GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Chick-fil-a Support Day and Free Speech (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=128611)

UGAalum94 08-02-2012 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2163739)
You're claiming that this "CFA Day" is stocked with a pile of people who don't care about the religion, but instead care about the free speech element (to the extent it exists, which I think it doesn't).

However, there are literally zero other wide-scale boycotts that received the same "free speech" backlash/support for the boycotted company, including ones against companies (like Disney) that were primarily based in related issues (Disney's boycott was based on a movie - seems clearly free speech - and giving rights to gay employees).

The success of the original boycott is irrelevant (and it feels like you're being intentionally obtuse even bringing that up) - unless you're somehow claiming people would have done the same thing had Disney suffered? That seems wildly unsupportable - this was a complete organized "un-boycott" by religious organizations.

Occam's Razor says this was a religion thing - not a "free speech" thing (which barely even applies).

I think you are mistaking my position considerably.

I think people showed up yesterday because they had the perception that a company they have positive feelings about was under attack. Many of the folks who showed up share Dan Cathy's attitude about marriage, no doubt, but I think some others did respond to the bluster in the media about stores not being welcome in certain areas and their concern that people were no longer going to be feel able to express support for traditional marriage.

I don't actually think Dan Cathy's freedom of speech was ever in question. You're not guaranteed freedom from the social or economic consequences your speech.

I think pulling out a boycott from 1996-1997 and suggesting that a failure to act a certain way then demonstrates the simplest explanation for behavior this week is weird. Particularly when you think about that era producing the Defense of Marriage act, etc. I'm not sure the attitudes then indicate that much about people's present positions and attitudes.

I already recognize what follows is unusually stupid. I have clarified a little a couple of posts down

ETA: I'm asking this sincerely because I'm trying to think of one, can you think of any other publicized boycotts since the invention and widespread use of social media? Can you think of one when anyone attempted to play the Huckabee role of naming a date for a counter protest?

I also think that Chick-fil-a customers may identify with the brand more that the companies involved with other boycotts. No doubt their perception of the company as having Christian values probably feeds that.

AOII Angel 08-02-2012 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163793)
I think you are mistaking my position considerably.

I think people showed up yesterday because they had the perception that a company they have positive feelings about was under attack. Many of the folks who showed up share Dan Cathy's attitude about marriage, no doubt, but I think some others did respond to the bluster in the media about stores not being welcome in certain areas and their concern that people were no longer going to be feel able to express support for traditional marriage.

I don't actually think Dan Cathy's freedom of speech was ever in question. You're not guaranteed freedom from the social or economic consequences your speech.

I think pulling out a boycott from 1996-1997 and suggesting that a failure to act a certain way then demonstrates the simplest explanation for behavior this week is weird. Particularly when you think about that era producing the Defense of Marriage act, etc. I'm not sure the attitudes then indicate that much about people's present positions and attitudes.

ETA: I'm asking this sincerely because I'm trying to think of one, can you think of any other publicized boycotts since the invention and widespread use of social media? Can you think of one when anyone attempted to play the Huckabee role of naming a date for a counter protest?

I also think that Chick-fil-a customers may identify with the brand more that the companies involved with other boycotts. No doubt their perception of the company as having Christian values probably feeds that.

Are you really asking if there have been any boycotts since the invention of social media?

Look up One Million Moms and check out the long list of companies they have boycotted including, most recently, Amazon for supporting same sex marriage.

UGAalum94 08-02-2012 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2163809)
Are you really asking if there have been any boycotts since the invention of social media?

Look up One Million Moms and check out the long list of companies they have boycotted including, most recently, Amazon for supporting same sex marriage.

Thanks for asking instead of just assuming that I'd lost my mind. ;)

No, I guess what I'm really asking is have their been any boycotts that anybody cared about? [ETA: okay, I expressed that really badly. I know the people involved in the boycotts care, but I can't think of any that clogged up my facebook feed.]

What seems different about this to me is that it was a facebook sensation and that someone gave people two distinct protests with dates.

If the issue is all about religion, then those other boycotts should have blown up as well, but they didn't. [EATA: I'm just trying to think about why this was different. Is it that everyone loves a culture war in an election year?]

DrPhil 08-02-2012 11:27 PM

There have been many boycotts since the invention of social media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163814)
Thanks for asking instead of just assuming that I'd lost my mind. ;)


;) I'm assuming you have lost your mind. Your post was horrible. The wording was horrible and what seemed to be embedded in your post was questionable.


Do you and other people really gauge concern and importance based on what clogs your faceboook feed? This world is definitely coming to an end.

UGAalum94 08-02-2012 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2163820)
There have been many boycotts since the invention of social media.




;) I'm assuming you have lost your mind. Your post was horrible. The wording was horrible and what is embedded was horrible.


Do you really gauge concern and importance based on what clogs your faceboook feed? This world is definitely coming to an end.


Embedded?

Yeah, I agree that I didn't ask what I was actually thinking about very well.

Why has the present Chick-fil-a issue blown up? I can't really say if there is more concern or importance to it, but people seem to be talking about it a lot more. It seemed to me that the social media role was slightly different with this one, and that seemed significant. Maybe it's not.

There was no real change in Chick-fil-a's position. There was already a Chick-fil-a boycott because of Chick-fil-a's position. Religion was always a factor.

Maybe it's just that the folks involved managed the issue in a way that prolonged its coverage. Huckabee named a date which produced scenes that could be shown on the news. The Kiss-In is likely to produce news worthy footage as well. It's an election year. It's not bad economic news.

Or maybe interest in the issue will just dry up soon and it won't be any more significant, in attention paid, than other boycotts in the age of social media.

DrPhil 08-02-2012 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163828)
Embedded?

Whose level of concern and importance are facebook feeds supposed to gauge?

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163828)
Yeah, I agree that I didn't ask what I was actually thinking about very well.

LOL. I just have to pick on you because you ETA and it still sucked.


Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163828)
Why has the present Chick-fil-a issue blown up? I can't really say if there is more concern or importance to it, but people seem to be talking about it a lot more. It seemed to me that the social media role was slightly different with this one, and that seemed significant. Maybe it's not.

Lasting oppressions that have become a a big topic over the years + media + politicians running their mouths + media + faceboook + media + all that other stuff....

AOII Angel 08-03-2012 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163828)
Embedded?

Yeah, I agree that I didn't ask what I was actually thinking about very well.

Why has the present Chick-fil-a issue blown up? I can't really say if there is more concern or importance to it, but people seem to be talking about it a lot more. It seemed to me that the social media role was slightly different with this one, and that seemed significant. Maybe it's not.

There was no real change in Chick-fil-a's position. There was already a Chick-fil-a boycott because of Chick-fil-a's position. Religion was always a factor.

Maybe it's just that the folks involved managed the issue in a way that prolonged its coverage. Huckabee named a date which produced scenes that could be shown on the news. The Kiss-In is likely to produce news worthy footage as well. It's an election year. It's not bad economic news.

Or maybe interest in the issue will just dry up soon and it won't be any more significant, in attention paid, than other boycotts in the age of social media.

#1. No one cares what One Million Moms has to say because they water down their message by boycotting everyone.
#2. Yeah, social media helped this go crazy because the people who were targeted for the boycott are the same group who make things go viral on the Internet. One Million Moms will never go viral except with the flu passed from one of their kids to a million of their other kids.
#3. It is an election year, so both sides do see an opportunity to rev up the base. It's a problem from both sides. Huckabee wasn't supporting Chik-Fil-A for fear that anyone was really going to go out of business but for a chance to flex some political muscle. at the same time, Human Rights Campaign is sending out emails and writing articles and making new Chik-Fil-A logos with the catch phrase "We didn't invent discrimination. We just support it." People actually believed it was Chik-Fil-A's new logo. :rolleyes:
#4. None of this changes the fact that this is a real issue to a large number of Americans.

KSig RC 08-03-2012 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163814)
Thanks for asking instead of just assuming that I'd lost my mind. ;)

No, I guess what I'm really asking is have their been any boycotts that anybody cared about? [ETA: okay, I expressed that really badly. I know the people involved in the boycotts care, but I can't think of any that clogged up my facebook feed.]

Yeah ... if this is the (even de facto) standard you're using, we're going to be at a loss to respond, because ... well, it's sort of nonsense to use "your facebook feed" or whatever, but it's also beyond subjective, and isn't really something to respond to.

And again - if this one is so different ... why? Is it really because a mayor blustered, or because it's [perceived as] an attack on traditional Christian values that took major root (particularly in social media), leading to a backlash from traditional sources (Huckabee)? Which one really makes more sense? Clearly the latter, right?

This thread leads you to the answer - even those trying to couch their reasons for going to "CFA Day" in anything but Christian values can't help but come back to those values!

Quote:

If the issue is all about religion, then those other boycotts should have blown up as well, but they didn't. [EATA: I'm just trying to think about why this was different. Is it that everyone loves a culture war in an election year?]
I think you have this EXACTLY reversed - this blew up in part BECAUSE it's a perceived attack on Christian values (and, of course, because it's an election year, among dozens of other effects) - that's why there was a "second date" set. I think you're mistaking causes and effects.

Sometimes a pipe is indeed just a pipe - even if your Facebook feed claims otherwise.

UGAalum94 08-03-2012 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2163838)
#1. No one cares what One Million Moms has to say because they water down their message by boycotting everyone.
#2. Yeah, social media helped this go crazy because the people who were targeted for the boycott are the same group who make things go viral on the Internet. One Million Moms will never go viral except with the flu passed from one of their kids to a million of their other kids.
#3. It is an election year, so both sides do see an opportunity to rev up the base. It's a problem from both sides. Huckabee wasn't supporting Chik-Fil-A for fear that anyone was really going to go out of business but for a chance to flex some political muscle. at the same time, Human Rights Campaign is sending out emails and writing articles and making new Chik-Fil-A logos with the catch phrase "We didn't invent discrimination. We just support it." People actually believed it was Chik-Fil-A's new logo. :rolleyes:
#4. None of this changes the fact that this is a real issue to a large number of Americans.


No doubt it's a real issue. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.

I just started thinking about kSig's question about the Disney boycott back in the day and was trying to think of contemporary parallels and couldn't think of anything that got this big.

KSig RC 08-03-2012 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163842)
I just started thinking about kSig's question about the Disney boycott back in the day and was trying to think of contemporary parallels and couldn't think of anything that got this big.

I do agree with what you're saying here, it's tough to gauge "big" because of the influence of social media.

I just don't think it's particularly relevant to the comparison, since (theoretically) we're comparing motivations and intent.

agzg 08-03-2012 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbino (Post 2163742)
Thanks, Sen. I was waiting for a response from you. Your views may be different from mine for obvious reasons - you are gay; I am an evangelical Christian. But I would never say that I hope that you or any of my gay friends (and let me assure you, having been in the cat fancy I have had many) should get sick and die. :eek:

The difference is that Sen's not trying to stand between you and your civil rights.

UGAalum94 08-03-2012 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2163841)

I think you have this EXACTLY reversed - this blew up in part BECAUSE it's a perceived attack on Christian values (and, of course, because it's an election year, among dozens of other effects) - that's why there was a "second date" set. I think you're mistaking causes and effects.

I think we're missing each other here. Please break down your version of causes and effects because I'm not getting how they are all that different than mine.

Here's how I understand it.

1. Dan Cathy spouts off to a Baptist website.
2. Same-sex marriage advocates expose Cathy's remarks and use them to remind people of Chick-fil-a continued relationship with groups opposed to same-sex marriage rights and renew calls for boycott.
3. A couple of politicians make perhaps ill considered statements about blocking Chick-fil-a expansion in new markets based on the corporations beliefs about same-sex marriage.
4. Chick-fil-a fans don't like the reaction.
5. Huckabee suggests Chick-fil-a appreciation day.
6. Same sex marriage advocates suggest the Kiss In in addition to the boycott as a public response to August 1st.
7. 8/1 Chick-fil-a customers come out in droves to support CFA because they feel it's under attack.
8. We'll see what happens tomorrow

UGAalum94 08-03-2012 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 2163843)
I do agree with what you're saying here, it's tough to gauge "big" because of the influence of social media.

I just don't think it's particularly relevant to the comparison, since (theoretically) we're comparing motivations and intent.

I don't think our perceptions of the motivations are that different which makes me think I'm totally missing what you are telling me.

I think Chick-fil-a has a lot of perhaps weirdly loyal customers. The loyalty is probably tied to the Christian identity, but not, in my opinion, especially tied to opposition to same-sex marriage. So when they felt like Chick-fil-a and I'll go along with the idea that traditional/Christian values also were under attack, they were incredibly receptive to Huckabee's idea of a particular day to support CFA.

PeppyGPhiB 08-03-2012 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163814)
Thanks for asking instead of just assuming that I'd lost my mind. ;)

No, I guess what I'm really asking is have their been any boycotts that anybody cared about? [ETA: okay, I expressed that really badly. I know the people involved in the boycotts care, but I can't think of any that clogged up my facebook feed.]

What seems different about this to me is that it was a facebook sensation and that someone gave people two distinct protests with dates.

If the issue is all about religion, then those other boycotts should have blown up as well, but they didn't. [EATA: I'm just trying to think about why this was different. Is it that everyone loves a culture war in an election year?]

You should have checked out Starbucks' Facebook page the week they announced their support of the equal marriage law in our state. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people from all over the country - but most not from our state - ranting about how they would no longer go to Starbucks. Starbucks loyals - and new customers who were drawn in because of Starbucks' official position - responded by saying they would shop at Starbucks more than ever.

Starbucks was the subject of controversy again when they announced that customers in our state (and in other states where it's legal) are welcome to open carry firearms in their stores. Some people freaked out and told Starbucks they wouldn't go into their stores as long as they allowed guns, but gun activists organized a day for people to go to Starbucks with their guns. And since then, the gun rights lobby has produced t-shirts, patches, stickers, etc. with the Starbucks mermaid logo and statements like "I love guns & coffee." My husband has one.

For what it's worth, I only heard about the CFA stuff on news sites. We don't have any CFA in Washington, in fact there are only a handful on the whole west coast. So I do kinda wonder if the people at the CFA Day were basically just preaching to the choir. It doesn't surprise me that people in the south and midwest rallied for what they feel is a conservative, religious cause.

PeppyGPhiB 08-03-2012 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2163838)
#2. Yeah, social media helped this go crazy because the people who were targeted for the boycott are the same group who make things go viral on the Internet. One Million Moms will never go viral except with the flu passed from one of their kids to a million of their other kids.

Moms are some of the heaviest users of social media. I just got done working on a study on this topic at work. Motherhood is very isolating for many women, so they turn to blogging and social media networks to interact with others. Moms online are VERY social with each other, they are BIG into sharing, and word spreads like wild fire when they love or hate something.

AOII Angel 08-03-2012 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 2163856)
Moms are some of the heaviest users of social media. I just got done working on a study on this topic at work. Motherhood is very isolating for many women, so they turn to blogging and social media networks to interact with others. Moms online are VERY social with each other, they are BIG into sharing, and word spreads like wild fire when they love or hate something.

One Million Moms don't exactly represent the average demographics of the American populace. They skew very right wing and are backed by an extremely right wing group, the American Family Association. The majority in this country are in the middle about homosexuality to accepting, which is my point. One Million Moms might do a better job if they stopped and focused on one issue or object of ire, but it's pretty difficult to effectively boycott Amazon, JC Penney, Sears, Oreos, Gap, TV shows like "The Soul Man", "The Client List" and "Don't Trust the Bitch in Apt 23" as well as commercials for Macy's and Liquid Plumr. OMG. You'd need more than one million moms for anyone to care about that list.

UGAalum94 08-03-2012 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 2163853)
You should have checked out Starbucks' Facebook page the week they announced their support of the equal marriage law in our state. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people from all over the country - but most not from our state - ranting about how they would no longer go to Starbucks. Starbucks loyals - and new customers who were drawn in because of Starbucks' official position - responded by saying they would shop at Starbucks more than ever.

Starbucks was the subject of controversy again when they announced that customers in our state (and in other states where it's legal) are welcome to open carry firearms in their stores. Some people freaked out and told Starbucks they wouldn't go into their stores as long as they allowed guns, but gun activists organized a day for people to go to Starbucks with their guns. And since then, the gun rights lobby has produced t-shirts, patches, stickers, etc. with the Starbucks mermaid logo and statements like "I love guns & coffee." My husband has one.

For what it's worth, I only heard about the CFA stuff on news sites. We don't have any CFA in Washington, in fact there are only a handful on the whole west coast. So I do kinda wonder if the people at the CFA Day were basically just preaching to the choir. It doesn't surprise me that people in the south and midwest rallied for what they feel is a conservative, religious cause.


Did you see a lot of people linking or posting Starbucks stuff during those events or mainly just see it on the corporate page? I read blog stuff about open carry, but not specifically about boycotts, etc. And while you don't have Chick-fil-a, we have a ton of Starbucks and gun-lovers and Christian conservatives. It would be sort of interesting to know if or how much geography relative to the corporate office plays with boycotts or brand support.

I think 95% or more of the people who went to CFA Wednesday are people who routinely go to CFA. There were a few people mentioned in articles that I read from states where Chick-fil-a is uncommon or non-existent who drove a couple of hours to go to one, but not only do I agree with your preaching to the choir assessment, I think it was generally the local choir.

One of the little blubs that I thought was interesting was a detail from the brand approval reports in the wake of Dan Cathy's comments. For the week after the comments or something like that, brand approval actually went up in the midwest but not in the south. I thought it was kind of odd, not that I expected it to be up in the south but that it went up anyplace.

UGAalum94 08-03-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2163896)
One Million Moms don't exactly represent the average demographics of the American populace. They skew very right wing and are backed by an extremely right wing group, the American Family Association. The majority in this country are in the middle about homosexuality to accepting, which is my point. One Million Moms might do a better job if they stopped and focused on one issue or object of ire, but it's pretty difficult to effectively boycott Amazon, JC Penney, Sears, Oreos, Gap, TV shows like "The Soul Man", "The Client List" and "Don't Trust the Bitch in Apt 23" as well as commercials for Macy's and Liquid Plumr. OMG. You'd need more than one million moms for anyone to care about that list.

I suppose I'm hopeful though that maybe it means that conservatives are generally moderating on the issue, but no doubt there'd be boycott fatigue even from people who matched their views.

Certainly, you could generate more participation for a one day splash like either of the events at CFA this week deals than asking people to be in for the long haul.

pbear19 08-03-2012 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 2163909)
I think 95% or more of the people who went to CFA Wednesday are people who routinely go to CFA.

Anecdotally, that's not been my experience. Granted, I am working from a small group of people, but everyone I know who went to the "appreciation day" went because of the religious aspect, not because they routinely eat there. I know people who had never eaten there before that went. Which makes me very sad. The whole thing is sad.

I wish that my "boycott" meant something, but I never ate there to begin with, so I won't really be hurting them to continue not to eat there.

UGAalum94 08-03-2012 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbear19 (Post 2163987)
Anecdotally, that's not been my experience. Granted, I am working from a small group of people, but everyone I know who went to the "appreciation day" went because of the religious aspect, not because they routinely eat there. I know people who had never eaten there before that went. Which makes me very sad. The whole thing is sad.

I wish that my "boycott" meant something, but I never ate there to begin with, so I won't really be hurting them to continue not to eat there.


I think the religious aspect is part of attendance for sure, and I'm sorry that I muddied that up. I think that I previously wanted to tease out, as least locally where I am, that I think there are fans of CFA who participated that aren't necessarily driven by opposing same sex marriage. But yeah, these people are probably Christian.

pshsx1 08-03-2012 06:22 PM

Sorry I'm late to the parade, but I'm fired up. Bear with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2163463)
It just deeply offends me when White gays act like they are the same "type" of minority that they can equate with being Black or Hispanic.

What I see is White gays do a very good job of trying to convince people that just because gays can't get married, then they are a minority that is akin to Blacks with respect to slavery and the after-effects of slavery in this country. I never buy it.

As I stated before, being Black and being gay are not the same thing with respect to being a minority.

An oppressed minority is still an oppressed minority. We're not having a dick measuring contest about who's had it worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2163477)
My point is, in terms of minority, the idea that Whites consider themselves a minority is truly laughable to me me. As a group, they exercise more power and influence than anyone else. So I ask them, 'Where is the suffering?':confused:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Defense of Marriage Act; Stonewall Riots; Matthew Shepard's murder in Laramie, WY... come on now. The list goes on. Don't want to be ignorant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2163489)
Christianity is very deeply rooted in this country. And, in Christianity homosexuality is seen as sinful, along with other acts. So, if you ask me as a Christian, do I have a problem with gays, then yes I do because it does go against the Bible. I strive to live as close to God's word as possible.

But, I'm also wise enough to recognize that not everyone is a Christian. I'm also wise enough to know that people have the right to their own beliefs even though they differ from mine. So, in that respect, then I say live and let live.

If someone says they are not in support of gay marriage, as marriage defined by the Bible, then they have every right to express that openly in the same way that someone would express the opposite view.

HELLO. Do you realize that there was a time that the Bible "said" that it was wrong for black and whites to marry? It also "said" at some point that whites were worthy of blessings while people of color (POC) were animals. How about you actually take the time to study the text yourself as opposed to some ignorant fuck just spoon feeding bullshit into your mouth that you just say out of your ass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 2163524)
Bless your heart.

Homosexuality isn't a political issue at all. The political issue comes into play when people like you see homosexuals as second class citizens not worthy of equal protection of rights as heterosexual citizens. Your statements about how a white homosexual male could never be as oppressed as you is quite bold as well. In all seriousness, how the hell do you know? Everyone's journey is different in life and not everyone can "hide under the radar" like you assume they can or even choose to do. I really don't want to get into the Oppression Olympics here but I personally have gay friends that have been disowned from their families, have been forced out of their careers, have been arrested, have been gay-bashed so bad that they were hospitalized all based solely on their sexuality so your comment about how none of these individuals know oppression really ANNOYS me.

Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret I (Post 2163527)
If you ate at Chick-fil-A yesterday, I hope you get salmonella poisoning and die.

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2163539)
Considering gay marriage is now an issue on many state ballots, where one is asked to vote for or against it, then yeah, it got to be pretty political at that point.

It has been a while since I had to take a US history and US government class, but as far as I remember, I never read or came across any moment in US history from the early - mid 1600's to today, where gays were forced into servitude just because they were gay. Nor do I recall any law needing to be passed to allows gays the right to vote because they were denied the right to vote simply because they are gay.

Firstly, see this quote about your first point:
Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2163684)
No. Letting the majority vote on the rights of the minority is not a good idea, and never has been.

Secondly, there are a lot of things that US history books don't mention. Some places don't learn about the significance of Black History Month. We also don't tend to mention the viciously imperialistic past of the US. Everything is just rainbows and sunshine under the stars and stripes! Most high school history books don't go into detail about the Vietnam War and how it wasn't yet another celebrated victory for bald eagles and freedom. Don't begin to tell me how gays haven't been oppressed because it wasn't in your history book.

Again, don't be ignorant because it's convenient. At least check Google before you talk out of your ass again.

DrPhil 08-03-2012 06:33 PM

I love it when pshsx1 gets fired up.

ASTalumna06 08-03-2012 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2164035)
I love it when pshsx1 gets fired up.

*like*

pshsx1 08-04-2012 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2164035)
I love it when pshsx1 gets fired up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2164045)
*like*

Why, thank you!

Senusret I 08-04-2012 07:54 AM

:)

sigmadiva 08-04-2012 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pshsx1 (Post 2164028)
Sorry I'm late to the parade, but I'm fired up. Bear with me.

An oppressed minority is still an oppressed minority. We're not having a dick measuring contest about who's had it worse.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Defense of Marriage Act; Stonewall Riots; Matthew Shepard's murder in Laramie, WY... come on now. The list goes on. Don't want to be ignorant.


HELLO. Do you realize that there was a time that the Bible "said" that it was wrong for black and whites to marry? It also "said" at some point that whites were worthy of blessings while people of color (POC) were animals. How about you actually take the time to study the text yourself as opposed to some ignorant fuck just spoon feeding bullshit into your mouth that you just say out of your ass.



Secondly, there are a lot of things that US history books don't mention. Some places don't learn about the significance of Black History Month. We also don't tend to mention the viciously imperialistic past of the US. Everything is just rainbows and sunshine under the stars and stripes! Most high school history books don't go into detail about the Vietnam War and how it wasn't yet another celebrated victory for bald eagles and freedom. Don't begin tell me how gays haven't been oppressed.

Again, don't be ignorant because it's convenient. At least check Google before you talk out of your ass again.

To the bold: You've got to give me book, chapter and verse on this one. I have, and do, read the Bible, and I have never come across any passage that said that! Btw, I read the NIV of the Bible.


To the blue:I never did say gays have not been oppressed. My issue is when White gays want to act like they've been oppressed to the same extent as AfAm in the US.

To the rest, I'll stick to my guns.;)

DrPhil 08-04-2012 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2164172)
To the bold: You've got to give me book, chapter and verse on this one. I have, and do, read the Bible, and I have never come across any passage that said that! Btw, I read the NIV of the Bible.

First, notice the quotation marks in "said."

Religious text is about interpretation and understanding. Some people claim to take text literally and some people claim that there is an underlying meaning or things that can be inferred. Not everything that people of certain religions believe are explicitly stated in the religious text. Many people claim that their deity (deities) has specifically shown them that their interpretation of religious text (and their opinion/way they are living) is the true word of the deity (deities). If you get into a discussion of what religious text means or disagree with these people, these people will say they will pray (for the religions that call it prayer) that you get saved...or that you are the devil (for the religions that believe in a devil) incarnate.

With that said (no quotation marks)....

Quote:

Originally Posted by source
We use the King James Version of the Bible here for copyright reasons.




Some of the passages are:
  • Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."
    Anti-miscegenationists typically interpret this verse after assuming that the Hebrews and Canaanites were of different races. Thus inter-marriage was forbidden on racial grounds. However, growing archeological and DNA evidence has revealed that the Hebrews originated as a sub-culture of Canaanites. Most theologians believe that the marriage prohibition in Genesis was grounded on a concern that the Hebrews would adopt the Pagan polytheistic religious beliefs and practices of nearby tribes if they were to marry outside of their culture. Thus the prohibition was based on religious, not racial differences.
  • Leviticus 19:19: "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind ..."
    "Gender" is translated as "mate" or "breed" in other English translations of the Bible. The term "kind" in the Bible can refer to a species of animal. However, creationists sometimes define "kind" as one created species (e.g. a proto-horse) from which many types of closely related animals (e.g. horse, zebra, donkey, perhaps even deer) developed. In this passage, the term "diverse kind" probably refers to different breeds of cattle. Today, this passage might refer to interbreeding of Holsteins and Guernsey's. This verse is part of the Holiness Code that was intended to keep behaviors of the Hebrews' different from that of the surrounding cultures. Most Jewish and Christian theologians believe that the Code does not apply to non-Jews.
  • Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
    This is one of the passages in the Pentateuch -- the first five books in the Bible -- in which God orders the ancient Hebrews to engage in genocide against other tribes. They were to kill every elder, adult, youth, child, infant and newborn from among the Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Perizzites without mercy. Anti-miscegenationists typically regard this as racially-based. However, a near consensus of Christian theologians regard this as religiously-based. God's concern appears to be that the Hebrews would marry Pagan polytheists, adopt the religions of the neighboring tribes, abandon worship of Yahweh, and become polytheistic.
  • Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."
    The meaning of this verse is obscure in the King James Version. However, the New Living Translation describes this prohibiting the sowing another species of plant between the rows of grape bushes in a vineyard. If a farmer did this, he was forbidden to make use of either crop. If this verse is to be interpreted in terms of human mating, it would appear to refer to bestiality -- sexual behavior between a human and an animal. It appears to be unrelated to interracial marriage.
  • Deuteronomy 23:2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
    This verse is sometimes interpreted by anti-miscegenationists as implying that the children of a mixed-race couple, and their grandchildren etc., even onto the tenth generation, could not enter the temple. There is a general consensus among theologians that this passage refers to a child born outside of a marriage relationship, regardless of the race(s) of its parents.
  • Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."
    At least one white supremacist group interprets this passage as implying that one cannot start with a Black-White interracial couple and produce White offspring. 2 However the clear sense of the verse appears to be that if a person has habitually committed evil deeds, it is almost impossible for them to change completely and start going only good.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm/

MysticCat 08-04-2012 09:37 AM

^^^^^ And anyone quoting or referring to any of those passages will simply say "The Bible says . . . ."

Late for the attaboys to pshsx1, but here it is anyway.

sigmadiva 08-04-2012 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2164173)
First, notice the quotation marks in "said."

Religious text is about interpretation and understanding. Some people claim to take text literally and some people claim that there is an underlying meaning or things that can be inferred. Not everything that people of certain religions believe are explicitly stated in the religious text. Many people claim that their deity (deities) has specifically shown them that their interpretation of religious text (and their opinion/way they are living) is the true word of the deity (deities). If you get into a discussion of what religious text means or disagree with these people, these people will say they will pray (for the religions that call it prayer) that you get saved...or that you are the devil (for the religions that believe in a devil) incarnate.


You're right. I agree with what you said above, because in my church we have never approached (and currently don't) those Scriptures to mean or imply the meaning that that is the justification as to why Whites and Blacks can not marry.

Now, I've heard other reason given, just not these passages as the reasons.

Quote:


With that said (no quotation marks)....



http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm/

pshsx1 08-04-2012 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2164172)
I never did say gays have not been oppressed. My issue is when White gays want to act like they've been oppressed to the same extent as AfAm in the US.

I don't see why you're not understanding. See below:
Quote:

Originally Posted by pshsx1 (Post 2164028)
An oppressed minority is still an oppressed minority. We're not having a dick measuring contest about who's had it worse.

And I believe that PiKA or MysticCat said that you have absolutely no idea what hardships an individual has been through. How much actual hate and oppression have you experienced? This isn't the time that we talk about our ancestors who were chained up on the boat and our grandparents who faced the hoses in the South; this is about us, right now.

Hell, if we really want to play in the Oppression Olympics, let's talk about Native Americans, shall we?

So, for the last time, stop bringing up the "fact" that the LGBTQ community hasn't had it as hard as the African-American community. ;);););) (since you love this face so much)


Anyway, the ultimate point of this conversation is that if you went to Chick-Fil-A for food, especially on Huckabee Appreciation Day, you are supporting homophobia, heterosexism, and heterocentrism. Congrats.

Saving you a Google trip:
Heterocentrism - the societal ideology that heterosexuality is normal, better, and expected.
Heterosexism - a system of oppression that assumes all people are heterosexual
Homophobia - the fear, hatred, or discomfort with individuals who do not identify as heterosexual

pshsx1 08-04-2012 08:14 PM

Oh yeah, and can we also talk about the conservative party (at the moment, the Republicans) in America are always on the wrong side of social rights issues? Yeah. Okay.

Greek_or_Geek? 08-04-2012 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret I (Post 2163527)
If you ate at Chick-fil-A yesterday, I hope you get salmonella poisoning and die.

I still love you even though you wish me dead.

SWTXBelle 08-04-2012 09:30 PM

A very interesting take on the controversy
 
http://www.perrynoble.com/2012/08/01...46965925417366

"It simply needs to be pointed out that people on both sides of this argument have been way less than civil with each other…which does nothing more than proves the insecurity in us if we feel like we have to “lower the boom” on people who do not see exactly as we see. Honestly, it is my prayer that people on both sides of the argument would stop yelling at each other and talking about one another and actually sit down and talk to one another understanding that just because two people do not agree on an issue does not mean they have the right to hate one another for it."

Munchkin03 08-04-2012 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pshsx1 (Post 2164269)
Hell, if we really want to play in the Oppression Olympics, let's talk about Native Americans, shall we?

So, for the last time, stop bringing up the "fact" that the LGBTQ community hasn't had it as hard as the African-American community. ;);););) (since you love this face so much)

Oh man, the Abuse Excuse. Boring. :( I didn't know people still played that game.

agzg 08-04-2012 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greek_or_Geek? (Post 2164273)
I still love you even though you wish me dead.

How fucking patronizing.

Greek_or_Geek? 08-04-2012 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 2164285)
How fucking patronizing.

How sad you feel this way. It's actually a tenant of my Christian faith. I'm sorry you doubt my sincerity.

IrishLake 08-04-2012 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pshsx1 (Post 2164271)
Oh yeah, and can we also talk about the conservative party (at the moment, the Republicans) in America are always on the wrong side of social rights issues? Yeah. Okay.

Not all of us. :( I can only hope the party I identify with more eventually evolves with time.

amIblue? 08-04-2012 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greek_or_Geek? (Post 2164289)
How sad you feel this way. It's actually a tenant of my Christian faith. I'm sorry you doubt my sincerity.

//hijack

Sorry to be a grammar bitch here, but I've seen this word misused several times lately, and it is making me nuts. The correct word for your context is tenet.

From Webster:

Tenet: noun meaning: "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true; especially : one held in common by members of an organization, movement, or profession "

Tenant: noun meaning: "one who holds or possesses real estate or sometimes personal property (as a security) by any kind of right"

end hijack//

agzg 08-04-2012 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greek_or_Geek? (Post 2164289)
How sad you feel this way. It's actually a tenant of my Christian faith. I'm sorry you doubt my sincerity.

No, it's a tenet of being a dick. Stop it. You don't get to tell someone "I still love you" while supporting their oppression. Stop that shit.

Greek_or_Geek? 08-05-2012 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 2164297)
No, it's a tenet of being a dick. Stop it. You don't get to tell someone "I still love you" while supporting their oppression. Stop that shit.

And I love you, hardened heart and all.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.