Boston Mayor Letter to Chick-Fil-A bashes them over their anti-gay stance

OK, no offense but these questions here are just stupid

Not really, it is just making sure that gays can enjoy things that people like you and me take for granted such as eating at a restaurant or getting married.

Sure it is but it is irrelevant because people younger than 21 would probably not be responsible users for alcohol. Would you want to have your life or family's life ended by a drunk prepubscent teen driver?? Not me but yet as I have asked before how does 2 gay people that want to marry each other affect YOU, personally?

Well yes but there is a reason for that...to ensure the safety of all other drivers. Once again, I would not want my life or family's life to end by some prepubscent teen driver who doesn't understand how to operate a vehicle correctly.

Yes but this has to do with health again. So far, juicy, all 3 of these questions deal with health of individuals and people who encounter them (drunk drivers, unprepared/underage drivers, smokers). Two gay people wanting to get married does not involve anything to do with my health or yours except it might help lower our health insurance premium!

Let me get this straight...woman wants to play professional basketball. Unless she thinks she is Cheryl Miller, why would she want to play in the NBA when there is a professional women's league? 20 years ago, this might have been a good argument but not now. If anything it validates the need for gays to be able to marry.

 

Unfortunately in this country..Yes if your their opposition. Barry Goldwater learned this the hard way. He was branded a "Racist" for his entire career for not voting for the 1964 Civil Rights act despite the fact that he supported the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and the Original version of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He only withdrew his support for the 1964 Act after provisions were added that he said "overextended the governments reach" in businesses. He was a founding and lifelong member of the Arizona NAACP, and he helped to desegregate the Arizona National Guard before the U.S. desegregated the army. He was also a supporter of Gay Rights 30 years ago..well before it became "cool".

but...he will unfortunately be forever known as a bigot and racist because he didn't want the government to over-extend their control.

 

Really? I used to have some respect for you. I'm sure it won't break your heart to learn that, as of this post, that well has run bone dry.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with it if the mayor was just stating his opinion. But he's sending out a memo from his office stating that Chic-fil-a has no place in his city. That makes it sound like he's taking an official stand, not just stating a personal opinion. And that stand would be absolutely wrong.

 

I just want to say, Chick-Fil-A must be so fracking good for their opinion on this issue to matter this much.

 

The bad news is a lot of you are going to be in a diabetic coma and miss out the day that the Supreme Court finally and correctly upholds the right of same sex couples to marry across the United States.

 

If you are against gay marriage, that is a bigoted position. It is not allowing two consenting adults the rights other consenting adults have because of their sexual orientation.

It is bigoted. If someone thinks gay marriage is immoral, then simply don't don't marry someone of the same sex.

As to the idea that young kids driving, drinking alcohol , and the other things mentioned in the one post are different because that deals with general safety. Same sex marriage doesn't anymore than heterosexual marriages.

Preventing one group of adults from doing something another group of adults is allowed to do is bigotry when safety isn't an issue.

That being said, I'll still eat Chick-Fil-A because I like the food. I disagree with the owner, but he's entitled to his opinion. I won't stop listening to Wagner compositions because he was a bigot. I still like his music.

 

Do you approve of "Chuck and Larry" marriages? In essence, marriage between two straight people of the same sex so that they can enjoy the benefits accorded to married couples (e.g. health insurance coverage, visitation in hospitals, etc.)?

 

Why isn't the push to get those actions banned (where allowed) as great as this one?

 

I suspect it is because those items he listed aren't on state's election ballots. In a similar vein you do tend to see folks fight to prevent gambling in Texas whenever it may come to a vote.

 

Oh Lil Pun.

 

His question (Lil Pun that is) is a fair one. Why can't you answer him besides some obnoxious, condescending one-liner.

 

When this comes up I wonder if the person saying it believes that marriage fraud does not exist in heterosexual marriages. Marriages to get a green card, etc happen all the time.

 

There is nothing wrong with anything you referenced in your statement(I would add gambling as well).

Having an opinion, educated or otherwise, opposed to these lifestyle choices is also fine.

I'd question how smart it was considering Cathy has offended several hundreds of employees and loyal customers. What the mayor said seemed insincere and blow hearty to me but again he is entitled.

As for my opinion on morality, man playing God and telling us what is and isn't right is just asinine. If you stop loving your child who was born gay due to your own genes it is probably YOU that will burn & not jr.

It is very virtuous to have a good moral compass and a solid belief system. Have an opinion, be bold and prepare for collateral damage.

 

Personally for me? It seems I have grew up in the gay rights generation. For the last 25 years, it seems to continuously be a big issue. I won't deny that gays were frequently frowned upon 25 years ago, but now its openly acceptable. I really don't know anyone who "hates" gays. The whole mantra of comparing 'gay rights' to slavery is just silly and demeaning to generations of people who were forced into slavery. They are NOTHING alike. I have a couple close gay friends. What they do is their business. What I dislike is the melodramatic approach to their "rights". But that has nothing to do with them being gay; I simply dislike melodramatic people in general.

Now what 'chaps' me is the whole approach in which we feel the need to be accepted by the government, gay or straight. The whole systematic approach to legally being married is BROKEN. Why?...Why would you fight so hard to be part of this broken system? Gays have a chance to reform this system but instead they want to make the existing system worse and convolute it further. How many people have gone through a divorce and been screwed by so many little intricate rules and laws that have been compiled over years of trying to fix a broke system? Do you have real estate in each others name? Property? Children? Credit? If one partner wants to be a complete ass, they can still harass the other partner for years to come even after they are divorced.
Now again, explain to me why any sane group would want rights to this system when they can rebuild the system to find it much more appealing(civil union)...unless one is trying to be melodramatic about it.

 

What are you talking about?


Legalizing Prositution <--- ITS ILLEGAL
Legalizing Drugs <--- ITS ILLEGAL
Poligamy <--- ITS ILLEGAL

it runs afoul of their moral sensibilities

Just like some folx get chapped by a kid bringing a bible to school
or reading it before an assembly <--- ITS FORBIDDEN

Rocket River

 

As has been said, I don't approve of heterosexual marriages that cheat the system (green card etc.) or allow a heterosexual couple that goes into a fake marriage for tax breaks, health insurance etc. I don't approve of fraudulent marriages at all. It doesn't matter if they are hetero or homosexual medals.

I don't approve of marriages that are done just so people can make their parents feel better either. I don't think they should be illegal but I don't approve of them.

 

Separate is not equal. The Supreme court has already come down on that. Civil Unions are not equal to marriage. A pair of consenting adults should have the same rights as a different pair of consenting adults.

 

The main issue is . . .. Government should not be in the marriage business at all.
Why does the Government need to regulate or have anything to do with marriage?

Rocket River

 

Because of issues like hospital visitation, death when there is no will, health insurance, social security, tax benefits, property distribution and child care/custody if there is a break up.

Those things could be codified without marriage, but they aren't currently and would be a huge pain to fix. Scores of different legislation would have to go through all the steps to fix it. If one of those failed, then it would all fail. With marriage it only takes one stroke from the Supreme Court, or one piece of legislation to fix.

I'm no opposed to changing the scores of issues and legislation but I believe it's impractical.

The other problem I have is that 90% of the time the people who claim that the govt. should be out of all marriages weren't complaining about it until the issue of same sex marriage came up. Only then did it become a big deal to people who want govt. out of all marriages, and so it seems like just an excuse.