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

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by mdl

Wow there are some depressingly small-minded, backwards bigots on this forum.  Having gone to school and learned to dress up your bigotry in marginally modernly accepted language doesn't change anything.

Thinking that gay people having all the same rights (including all federal and state marriage benefits/rights) as straight people infringes on the religious freedoms of Christians is a joke.  Seriously?  Denying those rights is SO OBVIOUSLY the government establishing the religious beliefs of backwards Christians.  It is nothing less than theocracy, exactly the opposite of what all the backwards, bigoted conservatives in this country like to pretend they're so honorably defending by maintaining their hatred and backwardsness (ie, the constitution).

Yours is precisely the types of responses that absolutely shut down debate.

You need to go back and read the things I've posted. I'm not advocating denying anyone any rights. But hey, why let facts get in the way when you REALLLLYYYYY want to call someone a bigot?

I never said gays having the same rights infringes on religious freedom. I merely said that's it has already been shown that the free exercise clause has been usurped in a couple of cases due to litigious folks when gay marriage bans are lifted.

I think I've said, at least 3 times in this thread, that my opinions on someone else's wishes to marry - should have no bearing in their right to. Gosh, people just love calling Christians closed minded. The irony is, I don't think you know what that means.

No what you saw was "Christian" and you immediately went on some ignorant tirade without stopping to look at the material presented. Talk about closed minded...

[TyWebbb]

But hey, why let facts get in the way when you REALLLLYYYYY want to call someone a bigot?

No what you saw was "Christian" and you immediately went on some ignorant tirade without stopping to look at the material presented. Talk about closed minded...

+1

[zeg]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I never said gays having the same rights infringes on religious freedom. I merely said that's it has already been shown that the free exercise clause has been usurped in a couple of cases due to litigious folks when gay marriage bans are lifted.

As I've said before, this is not directly related to the question of whether marriage is permitted. This is a separate question of discrimination laws. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is already banned in at least some contexts in many states that do not permit same-sex marriages. Permitting the marriages would not change discrimination laws. The connection to that case is simply that, if same-sex marriages are not permitted, wedding photographers would not be asked to perform them. That's a fairly weak connection.

[AmazingWhacker]

I think it's pretty obvious that this is a (rather pathetic) attempt to hide the fact that Stewart Cinc and Web Simpson want to gay-marry each other!  FACE!

[zeg]

Seems they left the golfers out of this article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/jack-nicholson-leonardo-dicaprio-tom-hanks-denzel,28904/

[wolfsburg2]

Ive been back and forth with friends and peers on this debate for years.

I've been accused of "not understanding the other side".

The other side that is open to anyone marrying someone of the opposite sex! you have the right to marry just like me! COme on man. That's BS and you know it.

I think the entire argument/disagreement hinges on one simple point. It's not religion, it's not government, it's not marriage. The disagreement is that I KNOW that it's not a choice to be gay. DO you know how I know that? Because I don't choose to be straight.

Seriously, are all the religous anti-gay hatemongers fighting the urge to be with men every day?

Thats the ballgame IMO. It's not a choice and we shouldn't punish someone for being different than us. Using the bible as an excuse, or marriage, the definition of marriage, that's not good enough.

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Godwin's Law strikes yet again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

Sacm3bill, you forgot to read the part of your article that states "The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide , eugenics or racial superiority ."  I think any intelligent person would include the Nazi anti-gay pogroms and laws in that same context.  So your comment and link to the Wikipedia article aren't nearly as clever as you think.

As for your comment that my statement that twice as many people would be repulsed by Cathy's statements as would be attracted to his business, well, I have several comments.  First, I think it stands to reason that people who are offended by hateful prejudice are a significantly larger group than those who advocate it.  At least I hope so, in the year 2012 in the United States - that is a fundamental part of our concept of democracy, is it not?  If you are a decent human being, one who is not overcome by either cynicism or bigotry, I think you'd think the same thing.  The fact that you thought it important to call my statement into question without a cynical comment, suggests that you support Cathy's bigotry.  Public opinion through the votes on these discriminatory laws reflect merely that there is a large portion of the voting population who are either too intellectually limited and/or too lazy to understand the issues and are easily influenced by soundbite-style political ads.  And unquestionably, those who undertake right wing causes are vastly more effective in soundbite style advertisements that appeal to the dumb masses; that was certainly the case a few years back when the anti-gay "marriage amendment" came for a vote in my state.  I bet that in most of the more rural states and maybe some of the not-so-rural states, a strong sophomoric "patriotic" ad campaign -  along the lines of  "America: Love it or leave it!!" - could convince a majority of voters to vote, ignorantly and ironically, for a law that banned criticism of the U.S. government.

Incidentally, Dan Cathy has given millions of dollars to right-wing anti-gay organizations like the National Organization for Marriage, a rather scary but influential group of hate-mongers:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/gay-rights-uproar-over-chick-fil-a-widens.html?_r=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Marriage

I agree 100% with Wolfsburg2.  There is no difference between discriminating against someone based on gender preference versus based on color of skin or their ancestor's national origins.  Neither category of persons has a choice as to their membership in that group of persons.  I had a friend in college who liked big women and another friend whose "acceptable range filter" ran to as low as a 2/10 on a beauty scale - he once told me "I like almost all women."    I would say they both had happier and more successful love lives in college than did most of us who adhered roughly to the SI Swimsuit Issue view of attractiveness.  Both dated many women I did not find attractive, but did that make them bad people?  Hell no.  The fact that somone else's preferences are different from mine do not make them wrong - if those differences harm others (e.g. pedophiles, extreme sadists, etc...) that would make them wrong, but the overwhelming majority of gay people do nothing to harm anyone else through their romantic preferences.  It's a sad world that some people have to be so intolerant of those who are different from themselves.

In college my roommates would sometimes watch loud-mouthed trash TV pioneer Morton Downey Jr.'s show.  I caught the end of one of his shows where, in contrast to most of the rest of his shows, he actually said something worthwhile.  In fact, to this day, I think it is one of the most perceptive observations I have ever heard.  He said "I have never met a bigot who felt good about himself or who was a happy person."

[bamagrad03]

I wonder how many of you who are so quick to label anyone who disagrees with gay marriage a hateful bigot voted for Obama last election.

I mean, surely you wrote in a candidate. I don't see how your conscience could justify voting for someone full of so much hate...

[pumaAttack]

This is a fun topic for a golf forum...

[Beachcomber]

(facepalm)

[Wisguy]

Prior to the last election, Obama supported civil unions affording full rights of a married couple to a gay couple, he simply chose to stick to the conservative Christian line to say that marriage was between a man and a woman to appease traditional, religous voters.  His position on this topic prior to the last election was not, as you imply, the same as someone like Dan Cathy who opposes civil unions and opposes giving gay couples any of the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples.  Like most politicians, Obama was willing to say or do whatever it took to get campaign donors and votes.  More recently he's developed a bit more of a spine on this issue which is commendable from standpoint of bravery and integrity, if perhaps a bit questionable from a political standpoint.

[Doctorfro]

Originally Posted by wolfsburg2

Seriously, are all the religous anti-gay hatemongers fighting the urge to be with men every day?

Question: Just because someone doesn't agree with homosexual marriage, does that make them a hatemonger?

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisguy

Prior to the last election, Obama supported civil unions affording full rights of a married couple to a gay couple, he simply chose to stick to the conservative Christian line to say that marriage was between a man and a woman to appease traditional, religous voters.  His position on this topic prior to the last election was not, as you imply, the same as someone like Dan Cathy who opposes civil unions and opposes giving gay couples any of the rights afforded to married heterosexual couples.  Like most politicians, Obama was willing to say or do whatever it took to get campaign donors and votes.  More recently he's developed a bit more of a spine on this issue which is commendable from standpoint of bravery and integrity, if perhaps a bit questionable from a political standpoint.

For the record, millions of Christians (including myself) support civil unions, but are still called hateful and bigoted.

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.

You can't pick and choose.

Quote:

This is a fun topic for a golf forum...

I think, given the nature of the subject matter, this has been an exceptionally civil discussion. I'm actually really proud that it hasn't devolved into much baser commentary and hateful back and forth like the anonymity of the internet normally provides.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by Doctorfro

Question: Just because someone doesn't agree with homosexual marriage, does that make them a hatemonger?

+1

I disagree with profanity in public.  Does this mean I hate the person who was swearing?

[wolfsburg2]

If you hold someone down then yes you are a hatemonger. The typical comeback from the hateful side is literally the I'm rubber you're glue defense. Call me hateful and intolerant for being intolerant of your hatefulness. Brilliant! But again, there is a difference. Your marriage isn't annulled when a gay person marries. You are taking something from someone. Those of us on the other side aren't taking anything from you or holding you down.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Godwin's Law strikes yet again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law)

Sacm3bill, you forgot to read the part of your article that states "The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority."  I think any intelligent person would include the Nazi anti-gay pogroms and laws in that same context.  So your comment and link to the Wikipedia article aren't nearly as clever as you think.

You have a point there - I agree, the law would not apply to this thread, since Nazi Germany did discriminate against gays. You got me on that one.  Interestingly, you could have just left it at that but instead felt the need to insult my cleverness.

Regarding the rest of your post, you are ignoring or have missed my point. As I said, it doesn't matter why the gay marriage amendments have been voted down. The point is, the mere fact that a majority *did* vote that way shows that a celebrity or CEO is not necessarily hurting themselves by coming out on the same side. It's simple logic.

And none of that is relevant to how *I* feel on the issue, which I was careful not to get into in my post (I may not be clever, but I know enough to try not to get into these kinds of debates on the internet) - so I'll thank you to keep your judgements about me to yourself.

[wolfsburg2]

It will hurt the business to speak out about topics like this. I won't eat their chicken any more. My entire family won't and a bunch of friends won't. Majority vote or not, that will eventually hurt them.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by wolfsburg2

It will hurt the business to speak out about topics like this. I won't eat their chicken any more. My entire family won't and a bunch of friends won't. Majority vote or not, that will eventually hurt them.

No, it won't, if the amount of sales lost due to boycott are replaced by an equal or greater amount of sales to people who support the CEO's stance. The fact that the majority of people support same-sex only marriage (again, WHETHER RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY), not to mention the line of cars in their drive through the day the news came out, would indicate that yours is not a foregone conclusion.

I understand that you WANT them to be hurt by their actions, but the evidence is against that being the case.