Chick-Fil-A CEO posting more anti-gay comments.

[Elok]

The expression of Cathy's views, by itself, denies nothing to anyone. Now, if people listened to him and, for some reason, decided he was on to something and acted in favor of those views, the current discriminatory state of affairs would continue. The answer to that, as in all "hate speech" issues, is to talk back and refute the arguments. In this case, it's not that hard, since I have yet to find a secular argument against gay marriage which is not complete incoherent mush. Which is why that side is losing, without any need for boycotts.

Anyway, the boycott was an attempt to restrict Cathy's power to express his views by legal (and in fact constitutionally protected) means. That his views were and are muddled, ignorant, dishonest, and unpopular--that's an entirely separate matter, and beside my present point. I'm not going to try and argue that Cathy's views are just or moral. Also, it is neither practical nor wise to ban frivolous boycotts, in much the same way that it is neither practical nor wise to ban sleazy celebrity-stalking tabloids. But while I find all these things repellent, I think condoning the boycott would imply that we have the moral duty to use heavy-handed tactics to gag opinions we consider beyond the pale.

[Aeson]

The reason not to ban sleazy celebrity-stalking tabloids is because then the celebrities would become depressed as less people would pay attention to them. We would have less stupid/crazy **** to laugh at, and they wouldn't be able to fund their rehab and so would end up clogging up the ERs. Everyone loses.

On the other hand, punishing Christians for expressing their views increases their self-esteem by allowing them to view the persecution as sacrificing for their beliefs and thus being closer to Jesus. It's a win/win.

[Sava]

I just remember Michael Jordan's answer as to why he never used his fame in a political way... "Republicans buy shoes too"

[Ben Kenobi]

So Freedom of Speech applies only when people don't use their position or money to help spread their views? Is that reasonable to you?

No - no. It applies only to those who express opinions compliant with Imran.

[Ben Kenobi]

since I have yet to find a secular argument against gay marriage which is not complete incoherent mush.

You don't believe that the state has an interest in procreation?

I don't see what's so particularly difficult about:

"things which are of the same nature ought to have the same outcome"
"a word should express a coherent idea of sameness"
"men having sex with each other do not produce children."
"men having sex with women does produce children."

Ergo the union of a man and a man is not the same as the union of a man and woman and we shouldn't use the same word to express two ideas.

1+2 are from Plato.

[MikeH]

So you believe that only fertile men and women should be able to marry?

[N35t0r]

Anyway, the boycott was an attempt to restrict Cathy's power to express his views by legal (and in fact constitutionally protected) means.

From what I gather, the boycott was an attempt to 'punish' Cathy for what he said(/typed), not to prevent him form doing it.

[giblets]

Yes, I'm sure Plato would have agreed that women can't be married after menopause.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you believe that only fertile men and women should be able to marry?

Are gay people infertile? If they are fertile then I don't see how this applies.

[N35t0r]

Are gay people infertile? If they are fertile then I don't see how this applies.

Yeah, it doesn't apply, unless you base your argument on straight couples having children, unlike gay couples.

Oh wait.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, I'm sure Plato would have agreed that women can't be married after menopause.

Well, then. That raises the question. Why are they unable to conceive. The defect here has nothing to do with the union - everything to do with the physical inability to have children.

Is this true for gay people? No. The defect here is the union - the union of a man and a man does not and cannot, even in healthy and fertile men, produce children. This is evidence that the union is not the same, and again, why we shouldn't use the same term to refer to two things that are different in their nature.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, it doesn't apply, unless you base your argument on straight couples having children, unlike gay couples.

Again, are gay people infertile? Yes or no.

[Elok]

That two men or two women cannot have biological children is obvious. It is also irrelevant. There are reasons in favor of the government promoting monogamy among gays--decreased spread of disease, stable households for adopting children*--and no secular argument against it beyond abstruse philosophical sidetracks or dire predictions that are unlikely to come true, e.g. bigamy, bestiality.


*Please don't start with "gays = pedophiles" or "they need mixed-gender role models." They're not the same, we allow single parents (including adoptions), and it's not like foster care is an optimal environment for a child to grow up in.

[MikeH]

Again, are gay people infertile? Yes or no.

Some are. Like straight people.

You have said the difference is because straight sex can produce kids. That isn't always the case. So it's a simple question.

You say the reason gay marriage is different is because they can't produce children - so logically you must believe that straight couples that can't produce children shouldn't be able to marry too.

If you don't believe that, your objection to gay marriage is void. Try again.

[MikeH]

BTW I know both gay and lesbian married couples here who have kids. Both sets are great parents.