btw, the first interracial kiss on american television

was kirk kissing uhura on star trek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Stepchildren

I realize I am debating with a brick wall aka @bobknight33, but...:

"You believe in the gay thing and are proud also in that belief. No one is bashing you for that belief."

my "thing" doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Yours and the CEO's does.

"Maybe 5% not 1/2"

nope, pull your head out of the sand/ass Look it up on gallup or any reputable site. Gay marriage support is over 50 percent. If you don't want your money supporting anti-gay causes, you won't be supporting chik-fil-a anymore. And it's a hell of a lot easier to NOT eat there as opposed to those who would support who now have to eat there frequently in order to make up for that lost business. Even if it was five percent. From a business standpoint, that's still a retarded thing to do. I noticed that there were a lot of old people who showed up to support chik-fil-a. Those old people aren't going to be around for much longer and regardless of whether it's 5 or 50 percent, It's only going to go up.

"If I am not mistaken his statement was on a religious station so he was speaking his religious beliefs. He does not regret saying those words. He just regrets the childish hatred from the " open minded" community. You guys don't seem too open minded. "

again, mr. brick wall. My views don't infringe anyone's rights. yours ultimately do. not being tolerant of those who are intolerant is not intolerance.

"I don't know of any hard evidence to support this statement Time will tell. I strongly believe that Divorce and single parenting is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of the country. I believe there are no "winners" in a divorce. I would rather see pro marriage agenda being push rather than call now for a quick divorce ad."

If I had a nickel for all the things people claimed would destroy the fabric of america, but didn't I would have a lot of nickels. allowing women to vote. interracial marriage, ending slavery, civil rights, the list goes on and on.

How exactly does one measure the "fabric" of america? Does it have good tensile strength? Or is the "fabric" argument just a bullshit way of invoking fear to scare people into agreeing with you. Agree with my view or AMERICA WILL DIE!!! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!! All these things that will supposedly destroy america have been around long before America even existed. If they were destroying america, they're doing a shitty job of it.

You and your ilk have demonstrated time and time again that you have no actual evidence as to why homosexuality is bad or harmful other than some old book. If you can't make your case, then prepare to be another footnote in society along with those who thought the earth was flat.

Oh, but I can when they use those beliefs to deny me what is owed, like a service, merely because I hold to a different belief.

They would not tolerate a customer's request because they were morally opposed to the customer's personal beliefs. That's the fucking definition of bigotry.

>> ^Morganth:

No, that's not the definition of discrimination. And it's not the definition of bigotry either. You cannot simply cry "bigot" whenever someone else's beliefs aren't the same as yours. >> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Morganth:
Nexxus is spot on. This has nothing to do with hatred. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It's simply not wanting to sell your services and goods to something you're morally opposed to.
Being "morally opposed to" something isn't a "get out of jail free card". You must justify your moral opposition to something. In this case, your justification for being opposed to gay marriage is discrimination and bigotry. Explain to me how this is different to a racist refusing to supply a cake for an interracial wedding? You might be "morally opposed" to interracial marriage, but that doesn't make it ok. The rest of us get to stand up and call you out for your bigoted views.
>> ^Morganth:
It's significant here that it's a wedding cake that's requested as well. As a Christian, if that gay couple came in to my store (hypothetical - I don't actually have a store) and just asked for a loaf of bread, we'd do business just like anyone else. But if they requested a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, like the owner, I would refuse. I would not want my business to directly support an institution of which I am morally opposed. There's no hatred behind it - how could there be? I don't even know those people. It's not bigotry either, because I'm still fine with doing business in other ways - I just don't want my business to directly support something I'm against.

I 100% support your right to refuse support to things you are against. If you don't want to make a cake for corrupt business or a KKK meeting, go for it.
But I then get to judge you for what you are against. I'm sick of this pussy-footing around, where people have to defend themselves and the left goes on about how being gay isn't a choice, as if it was some terrible affliction that gays are stuck with. I don't give a shit if being gay is a genetic thing or if someone wakes up one day and decides "you know what? I'm switching teams today". Honestly what business is it of mine?
So yeah, you don't get to be "morally opposed" to gay marriage as if that's ok. It is the very definition of discrimination, plain and simple. You can claim it all you want, but as time moves on, history will judge your morals to be as fucked up as those who opposed civil rights, women's suffrage and divorce.

No, that's not the definition of discrimination. And it's not the definition of bigotry either. You cannot simply cry "bigot" whenever someone else's beliefs aren't the same as yours. >> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Morganth:
Nexxus is spot on. This has nothing to do with hatred. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It's simply not wanting to sell your services and goods to something you're morally opposed to.
Being "morally opposed to" something isn't a "get out of jail free card". You must justify your moral opposition to something. In this case, your justification for being opposed to gay marriage is discrimination and bigotry. Explain to me how this is different to a racist refusing to supply a cake for an interracial wedding? You might be "morally opposed" to interracial marriage, but that doesn't make it ok. The rest of us get to stand up and call you out for your bigoted views.
>> ^Morganth:
It's significant here that it's a wedding cake that's requested as well. As a Christian, if that gay couple came in to my store (hypothetical - I don't actually have a store) and just asked for a loaf of bread, we'd do business just like anyone else. But if they requested a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, like the owner, I would refuse. I would not want my business to directly support an institution of which I am morally opposed. There's no hatred behind it - how could there be? I don't even know those people. It's not bigotry either, because I'm still fine with doing business in other ways - I just don't want my business to directly support something I'm against.

I 100% support your right to refuse support to things you are against. If you don't want to make a cake for corrupt business or a KKK meeting, go for it.
But I then get to judge you for what you are against. I'm sick of this pussy-footing around, where people have to defend themselves and the left goes on about how being gay isn't a choice, as if it was some terrible affliction that gays are stuck with. I don't give a shit if being gay is a genetic thing or if someone wakes up one day and decides "you know what? I'm switching teams today". Honestly what business is it of mine?
So yeah, you don't get to be "morally opposed" to gay marriage as if that's ok. It is the very definition of discrimination, plain and simple. You can claim it all you want, but as time moves on, history will judge your morals to be as fucked up as those who opposed civil rights, women's suffrage and divorce.

>> ^Morganth:

Nexxus is spot on. This has nothing to do with hatred. This has nothing to do with bigotry. It's simply not wanting to sell your services and goods to something you're morally opposed to.

Being "morally opposed to" something isn't a "get out of jail free card". You must justify your moral opposition to something. In this case, your justification for being opposed to gay marriage is discrimination and bigotry. Explain to me how this is different to a racist refusing to supply a cake for an interracial wedding? You might be "morally opposed" to interracial marriage, but that doesn't make it ok. The rest of us get to stand up and call you out for your bigoted views.

>> ^Morganth:
It's significant here that it's a wedding cake that's requested as well. As a Christian, if that gay couple came in to my store (hypothetical - I don't actually have a store) and just asked for a loaf of bread, we'd do business just like anyone else. But if they requested a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, like the owner, I would refuse. I would not want my business to directly support an institution of which I am morally opposed. There's no hatred behind it - how could there be? I don't even know those people. It's not bigotry either, because I'm still fine with doing business in other ways - I just don't want my business to directly support something I'm against.


I 100% support your right to refuse support to things you are against. If you don't want to make a cake for corrupt business or a KKK meeting, go for it.

But I then get to judge you for what you are against. I'm sick of this pussy-footing around, where people have to defend themselves and the left goes on about how being gay isn't a choice, as if it was some terrible affliction that gays are stuck with. I don't give a shit if being gay is a genetic thing or if someone wakes up one day and decides "you know what? I'm switching teams today". Honestly what business is it of mine?

So yeah, you don't get to be "morally opposed" to gay marriage as if that's ok. It is the very definition of discrimination, plain and simple. You can claim it all you want, but as time moves on, history will judge your morals to be as fucked up as those who opposed civil rights, women's suffrage and divorce.

do they want everyone to follow the goofy literal rules of their religion or not??? Grow a fucking pair and just say you want people to listen to the bible or you'll kill them. stop beating around the burning bush!

i think the point is, if there is no place for this kind of thing due to relevancy... at what point did the govt decide in the past it WAS relevant? and outlaw abortions, same sex marriage, interracial marriage... at some point someone said no. that is always relevant, and maybe its past time to wait any more to get real answers on why people in congress can decide our personal lives based on their personal religious beliefs (or proclamation of belief)

I read a newsreport on this last night that had more facts...

There are 40 members of the church (that doesn't seem possible, given the size of the building -- I'm thinking it was 40 people at the Wednesday night service).

25 people left rather than take part in the vote.

The "church vote" was 9-6.

"The National Association of the Free Will Baptist Churches said interracial marriage has never been an issue, and the church can have its affiliation revoked."

Read more: http://www.wlky.com/news/29901119/detail.html#ixzz1fP4NpvRh


http://www.wlky.com/r/29901119/detail.html

>> ^quantumushroom:

As boneheaded a declaration as it was, more worrisome is the threat of LIBERAL EQUALITY FORCE stormtroopers kicking down the door. Political correctness is training for enslavement.


Was that the best your slogan-maker could come up with? Really? You should have hit "Generate" a few more times.

I can get behind that. Here you go:http://videosift.com/video/Methodists-stand-with-the-99-at-OWS>> ^lantern53:

In the interest of fair play, shouldn't you show at least one video of a church where good things are happening?
Or would that not suit your agenda, seeing as how this website caters to atheists?

>> ^Yogi:

Sometimes I forget how fucking funny Chris Rock can be.


Exactly.

>> ^Trancecoach:

let's hope the police arrest each and every person that was involved in the beating.


Fuck that...kill them. I have always been really strict and against police brutality in the past but this is an occasion where if it comes out that these people end up with 500 bullets in their bodies I'm gonna stand up and Fucking Applaud. Some people just don't deserve to live...and I am the soul arbiter of that.

The other thing I'd be interested in is how the study controlled for economic status. It's very difficult to disentangle these things and the correlation is going to be high in most parts of the States. And it'd be even harder to do with gay couples - there's far fewer, and I'd bet there's very, very few poor gay couples (married or not) that manage to adopt children. That's going to make it very hard to isolate any sort of causal effect.

The other problem in using a statistic like this (even if it had been correct) is that society is currently going to be less accepting of the children of gay couples, and this will leak into the data. However, that's also a very bad starting point for reasoning about gay marriage. For example, compare it with a debate on interracial marriages in the 1950s. Their children probably were less happy, and they were probably less successful overall because a lot of people would have treated them (parents and children) poorly due to prejudices at the time. But that doesn't mean that interracial marriages should have been disallowed. Sometimes things are right even if the transition isn't easy for those involved.

If I was representing "organized religion"s interests in this debate, my position would be to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let government oversee civil unions as a matter of contract and civil law. Let people then define marriage however they see fit. Churches would thus be in the clear to think of gays as unmarried (even if they had a civil union) or as still married even if a civil union was ended (if that church doesn't recognize divorce). Some churches would do gay marriages, some wouldn't. Similarly, some churches currently recognize a baptism performed by some other subset of churches or denominations, and some don't. And yet there isn't big fights about this or something, because there's no single government standard that everyone can't agree on.

Now, certainly, for practicality sakes there's no reason that they couldn't still do the civil union stuff in association with whatever kind of marriage ceremony is preferred - but either could also proceed without the other. Marriage is a word loaded with baggage, and is tied to personal issues and relationships that government needn't concern itself with. At the same time, the concept of a civil union is still useful in helping to protect people in a relationship - and there's perfectly good reason for the government to manage that.

In any case, good on Franken for examining source data, and for making his point in a clear, calm, and effective manner. Good politicianing!

On the repeat criminals, mea culpa.

On your ad hominem attack, you don't know me, and I don't know you, but I'll put my academic and professional accomplishments, including standardized test scores, against yours any day. Self-empowered is definitely an adjective my colleagues would use to describe me.

I live in the bay area, and have friends of all races, and in many ways, it is just like the south. Ethnic groups are very segregated, and people of all races hate on each other. Asian groups are not exception to the rule, they discriminate as much as the blacks and whites. However, there is alot of interracial socializing and working, obviously, which makes it a great place to live.

Impoverished Asian American immigrants? OK....The asian immigrants I am most familiar with and work with in the Bay come to the states with technical bachelor or advanced degrees. They are not impoverished by any standard. For Chinese immigrants, the chinese government won't even let people out of the country on holiday unless they have a particular net worth/bank balance.

I'll also point out that immigrants of any ethnic group, including african immigrants outperform americans of all races, including 2nd generation asian americans. I assume you mean academic performance in grade school of their kids.

There is a subset of asian immigrants that come here illegally or stay illegally, and work illegally in the food, sex, and garment industries, living in cramped illegal housing. Now, those folks are impoverished.


>> ^chilaxe:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since April 8th, 2009" href="http://videosift.com/member/longde">longde
Repeat criminals. Source: watch the video with the sound on.
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since July 3rd, 2009" href="http://videosift.com/member/bareboards2"><STRONG style="COLOR: #008800">bareboards2
People like Longde are why you're on the wrong side of the issue. It's no surprise that people with anti-self-reliance attitudes like Longde will always need affirmative action while impoverished Asian American immigrants outperform them despite suffering from the atrocious, demonstratable racist discrimination Longde supports.

QM,
To answer a few points of yours.

Here's the difference between you and I. I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I do not judge an idea's worth by its age. I determine its worth by rational thought. If you want to just be opposed to every new idea just because its new, and freeze your brain in the now, go ahead, but it's rationally absurd. The founding fathers you worship were considered RADICALS in their day by conventional thought. Some new ideas are good ideas. It makes no sense to say one idea is better because it's been around longer. If that were true, the world is flat instead of round.

I'm tired of conservatives acting as if the "will of the people" solely determines what is right and wrong, what should be legal and what shouldn't be. The founding fathers themselves did not believe in mob rule, never did. Legal implications of court decisions don't mean "legislating from the bench" automatically every time. Constitutional review was established for a reason. What do you want - courts to be completely neutered?!

The entire idea of inalienable rights implies that we, as a society, do NOT try to impose a unified moral code on everyone forcibly by law. We forcibly impose everyone to respect the rights of others. That's the entire point of a right. The US has never, EVER, had a unifying moral code. Most of us do share some of the same values, but those are generally vague, and when they conflict, people generally disagree about they believe is right or wrong. The point is the gov'ts job is not to impose the specific answers. Our gov't exists to solely protect rights, and to preserve a healthy society for everyone. That would include things like "you can't dump toxic sludge into land that you even own" kinds of questions.

To say that gay people cause more health problems is preposterous. So now we're gonna legislate that people can't have sex before marriage, or have unprotected sex?! It's ridiculous. You know what the unforeseen consequence is of gays being allowed to marry? More people who are gay will be honest about it, and have a chance at a happy existence instead of living a repressed miserable life. For states that allow gay marriage now, I haven't seen any significant unforeseen issue that has arisen they have to deal with. To suggest that infant mortality will rise, or suicide rates will mysteriously surge because gay marriage is now legal is absolutely preposterous.

Most families are composed of one main racial color. Does that mean interracial marriages are immoral? Most families believe in some religion. Does that make atheism immoral? Does that make the world's most predominant religion the only true one? Of course not.

And one last point - the 3% of the population is not telling the other 97% how they must define marriage. A bigoted portion of the 97% is imposing their definition of marriage on the 3% for no reason other than "we don't like your definition - we don't have a single rational reason that doesn't involve religion, which can't be used as a reason because of the 1st Amendment". If you think marrying someone from the same sex is wrong, then don't marry someone of the same sex.

I think Satanism is wrong, but I'm not out there trying to stop Satanists from worshiping. It's ridiculous!

i have an interracial man-crush on Neil.