Interesting Quotes From Gay Marriage Supporters

[Marc_Anthony]

Interesting quotes (and I mean that sincerely) from people who support gay marriage I have been communicating with. Context is a discussion about Chick-fil-A. I was an only an observer. Names omitted:

CFA Supporter: **I think they’re more about the definition of marriage than about being actually anti-gay. Not supporting gay marriage =/= actually trying to hurt gays. I support their right to put scripture quotes on napkins, too. **

CFA Dissenter 1 [Dissenter isn’t exactly the right word, but whatever]: Using the law to deny a group a certain set of rights allocated to another group is called discrimination. And discrimination is actually pretty hurtful, and not just to the group being discriminated against. And furthermore, to use religious arguments to encourage such gross discrimination is a blatant violation of our first amendment rights. Which also hurts a lot of people. So yeah… I actually would say actively pursuing this whole “marriage is between a man and a woman” ******** is anti-gay.

CFA Dissenter 2: **Yup. Setting aside the legal, social, and emotional damage done by that discrimination, the financial cost to gays is also huge.

The notion that opposing gay marriage isn’t really the same as hurting gays is utterly disingenuous.**

What do you think of these statements?

[FYI, and this is only loosely connected to the thread, apparently Chick-Fil-A appears to be connected to sexism, but I think this is fairly isolated, if worth mentioning.

Oh, my. They not only fund discrimination against gays, they actively discriminate against women. How…special.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...l-a-sues-gender-discrimination_n_1709645.html]

 

[Corki]

And furthermore, to use religious arguments to encourage such gross discrimination is a blatant violation of our first amendment rights.

There is a lot there. This one sentence jumped out at me. It’s one of those statements that probably sounded good in his head but that actually is nonsence. The writer neither understands the first ammendment nor discrimination and is just strining a bunch of words together.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There is a lot there. This one sentence jumped out at me. It’s one of those statements that probably sounded good in his head but that actually is nonsence. The writer neither understands the first ammendment nor discrimination and is just strining a bunch of words together.

Hmmm, how so?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

A bit of context on the original post:

When I say “communicated with”, I mean that I made one comment when somebody asked abour religious quotes on Chick-fil-A napkins. I did NOT participate in this debate myself. I merely observed, which I plan to continue doing. Rather not go down that rabbit hole on a non-religious website (I won’t say which because I don’t want anybody to find the discussion).

 

[Corki]

Hmmm, how so?

1. The First Ammendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Violations of the First Ammendment are actions **by the government **to restrict speech. There is no way that any one citizen’s protected speech could be itself a violation of the First Ammendment.

1. Encouraging discrimination (although that’s not what Mr. Cathy said) is actually protected speech.
2. The use of religious arguments does not infringe upon the listeners First Ammendment rights. There is no Constitutional right not to ever hear anything religious.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Violations of the First Ammendment are actions **by the government **to restrict speech. There is no way that any one citizen’s protected speech could be itself a violation of the First Ammendment.

1. Encouraging discrimination (although that’s not what Mr. Cathy said) is actually protected speech.
2. The use of religious arguments does not infringe upon the listeners First Ammendment rights. There is no Constitutional right not to ever hear anything religious.

Hmmm…even when trying to look at it from the perspective of a “CFA dissenter”, it’s hard for me to find a way to disagree with that.

 

[Taestron]

This is the quote that jumped out at me.

]Using the law to deny a group a certain set of rights allocated to another group is called discrimination.

In a way they are right that it is discrimination. But they are missing the point that not all discrimination is illegal. Society is very supportive of using the government to discriminate against convicted felons in removing their right to vote. So is gay marriage a civil right? an unalienable right? Is traditional marriage? Does gay marriage help advance society? Does traditional marriage? These are the questions which should drive the debate and not charismatic throwing about of words like discrimination.

 

[mitex]

This is the quote that jumped out at me.In a way they are right that it is discrimination. But they are missing the point that not all discrimination is illegal. Society is very supportive of using the government to discriminate against convicted felons in removing their right to vote. So is gay marriage a civil right? an unalienable right? Is traditional marriage? Does gay marriage help advance society? Does traditional marriage? These are the questions which should drive the debate and not charismatic throwing about of words like discrimination.

So according to your definition it’s okay to fire me from my job just because I ended up loving the wrong person. It’s okay for someone to bash my head in because I’m gay.

It’s okay to deny hospital visitation to any person i might fall in love with. It’s okay to bully me for being gay?

But then when one person who is gay says it’s discrimination I’m somehow unjustly oppressing the Catholic Church and religious liberty. Yeah I totally get it. It’s called homophobia.

 

[Stylites]

So according to your definition it’s okay to fire me from my job just because I ended up loving the wrong person. It’s okay for someone to bash my head in because I’m gay.

It’s okay to deny hospital visitation to any person i might fall in love with. It’s okay to bully me for being gay?

Where did Taestron (or the Church) even imply that? I am assuming you are seeking a rational discussion, though.

 

[mitex]

Where did Taestron (or the Church) even imply that? I am assuming you are seeking a rational discussion, though.

He basically flat out called for discrimination. You know there are ways to protect the rights of both gays and both individual Catholics and the Catholic Church as a whole. But both sides have to be part of a solution.

But until Taestron’s bluntly unchristian attitude goes away (and it’s not just traditional Catholics; many gay people treat religious conservatives including Catholics with discrimination, hatred, and contempt) no one is going to get anywhere.

Do you really think I am going to enroll myself in some ex-gay twelve step program that has dubious results and become a miserable self-hating human being?

Do you really think Taestron is going to stop defending traditional marriage and values?

No one is listening to each other. And the only way this is going to away is if both sides love and accept each other. But so far I’ve seen very little from gays and the Catholic Church.

Because both have legitimate arguments in some areas.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

He basically flat out called for discrimination.

Yes, you already said this.We’re asking when Taestron called for gays to be bullied and denied hospital visitation.

 

[Hokomai]

Yes, you already said this.We’re asking when Taestron called for gays to be bullied and denied hospital visitation.

When there were countries in the direct control of the catholic Church (the Papal States), or countries which had a particularly relationship with the churh that gave it primacy (Ireland until recently, Portugal until recently, England before the reformation), what did we see in practice? Were homosexual acts illegal? were homosexuals prosecuted for physical acts for which heterosexuals were not? Were they jailed? Were their partners accorded the rights of the unmarried partners of heterosexuals, or the rights of married people? Possibly Taestron has a historical perspective that is informing his (understandably) angry speech.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

When there were countries in the direct control of the catholic Church (the Papal States), or countries which had a particularly relationship with the churh that gave it primacy (Ireland until recently, Portugal until recently, England before the reformation), what did we see in practice? Were homosexual acts illegal? were homosexuals prosecuted for physical acts for which heterosexuals were not? Were they jailed? Were their partners accorded the rights of the unmarried partners of heterosexuals, or the rights of married people? Possibly Taestron has a historical perspective that is informing his (understandably) angry speech.

Maybe, but we’re talking about now, in the context of the quotes I gave at the beginning, and more specifically what Taestron said that implied bullying of gays and denial of hospital visitation rights. Not what the Church did in the past (and you’ll find that Catholics normally don’t have too big of a problem admitting that the Church at one time did horrible things; I certainly have no problem freely admitting it).

 

[holyrood]

So according to your definition it’s okay to fire me from my job just because I ended up loving the wrong person. It’s okay for someone to bash my head in because I’m gay.

It’s okay to deny hospital visitation to any person i might fall in love with. It’s okay to bully me for being gay?

But then when one person who is gay says it’s discrimination I’m somehow unjustly oppressing the Catholic Church and religious liberty. Yeah I totally get it. It’s called homophobia.

Where is there a law saying it’s okay to bash in gay people’s heads?

My ex-husband worked as security at a hospital and anyone could go up to visit unless the patient was under police protection.

Where did anyone say it’s okay to bully anyone? Gay or otherwise?

Taestron’s bluntly unchristian attitude…

What unChristian attitude? He made a factual statement that the law does discriminate. It is the law’s *job *to discriminate on the basis of what is good for society as a whole. It discriminates, for instance, against siblings marrying each other, against someone who’s already legally married ‘getting married,’ and so forth.

He made a factual legal statement about the law and the purpose of law. There’s nothing unChristian about that at all. And this is exactly the problem with this debate: that one side just keeps accusing the other of ‘being mean’ and ‘being hateful’ when nothing of the sort has been said.

 

[mitex]

Maybe, but we’re talking about now, in the context of the quotes I gave at the beginning, and more specifically what Taestron said that implied bullying of gays and denial of hospital visitation rights. Not what the Church did in the past (and you’ll find that Catholics normally don’t have too big of a problem admitting that the Church at one time did horrible things; I certainly have no problem freely admitting it).

Look I’m sorry if I offended you with my initial language. But let’s look at this.

It is unacceptable for me to accept any kind of common discrimination like bullying, discrimination from certain employment fields (teaching, athletics, the military stuff that Catholics love to tout as “just” discrimination), hate crimes, denial education, and any other basic human right.

Just like it is unjust and unacceptable for gays to force their definition of “marriage” and “adoption” on you.

 

[holyrood]

Using the law to deny a group a certain set of rights allocated to another group is called discrimination. And discrimination is actually pretty hurtful, and not just to the group being discriminated against.

This is just it. The claim is that heterosexual people have ‘the right to marry the person they love.’

Well, no, we *don’t *have the right to marry anyone we happen to love. We can’t marry a sibling, a cousin, someone under the age of majority (whatever that happens to be in a certain state); we do not have the right to marry the person we love if a) we are already married or b) the person we love is already married; we don’t have the right to marry the person we love if they have no interest in marrying us or if for some reason they aren’t capable of giving consent.

Every single person in this country has these exact same marriage rights.

*None *of us has a blanket right to ‘marry the person we love.’ So, no, there are no rights being allocated to one group and denied to another.

I would really feel this was a more honest discussion (the whole gay ‘marriage’ discussion, not this particular thread) if the question was put: is it time for society to change the definition of marriage and why, rather than act as if heterosexual people have some civil right that is denied homosexuals. NONE of us, to repeat, has a blanket right to marry anyone we choose, and none of us ever did.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Look I’m sorry if I offended you with my initial language. But let’s look at this.

I wasn’t offended in the least

It is unacceptable for me to accept any kind of common discrimination like bullying,

Of course.

discrimination from certain employment fields (teaching, athletics, the military stuff that Catholics love to tout as “just” discrimination)

Well I don’t think gays should be excluded from the military. I do however see why straight men would be very uncomfortable in communal showering with gays, and for that reason alone there’s an issue. As for teaching and athletics-if you’re not harming anybody I don’t want people excluded there.

, hate crimes, denial education, and any other basic human right.

NOBODY suggested hate crimes or denial of education.

Just like it is unjust and unacceptable for gays to force their definition of “marriage” and “adoption” on you.

I’m not sure where you got all of that other stuff from.

 

[TracerBullet]

This is the quote that jumped out at me.In a way they are right that it is discrimination. But they are missing the point that not all discrimination is illegal. Society is very supportive of using the government to discriminate against convicted felons in removing their right to vote. So is gay marriage a civil right? an unalienable right? Is traditional marriage? Does gay marriage help advance society? Does traditional marriage? These are the questions which should drive the debate and not charismatic throwing about of words like discrimination.

You are correct. There are better ways to drive the debate about marriage equality. But I have to say that comparing gays and lesbians to convicted felons is probably not the way to go improving the debate.
I would think that you would want to compare gays and lesbians to other similar minority groups

 

[TracerBullet]

Where is there a law saying it’s okay to bash in gay people’s heads?

My ex-husband worked as security at a hospital and anyone could go up to visit unless the patient was under police protection.

Where did anyone say it’s okay to bully anyone? Gay or otherwise?

Michigan’s poorly named anti bullying law actually protects people who attack or bully children of gay/lesbian parents and children that are or are perceived to be homosexual. And it does so by invoking religion.

washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/michigan-anti-bullying-law-protects-religious-bullies/2011/11/06/gIQAhZIdtM_blog.html

As for denial of hospital visitation:
forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/05/17/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-to-prevent-same-sex-couples-hospital-visitation-rights/

What unChristian attitude? He made a factual statement that the law does discriminate. It is the law’s *job *to discriminate on the basis of what is good for society as a whole. It discriminates, for instance, against siblings marrying each other, against someone who’s already legally married ‘getting married,’ and so forth.

Discrimination in the legal sense is the act of denying rights, benefits, justice, equitable treatment, or access to facilities available to all others, to an individual or group of people because of their race, age, gender, handicap or other defining characteristic.
This definition includes homosexuals because sexual orientation is an innate and defining characteristic. It does not include felons because being a felon is not an innate and defining characteristic

I think you are confusing differentiation and discernment with discrimination.

 

[TracerBullet]

This is just it. The claim is that heterosexual people have ‘the right to marry the person they love.’

Well, no, we *don’t *have the right to marry anyone we happen to love. We can’t marry a sibling, a cousin, someone under the age of majority (whatever that happens to be in a certain state); we do not have the right to marry the person we love if a) we are already married or b) the person we love is already married; we don’t have the right to marry the person we love if they have no interest in marrying us or if for some reason they aren’t capable of giving consent.

Every single person in this country has these exact same marriage rights.

*None *of us has a blanket right to ‘marry the person we love.’ So, no, there are no rights being allocated to one group and denied to another.

I would really feel this was a more honest discussion (the whole gay ‘marriage’ discussion, not this particular thread) if the question was put: is it time for society to change the definition of marriage and why, rather than act as if heterosexual people have some civil right that is denied homosexuals. NONE of us, to repeat, has a blanket right to marry anyone we choose, and none of us ever did.

I can’t help but point out this exact argument was put forward in the 1950’s and 60’s to justify laws against interracial marriage.