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

[Imran Siddiqui]

From what I gather, their goals weren't all that well-defined in the first place. Mostly they were just pissed and wanted to hurt him somehow.

Or rather they didn't want their money partially going to fund things they consider to be repellent (company money was going to some of these ex-gay groups and anti same-sex marriage groups).

[Ben Kenobi]

Or rather they didn't want their money partially going to fund things they consider to be repellent (company money was going to some of these ex-gay groups and anti same-sex marriage groups).

Now you know how we feel about funding planned parenthood.

[N35t0r]

Trying the same thing with the union of a man and a man - the fact that this will not produce children is an argument in favour of a fundamental inequality between the union of a man and a woman and a man and a man.

But this same argument should not be used with infertile, heterosexual couples.

[snoopy369]

What distinguishes an element from another? The fact that the element is indivisible by chemical means. That the element is indivisible is empirical evidence for a fundamental difference. Even if one cannot detect an electron, we can still distinguish between chemical elements. In biology - the same applies to speciation, the understanding that two species are not the same species when you observe what happens when they try to breed. The principle is that the outcome defines the fundamental relationship between the two. It helps us distinguish between accidental and substantial differences.

Same here. There are substantial differences between the union of a man and a woman and between a man and a man because one can result in children and one cannot. This is an empirical observation. We have plenty of evidence showing that this is the case.

See, Plato would find that either hilarious or horrific depending on his sense of humor. What the hell does the properties of atoms have to do with marriage? Nothing. That's an entirely irrelevant sidebar that you use to imply you have a point that you don't have. You're saying "the substantial/fundamental difference is X", and you're saying "it's X because it is X". Good on you. Not relevant, though.

Some people (you) might define that fundamental thing as 'childbearing'. Some others might define it as 'love'. What's the difference between:

Marriage = have kids
Interracial Marriage = have kids, not same race

and

Marriage = loving couple
Gay Marriage = loving couple of same sex
Hetero Marriage = loving couple of opposite sex

Not much... it's just where you draw the line. You draw the line where your opinions and religion tell you to; that's fine. Others don't. That's fine, too.

[Elok]

Gigantic X-post, I should've known better than to type a long post without quoting in a thread where a BK argument was active.

Yes, Imran, but as I said to Gribbler, that logic is flawed. They did far more harm to the company, its employees, suppliers and partners, and to a variety of charities they presumptively do support, or are at worst neutral towards, than to any anti-gay group. Who were doing pathetically little harm in the first place.

You own at least one thing made in China, right? When you bought that, some percentage of the money you paid for it trickled upstream to the Chinese manufacturer, who in turn paid taxes to the oppressive Chinese government--who may or may not let gays marry, for all I know, but do a lot more than make dumb ads about it either way, and a lot of worse things besides. Even if you could avoid buying any and all Chinese products, would you do so for the sake of depriving the Chinese state of .5 cents of tax revenue per article of clothing, or whatever it comes out to? Bearing in mind that you'd be hurting the completely innocent manufacturers far more?

Maybe I think there is a Platonic paperclip somewhere up in the void, and that we should regulate paperclips accordingly.

Somebody's typing from his desk at work while staring at a paperclip container.

*Not literally the way it works, because of imports, but effectively the picture's the same.

[Colon™]

Not much... it's just where you draw the line. You draw the line where your opinions and religion tell you to; that's fine. Others don't. That's fine, too.

And then there's some who draw a circle and we hate those.

[Ben Kenobi]

But this same argument should not be used with infertile, heterosexual couples.

If the animals you are watching mate are infertile, does that indicate that they are not the same species? No. The first thing you check for is whether the animals are fertile.

[N35t0r]

The thing is, using that logic, it'd be unethical to boycott anthing but an organisation composed of 100% evil people (and even then, they'd have to either be single, or their spouses & kids would have to be evil too).

[N35t0r]

If the animals you are watching mate are infertile, does that indicate that they are not the same species? No. The first thing you check for is whether the animals are fertile.

So gays aren't of the same species?

What about infertile gays? Should they be allowed to get married?

[Elok]

A "plane" cannot be a theoretical flat surface of two infinite dimensions in geometry AND an abbreviated form of the word for a heavier-than-air flying machine AND a verb for shaving the rough spots off a piece of wood. That just wouldn't make sense; sure, there are clearly elements in common and, given context, there's no risk of confusion, but Plato just wouldn't have it. And, as a cursory look at his Republic will show you, he was an important influence on our system of government. Philosopher-kings, contempt for democracy, a soldier caste raised in communal barracks, it's all right there in the Constitution.

Likewise there are clear differences between a pistol, a rifle and a belt-fed weapon which make it ludicrous to call them all by the one word "gun." And as for "horse apples," the apple growers of America really ought to sue...

[Ben Kenobi]

See, Plato would find that either hilarious or horrific depending on his sense of humor. What the hell does the properties of atoms have to do with marriage?

The point is the difference between empiricism defining accidental differences from substantial ones. Indivisibility of a chemical is empirical evidence for the existance of an element. In biology - that two animals are unable to breed despite evidence of fertility with other animals, is evidence that there is a fundamental difference between the two animals. Same with the union of a man and a man and a woman and a woman and a man and a woman. The union of a man and a woman produces children. This is, by the same empirical definition, evidence that the union of a man and a woman is fundamentally different from the union of a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

The standard isn't mine. The standard is biology.

Some others might define it as 'love'.

How exactly does one have an empirical definition for love?

As for interracial couples - the fact that the union of a black man and a white woman can produce children is a substantial argument for the fundamental equality of black people and white people. This is science. By the same argument, the fact that a union of a man and a man cannot produce children is a substantial argument for the fundamental inequality of the union of a man and a woman and a union of a man and a man. The two are not the same.

You draw the line where your opinions and religion tell you to

Are you saying that speciation is based on faith? I'm using the same, empirical definition.

[Ben Kenobi]

So gays aren't of the same species?

We know this isn't true because if you took the same men and each of them had sex with a woman that the woman could get pregnant. This is evidence that the defect is the union.

[Lorizael]

Somebody's typing from his desk at work while staring at a paperclip container.

You have no idea how many paperclips are involved in the execution of my duties...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Imran, but as I said to Gribbler, that logic is flawed. They did far more harm to the company, its employees, suppliers and partners, and to a variety of charities they presumptively do support, or are at worst neutral towards, than to any anti-gay group. Who were doing pathetically little harm in the first place.

However their money isn't used to be sent to these anti-gay groups. That is the obviously elephant in the room you are missing.

People would rather see the company suffer than to have their own money be used to support things they find far more repellent. Obviously, as pointed out constantly, you are missing the point of free speech and your appeals to the jobs involved are completely irrelevant - companies fail for lack of business all the time for a variety of reasons.

You own at least one thing made in China, right? When you bought that, some percentage of the money you paid for it trickled upstream to the Chinese manufacturer, who in turn paid taxes to the oppressive Chinese government

You do realize that there are folks who refuse to buy things that are made in China, for this exact reason, right?

[Elok]

The thing is, using that logic, it'd be unethical to boycott anthing but an organisation composed of 100% evil people (and even then, they'd have to either be single, or their spouses & kids would have to be evil too).

No, it's a matter of what you're trying to accomplish. Cathy's opinions, and his support for them, were doing little or no actual harm, and everyone agrees he was perfectly within his rights in everything he did. If you're talking about people who are doing something harmful/illegal, it becomes a matter of weighing damage vs. benefit on an individual basis, but it's at least arguable that the boycott is ethical. Some people losing their jobs vs. the end of institutionalized segregation in the South? The latter would seem to outweigh the former. Some people losing their jobs vs. some ninnies have less money to spend on dumb commercials and the like? Not so much.