Jump to content



Photo

Chick-fil-A Protesters Harass Elderly Preacher

cfa gay rights tolerance hate

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#31 compl3x

compl3x

    Feels good, dunnit?

  • 8,627 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 09
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S4

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:09

I'm totally playing devil's advocate here....but you're being very hypocritical. The same is thought about religious people.

That being said, I'm gay. I strongly believe that we should voice our concerns when our rights are being trampled on and I have on several occasions verbally attacked many of the bigots on this site. But to be completely fair (and believe me this isn't easy to admit given my thoughts on a lot of current issues regarding gays and marriage), what you're saying can easily be applied to how the religious folk are treated.

Lol I feel like a pod person right now...



The difference, of course, being gay people don't live by a dogma which compels them to behave in a certain way. Religion, from my perspective, seems to be entirely setup to encourage a hivemind mentality.The opposition to gay marriage, and indeed, homosexual in general is overwhelmingly fueled by religious dogma or scriptual teachings.

If you criticse religion, you aren't necessarily criticising all the religious folk. If you criticise religious people with hateful and bigoted views, you're not criticsing the ones without those views.


#32 vetCalum

Calum

    Neowinian Senior

  • 13,211 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 07

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:14

So, nothing to say about the men making fun of this preacher? It exists on BOTH sides.

I think that making fun of someone's views is fine, but hurling insults and abusing them isn't. After all, if someone doesn't wish their beliefs to be ridiculed, they shouldn't hold ridiculous beliefs :) This is especially the case when someone's ridiculous beliefs advocate oppression or unjust discrimination.

#33 Taliseian

Taliseian

    a_useless_cleric00

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 02
  • Location: Sacramento, CA, USA

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:19

A little more food for thought....

Something that was mentioned during Occupy Wall Street -- what if some of these people are really nothing more than agitators trying to make one side look bad?


T

#34 vetCalum

Calum

    Neowinian Senior

  • 13,211 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 07

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:26

How childish....maybe you should just fall down and kick and scream until you get your way? Burning a copy of the Bible wouldn't draw the same ire as it does with other religions.

I completely agree. I believe there are much more elegant and decent ways to protest than burning the Bible. Burning the Bible in front of someone who holds the belief one opposes only serves to either irritate that person or disrespect that person's beliefs. I'm not suggesting religious beliefs should be respected (although I believe religious people—in generalshould be respected), but I am suggesting that such actions wouldn't help the cause. If one opposes someone's view, they should have good reasons for doing so, and they should be able to elegantly get their point across, without resorting to childish actions or attacks that do nothing to help further their cause. Such actions would likely turn more people against them, and they certainly wouldn't do anything to convince any of the opposition to change their minds.

#35 error404ts

error404ts

    Neowin Lurker

  • 422 posts
  • Joined: 03-August 02

Posted 05 August 2012 - 14:57

What annoys me is that people in this thread and the world think that gays have some sort of hive mind, that a small group of gay people even one gay person speaks and acts for every gay person.

Its ridiculous.

Just because these gays are idiots doesn't mean that every gay person condones it. Why would you judge millions of people by the actions of a few....

I would define it as more of a pack mentality than a hive mind. But in using either term you could apply that beliefe to both sides (or any side since there are likely more than 2 opinions) and how people believe. There is strength in numbers, and when there is a strong enough belief behind that pack then it is very easy to become a mob [mentality].

The owner of Chick-fil-a is speaking for himself and his beliefs. He is also using funds earned from the franchise to contribute to his beliefs. Is he doing so in his name or in Chick-fil-a's name? I don't know but it's a pretty valid question when it determines who should be shamed here. As far as I know Chick-fil-a still employs and serves to ethnicities of all races and sexes. There are also reports that Walmart and Urban Outfitters (to name a few companies) have also contributed to politicians or groups that hold "traditional" values over the more liberal ideas. But is it the company or the individuals behind the company that are contributing?

So just because there are a few people who have money speaking in favor of their values over the values of others does it make it right for all of this backlash and vandalism against these individual franchises that have NOT voiced their opinion? When did teaching tolerance and diversity include practicing intolerance and prejudice? When angered and uninformed it's likely that people will quickly ose sight of their end goal.

#36 OP srprimeaux

srprimeaux

    Neowinian

  • 563 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 10
  • Location: Louisiana

Posted 05 August 2012 - 19:48

What's wrong with that?

Is it not OK to be intolerant of intolerance?

There is no way of effectively going after the CEO, so they hit him where it hurts, his profits.


From what I've heard, the whole boycott thing backfired. And, obviously, the whole "kiss-in" backfired too -- at least it did here. Christians are being slandered as hateful bigots just because they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. But do we see here Christians heckling a homosexual reading a book? No. We see the supposedly tolerant and loving homosexual advocates mocking an old man (not to mention those who are vandalizing Chick-fil-A). I'm merely showing people the other side of the crowd. The majority hear about how "evil" and "hateful" Christians are, but they never see how "evil" and "hateful" the other side can be.

#37 Doli

Doli

    Goo ball

  • 7,477 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 04
  • Location: Tower of Goo Memorial Park and Recreation Center

Posted 05 August 2012 - 20:26

What was the guy's answer at the start of the video?
Dont ask a question and cut off his answer.

#38 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,179 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 05 August 2012 - 20:27

What's wrong with that?

Is it not OK to be intolerant of intolerance?

There is no way of effectively going after the CEO, so they hit him where it hurts, his profits.


News flash: behaving like this is making CFA etc. look more sympathetic in most peoples eyes. The days of tolerating boorish, loutish and disrespectful behavior in the name of social protest went out decades ago. The general populations negative reaction to the OWS protests should have taught you that, but I guess another lesson in civility is necessary. Would have been better if mom & dad had done it.

#39 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 05 August 2012 - 20:30

I'm what most Americans would call a Liberal and even I think this is going way too far. If you want to make a protest do so peacefully, vandalism and harassing people are unacceptable regardless of how just you believe your cause is. And it does a cause harm in the long run if it's adherents are perceived to be loutish.


Care to show some proof that same sex attraction is natural? I find it hard to believe from a scientific standpoint. Because according to research that's been done - it can be directly linked to specific levels of brain chemicals. If it can happen in mice it surely happens in other animals and humans.


You're missing the biggest part of the equation: It's not choice, which makes the arguments most conservatives use against gay people wrong. You wouldn't oppress and marginalise a person with Down's so why should you be able to do it to gay people? Oh that's right, the bible says so and we know the bible must never be questioned :laugh:

#40 OP srprimeaux

srprimeaux

    Neowinian

  • 563 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 10
  • Location: Louisiana

Posted 05 August 2012 - 20:50

You're missing the biggest part of the equation: It's not choice, which makes the arguments most conservatives use against gay people wrong. You wouldn't oppress and marginalise a person with Down's so why should you be able to do it to gay people? Oh that's right, the bible says so and we know the bible must never be questioned :laugh:


We might not have the ability to choose every feeling we experience, but we certainly have the choice to act out on those feelings. A married man might see a very attracted woman on the subway and feel the temptation to peruse her for a possible sexual encounter, but he has the choice to do that or not. We all have areas in our lives like that. For some it's weight control. For others it's drug related. And then there are those whose struggle is sexually. The feelings come and go and they have the ability to act on them or not. From the Christian perspective, we should seek to restrain ourselves from doing anything the Bible prescribes as morally reprehensible. You might disagree and that's fine. I'm just trying to communicate this from my point of view.

#41 BlueScreenOfDeath

BlueScreenOfDeath

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,556 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 02
  • Location: Little Rock, AR
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy SIII

Posted 05 August 2012 - 20:51

You're missing the biggest part of the equation: It's not choice, which makes the arguments most conservatives use against gay people wrong. You wouldn't oppress and marginalise a person with Down's so why should you be able to do it to gay people? Oh that's right, the bible says so and we know the bible must never be questioned :laugh:


Exactly it's not choice - if it were choice then these studies i obviously linked to would prove other wise. I also wasn't marginalizing anyone. You are assuming i'm using the bible as a crutch for my argument which i am not even though i did post what was in the bible in both old and new testaments - and how interpretation can be very different since the Hebrew language isn't the easiest to decode. If you honestly believe that every Christian interprets the bible in a basic fundamental way where it's word for word then i'm sorry you have such incorrect assumption about them.

#42 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • 6,007 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 05 August 2012 - 21:17

We might not have the ability to choose every feeling we experience, but we certainly have the choice to act out on those feelings. A married man might see a very attracted woman on the subway and feel the temptation to peruse her for a possible sexual encounter, but he has the choice to do that or not. We all have areas in our lives like that. For some it's weight control. For others it's drug related. And then there are those whose struggle is sexually. The feelings come and go and they have the ability to act on them or not. From the Christian perspective, we should seek to restrain ourselves from doing anything the Bible prescribes as morally reprehensible. You might disagree and that's fine. I'm just trying to communicate this from my point of view.


Why should people be forced to repress their sexuality just because Christians don't like it? Gay people aren't asking you to be gay, they're just asking you for equal rights. If the bible tells you not to be gay, don't be gay, just stop acting as if it also gives you the right to oppress others.

Exactly it's not choice - if it were choice then these studies i obviously linked to would prove other wise. I also wasn't marginalizing anyone. You are assuming i'm using the bible as a crutch for my argument which i am not even though i did post what was in the bible in both old and new testaments - and how interpretation can be very different since the Hebrew language isn't the easiest to decode. If you honestly believe that every Christian interprets the bible in a basic fundamental way where it's word for word then i'm sorry you have such incorrect assumption about them.


Most of the arguments against homosexuality come from religion, and most of the homophobia in America is due to religion. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to put the dots together.

#43 Guest_nicconics_*

Guest_nicconics_*
  • Joined: --

Posted 05 August 2012 - 21:43

Care to show some proof that same sex attraction is natural? I find it hard to believe from a scientific standpoint. Because according to research that's been done - it can be directly linked to specific levels of brain chemicals. If it can happen in mice it surely happens in other animals and humans.


Source: Wikipedia - Homosexual Behavior in animals



IF that's true, maybe they have found a 'cure' for homosexuality. It should be mandatory if true.

#44 Nothing Here

Nothing Here

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 08
  • Location: California, U.S.A.
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro / Kororaa 17

Posted 05 August 2012 - 21:46

They need to arrest the entire lot. But then they would just scream discrimination again and again.

#45 OP srprimeaux

srprimeaux

    Neowinian

  • 563 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 10
  • Location: Louisiana

Posted 05 August 2012 - 21:46

Why should people be forced to repress their sexuality just because Christians don't like it? Gay people aren't asking you to be gay, they're just asking you for equal rights. If the bible tells you not to be gay, don't be gay, just stop acting as if it also gives you the right to oppress others.


Well, that's the thing. The legitimizing of homosexuality as a perfectly normal alternative to heterosexuality also requires that all opposition to homosexual behavior must be delegitimized. Full recognition of "gay rights" means limited recognition of the rights of others. The rule of thumb can be summarized as follows: "We have the right to be ourselves, even if it offends you, but you do not have the right to be yourselves or to be offended. And under no circumstances do you have the right to offend us."