'If gays don't like it, they can choose another pasta': Barilla pasta faces global boycott after chairman says brand would never feature a homosexual

[SMGS127]

It’s similar to the “Islamic terrorist” problem, though: The “extremists” make the headlines and shape perception, but this “moderate majority” never utters a peep of protest against them. But in the case of the “gay community”, it’s carried beyond silence into taking advantage of the actions of the “extremists”. 20 years ago, the push for same-sex “marriage” was purely the domain of the “extremists” in the “gay community”. Today, even most of my straight friends and family view me as some kind of reactionary bigot with a bible in one hand and a noose in the other simply because I oppose same-sex “marriage”. If the rest of the “gay community” is honest about the most vocal not actually representing them, then they need to speak up about it and stop following where people like Dan Savage lead.

Ugh, see I simultaneously have problems with Dan Savage and like some of the work he’s done. He committed one of the worst acts of defamation I’ve ever seen a man do against Rick Santorum, for starters. He’s also extremely anti-Catholic despite growing up Catholic himself, and he makes pedophilia jokes in speeches, among other things.

On the other hand, he is directly responsible for a huge anti-suicide movement in the LGBT community, which has no doubt saved countless lives of kids who felt no one in the world understood them.

In short, I highly dislike his character but he’s put a lot of good into the world at the same time.

And yeah, I don’t understand why the allies are so virulent when the gay community itself really isn’t as a whole. Maybe it’s just the protective instinct of wanting to protect a vulnerable societal group you don’t belong to? But I will agree with you that straight allies can be outright vicious; I’ve seen that quite a few times, whereas I rarely see actually gay people do the same.

As for the Islam analogy, my guess would be that gays see the extremists as being the only people who actually fight for them on a political level, and are willing to overlook their flaws as a result. But it’s not something the vast majority of the movement would ever engage in (nor does it excuse the silence of the broader movement).

 

[SaintAugustine]

I think you know it is not an unsubstantiated claim. I brought out tons of examples in a previous discussion on this issue and received an infraction for it. You’re welcome to google.

How would I know what “tons of examples” you previously gave?

As far as I can tell, it is unsubstantiated. If you want to substantiate it, feel free. It is rude to say “you’re welcome to google.” Now, do you want the grilled cheese instructions or not?!!

 

[Benjamin12]

I buy a lot of my household goods, including non perishables, from amazon.com. I live in a rural area, and some of the products are difficult to purchase locally.

But amazon supports gay marriage. So you are buying Barilla for their stance on not putting gay couples in their ads through a company that does just that.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/amazon-kindle-gay-marriage-commercial-_n_2732827.html

 

[99th_Monkey]

I buy a lot of my household goods, including non perishables, from amazon.com. I live in a rural area, and some of the products are difficult to purchase locally.

I think you are getting ripped off at 4.38 a box.

 

[pnewton]

letus face it… there is little love for Gay people in the Christian community. I am not talking about affirming sin…just a lack of love from us christians

You base this on what? Pasta purchases? That is the topic of** this** thread. Maybe you meant this on one of the other threads on homosexuality.

For the record, one can still love homosexuals as victims of sin, as are we all, and as sick, as are we all, and still oppose the politicizing of* all* forms of sexual immorality.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

I don’t want to risk getting dinged for discussing that again so let me pose this question to you. If your husband or wife walked up to you one day and said something along the lines of “Your cooking is disgusting.” then walked away, how would you feel?

If they were trying to offend me by their cooking, if their cooking was malformed and disordered by its nature, and if my wife had laid the pasta she made on the altar, I’d say she would expect the same reaction.

You are talking about people being provocative for no other reason than to garner a reaction, and then complaining when they get one?

It is hard for some people who are not that personally close to God to understand how those who are could react in a certain way, or to really “get” them. Until each of serves God first, and directs our entire will to Him, we will never get one another. People who look at Christians as crazy people because of their passion for serving God only end up doing so because they are the ones who are acting strangely. Anyone not trying to live a sinless life as a Christian is really the “odd” one.

 

[TMC]

. I don’t know why LGBT communities get such a rap for being anti-religious. That doesn’t represent my (quite large) personal experience with them at all, both from my own conversion and in context with other highly religious friends. I do agree that Catholics are attacked constantly and quite horrendously. I just disagree that it’s from mainstream LGBT people.

This is consistent with my experience, as well. I know many gay people that are religious. The idea that all gay people are formed up in some kind of gay lobby that wants to destroy religion is frankly ridiculous. Most gay people I know want to have equal rights, but view that as simply allowing them to live their lives, not as some attempt to change the lives or culture of others.

 

[SaintAugustine]

This is consistent with my experience, as well. I know many gay people that are religious. **The idea that all gay people are formed up in some kind of gay lobby that wants to destroy religion is frankly ridiculous. ** Most gay people I know want to have equal rights, but view that as simply allowing them to live their lives, not as some attempt to change the lives or culture of others.

I agree. It is a ridiculous straw man to imply that people think all gay people are formed up in some kind of gay lobby that wants to destroy religion.

 

[SaintAugustine]

This is consistent with my experience, as well. I know many gay people that are religious. The idea that all gay people are formed up in some kind of gay lobby that wants to destroy religion is frankly ridiculous. Most gay people I know want to have equal rights, but view that as simply allowing them to live their lives, not as some attempt to change the lives or culture of others.

Oh…and the way they view that is non-sensical. Changing the definition of marriage is changing the culture dramatically. Your description would mean that most gay people you know are delusional. I don’t think that is the case.

If they just wanted to be left alone, there would not be the friction we see today. The push for gay relationships to be normalized in the media (tv shows, advertisements, etc), forcing religious-based organizations to change adoption practices and changing the definition of marriage, is far from just “allowing them to live their lives.” Now, are you saying that most gay people you know don’t want all those things? If so, then most gay people are opposed to the gay rights movements…

 

[TMC]

Oh…and the way they view that is non-sensical. Changing the definition of marriage is changing the culture dramatically. Your description would mean that most gay people you know are delusional. I don’t think that is the case.

If they just wanted to be left alone, there would not be the friction we see today. The push for gay relationships to be normalized in the media (tv shows, advertisements, etc), forcing religious-based organizations to change adoption practices and changing the definition of marriage, is far from just “allowing them to live their lives.” Now, are you saying that most gay people you know don’t want all those things? If so, then most gay people are opposed to the gay rights movements…

I agree that allowing gay people to have equal rights would be a change, and that most gay people want that change. I don’t agree that allowing equal rights would somehow destroy the rights or culture of others.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I agree that allowing gay people to have equal rights would be a change, and that most gay people want that change. I don’t agree that allowing equal rights would somehow destroy the rights or culture of others.

Neither your post I responded to nor my post said anything about “destroying” the rights or culture of others. Another straw man? You claimed that gay people don’t see those supposed rights as “changing” culture. Do you believe what you post?

 

[TMC]

Neither your post I responded to nor my post said anything about “destroying” the rights or culture of others. Another straw man? You claimed that gay people don’t see those supposed rights as “changing” culture. Do you believe what you post?

Yes, I do believe what I post, why would you assume otherwise?

I agree that granting rights to gay people is a change, as they don’t have equal rights now. But I don’t believe that granting rights to gay people will infringe on the rights of others. Do you believe the granting gay people equal rights will be destructive of the rights or culture of others? That is what I got from your posts, but maybe I misunderstand you.

 

[SaintAugustine]

This is consistent with my experience, as well. I know many gay people that are religious. The idea that all gay people are formed up in some kind of gay lobby that wants to destroy religion is frankly ridiculous. Most gay people I know want to have equal rights, but view that as simply allowing them to live their lives, not as some attempt to** change the lives or culture of others**.

I agree that allowing gay people to have equal rights would be a change, and that most gay people want that change. I don’t agree that allowing equal rights would somehow** destroy the rights or culture of others**.

Yes, I do believe what I post, why would you assume otherwise?

I agree that granting rights to gay people is a change, as they don’t have equal rights now. But I don’t believe that granting rights to gay people will infringe on the rights of others. Do you believe the granting gay people equal rights will be** destructive of the rights or culture of others?** That is what I got from your posts, but maybe I misunderstand you.

They don’t effect the individual, God-given rights of others, but they do change the culture.

“Destroy?” No, of course not.

“Destructive?” I think there is an argument for that, as I believe, as the Church does, that marriage and the family is the core of our culture. I think that disrupting the core of our culture by calling a union of two people of the same sex “marriage” and making two people of the same sex equivalent to a mother and father can have a destructive effect on our culture.

“Change?” Of course!

Note, that you have used all three words interchangeably, which is a dishonest way to discuss an issue. Most people are okay with leaving gay couples alone to live their lives without being harassed. Loving those who have same sex attraction does not require changing our culture to give new, fabricated rights due to a false sense of equality.

 

[TMC]

They don’t effect the individual, God-given rights of others, but they do change the culture.

“Destroy?” No, of course not.

“Destructive?” I think there is an argument for that, as I believe, as the Church does, that marriage and the family is the core of our culture. I think that disrupting the core of our culture by calling a union of two people of the same sex “marriage” and making two people of the same sex equivalent to a mother and father can have a destructive effect on our culture.

“Change?” Of course!

Note, that you have used all three words interchangeably, which is a dishonest way to discuss an issue. Most people are okay with leaving gay couples alone to live their lives without being harassed. Loving those who have same sex attraction does not require changing our culture to give new, fabricated rights due to a false sense of equality.

Your accusation of dishonesty is unhelpful to the discussion.

I don’t think I have used the terms interchangeably, but I can see how you may have gotten that impression. Change is not always destructive, which I would think would be obvious. I think that destructive and destroy are generally considered to convey the same concept, but I think I understand the distinction you are drawing.

So you agree that giving gay people equal rights does not destroy our culture, but believe it is “disrupting” and may be “have a destructive effect.” I disagree strongly with both of those thoughts. I don’t see how giving one set of people equal rights has a destructive effect on others. I realize I won’t be able to convince you of that, but since you seem unsure of my position I thought it worth clarifying.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Your accusation of dishonesty is unhelpful to the discussion.

I don’t think I have used the terms interchangeably, but I can see how you may have gotten that impression. Change is not always destructive, which I would think would be obvious. I think that destructive and destroy are generally considered to convey the same concept, but I think I understand the distinction you are drawing.

So you agree that giving gay people equal rights does not destroy our culture, but believe it is “disrupting” and may be “have a destructive effect.” I disagree strongly with both of those thoughts. I don’t see how giving one set of people equal rights has a destructive effect on others. I realize I won’t be able to convince you of that, but since you seem unsure of my position I thought it worth clarifying.

I think your position is pretty clear. It is in direct opposition to the teaching of the Church. As far as “equal rights,” the problem is they aren’t “equal rights.” There is not a God-given right for people of the same sex to have their unions considered equivalent to a man and a woman’s union. They aren’t mothers and fathers and they aren’t a marriage.

 

[Cider]

Self described “gay” people already have the same rights as everyone else right now. They can marry, procreate naturally ect.

 

[SaintAugustine]

Self described “gay” people already have the same rights as everyone else right now. They can marry, procreate naturally ect.

God-given, self-evident rights…

Of course, their ability to marry does have limitations - age, close relation, quantity of spouses, etc. Marriage to whomever you want is not a protected right.

 

[Jessie5000]

I think there are a number of reasons for this. If I had to name a few off the top of my head it would be bishops wading into the media to talk about same-sex marriage with insulting hyperbole, bishops in Uganda supporting a bill calling for the execution of LGBT persons, the prohibition of gay priests, firing of gay teachers, etc. To be honest, none of the gay Catholics I know have expressed a problem with the teaching of the Church, but with being placed under the microscope for arguably uncharitable lecturing while the crickets sound on, for example, heterosexual divorce. They’ve expressed problems with the people who make it their purpose in life to vilify them. In my experience, their faith is a more personal and private experience and whatever issues they may have are best left to the confessional; not manufactured into fodder for the busybodies. Its difficult to distinguish between anti-gay diocese in Uganda or a few bad apples in a parish vs the Church when you’re essentially marketing yourselves as “One holy catholic and apostolic church.”

 

[SMGS127]

Self described “gay” people already have the same rights as everyone else right now. They can marry, procreate naturally ect.

Well that’s not necessarily true, in the sense that they aren’t viewed with the same right to life by many people in this country. They also live in constant fear of being fired or kicked out of their housing unit merely for being attracted to members of the same sex, not to mention losing most or all of their friends if they’re young enough.

I agree that gay “marriage” isn’t a right though.

 

[SMGS127]

Neither your post I responded to nor my post said anything about “destroying” the rights or culture of others. Another straw man? You claimed that gay people don’t see those supposed rights as “changing” culture. Do you believe what you post?

I think what he’s meaning is that gays don’t view legalizing gay “marriage” as changing culture, but rather allowing for more options on a personal level. Your average gay person wants nothing to do with forcing churches to give adopted kids to them or to recognize their marriage. Heck, even in cases where employers of gay “spouses” butt heads, the couple usually doesn’t want to make the employer change their opinion about the validity of their “marriage,” just allow them to receive the same employee benefits that heterosexual married couples get. It’s a personal financial and romantic argument for 90+% of gay people; it has nothing to do with other people’s lives.

And a lot of time, that’s where we end up talking past each other. Religious scream out about how gays are ruining their culture; gays roll their eyes as they make personal decisions and don’t affect the religious at all, and as a result gays see the religious as intolerant of their ability to live their life without interference. Then the religious get offended at the attack of intolerance and counter that the gays are being more intolerant because they have the nerve to call the religious intolerant.

…and then all the rational people on the sidelines just shake their heads and ask the two groups to stop generalizing the other and try to understand their points of views. The religious should understand that the LGBT movement isn’t trying to damage the Sacrament in any way and should try to accomodate them in some way (for example, allowing civil unions to be equivalent to marriage for all benefits at a federal level, where the absence of such was the direct reason why civil unions have been eliminated at a state level for gay “marriage.”) On the flip side, LGBT people should understand that the Sacrament of Matrimony is something that the religious consider absolutely sacred, and should accomodate them in return by allowing for civil unions that don’t use the word marriage, and ensuring that all civil union bills have extremely strong protective language for religions. My view, anyway .