Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

And how do you know the inner-most thoughts of Obama's mind in the last election? How do you know he's not just changing now, caving to what will one day be popular opinion? You don't. You're just guessing because it allows you to have your cake and eat it too. Either you take the man at his word or you don't. Either we don't know what he really thought back then, and we don't know now - or we believe him when he says he was against it then and for it now.

.

Come on Bama, don't be naive.  Of course you cannot take an elected official at his or her word - they're freakin' politicians .  98+% of politicians are in it primarily for their own ego boost - being a public servant focused on benefitting their entire constituencies is a distant third, fifth, tenth, etc... place in importance behind their personal ego boost first and foremost, and secondly, doing whatever it takes to get reelected.  I say that having worked with legislators in the past.

SacM3Bill, I applaud your integrity in admitting error as to the applicability of Godwin's Law.  However, the fact that you originally made reference to that convenient little strawman-style argument does suggest that you thought you were rather clever in dismissing my point without having to articulate any reasons why it was not valid, otherwise you would have addressed my point on the merits.  I've not encountered it anywhere previously, but this Godwin's Law seems to be to be roughly the adult equivalent of the playground chant "IKNOWYOUAREBUTWHATAMI?  IKNOWYOUAREBUTWHATAMI?" - basically, it is a dismissive comment meant to shortchange discussion.  As for what is going on in your mind, I'll refer you to the adage "Actions speak louder than words."  A cab driver or landlord might never once utter a single prejudiced statement.  But if he or she repeatedly drives past individuals of color seeking a cab or rejects the applications of non-native English speaking applicants, it is fair to find a presumption of bias.  There would be no reason for you to have criticized my post if you did not disagree with me (i.e. you oppose marital equality for all people).

Wolfsburg2, I like your thinking but disagree with your comment that the government should have nothing to do with marriage.  Given that marital status provides numerous rights, benefits and other changes with regard to areas under government control (taxes, inheiritance, parenthood, medical decision-making, etc...) , the government has every right to regulate marriages.  However, I disagree that state governments should be allowed to regulate marriage - it makes absolutely no sense that differences in sexual preferences should render an individual a second-class citizen deprived of rights in some states but not in others.  You see, I actually believe in the truth and importance of a very fundamental concept, one that was stated clearly in one of the most important documents in human history, the American Declaration of Independence.  Since most of the bigots who oppose marital freedoms for all Americans have this mistaken belief that they are "better than average" Americans, I will set forth clearly those fundamental words they seem to have forgotten:

We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .

I see no asterisk after "all men are created equal" that excepts homosexuals from the application of this fundamental principle.  Accordingly, the idea that some states can legislate that gay people are not equal and can deny their ability to pursue happiness, is repugnant to me and should be repugnant to anyone who adheres to the basic concepts of the American democratic form of government.

The bottom line is that the rationale given to support discrimination against marital rights is that the institution of marriage is sacred and traditional.  Well, slavery was a traditional part of property ownership in the latter quarter of the 18th century in America, but we seemed to have overcome that little tradition because, oh, I suppose ... it is fundamentally unfair and representative of primitive thinking. As for marriage between a man and woman alone being "sacred," where do we get that?  From theistic religion, of course.  There is no logical basis for saying marriage must be only between a man and a woman.  Procreation doesn't work, otherwise heterosexual couples who are infertile, who don't want kids, or are past child-bearing age could not get married.  Since the basis of laws requiring marriage to be only between a man and a woman are purely religious, such laws violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.  And if you are a true American, not just someone who pays lipservice to some vaguely patriotic sounding phrases when it conveniences or benefits you, then you will want to uphold that separation of church and state and advocate for equality for all.

As for the issue of whether being a bigot makes one a hatemonger, well, does it really matter?  Wrong is still wrong, regardless of the degree, whether it is someone mindlessly voting for his church's position or if that person is vehemently advocating a denial of all rights against homosexuals.  Bigotry is based on hatred for others.  No amount of bigotry is acceptable.  Period.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Wolfsburg2, I like your thinking but disagree with your comment that the government should have nothing to do with marriage.  Given that marital status provides numerous rights, benefits and other changes with regard to areas under government control (taxes, inheiritance, parenthood, medical decision-making, etc...) , the government has every right to regulate marriages.  However, I disagree that state governments should be allowed to regulate marriage - it makes absolutely no sense that differences in sexual preferences should render an individual a second-class citizen deprived of rights in some states but not in others.  You see, I actually believe in the truth and importance of a very fundamental concept, one that was stated clearly in one of the most important documents in human history, the American Declaration of Independence.  Since most of the bigots who oppose marital freedoms for all Americans have this mistaken belief that they are "better than average" Americans, I will set forth clearly those fundamental words they seem to have forgotten:

But I think this is what others, and myself, have been saying. Separate marriage and civil unions. That way the religious folks can have marriage be whatever to them, and everyone gets the same protections under the law. Marriage is a religious concept. The government issuing legal protections and benefits is a government concept.

Separate the two. Then, instead of filling out a marriage certificate, you're filling out a civil union certificate - everyone both gay and straight.

Seems to me that would solve a number of problems.

Quote:

Wrong is still wrong, regardless of the degree, whether it is someone mindlessly voting for his church's position or if that person is vehemently advocating a denial of all rights against homosexuals.  Bigotry is based on hatred for others.  No amount of bigotry is acceptable.  Period.

But in this case, you have no problems denying someone the right to not participate in a marriage which they morally oppose. Only the rights of the gay people matter. The rights of the religious do not.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

Come on Bama, don't be naive.  Of course you cannot take an elected official at his or her word - they're freakin' politicians.  98+% of politicians are in it primarily for their own ego boost - being a public servant focused on benefitting their entire constituencies is a distant third, fifth, tenth, etc... place in importance behind their personal ego boost first and foremost, and secondly, doing whatever it takes to get reelected.  I say that having worked with legislators in the past.

SacM3Bill, I applaud your integrity in admitting error as to the applicability of Godwin's Law.  However, the fact that you originally made reference to that convenient little strawman-style argument does suggest that you thought you were rather clever in dismissing my point without having to articulate any reasons why it was not valid, otherwise you would have addressed my point on the merits.  I've not encountered it anywhere previously, but this Godwin's Law seems to be to be roughly the adult equivalent of the playground chant "IKNOWYOUAREBUTWHATAMI?  IKNOWYOUAREBUTWHATAMI?" - basically, it is a dismissive comment meant to shortchange discussion.  As for what is going on in your mind, I'll refer you to the adage "Actions speak louder than words."  A cab driver or landlord might never once utter a single prejudiced statement.  But if he or she repeatedly drives past individuals of color seeking a cab or rejects the applications of non-native English speaking applicants, it is fair to find a presumption of bias.  There would be no reason for you to have criticized my post if you did not disagree with me (i.e. you oppose marital equality for all people).

Wolfsburg2, I like your thinking but disagree with your comment that the government should have nothing to do with marriage.  Given that marital status provides numerous rights, benefits and other changes with regard to areas under government control (taxes, inheiritance, parenthood, medical decision-making, etc...) , the government has every right to regulate marriages.  However, I disagree that state governments should be allowed to regulate marriage - it makes absolutely no sense that differences in sexual preferences should render an individual a second-class citizen deprived of rights in some states but not in others.  You see, I actually believe in the truth and importance of a very fundamental concept, one that was stated clearly in one of the most important documents in human history, the American Declaration of Independence.  Since most of the bigots who oppose marital freedoms for all Americans have this mistaken belief that they are "better than average" Americans, I will set forth clearly those fundamental words they seem to have forgotten:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I see no asterisk after "all men are created equal" that excepts homosexuals from the application of this fundamental principle.  Accordingly, the idea that some states can legislate that gay people are not equal and can deny their ability to pursue happiness, is repugnant to me and should be repugnant to anyone who adheres to the basic concepts of the American democratic form of government.

The bottom line is that the rationale given to support discrimination against marital rights is that the institution of marriage is sacred and traditional.  Well, slavery was a traditional part of property ownership in the latter quarter of the 18th century in America, but we seemed to have overcome that little tradition because, oh, I suppose ... it is fundamentally unfair and representative of primitive thinking.  As for marriage between a man and woman alone being "sacred," where do we get that?  From theistic religion, of course.  There is no logical basis for saying marriage must be only between a man and a woman.  Procreation doesn't work, otherwise heterosexual couples who are infertile, who don't want kids, or are past child-bearing age could not get married.  Since the basis of laws requiring marriage to be only between a man and a woman are purely religious, such laws violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.  And if you are a true American, not just someone who pays lipservice to some vaguely patriotic sounding phrases when it conveniences or benefits you, then you will want to uphold that separation of church and state and advocate for equality for all.

As for the issue of whether being a bigot makes one a hatemonger, well, does it really matter?  Wrong is still wrong, regardless of the degree, whether it is someone mindlessly voting for his church's position or if that person is vehemently advocating a denial of all rights against homosexuals.  Bigotry is based on hatred for others.  No amount of bigotry is acceptable.  Period.

Unfortunately, the more we hear and read about all politicians these days, the more it seems you are right in your first paragraph.  (Although I would swap "whatever it takes to get elected/reelected" ahead of "ego").

And I do think there is a difference between a bigot and a hatemonger (a pretty big difference)

Otherwise, good post.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

But in this case, you have no problems denying someone the right to not participate in a marriage which they morally oppose. Only the rights of the gay people matter. The rights of the religious do not.

Sorry, Bama, but this is nonsense.  Business owners don't have a "right" to discriminate.  There is no rule against ugly (straight) people getting married, or fat (straight) people getting married, but that morally repulses me (it doesn't really, but to my point) so I should be allowed to refuse to photograph their weddings if I want, shouldn't I?  No, because fair business practice laws trump my "religion."

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

SacM3Bill, I applaud your integrity in admitting error as to the applicability of Godwin's Law.  However, the fact that you originally made reference to that convenient little strawman-style argument does suggest that you thought you were rather clever in dismissing my point without having to articulate any reasons why it was not valid, otherwise you would have addressed my point on the merits.  I've not encountered it anywhere previously, but this Godwin's Law seems to be to be roughly the adult equivalent of the playground chant "IKNOWYOUAREBUTWHATAMI?  IKNOWYOUAREBUTWHATAMI?" - basically, it is a dismissive comment meant to shortchange discussion.

For crap's sake, the Godwin's Law comment was just an aside. Before making that aside, I had addressed your argument in that initial post, and in numerous posts since, but you are too damned stubborn to see it. You said people *will* lose fans/business for coming out (pun intended) on the wrong side of gay marriage. I have simply pointed out that "That's not necessarily true if the majority of people feel the same way", as well as pointing out that "Btw, that apparently *might* be the case since gay marriage *has* been voted down in several states."  But I'm sure you'll just ignore my points once again...

...just like they did in NAZI GERMANY!!

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Sorry, Bama, but this is nonsense.  Business owners don't have a "right" to discriminate.  There is no rule against ugly (straight) people getting married, or fat (straight) people getting married, but that morally repulses me (it doesn't really, but to my point) so I should be allowed to refuse to photograph their weddings if I want, shouldn't I?  No, because fair business practice laws trump my "religion."

Of course you can chose your clients in a business like wedding photographer. That's a bad analogy. As a CPA I turn down business all the time when the potential client rubs me the wrong way.

If, as a wedding photographer, you didn't want to take on a job because the couple was hideous and photographing them might reflect poorly on your work, you could decline to take on the job. You just wouldn't tell them that to their face or publicize it.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

But in this case, you have no problems denying someone the right to not participate in a marriage which they morally oppose. Only the rights of the gay people matter. The rights of the religious do not.

Religious people have the "right" to believe in people rising from the dead and talking snakes or agree with people in the bronze age regarding how they thought the earth may have been formed and anything else they like without any evidence in history to support them.

On the other hand, they do not have the "right" to break anti discrimination laws.

But of course, the obvious irony is that these are the people who are the most uncharitable, most humourless, ignorant and selfish on the planet.

You love to use the term "morally opposed" as if that somehow makes a religious bigot a higher species.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Shorty

But of course, the obvious irony is that these are the people who are the most uncharitable, most humourless, ignorant and selfish on the planet.

Thank goodness you aren't prejudiced in any way.

Care to state your sources about that charity thing? From "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving by Arthur C. Brooks http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

"The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money ( 91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time ( 67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions. "

"Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $ 2,210 , whereas it is $ 642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered. "

Sorry, I couldn't find any reports on the humorlessness or ignorance of religious people. I guess we'll just have to refer to Shorty as the expert.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

Of course you can chose your clients in a business like wedding photographer. That's a bad analogy. As a CPA I turn down business all the time when the potential client rubs me the wrong way.

If, as a wedding photographer, you didn't want to take on a job because the couple was hideous and photographing them might reflect poorly on your work, you could decline to take on the job. You just wouldn't tell them that to their face or publicize it.

It wasn't an analogy ... this is a specific case that happened that Bama keeps referring to.  (He provided a link earlier on)  And of course you can turn down work - we do it all the time here - but legally you can't do it because the person is gay, or black, or female, or whatever.  That's discrimination.  That is why you "wouldn't tell them to their face or publicize it."

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

It wasn't an analogy ... this is a specific case that happened that Bama keeps referring to.  (He provided a link earlier on)  And of course you can turn down work - we do it all the time here - but legally you can't do it because the person is gay, or black, or female, or whatever.  That's discrimination.  That is why you "wouldn't tell them to their face or publicize it."

They didn't turn them down because they were gay. They turned them down because of the subject matter for which they were being consulted. They have had a number of gay clients in the past. If they turned them down based on sexual orientation alone, then it'd be discrimination.

Quote:

But of course, the obvious irony is that these are the people who are the most uncharitable, most humourless, ignorant and selfish on the planet.

Your blind hatred shouldn't excuse you for your ignorance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=1&hp; (from the New York Times of all places)

Quote:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals.

And before you say: "but, but their charity doesn't count because they give a lot of it to their church" Christians charities more reliable than others:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-charities-more-reliable-than-others-according-to-forbes-64522/

But you're the kind of guy who doesn't care about facts, information, or anything like that. You're the one who will spit in a Christian's face (metaphor) without caring who they are or where they came from. Only to turn around and call them closed minded or prejudiced. Sad really. Maybe some Christian wronged you somewhere down the line. If that's the case, I'm truly sorry. We're not all like that. And as far as charity: my church gives more money to feed, shelter, and clothe the homeless than any other organization in the city except for the largest shelter...which, by the way is also a Christian organization. One of the biggest tenets of Christianity is charity. Doesn't mean all self-proclaim Christians live that. But that doesn't mean it's not right there in the bible - and a number of us do heed its teachings on that matter.

[x129]

How much of that charity time is nonreligious in nature? For example I sure don't count my ~1500 dollars a year I give to my church as charity (except of course on my income taxes). That money is to provide me with services that I desire.  I have never seen a good survey that breaks down where the money goes. If you know of one please link to it.  Personally I am antivolunteering. It just takes jobs away from other people by providing free labor

Religious people are less compassionate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/01/religious-compassion-atheists-agnostics_n_1468006.html

intelligent: http://freethinker.co.uk/features/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people/

and red states are less moral than blue states: http://vox-nova.com/2009/06/30/chart-of-the-day-red-states-blue-states-and-morality/

But single Republicans do have better sex lives: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-02-03/news/31023008_1_political-party-survey-gopers

A lot more seriously, it isn't like the gay rights (or liberals in general) activists are  bunch of atheists. The stats I have seen are that 40% of the republican party considers them selves nonreligious and 45% of the democrats do (independants were about 50% if memory serves). That is in the noise. People forgot that in addition the conservative christian that you hear about all the time, there are also the branches that focus on social justice and who are actively working for gay rights among other things.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Thank goodness you aren't prejudiced in any way.

Care to state your sources about that charity thing? From "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving by Arthur C. Brooks  http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

"The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions."

"Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

Sorry, I couldn't find any reports on the humorlessness or ignorance of religious people. I guess we'll just have to refer to Shorty as the expert.

Mariage is not a religious concept. Marriage is and has been a civil event for an insanely long time. There is no requirement on anyone getting married to have a religion. Breaking into 2 is just semantics. It would be incredibly expensive to go through all the laws (and case laws) to change marriage to civil union.  And no if we did this it really wouldn't make anyone happy. But making both sides unhappy might be considered a win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

But I think this is what others, and myself, have been saying. Separate marriage and civil unions. That way the religious folks can have marriage be whatever to them, and everyone gets the same protections under the law. Marriage is a religious concept. The government issuing legal protections and benefits is a government concept.

Separate the two. Then, instead of filling out a marriage certificate, you're filling out a civil union certificate - everyone both gay and straight.

Seems to me that would solve a number of problems.

Legally you can this for certain people (i.e. you could say I don't want any customers over 6'4 or ugly people) while doing it for others (no old people, no blacks,...) is illegal. Whether being gay is a protected category is in the depends category and your personal view of the world. Obviously people do the illegal stuff all the time. They just need to use a bit of disgression and hope that they don't have enough cases to be a bad trend.

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

Of course you can chose your clients in a business like wedding photographer. That's a bad analogy. As a CPA I turn down business all the time when the potential client rubs me the wrong way.

If, as a wedding photographer, you didn't want to take on a job because the couple was hideous and photographing them might reflect poorly on your work, you could decline to take on the job. You just wouldn't tell them that to their face or publicize it.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Thank goodness you aren't prejudiced in any way.

Care to state your sources about that charity thing?

I'm not talking about tax deductable donations. I'm talking about a meanness of spirit and an unwillingness to accept diversity.

[newtogolf]

Are you sure you're not religious because you're showing some meanness of spirit and an unwillingness to accept that some people, for whatever reason do want to believe in a god and participate in an organized religion?

I'm agnostic, but I respect the religious convictions of others even though they differ from my own beliefs.

Originally Posted by Shorty

I'm not talking about tax deductable donations. I'm talking about a meanness of spirit and an unwillingness to accept diversity.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm agnostic, but I respect the religious convictions of others even though they differ from my own beliefs.

I respect logic.

I do not respect beliefs that are founded on irrationality and dogma.

2000 years ago there may have been an excuse for it.

[newtogolf]

I get that, I'm a logic and science guy too but you could be a little more tolerant of those who don't share our beliefs.  Or maybe just try.

Originally Posted by Shorty

I respect logic.

I do not respect beliefs that are founded on irrationality and dogma.

2000 years ago there may have been an excuse for it.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I'm not talking about tax deductable donations. I'm talking about a meanness of spirit and an unwillingness to accept diversity.

Well, I guess you should know. Meanness of spirit is something we have come to expect from a lot of your posts.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shorty

I respect logic.

I do not respect beliefs that are founded on irrationality and dogma.

2000 years ago there may have been an excuse for it.

You "respect logic" but don't mind spouting stereotypes and mistruths?

Quote:

How much of that charity time is nonreligious in nature?

As I showed in the charity survey from Forbes, Christian charities and churches are donating more to general need than any other body. My church, for example, gives an enormous amount of money to feed and clothe homeless in our area. We build inner-city centers where kids can come and play basketball, get off the streets, etc. And we have serve days throughout the year where we go out in the community and just help. The money to build the dream center, the money to feed and clothe the homeless, and the money to relieve disaster victims in our area - all come from member tithing. So to marginalize tithe dollars as being basically discounted, is incredibly disingenuous.

And your studies you posted are all extremely flawed in nature. I'm not going to spend a bunch of time debating them because, frankly I don't have the time and my points just get summarily dismissed anyway. But a non-scientific study done with little to no statistical backing by a professor at UC Berkley determines that religious folks come out on the bottom? Well that's a shocking conclusion. Atheists are smarter than religious people? That result is statistically pretty impossible to prove. But I will say 76% of doctors in America believe in God. I guess they're all idiots.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Well, I guess you should know. Meanness of spirit is something we have come to expect from a lot of your posts.

What a predictable and witty retort.

I'll take my moral chances against organisations who historically rape children and then cover it up, meanwhile sapping gullible people of their income.

Organisations which are responsible for virtually every war ever fought and whose supporters display a staggering degree of naivity and immaturity.

And I have to say that the Christians I have met are almost without exception the dullest, stupidist people I know.

You'll find in your country an overwhelming support for American invasion of countries which the supporters couldn't point to on a map.

Not surprising, given that 30% or thereaboutsof Americans can't point to the USA on a map

Back to the OP - Stewart Cink and Webb Simpson, two of the Tour's many "deeply religious" souls make  completely stupid  and dishonest remarks which characterise their ilk and of course the holier-than-thou Sandtrap Christian bandwagon chugs away at full speed.