Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mdrake34

So This Whole Chick-Fil-A Controversy . . .

1,022 posts in this topic

I don't dispute that as a matter of policy. As I noted upstream, there is research indicating kids do best with their natural parents, but when the natural parents aren't there, we have to go for less than best, but hopefully still good.

So isn't America as a nation would improve in an extremely important and meaningful way a worthwhile entry in favor of gay marriage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So isn't America as a nation would improve in an extremely important and meaningful way a worthwhile entry in favor of gay marriage?

As a policy position, yes. As a Constitutional matter, no. In fact, as a Constitutional matter, the harm done will likely far outweigh the benefit achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a policy position, yes. As a Constitutional matter, no. In fact, as a Constitutional matter, the harm done will likely far outweigh the benefit achieved.

Just to make sure I'm getting the gist of this issue, the problem here is that the courts ruled that marriage is a right, and if that right is extended to same-sex couples, then it dumps the concept that the government has an interest in marriage as an institution because it is the natural structure for childbearing and opens up partnerships for anyone that wants to get together and get financial benefits of marriage, and would open the door to polygamy, incest, legalizing that Adam Sandler/Kevin James movie, etc.

If I'm getting that much right, then I would argue that marriage as an institution is already pretty much broken, it fails half the time and doesn't do much to guarantee that kids grow up in loving and financially stable homes anymore, and a gay couple looking to adopt a kid is as good a thing for a kid to be raised in as anything. If it's vital to define marriage in a way that won't drastically expand and destroy the sanctity of the institution, it seems like a few politicians and lawyers could draw up an amendment that basically says at some point that a two-parent household consisting of two people that are in an actual relationship represents the most ideal circumstances that the government can put together to care for children, and the ability of the couple to actually produce children is secondary to the unit's ability to care for a child that needs a home, be it their natural offspring or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure I'm getting the gist of this issue, the problem here is that the courts ruled that marriage is a right, and if that right is extended to same-sex couples, then it dumps the concept that the government has an interest in marriage as an institution because it is the natural structure for childbearing and opens up partnerships for anyone that wants to get together and get financial benefits of marriage, and would open the door to polygamy, incest, legalizing that Adam Sandler/Kevin James movie, etc.

If I'm getting that much right, then I would argue that marriage as an institution is already pretty much broken, it fails half the time and doesn't do much to guarantee that kids grow up in loving and financially stable homes anymore, and a gay couple looking to adopt a kid is as good a thing for a kid to be raised in as anything. If it's vital to define marriage in a way that won't drastically expand and destroy the sanctity of the institution, it seems like a few politicians and lawyers could draw up an amendment that basically says at some point that a two-parent household consisting of two people that are in an actual relationship represents the most ideal circumstances that the government can put together to care for children, and the ability of the couple to actually produce children is secondary to the unit's ability to care for a child that needs a home, be it their natural offspring or not.

That would make sense except it's the failure of marriage where the problems are realized, not the success. Policy has shot itself in the foot by maintaining marital subsidies and continually introducing policies that subsidize its failure. Societal attitudes have unfortunately followed suit, from massive numbers of wedlock births to serial broken families, to welfare rules that punish dual income families instead of encouraging them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would make sense except it's the failure of marriage where the problems are realized, not the success. Policy has shot itself in the foot by maintaining marital subsidies and continually introducing policies that subsidize its failure. Societal attitudes have unfortunately followed suit, from massive numbers of wedlock births to serial broken families, to welfare rules that punish dual income families instead of encouraging them.

That seems more like an interpretation of why marriage is failing rather than a complete explanation, I don't think I'd be the only one to say that there's more than one cause for how much marriage has changed in this country and government subsidies probably don't rank higher than women's rights within marriage and in general and shrinking social stigma towards divorce and remarrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems more like an interpretation of why marriage is failing rather than a complete explanation, I don't think I'd be the only one to say that there's more than one cause for how much marriage has changed in this country and government subsidies probably don't rank higher than women's rights within marriage and in general and shrinking social stigma towards divorce and remarrying.

You have to think of the things that cause divorce. Money is #1. Also as you stated, it is encouraged by how easy it is to take someone's money. I wonder when divorce rates started to rise... Time for google!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to think of the things that cause divorce. Money is #1. Also as you stated, it is encouraged by how easy it is to take someone's money. I wonder when divorce rates started to rise... Time for google!!!!

No, marriage is #1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make sure I'm getting the gist of this issue, the problem here is that the courts ruled that marriage is a right, and if that right is extended to same-sex couples, then it dumps the concept that the government has an interest in marriage as an institution because it is the natural structure for childbearing and opens up partnerships for anyone that wants to get together and get financial benefits of marriage, and would open the door to polygamy, incest, legalizing that Adam Sandler/Kevin James movie, etc.

If I'm getting that much right, then I would argue that marriage as an institution is already pretty much broken, it fails half the time and doesn't do much to guarantee that kids grow up in loving and financially stable homes anymore, and a gay couple looking to adopt a kid is as good a thing for a kid to be raised in as anything. If it's vital to define marriage in a way that won't drastically expand and destroy the sanctity of the institution, it seems like a few politicians and lawyers could draw up an amendment that basically says at some point that a two-parent household consisting of two people that are in an actual relationship represents the most ideal circumstances that the government can put together to care for children, and the ability of the couple to actually produce children is secondary to the unit's ability to care for a child that needs a home, be it their natural offspring or not.

An amendment would be one way to address it, but politically you couldn't pass it. It takes more than "a few politicans and lawyers" to amend the Constitution.

And, ironically, I'd argue that making marriage more adult centered (with no fault divorce, etc.) and less child centered is exactly the reason marriages are failing now. Once marriage was something that was defined to exist at the whim of the adults rather than for the protection of the children, that was the catalyst for the collapse. I'm not saying we should go back to the days when a woman couldn't leave an abusive spouse, etc., but we swung the pendulum WAY too far in the opposite direction. Way too far.

My parents have been married my whole life. I have maybe 5 friends I grew up with who can say the same. Probably not that many. Of those, some of the friends have been divorced themselves. So over several generations, one can hardly find people who stay married their whole lives. If marriage is broken, we broke it by refusing to take it seriously as an institution designed for the furtherance of the next generation. Exacerbating that problem is hardly the answer to fixing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An amendment would be one way to address it, but politically you couldn't pass it. It takes more than "a few politicans and lawyers" to amend the Constitution.

And, ironically, I'd argue that making marriage more adult centered (with no fault divorce, etc.) and less child centered is exactly the reason marriages are failing now. Once marriage was something that was defined to exist at the whim of the adults rather than for the protection of the children, that was the catalyst for the collapse. I'm not saying we should go back to the days when a woman couldn't leave an abusive spouse, etc., but we swung the pendulum WAY too far in the opposite direction. Way too far.

My parents have been married my whole life. I have maybe 5 friends I grew up with who can say the same. Probably not that many. Of those, some of the friends have been divorced themselves. If marriage is broken, we broke it by refusing to take it seriously as an institution designed for the furtherance of the next generation. Exacerbating that problem is hardly the answer to fixing it.

I'm not saying my idea would ever be passed, I certainly have no illusions about Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate coming together on something involving marriage, I'm just saying that the way marriage works in this country now doesn't really work that well, no one's going to come up with a great plan to strengthen the institution that everyone in the government and the public could agree on, and while we're at where we're at now, we're closer to acknowledging the legitimacy of non-heterosexual relationships and improving American society from a broader perspective than we are to creating an entirely ideal definition of marriage that people would agree on and that would work better now and in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAWLS you guys are all nuts.

I say in 10 maybe 20 years this will be a non issue. Gays will have the same rights as everyone else. Of course the US will be the last industrialized nation to recognize those rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying my idea would ever be passed, I certainly have no illusions about Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate coming together on something involving marriage, I'm just saying that the way marriage works in this country now doesn't really work that well, no one's going to come up with a great plan to strengthen the institution that everyone in the government and the public could agree on, and while we're at where we're at now, we're closer to acknowledging the legitimacy of non-heterosexual relationships and improving American society from a broader perspective than we are to creating an entirely ideal definition of marriage that people would agree on and that would work better now and in the future.

I agree with all of that, which is why I've resigned to simply teach my own 3 children well and encourage them to live by example to others while I live as an example to them.

I am firmly convinced that my life is better because my parents stayed together and raised me and my brother, and I intend to show my own children that their lives are better because their mother and I stayed together to raise them, in the hopes that they will pass that on to their kids. The real improvement in both marriage and society would be for parents to simply resign to stay together and raise their kids. I fully acknowledge that there will always be people who won't, but if that is the ideal and the goal, the rest takes care of itself. Meaning, government can make decisions that destroy marriage, but we as individuals within a society can still refuse to allow that to happen by merely doing what we are supposed to do -- taking care of our own offspring and taking responsibility for them as the people who produced them in the first place. If people who make children are encouraged by word and example to take care of them, then it really doesn't matter whether divorce is easy or same sex couples can marry or whatever. It becomes largely a moot issue, and couples who are unable to produce their own children (whether they are sterile or too old or same sex or whatever) can then provide a vital function to children whose parents do not meet that ideal as a safety net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name calling is the refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Thanks for revealing yourself.

I added this smilie tongue.png to make a point that the post was made in jest but if you felt it was directed at you then maybe the shoe does fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added this smilie to make a point that the post was made in jest but if you felt it was directed at you then maybe the shoe does fit.

Oh, I'm sorry -- I forgot that calling people bigots is funny. Please do carry on.

Turd tongue.png <-----it's okay because I added a smilie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sorry -- I forgot that calling people bigots is funny. Please do carry on.

Turd tongue.png <-----it's okay because I added a smilie

I sent that ***** a smiley face... ****** love smiley faces... Ed wensler 3rd

Grrrillapmpn Inc.® likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sorry -- I forgot that calling people bigots is funny. Please do carry on.

Turd tongue.png <-----it's okay because I added a smilie

Why you so sensitive? you might have one or two sizes too small shoes, that might explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/chick-fil-a-battle-turns-political.html

The Chicago Republican Party says it will file a complaint with the Illinois Dept. of Human Rights and Attorney General Lisa Madigan after a local alderman vowed to stop Chick-fil-A from opening a second restaurant in the Windy City.

Alderman Joe Moreno said he will block the Atlanta-based company’s expansion plans because he disagrees with the owner’s affirmation of traditional marriage.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel supported Moreno, saying, “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.”

Chris Cleveland, vice chair of the Chicago Republican Party, told Fox News that Moreno’s actions “constitute clear religious discrimination.”

“Alderman Moreno has violated the First amendment rights of Chick-fil-A and the individuals in the corporation by bringing the hammer of government down upon them purely because they disagree with the religious view of the owner,” Cleveland said.

Chick-fil-A faced similar threats in Mountain View, Calif. and Boston – by Mayor Thomas Menino has since backed off his vow to ban the privately owned company.

Chick-fil-A’s president, Dan Cathy, ruffled feathers nationwide when he told Baptist Press that his company was “guilty as charged” when it came to supporting traditional marriage – a statement many critics said was an attack on same-sex unions.

Gay rights advocates have also expressed fury over the company’s financial support to a number of evangelical Christian ministries like the Family Research Council and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes – groups called anti-gay by detractors.

“This solidifies Chick-fil-A as being closely aligned with some of the most vicious anti-gay voices in the country,” said Carlos Maza of Equality Matters told Associated Press.

But Cleveland said this issue has nothing to do with gay marriage.

“That’s not the issue,” he told Fox News. “It’s about religious freedom. Businesses in the city of Chicago should be able to operate without fear of saying the wrong thing.”

Chick-fil-A posted more than $4.1 billion in sales last year, most of it below the Mason-Dixon Line. Just 14 of its restaurants are in the six states and the District of Columbia where gay marriage is legal. Illinois, which does not have same-sex marriage, has around a dozen, though only one in Chicago.

The Cathy family has never hid its Southern Baptist faith. Since Dan Cathy’s father, Truett, opened the first Chick-fil-A in 1967, the restaurants have been closed on Sundays, and the company refused to reconsider during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, sacrificing profits. It also boasts that the Chick-fil-A Bowl is the only college football bowl game with an invocation.

Roger Oldham, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, said many Christians want to support businesses owned by fellow believers, and the loyalty intensifies “when Christians see a fellow Christian being persecuted.”

“They will come out of the woodwork when a theologically based position is being politicized by individuals for their own purposes,” he said.

The Cathy family has never hid its Southern Baptist faith. Since Dan Cathy’s father, Truett, opened the first Chick-fil-A in 1967, the restaurants have been closed on Sundays, and the company refused to reconsider during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, sacrificing profits. It also boasts that the Chick-fil-A Bowl is the only college football bowl game with an invocation.

The company has also drawn support from Billy Graham, Sarah Palin, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Fox News Channel host Mike Huckabee – who launched “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” on August 1.

With reporting from Associated Press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why you so sensitive? you might have one or two sizes too small shoes, that might explain it.

You call it "sensitive." I call it "tired of destructive politics."

Remember when the Republicans were implying that anyone not on board with their foreign policy were traitorous, non-patriotic terrorist sympathizers? This is exactly the same thing. It's not funny. It's sad.

shc likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. This whole Chic-filA controversy is gonna make my diet much harder. Just like I was compelled to eat at McD's because of the ******** Super Size me hullabaloo, now I fell compelled to eat at Chic-filA because of this. Sheesh, What do they have that is low-calorie?

meat, no fries no buns lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You call it "sensitive." I call it "tired of destructive politics."

Remember when the Republicans were implying that anyone not on board with their foreign policy were traitorous, non-patriotic terrorist sympathizers? This is exactly the same thing. It's not funny. It's sad.

hahahaha

No, it isn't.

That is the hardest I have laughed in quite some time. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the simple fact is that straight marriages receive benefits that gay marriages do not. That is unequal treatment under the law.

I think the answer is to either get government out of the marriage business entirely, or to provide equal treatment for all consenting adults to marry who they wish.

Much of what I see in response to that often seems like semantics.

If you want to call them 'civil unions' and give them the same rights, that would be fine with me. Unfortunately, that's not on the table.

Referring to 'tradition' seems silly. Traditions aren't valid in and of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites