deep faith, often referring to God in his writing and interviews.

In Marriott’s personal life, marriage is something reserved for a man and a woman. But he has long been reluctant to impose that view on the company his father founded. Not only could that crimp the company’s $12 billion in sales, it might demoralize employees working in more than 3,700 Marriott properties worldwide. With Mitt Romney’s presidential run and same-sex marriage in the headlines, we spoke about his stance as Mormon leaders were being held up for scrutiny again.

“This church helped me raise a family and has brought great joy and happiness to my life,” he told me. But that didn’t mean gay employees had any less status at Marriott. “We have to take care of our people, regardless of their sexual orientation or anything else,” he said. “We are an American Church. We have all the American values: the values of hard work, the values of integrity, the values of fairness and respect.” Marriott has both a deep faith and a deep understanding of his responsibility as a leader. Many of his shareholders, customers, and employees don’t belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their values matter, too.

“Our church is very much opposed to alcohol and we’re probably one of the biggest sales engines of liquor in the United States. I don’t drink. We serve a lot of liquor. You’re in business. You’ve got to make money,” he said. “We have to appeal to the masses out there, no matter what their beliefs are.”

As a result, when his church actively campaigned against same-sex marriage in California, neither Marriott nor the hotel chain donated any money to the cause. Instead, he stepped into the drama by publicly reinforcing his company’s commitment to gay rights through domestic partners benefits and services aimed at gay couples.

Contrast that with the approach of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy. His company is also committed to treating gay employees and customers at its 1,608 outlets with the same “honor, dignity, and respect” as everyone else gets. “Going forward,” the company says, “our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

But that statement didn’t come from the mouth of Cathy or any other senior executive at the Atlanta-based fast-food chain. In fact, it’s nowhere to be found on the company website. It is tucked amid the ads for peach milkshakes and Cow Appreciation Day on the company’s Facebook (FB) page. Go to Dan Cathy’s Twitter feed and there are cheerful references to great food and his great evening with celebrity photographer Jeremy Cowart. The issue of gay marriage doesn’t come up.

It has certainly come up in other places. In fact, Cathy set off a nationwide drama recently by saying he supports the “biblical definition of a family” and believes Americans have a “prideful, arrogant attitude” about gay marriage that risks “inviting God’s judgment on our nation.”

Those comments led to calls for a boycott of the chicken chain and ignited emotions on all sides. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino have taken on former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in escalating the food fight. The Jim Henson Company pulled its Muppet toys from Chick-fil-A meals and promised to donate whatever money those toys have made to the gay rights group GLAAD. Meanwhile, students from at least seven schools have launched petitions on Change.org to demand the removal of Chick-fil-A franchises from their campuses while conservative activists are calling on people to eat there to show support.

The issue isn’t that Dan Cathy disapproves of gay marriage; that’s hardly a shocker in a business so infused with Baptist values that its outlets are closed on Sundays. The problem is that he crossed the line in letting his faith become less about inspiration than alienation. Not only did he openly condemn the beliefs of a big chunk of Chick-fil-A’s audience, he implied that their views are unpatriotic and even put the country at risk. Divorce rates being what they are, praising the men in his family for “still being on their first wives” probably didn’t win him many friends, either.

Hearing polarizing rhetoric from the pulpit is one thing. Hearing it from a man whose business rings up $4 billion in sales each year is another. As an individual, Cathy has every right to express his point of view. As president, he has a responsibility to talk about how those views affect the policies of Chick-fil-A. Does this mean he won’t employ or sell franchise rights to anyone whose relationship falls outside a biblical definition of marriage?

Cathy doesn’t say, though Chick-fil-A’s website cryptically notes that franchisees set their own policies and handle all matters regarding employment. That presumably means a gay couple could become Chick-fil-A franchisees and set the brand off in a very different operation. What do Cathy’s beliefs say to Chick-fil-A’s fan base among college students, who typically have more liberal views and probably don’t like buying dinner from people who call them arrogant? It’s hard to know. Chick-fil-A’s president hasn’t hit the talk show circuit to elaborate on his statement, and the company did not return calls as of Thursday night.

Cathy and his father, Chief Executive Officer S. Truett Cathy, are no dummies when it comes to running a business. They’ve built Chick-fil-A into a powerhouse chain through tasty food and smart strategies. Just before Northeastern University canceled plans to open a franchise in February this year, Chick-fil-A issued a media statement from Dan Cathy that said “we have no political agenda, policy or position against anyone, especially the LGBT community.” Moreover, he stated, “we will not champion any political agendas on marriage and family.” Given Cathy’s comments of recent days, dusting off that statement must seem mighty tempting to his PR folks right now.

The controversy at Chick-fil-A is less about the beliefs in its C-suite than the judgment therein. Plenty of leaders have strong religious convictions that carry over to their corporate culture. Tyson Foods (TSN), Herman Miller (MLHR), and Interstate Batteries openly celebrate God in their corporate statements. Forever 21 has even put biblical passages (John 3:16) on shopping bags and Christian messages on T-shirts. Anyone who’s dined at In-N-Out-Burger sees evidence of its founders’ faith from the scripture on the cups and wrappers.

Steve Jobs was a devout Buddhist, as is John Mackey of Whole Foods Market (WFM). Muslim restaurant owners often adjust their hours during Ramadan, while some Jewish-owned businesses like New York’s B&H Photo close every Saturday for the Sabbath. Such beliefs can benefit everyone. I grew up hearing my Catholic father praise the Reichmann family’s practice of halting Olympia & York’s construction projects on Shabbat, because it meant contractors got to be home on a weekend with their families.

Bill Marriott talks about how his faith has shaped him as a leader. At one point, he was putting in 100-hour weeks because of the dual duties of being CEO and a bishop in his church. That meant weekends spent counseling other members instead of seeing his children.

“It taught me to listen, and I learned to be more compassionate,” he says. What business has taught him, it seems, is the distinction between personal beliefs such as one’s stance on gay marriage and corporate values like trust and inclusion. Leaders tend to perform best when everyone feels welcomed and valued.

If Cathy doesn’t see his stance on same-sex marriage as a reason for Chick-fil-A to discriminate against gay employees or customers, now is the time to say that. If he does, there’s more drama to come at Chick-fil-A. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-26/god-and-gay-marriage-what-chick-fil-a-could-learn-from-marriott#p1

posted August 03, 2012 03:36 PM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted August 03, 2012 04:10 PM            

quote:

---

People who have those anti zionist viewpoints hate Jews. That is YOUR problem, not mine.I am not coming back to this thread. Take your hatred for Jews up with the greatest Jew of all time--Jesus. You know what? You will answer for it to Him--not me, not Jews and not Israel.

---

posted August 03, 2012 04:17 PM            

The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw

This post is all I have to say about the Chick-Fil-A controversy. It sums up various posts on the issue and various points made by my friends and I. From now own, rather than spend time debating this issue person by person, I’m going to point people here.

My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue, and maybe to persuade. It’s not to ridicule or to best.

So, in the interest of common ground, let’s start here: I acknowledge the absurdity of all this debate.

It’s definitely strange to have days-long Facebook debates flare up everywhere over a chicken sandwich. The anger, sarcasm, and hurt feelings on display seem strange or even laughable because most people have seen Chick-Fil-A as just a restaurant with a funny ad campaign. I’ll get into some of the whys and wherefores of that later. But, for now, let’s just say that, yes. It can seem ridiculous to get all worked up over fast-food chicken.

Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy should be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of Freedom of Speech. So don’t worry: the ability of this millionaire to legally spend his millions as he sees fit is not in jeopardy. You need not defend it.

Now, let’s get to the nitty-gritty of things. Please read carefully. These things have been said before, but not by me, and not all in one place. Please read with an open mind. If you can’t read with an open mind, please leave, take a minute, come back, and try again. If you can’t do that, then please don’t bother. Please read all of the words here, rather than just reading half of the argument and assuming you know what I’m saying. Read these words as they are written. Again, if you don’t want to read my words, then don’t continue.

So here goes:

1. This isn’t simply about marriage. Shocker, right? It’s extremely frustrating that same-sex marriage is the great continental divide. People are judged according to how they stand on this issue, as if no other issue matters. Did you know that a person can be for same-sex marriage and still be homophobic? Did you know that a person can be against same-sex marriage and be gay? We all get categorized very quickly based on the marriage issue and maybe that’s not fair. But here’s what you should know:

- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together.

- In 75 countries in the world, being gay is illegal. In many, the penalty is life in prison. These are countries we can’t openly visit. In 9 countries, being gay is punishable by death. In many others, violence against gays is tacitly accepted by the authorities. These are countries where we would be killed. Killed.

- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.

- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

2. This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.

3. This isn’t about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of them are of the liberal variety, it’s true, but even this concept seems lost on some of you. Most of them are pro-LGBT rights. Pro-gay and Pro-Christ are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been, in the history of Christianity, though it’s been difficult at times. It’s not impossible to be both.

If someone is telling you it is, then maybe you should wonder why they’d do that. I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug addict Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it. I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the Church, and the Church does very little to combat them. Sometimes it seems like being gay is the ONLY thing certain modern Christian movements won’t allow. Why’s that, I wonder?

Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Remember that? It’s in red. So let’s examine that:

4. If things were reversed, I’d stand up for you.

Please think about this: How would you feel if KFC came out tomorrow and said they were spending money against equality for Asian Americans, or African Americans, or religious people? Really. Think about it. What would you do? How would you feel? How would you feel if, after their announcement, there was a big increase in KFC sales and I was all over Facebook supporting KFC. Please stop reading right now and imagine this. I’m serious.

You can stop now because it’s ludicrous. It would never happen.

Oh, I don’t mean the part about KFC being against some group. That COULD happen. I mean the part about me supporting them. Let me tell you something, and you can damn well believe it: I’d sign on for the boycott IMMEDIATELY.

Why? Well, because I believe in equality for all people, that’s why. But also, personally, from the bottom of my heart: because you are my friend, and I don’t willingly support people who harm you for just being you. How could I? How could I, really? But, more importantly for our purposes, how could you?

Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?

Well, it makes me a Chikin.

Yeah, so suddenly it is cause for anger, ridiculous or not.

But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.

Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?

That’s why we’re so angry. This is personal for us. There are times in your life when you have the opportunity to stand up for your friends. When you let that opportunity pass, your friends notice. It doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, but it diminishes you, and it diminishes the friendship. That’s how it is, no matter what the issue or what the venue.

So stand up. Stand up for us. Do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with us on everything, but repudiate Chick-Fil-A. Unlike them on Facebook. Withdraw your support for them. Join us in the boycott. If you can’t do that, then please ask yourself whether I’m your friend. In fact, ask yourself whether anyone is.

This is all I have to say. If you’d like to debate the issue further, I’ll do it, but I’m not going to go around and around on the same points. If you’re just going to repeat yourself, save us both some time. If you haven’t taken the time to actually read this carefully and actually consider carefully what I’ve said, then I see no reason to waste further words.

The ball is in your court. Again, I urge you to do the right thing.

- Wayne Self
Twitter: @owldolatrous
Facebook: facebook.com/owldolatrous

posted August 03, 2012 04:31 PM            

quote:

---

Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?

---

Thought provoking.

posted August 03, 2012 07:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ami Anne:

They are the same. One just looks better but I don't want to go there.

---

posted August 03, 2012 09:18 PM            

The opposition to gay marriage is overwhelming based on religious bigotry, yet the First Amendment protects people from the religious imposing their values on others (this is why so many “activist judges” keep overturning voter measures against gay marriage as they once did against measures trying to enforce racial marriage laws as unconstitutional btw, and largely based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, which is why the Christian Right is trying to keep kids from learning about him in school in the hopes that Jefferson's influence can be weakened and thus religious tyranny easier to impose). Marriage is ultimately a contract, not a religious rite (making it religious is purely optional, and not all Christians have a problem with it, let alone other religions), and as plenty of conservatives (the ones without hypocrisy, such as Ron Paul) agree the government doesn't have the right to interfere in private arrangements. Gays aren't demanding special rights (that would be Christians who arrogantly demand others, Christian and otherwise, conform to their superstition even when it violates a minority).

Another things conservatives like to preach is that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy, and that means a majority cannot vote away the right of a minority. So which is it conservatives? Can a majority vote away the rights of a minority or not? Just pick one and stick with it, don't change your values so diametrically like you change socks to whatever suits you at the moment.

And conservatives, even Bob Barr (author of the Defense of Marriage Act) said he regrets it: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-barr5-2009jan05,0,1855836.story

quote:

---

I've wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party's presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions

---

I'm not sure I believe his change of heart, but he's willing to stick his neck out on it anyway. And Ron Paul definitely stands by his principles. From what I gather Ron Paul is a Christian who really doesn't like homosexuality (it's even said he won't let anyone he knows is gay use his bathroom) but he does stick to his conservative principles all the same rather than casting them aside whenever convenient like the pharisees Jesus condemned. Therefore I'm fine with Ron Paul. I respectfully disagree with his personal position but as he isn't trying to hurt people via the government I don't care how much he personally dislikes it. Or put another way:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Homosexuals are free to marry on the very same basis as everyone else. Any homosexual man can marry any woman of his choice...subject to health issues and issues of close family blood relatives. The same is true for lesbian women who can marry any man, subject to the same restrictions.....as everyone else.

---

I bet that was another argument parallel to why blacks should not be allowed to marry whites (“whites have the same right to marry whites, blacks have the same right to marry blacks”). For other ways the arguments against gay marriage and interracial marriage are pretty much the same click here (PDF): http://www.equalitygiving.org /files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

posted August 03, 2012 09:26 PM            

quote:

---

The family vacation cruise that Janice Langbehn, her partner Lisa Marie Pond and three of their four children set out to take in February 2007 was designed to be a celebration of the lesbian couple's 18 years together.

But when Pond suffered a massive stroke onboard before the ship left port and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, administrators refused to let Langbehn into the Pond's hospital room. A social worker told them they were in an "anti-gay city and state."

Langbehn filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday charging the hospital with negligence and "anti-gay animus" in refusing to recognize her and the children as Pond's family, even after a power of attorney was faxed to the hospital within an hour of their arrival.

The case raises questions about the way hospitals deal with same-sex or unmarried partners of patients, which has led to controversy in the past. Hospital industry officials say they are constrained by patient privacy laws that can restrict giving visiting access and medical information to non-relatives, a stance that some patient advocates have branded as discriminatory.

Pond, 39, was pronounced dead of a brain aneurysm about 18 hours after being admitted to Jackson's Ryder Trauma Center. Langbehn said she was allowed in to see her partner only for about five minutes, as a priest gave Pond the last rites.

"I never thought almost 20 years of love and family could be disregarded in an instant," said Langbehn, a social worker who lives with her children in Lacey, Wash

---

And for another reason why it matters (starting at about 7:10, though the “Christian love” described before is also worth hearing about and significant to why marriage equality matters):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM

Feel the Christian love. Feel the conservative principle of individual liberty of adults to freely make their contracts (such as marriage) between consenting adults without government interference. (Feel my sarcasm.)

And again, this is the VERY LEAST CFA supports. In addition to what others above me have pointed out, many of the groups fighting gay marriage also get things like “kill the gays” bill passed in Africa as well (showing the difference between Christians and Muslims is more of degree than kind). If the worst CFA and its chosen groups simply support what happened to that lesbian couple above (but first cousins would be fine because the Bible is ok with that, as are many states including Florida!) then they're just the kind of Christians that give other Christians a bad name. But if they support the more extreme kinds (and they're not on the fringe, unfortunately, one even gave the prayer at Obama's inauguration) then they're advocating death to sinners (so much for the “let he without sin throw the first stone” bit, let alone the Golden Rule), and thus by Christian standards they're anti-Christs.

posted August 03, 2012 09:31 PM            

quote:

---

You ask us, “is this freedom?” And I ask you: As opposed to what? Does your concept of freedom require that gay people must be excluded from all the places that you and your children might visit? Did you even consider for one moment what you are expecting of them? Just as you want to take your children to the park, so did that lesbian couple with their child. Yet you seem to think their family should be subject to the same exile that you’ve imposed upon your family. What is it that makes you special here? What gives you any greater claim to full participation in society than that family? Did it not occur to you that other people are just as fully human as you, and they want to be just as free to enjoy their lives? That is what freedom is, and that is what you do not understand.

Imagine individuals as a series of points spaced an equal distance from one another. Their freedoms are a circle of a certain radius that surrounds each of those points. Every circle is the same size. Now expand all of those circles simultaneously until their edges are touching, and no further. Those are the limits of our freedom, and yours. Nobody’s freedom is larger or smaller than anyone else’s. And nobody’s freedom can intrude upon the freedom of others. If it did, those circles would begin to overlap, and just as your freedom would encroach upon someone else’s, their freedom would intrude into yours as well. And if your supposed freedom extends so far as to banish people from the public sphere based only on your own personal morality, then everyone else is just as free to do that to you. You and your family would be equally subject to their whims, and that is not something you want. It is not something anyone should want.

Even you shy away from following your indignation all the way to its vile and unavoidable conclusion. But that is what you hint at when you say that you’re “supposed to be able to influence what goes on” in your community. There are many things that you can influence, but that is not among them. You live in a world where not everyone operates according to your interpretation of Catholic morality, and they are not required to. When you say that you’ve been forced to “tolerate immorality”, that is exactly right. It is a fact that you are always going to encounter people whose moral outlook does not align with yours. And just as you have the freedom to follow the dictates of your conscience, so do the rest of us. Nobody was rubbing elbows with you. Nobody is in a lesbian relationship with you. And you have every right to sit there at the park and meditate on how awful it is that gay people are allowed outside. But your expectation that they shouldn’t be there because of your religious views is no more valid than someone else’s expectation that you shouldn’t leave the house without a veil. That is not freedom.

---