Eat up, you godless Sodomites!

[DU Ute]

Mollie Hemingway:

She lost me at the guy getting kicked out of his fantasy football league. Oh, the humanity!

[LA Ute]

She lost me at the guy getting kicked out of his fantasy football league. Oh, the humanity!

It was important to him. Have some compassion! How would you feel if we kicked you off CUF? Not that such an idea has ever come up or anything....

[Uncle Ted]

I think we should make a list of places that discriminate against gays so those boycotting CFA can also know other places they need to avoid so as to not become hypocrites. Feel free to add to the list:

Chick-fil-a
Cracker Barrel
Jet Blue
Skywest
Marriott
Huntsman (pretty much any plastic product you buy)
Black and Decker
Dell
Pretty much any local business in Utah

Please add:

Any multi-level marketing (MLM) business. It is pretty safe to assume that MLM's discriminate given all the other unethical crap they do. Of course, the majority of these are Utah based (and, therefore, covered by your list) with the exception of the few that are up in Rexberg and other nearby places in Idaho.

[UtahDan]

Mollie Hemingway:

To me this just one more semantic argument which avoids the part of the argument that has already been lost. As I have said before, you simply don't see people arguing the merits of banning gay marriage anymore. We went through those debates for several years and the best it gets for those who oppose is to say (1) that it will cause some future harm (though no evidence really supports this) and (2) that it is their religious conviction.

When you frame it that way, you begin to see why gays and their allies begin to be very frustrated at the efforts to deny them a pretty basic thing that most people (and religious people most of all) believe is good and beneficial not just to the parties to it, but also to children and society. Neither of those things above are legitimate bases upon which to rest policies that effect others in very fundamental and profound ways. This is why, of course, they don't want to frame it that way.

Her framing here doesn't address the merits, it just vaguely alludes to good reasons that can be learned with some effort. Really, what are they? She wants to focus on whether we are using the right word to describe a not otherwise objectively defensible position (subjectively yes, but only if you include subjective beliefs about the supernatural). If I were to say that I don't want a Mormon to be President because I was certain that a Mormon in the White House would cause future harms (because he is Mormon) and because my religious convictions tell me so....what would I be called? Would oblique references to my "good reasons" matter much?

I think a lot of well intended people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the bankruptcy of their position by focusing on their first amendment rights, whether their views should be tolerated and whether the right words are being used to describe them. The oppressor claims victim status. I say it with love LA.

[LA Ute]

To me this just one more semantic argument which avoids the part of the argument that has already been lost. As I have said before, you simply don't see people arguing the merits of banning gay marriage anymore. We went through those debates for several years and the best it gets for those who oppose is to say (1) that it will cause some future harm (though no evidence really supports this) and (2) that it is their religious conviction.

When you frame it that way, you begin to see why gays and their allies begin to be very frustrated at the efforts to deny them a pretty basic thing that most people (and religious people most of all) believe is good and beneficial not just to the parties to it, but also to children and society. Neither of those things above are legitimate bases upon which to rest policies that effect others in very fundamental and profound ways. This is why, of course, they don't want to frame it that way.

Her framing here doesn't address the merits, it just vaguely alludes to good reasons that can be learned with some effort. Really, what are they? She wants to focus on whether we are using the right word to describe a not otherwise objectively defensible position (subjectively yes, but only if you include subjective beliefs about the supernatural). If I were to say that I don't want a Mormon to be President because I was certain that a Mormon in the White House would cause future harms (because he is Mormon) and because my religious convictions tell me so....what would I be called? Would oblique references to my "good reasons" matter much?

I think a lot of well intended people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the bankruptcy of their position by focusing on their first amendment rights, whether their views should be tolerated and whether the right words are being used to describe them. The oppressor claims victim status. I say it with love LA.

By using words like "oppressor" to describe those who take the other side of the argument, you are proving her point about the low level of discourse. Take another look at what she said.

Love,

L.A.U.

[Jeff Lebowski]

By using words like "oppressor" to describe those who take the other side of the argument, you are proving her point about the low level of discourse. Take another look at what she said.

Love,

L.A.U.

Irony alert. Go back and read the first half of her article. Nothing but cherry-picked anecdotes about all those militant gays suppressing freedom of religion.

[TripletDaddy]

To me this just one more semantic argument which avoids the part of the argument that has already been lost. As I have said before, you simply don't see people arguing the merits of banning gay marriage anymore. We went through those debates for several years and the best it gets for those who oppose is to say (1) that it will cause some future harm (though no evidence really supports this) and (2) that it is their religious conviction.

When you frame it that way, you begin to see why gays and their allies begin to be very frustrated at the efforts to deny them a pretty basic thing that most people (and religious people most of all) believe is good and beneficial not just to the parties to it, but also to children and society. Neither of those things above are legitimate bases upon which to rest policies that effect others in very fundamental and profound ways. This is why, of course, they don't want to frame it that way.

Her framing here doesn't address the merits, it just vaguely alludes to good reasons that can be learned with some effort. Really, what are they? She wants to focus on whether we are using the right word to describe a not otherwise objectively defensible position (subjectively yes, but only if you include subjective beliefs about the supernatural). If I were to say that I don't want a Mormon to be President because I was certain that a Mormon in the White House would cause future harms (because he is Mormon) and because my religious convictions tell me so....what would I be called? Would oblique references to my "good reasons" matter much?

I think a lot of well intended people are allowing themselves to be distracted from the bankruptcy of their position by focusing on their first amendment rights, whether their views should be tolerated and whether the right words are being used to describe them. The oppressor claims victim status. I say it with love LA.

This post was a McKayla Maroney vault: started strong, slipped at the end.

Focusing on the first part of your post, I remember back to the days of Prop 8 a few summers ago and the pamphlets that were being passed around by Church members. The pamphlets outlined various reasons why gay marriage was going to be the end of days. Some of the reasons included a reference to the decline in heterosexual marriage in some Scandinavian country, as well as
general scaremongering about "freedom," "democracy," and other political buzzwords. Where is that pamphlet today? Nobody uses it anymore because the arguments are increasingly unpersuasive and almost entirely speculative. Even the most ardent gay marriage opposition on CUF wouldn't bust out the European heterosexual marriage rate argument these days, but at the time I guess it was all the ammo they had so it sufficed.

[LA Ute]

Irony alert. Go back and read the first half of her article. Nothing but cherry-picked anecdotes about all those militant gays suppressing freedom of religion.

Oh, come on. Do you really believe that is her point, or the reason I quoted her? I'll focus in for you:

It is time to start talking about what marriage is without charging people with bigotry. Some people believe that marriage is the conjugal union of a man and woman who make permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, based on their gender differences and built around conjugal acts -- those acts that naturally lead to reproduction and unite them as a reproductive unit. Other people believe that marriage is the union of two* people of any sex who commit to romantically love and care for each other and share domestic burdens.

Marriage law built on either view will have consequences that are far-reaching. We probably haven't even touched the surface of what those consequences might be. And we will never be able to think these things through rationally and calmly if we denounce one or the other view as unfit for public discussion.

Many of us are tired of cultural battles. Unfortunately, tiring of them doesn't do much to help us resolve them. So when we discuss these things, and we must, let's discuss them in a spirit of love and charity. And let's encourage others to do likewise.

I even bolded the good part for you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh, come on. Do you really believe that is her point, or the reason I quoted her? I'll focus in for you:



I even bolded the good part for you.

Yes, thank you. I think she is a hypocrite.

In that article, at least.

[LA Ute]

Yes, thank you. I think she is a hypocrite.

In that article, at least.

Hypocrite, or inconsistent? I don't think she's either but there's a bing difference.

[DU Ute]

Oh, come on. Do you really believe that is her point, or the reason I quoted her? I'll focus in for you:



I even bolded the good part for you.

The other sides view is that their religious convictions and political positions should be foisted on everyone else. There is a big difference between not acknowledging those beliefs and saying "Hell, no!" to having them forced on you.

[UtahDan]

By using words like "oppressor" to describe those who take the other side of the argument, you are proving her point about the low level of discourse. Take another look at what she said.

Love,

L.A.U.

op·press/əˈpres/

Verb:
Keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, esp. by the unjust exercise of authority.

[UtahDan]

This post was a McKayla Maroney vault: started strong, slipped at the end.

Focusing on the first part of your post, I remember back to the days of Prop 8 a few summers ago and the pamphlets that were being passed around by Church members. The pamphlets outlined various reasons why gay marriage was going to be the end of days. Some of the reasons included a reference to the decline in heterosexual marriage in some Scandinavian country, as well as
general scaremongering about "freedom," "democracy," and other political buzzwords. Where is that pamphlet today? Nobody uses it anymore because the arguments are increasingly unpersuasive and almost entirely speculative. Even the most ardent gay marriage opposition on CUF wouldn't bust out the European heterosexual marriage rate argument these days, but at the time I guess it was all the ammo they had so it sufficed.

So are you going to give me a score or must I keep waiting?

[LA Ute]

Next time, when you buy dinner, I'm making sure we go someplace really expensive.

The other side's view is that their religious convictions and political positions should be foisted on everyone else. There is a big difference between not acknowledging those beliefs and saying "Hell, no!" to having them forced on you.

There is a segment of that side that approaches the issue that way. They are part of the problem. You, in contrast, are simply annoying.

[creekster]

So are you going to give me a score or must I keep waiting?

it is a new scoring regime. You only get deductions.