Tom Gilson

Gay Advocacy Doesn’t Affect Anyone Else, Right?

Gay-rights advocates tell us they’re only after equality, not putting anyone else down, and that their efforts aren’t going to harm anyone else.

R-i-i-ght.

 

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

55 thoughts on “Gay Advocacy Doesn’t Affect Anyone Else, Right?

  1. You could also add the debacle in France, where ‘mother’ and ‘father’ for a child may be replaced by ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’.

  2. Pathetic. Unfortunately the liberal arts college in question apparently instills an ideal of letting emotion dominate reason and logic. Do these same students look up the various political, religious, social, etc views and activities of heads of other companies and discriminate against and bully those they disagree with as well? Highly unlikely. Because they don’t apply the same kind of thinking anywhere else in there lives, only here and now because it’s the popular cause du jour.

    “The document, drafted by the school’s gay-straight alliance, claims Chick-fil-A does not comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy”

    Can anyone clarify this policy and how Chik-fil-A is supposedly noncompliant?

  3. David,
    Considering that Chik-fil-A won’t refuse service to gays on campus, ask them about their sexual preferences or treat them differently as customers, how are they non-compliant? I don’t see it either. In other words, I agree with you.

  4. So Chick-Fill-A “support traditional marriage” – what a nice way of saying “actively oppose the rights of gay couples.”

    And since they support the “biblical definition of marriage,” I guess they’re totally fine with polygamy, then.

    What exactly are you so afraid of Tom? I just want to see some evidence that allowing gays to marry will affect your marriage. That’s all I want to see.

  5. Fleegman,

    I almost made the mistake of taking your bait and letting you change the subject. Your false definition of biblical marriage and your tendentious conception of marriage rights are irrelevant to the current discussion. So is “what I’m afraid of,” except for this: I do genuinely fear the effects of a movement that can act in such a bigoted manner against other people’s moral convictions. I fear it because it is genuinely harmful. I own up to that without hesitation.

    Here’s the point of the post: Chick-Fil-A has been unjustly discriminated against. You can feel free to comment on that if you’d like. I’d be interested to hear what you have to say on that topic.

  6. I just want to see some evidence that allowing gays to marry will affect your marriage. That’s all I want to see.

    You do bring up a good point about evidence – I want to see some evidence that allowing the company to stay on campus will result in the discrimination of gays on campus.

  7. Tom, I don’t know how you can say that CFA is being discriminated against if you don’t know the school’s discrimination policy and how students are claiming CFA violates it.

    Also, how is the gay rights movement in this case “act[ing] in such a bigoted manner against other people’s moral convictions?”

  8. OS: It’s not only that your own bigotry is blatant when you force immoral, repugnant lifestyles into the faces of people of faith, it’s also that you’ve just won another Aristophanes gold star for missing that… and the point of Tom’s post.

  9. So Chick-Fill-A “support traditional marriage” – what a nice way of saying “actively oppose the rights of gay couples.”

    No, it’s simply a way of saying they believe marriage is between a man and woman. Similar to how one might believe that a father is a man who has children, or a mother is a woman who has children (reprehensible, I know). I wouldn’t presume they care specifically to oppose “rights of gay couples”.

    And since they support the “biblical definition of marriage,” I guess they’re totally fine with polygamy, then.

    Always curious how people take incidents or descriptions of certain behaviours in the bible as biblical endorsements, definitions or guidelines for them.

  10. Tom,

    I don’t agree that CFA has been unjustly discriminated against. They have donated a significant amount money to known hate groups that oppose gay rights. I don’t have a problem with people having their own opinions, but that’s not why they are seeing this reaction.

    And even if that wasn’t the case, I don’t see a problem with not using someone’s services on the basis that they hold beliefs that you find offensive.

    David,

    I wouldn’t presume they care specifically to oppose “rights of gay couples”.

    So what would you call donating money to hate groups that specifically and actively oppose the rights of gays and gay couples?

    Always curious how people take incidents or descriptions of certain behaviours in the bible as biblical endorsements, definitions or guidelines for them

    Yes, it certainly is.

  11. But Fleegman, to oppose gay “marriage” is not to hate. You’ve fallen for a very elementary rhetorical trick there, and not only that, but you’re perpetuating it. I could make a case you’re perpetuating hate that way, actually. And the vote was not to “not use someone’s services.” It was to eject someone from the community.

  12. At least one of the organisations they donate money to has been classified as a hate group, Tom.

    No one is being ejected. They’re just not using their burgers.

  13. Sure, “classified,” by someone who like you wrongly equates disagreement with hate, someone whose claim on the authority to make that judgment is both wrong and judgmental.

    And “ejected” is accurate.

  14. So what would you call donating money to hate groups that specifically and actively oppose the rights of gays and gay couples?

    Donation doesn’t mean expressed support for or participation in all of the recipient’s views and activities. Either way, it must also be shown that those groups “oppose the rights of gays and gay couples” for the argument to have merit. With respect to gay individuals, I don’t see it. Gay couples? Possibly. Depending on one’s views of rights and marriage as one of them, and legal definitions from place to place. If they indeed oppose some legislated right, ok. Such rights are not and should not be immune to scrutiny and critique, *especially* when they concern social constructs that can be as fluid as the culture in which they reside.

    In regard to “hate groups”, I have also seen the term being thrown around on a few sites, though never with a compelling justification (if one is even given) of such labelling.

  15. Two Aristophanes gold stars for fleegman–member of the greatest hate group in history (atheists) with an astoundingly bloody body count at which to snicker.

  16. No, no, no, Holopupenko, there is no such hate group, because there is no such group, because there is no such thing as atheism, only oodles of atheists of all different persuasions and with no worldview in common except for the lack of a God in their view of reality. You knew that, of course.

    And just because Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were atheists doesn’t mean that atheism has anything to do with what they did, because atheism doesn’t influence anyone’s actions, because atheism isn’t a belief, it’s a lack of belief. You knew that, too, of course.

    And just because atheism contains within it no regulating principle—for other than being a-theist it contains in it no principles, for it is not a belief, and principles depend on beliefs—and nothing to guide or direct one’s behavior for good or ill, one should not conclude that atheism implies the lack of any regulating principle on one’s behavior, or that the lack of such a regulating principle has given certain men the sense that they were permitted to do whatever they could do. You were certainly aware of that.

    And just because atheism has no overarching purpose or principle of right or wrong—because atheism has no overarching principle or purpose—does not mean that atheism cannot pronounce “homophobia” wrong, and untrammeled sexual activity right.

    And none of that by any means gives any of us any right to notice or to claim that atheism leaves room for bigotry, injustice, stereotyping, and hatred.

    But you knew that, right?

    (Note to the uninitiated: the description herein of atheism’s lack of general principles is taken from multiple atheists who share a consensus that “atheism is not a belief.” They do not, of course, agree on the implications I’ve sardonically drawn from that premise. I don’t know why; the conclusions do seem to follow.)

  17. And none of that by any means gives any of us any right to notice or to claim that atheism leaves room for bigotry, injustice, stereotyping, and hatred.

    No, no, no, Tom. It leaves room for anything and everything, because, as you stated so eloquently, “it contains in it no principles”.

    It takes principles to stand for kindness while being against intolerance and bigotry. Since atheism doesn’t have principles – everything is fair game – one wonders where atheists get this from – Theism perhaps?

    Hmmm…

  18. @David #16:

    Just as one example, the FRC (one of the groups CFA donates too) is notorious for its continued promulgation and support of debunked “research” linking paedophilia and homosexuality in extreme ways. One of their senior fellows even endorsed the criminalization of homosexuality.

    They are bad, bad, people who spread junk science for a living. And it spreads farther than in should, thanks to the receptive ear of the right, eager to hear and believe any and all “information” one could find that might demonize homosexuals…

  19. SteveK,

    You are right in that atheism contains no principles – just the statement of one particular hypothesis – “No god exists”. Duh, and so what?

    If you want to know the principles of a person you should question them comprehensively on their entire world-view.

  20. The OP seems to head in a direction that I think I’ve seen Tom express elsewhere in his blog discussions: that civil-activist responses to injustice are themselves unjust, because of the harm they do to the person(s) responsible for the initial injustice. (Does anyone see a problem with that?)

    And such harm in the current case! A wealthy magnate may have to abandon a handful of junk-food outlets! And then there’s the collateral damage to innocents: workers at those outlets may be unemployed until an alternate food supplier (hopefully of better quality) fills the empty space, and college students would need to adapt to changes in their junk food supply. Ouch! That’s right up there with never being able to file a joint tax return with your life partner, I suppose.

    As for the overall merit of the anti-gay-rights position, I just saw a brief video where a preacher from Springfield, Missouri lays it out pretty clearly. Please be sure to watch the entire thing. (It’s under 3 minutes.)

  21. @SteveK (#19): You ask a good question:

    It takes principles to stand for kindness while being against intolerance and bigotry. Since atheism doesn’t have principles – everything is fair game – one wonders where atheists get this from – Theism perhaps?

    I would certainly favor the view that atheists who do have principles (I’m sure that you, Tom and other theists here would not dispute that this is the vast majority, since you have expressed that atheists are humans with value like yourselves, not sub-humans), get these principles from the same source that good Christians (and good Muslims and good Jews) get theirs, which is also the same source where good Pagans, good Hindus, good Buddhists, good Zoroastrians, good animists, and all other good believers of religions all get theirs. (Oh, and let’s not leave out all the “agnostics” – the same goes for them, too.)

    It’s in their nature, as bequeathed to them by natural processes, or possibly by something else (unobservable by any of us) operating through natural processes. (Do you see? I can’t deny the latter statement, so I don’t.)

    Whether there’s something miraculous or not about these principles is a matter of personal choice, bearing on one’s use of the term “miraculous.” Choosing among the possibilities for (non)miraculous causation is also a personal matter; atheists will pursue it through objective research (or by accepting the conclusions of researchers), theists through exegesis and introspection (or by accepting the views of their religious leaders). Perhaps none of us will ever know the entire truth of the matter.

    Of course, there is the bad minority of atheists, just as there are those bad minorities in the various religions, who actively subvert those natural principles, and behave badly, even to the extent of falsely claiming a “rational” or “religious” privilege for doing so – and of course there are the occasional lapses by the good, principled folks (nobody’s perfect). That’s also part of the natural order of things.

    I won’t blame that on religion, per se, just as you shouldn’t blame it on atheism, per se. You can chalk it up to original sin, and I’ll call it ignorance, illness, imbalance, or outright, harmful selfishness, and we can move ahead peacefully with our lives. Whaddaya say?

  22. Otto,

    The Missouri preacher in that video shared a 3-minute lie. The parallel between gay-rights and racial rights is a false one. He picked and chose a tendentious selection of worst-case, out-of-context, un-sourced quote-mining. He played a theatrical game with them. And now you’re calling that indicative of the overall merit of our position? Unbelievable.

    Would you like to see how easily I could do the same from an atheistic/skeptical standpoint? Have you ever heard of Margaret Sanger? Ernst Haeckel? I’d be willing to source my material for you, and not from obscure non-authorities.

    The harm done in the current case extends to more than the one wealthy magnate and the dozen or so local employees. There is a whole company affected by this trend. There is the wider effect of a culture of hatred that’s being reinforced; for this is hatred in action.

    If you zero in on the fragmentary information that’s most convenient for your case, and if you pay no heed to the whole story, you can’t get even the fragments right.

  23. d, how about sharing some sources for your accusations against the FRC? Something tied to original FRC material, preferably, so we’re not getting someone else’s spin on it.

  24. I won’t blame that on religion, per se, just as you shouldn’t blame it on atheism, per se. You can chalk it up to original sin, and I’ll call it ignorance, illness, imbalance, or outright, harmful selfishness, and we can move ahead peacefully with our lives. Whaddaya say?

    R-i-i-ght.

    Another example of a stupid idea on the part of an atheist: there is absolutely no interest in actually attaining the truth of the matter. Rather, it’s all about power: if two fundamentally contrasting positions are merely viewed as personal opinions rather than one or the other corresponding to reality (the latter a priori not permitted by otto), then it’s reduced to a matter of power, vote, etc. But that’s what atheism is about, isn’t it? (What possible objective meaning could “we can move ahead peacefully with our lives” hold with such a nonsensical approach to reality? Power over truth, and the body count rises and rises…

  25. It’s in their nature, as bequeathed to them by natural processes, or possibly by something else (unobservable by any of us) operating through natural processes.

    Natural processes are cause/effect mechanisms and mechanisms don’t produce principles of any kind. This is what you guys keep missing, and I’m happy to keep reminding you of this.

    So it must the latter, or something close to what you are describing. But if it is, then what would a naturalist think it could be since all there is are natural processes? Forget about what name you would give it, just tell us what characteristics it must have.

    Perhaps none of us will ever know the entire truth of the matter.

    Well you won’t find it in natural causation so you can give up on the whole “objective research” approach (aka science) that atheist’s say will lead us to the promised land. For starters, you can’t detect principled thoughts in human brain activity so what are the chances you’ll detect principles “out there” in a vast universe filled with nothing but natural causation? Zip, zero, none.

    If you don’t know what characteristics this unobservable “something else” must have, per my question above, how will know if you’ve found the thing you are looking for when you finally experience it?

  26. Tom, hard to understand you calling what the minister said a lie. YOU may believe that the parallel is false, but its a matter of opinion, not fact, and many peeople disagree with you.

  27. Hoo boy.

    Do we have to go through all this all over again?

    Here’s the short answer: there is no good biblical exegesis supporting racism or chattel slavery. None. There is good strong exegesis opposing both.

    There is good biblical exegesis supporting sexual morality, which of course does not include homosexual behavior. There is good biblical exegesis supporting man-woman behavior. That’s the first and most important non-parallelism.

    And if you twist OT passages like so many other biased and ignorant people have to contradict this, my answer will be that it’s irrelevant, because we’re talking about good biblical exegesis, not bad.

    Meanwhile, did it occur to you to wonder what sources he used? How central were they to Christian theological thinking? How credible were they regarded to be? What did they say in context? Why did he set up the kind of theatrical game that subverts thinking about those crucial factors, in favor of an emotional poke?

    In fact, just for fun I’d like to see you outline his argument. It goes something like this:

    x therefore y.

    What is the x and what is the y? Do you know? Or are you just relying on the emotional poke to support your position, regardless of rational processing?

    And then once again, have you ever heard of Margaret Sanger or Ernst Haeckel? Have you ever heard of their attitudes toward non-whites?

  28. The harm done in the current case extends to more than the one wealthy magnate and the dozen or so local employees. There is a whole company affected by this trend. There is the wider effect of a culture of hatred that’s being reinforced; for this is hatred in action.

    Tom,

    “There is a wider effect of a culture of hatred that’s being reinforced”..

    Well gee, I couldn’t have said it better myself – the only correction I would make is to redirect that statement towards you, Christianity, and the Christian movement opposed to homosexuality – all of the above creates and sustains a wider culture of hatred against homosexual people. You have to be blind not to see this.

    Let’s examine a simple hypothetical for a second – if there was a business on campus X, and it was discovered that this business donates proceeds to neo-nazi groups, would you have similar objections if a student government voted to oust them from campus? What if they donated proceeds to planned parenthood? Do you still feel the same way?

  29. Without the proper moral grounding advocates of same sex marriage have no right to force their views on me. To do so is to violate my right to freedom of conscience.

    Advocates of SSM have no moral grounding for their position.

  30. @JAD 33

    Such a peculiar error to make, but its so common and unfortunate – mistaking those doing the forcing, for those who are being forced.

  31. @JAD (#33): To clarify d’s reply (which Tom seems not to understand):

    You personally may continue to hold the belief that gay marriage (or interracial marriage, or divorce, for that matter) is a sin against God, even after such action has been recognized as legal. The classification of a particular action as “not illegal” does not compel you personally to participate in or approve of such action. Your own rights and freedoms are not infringed or diminished.

    You still have the freedom to disapprove as a matter of personal conscience – your personal “right to freedom of conscience” is not violated.

    What you cannot do is to impose your disapproval, your personal sense of conscience, on others by denying them the right to participate in the actions in question. The simple fact of the matter is that you have no ethical basis for doing so, within the system of ethics defined by the U.S. Constitution. There isn’t (and never will be) any compelling “state interest” that is served by such a prohibition, owing to the fact that the interests of the state are scrupulously secular in nature, whereas your disapproval of gay marriage is purely religious in nature (or else is based on a personal prejudice against gays, and you’re just using religious scripture to support that).

    You are even entitled to disagree, on religious grounds, with this assessment of the situation, but your disagreement does not change the facts of the matter, anymore than the beliefs of 7th-Day Adventists change the laws of physics and biology.

    If you’re a U.S. citizen, and you don’t agree that there’s a good reason for the interests of the state to be scrupulously secular in nature, perhaps you’re living in the wrong country. Consider moving to the United Kingdom of Britain, where the head of state is still considered the head of the national church. (Yep, looks like the UK does not recognize SSM, so it’s your kind of place. Have a nice trip, and stop voting in the U.S.)

  32. Such a peculiar error to make, but its so common and unfortunate – mistaking those doing the forcing, for those who are being forced.

    Indeed, a peculiar error to make, D. What, pray tell, was being “forced” on homosexuals before the gay marriage lobby came along and started pushing legislation and bullying and marginalizing anyone who would disagree with their attempts to change a standing social institution? Keep in mind that this “right” to gay marriage you mention is an entirely contrived and new one, and nothing inherently just or sacred.

  33. @David (#37): Wow. Yet another example to demonstrate the parallels between the current gay-rights debate and the earlier debate on racial integration and civil rights. See if you can spend a little time looking for cases where segregationists were saying things like, “the Negroes were doing just fine, thank you very much, until those terrible civil-rights activists came along and got everybody riled up.” For those people, this right to equal protection under the law (as it applied to African Americans) was “an entirely contrived and new one, and nothing inherently just or sacred.”

    If you have trouble finding that, it may be because people have become so ashamed of this type of argument, they’ve done what they could to eradicate all traces of it.

  34. If you have trouble finding that, it may be because people have become so ashamed of this type of argument, they’ve done what they could to eradicate all traces of it.

    Nice defensive move on your part there, Otto. Any evidence for it? Any evidence that such a thing is even possible?

    I’ll be writing later on about that supposed parallel. In fact I already have, in a comment here, and you’ve ignored it. But I’ll keep trying, maybe you’ll pay attention.

  35. David wrote @# 37 wrote:

    Keep in mind that this “right” to gay marriage you mention is an entirely contrived and new one, and nothing inherently just or sacred.

    I have a hard time seeing how something that that someone has arbitrarily dreamed up as being a right is a moral obligation for anyone else.

    Only moral values that are in some sense are absolute carry any kind of moral obligation.

  36. Otto, you conclude one of your paragraphs,

    Your own rights and freedoms are not infringed or diminished.

    Didn’t read the OP, did you?

    Then you say,

    There isn’t (and never will be) any compelling “state interest” that is served by such a prohibition, owing to the fact that the interests of the state are scrupulously secular in nature, whereas your disapproval of gay marriage is purely religious in nature (or else is based on a personal prejudice against gays, and you’re just using religious scripture to support that).

    My disapproval of gay marriage is not purely religious in nature, nor is it based in prejudice against gays.

    I could explain further, but I think you’d come back a few weeks later and tell me once again that my disapproval of gay marriage is purely religious in nature. In fact, not long ago I wrote a whole 4-post series specifically answering you on that, and here you are, telling me none of those thoughts ever crossed my mind.

    You don’t care what I think. You only want to tell me what I think, based on stereotypes rather than on the evidence of what I have actually said to you. And speaking of prejudice, stereotyping of that sort is of the essence of prejudice and bigotry.

    Prove me wrong. Prove you’re willing to hear what someone says, even if they disagree with you. Believe me, I’d be very happy to be wrong about this, so please show me I am: but you’ll have to show it by demonstrating it.

  37. David:

    Donation doesn’t mean expressed support for

    On what planet? How can donating to something not be meant as as expression of support? It is, in the most literal sense, supporting them.

    Either way, it must also be shown that those groups “oppose the rights of gays and gay couples” for the argument to have merit.

    When you write with this much ignorance of the facts, it makes me wonder whether you know anything about the whole CFA issue at all. Are you just parroting your fellow Christians? Why don’t you actually research the groups they’re funding? Then we can talk.

    Tom:

    I read your 4 part series on your supposed non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage, and it was extremely thin on the ground regarding actual evidence for any of the claims you made; I commented at the time on the quality of the papers you cited. The entire series came across as a thinly veiled attempt to distract from your clear religious motivations, in order for you to have something to point to when someone asked you for political reasons to oppose it.

    And no one answered d’s hypothetical in #32. I’d be interested in a response to that.

  38. The entire series came across as a thinly veiled attempt to distract from your clear religious motivations, in order for you to have something to point to when someone asked you for political reasons to oppose it.

    Genetic fallacy much, Fleegman?

    Non-religious arguments aren’t non-religious arguments if they are motivated by religious reasons, but if they are motivated by non-religious reasons then those same arguments are valid non-religious arguments.

    Oh, brother.

  39. Thanks, Steve.

    Apparently Fleegman thinks that if I have biblical reasons to oppose gay marriage I have no other reasons to oppose it even if I have other reasons to oppose it.

    What about d’s hypothetical?

    Let’s examine a simple hypothetical for a second – if there was a business on campus X, and it was discovered that this business donates proceeds to neo-nazi groups, would you have similar objections if a student government voted to oust them from campus? What if they donated proceeds to planned parenthood? Do you still feel the same way?

    First, I have no reason to claim perfect uninvolved objectivity on this. I don’t like you guys expressing hate toward me or others who agree with me on this.

    But there is a matter of justice, for which we ought to seek objectivity with all possible effort. The question is whether I would object as strenuously to a neo-Nazi group or Planned Parenthood being forced off campus as Chick-Fil-A has been.

    Well, it seems like a question of objective justice, but it doesn’t turn out that way on closer inspection; for what if the question were, “How would you feel if some LGBTQ-associated group were forced off campus?”

    There’s no covering law that says, “if you think it’s bad to force one group off campus, then you ought to feel the same way about any group being forced off campus.” If that were the principle, then if you would feel bad about the LGBTQ group being ejected, then you ought to be voicing your objections to what’s happened to Chick-Fil-A.

    I suppose I could go to a lot of effort and sort out the ways and circumstances in which it’s right to support one group’s ejection and to fight another group’s. But I’m not going to bother, since the question is moot. It doesn’t do for d what he wanted it to do. He wanted to show that I was holding to some inconsistent principle. I’ve shown that we all hold to principles that appear on the surface to be just as inconsistent. Even you do. Even d does. So let’s not bother with that discussion, okay?

  40. Tom,
    I too thought it was Otto that made the comment I quoted, but it was Fleegman. I had to go back and edit my comment.

  41. SteveK

    Non-religious arguments aren’t non-religious arguments if they are motivated by religious reasons, but if they are motivated by non-religious reasons then those same arguments are valid non-religious arguments.

    Yeah, that’s not what I wrote. If you read what I actually wrote, you’d see that I didn’t think the arguments themselves were sound.

    Oh brother.

  42. Fleegman,

    Yeah, that’s not what I wrote. If you read what I actually wrote, you’d see that I didn’t think the arguments themselves were sound.

    Okay, so you disagree with some of the premises of the arguments.

    Do you (a) dismiss the premises because you don’t think they are true, or do you (b) dismiss them because you think they are religiously motivated?

    If (a) then why did you mention religious motivations in connection with the arguments – as if it mattered? If (b) then say hello to the genetic fallacy, Fleegman.

  43. Tom,

    The point isn’t that if you think its right to force one group, then its right for all groups.

    The point is, you think it right, in some circumstances, to eject certain businesses from places like a school campus for providing material support to certain causes.

    So why is it wrong in this instance? You’ve merely asserted it so, but have made no case for it.

    The FRC puts out some rather pernicious misinformation about homosexuals, and either through deceitfulness or incompetence, dresses it up as and pretends it to be science, then spreads their nonsense to the world.

    Unfortunately, they find eager ears on the right and in religious circles. They are given clout, and they are defended because they are in the “Family Values” club.

    Yet their messages are not unlike Nazi propaganda – their senior fellows run around supporting criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour. Given that I have actually looked at the kind of stuff the FRC does, I don’t find it so odd or shocking that a business who supports them would get voted off a college campus.

  44. What makes it wrong in this instance is that Chick-Fil-A is not a monstrous businesses as you make it out to be.

    If you’re going to claim the FRC’s messages are “not unlike Nazi propaganda,” take note of these things:

    1. “You’ve merely asserted it so, but you have made no case for it.” (Sound familiar?)

    2. I called on you earlier to provide some evidence for that kind of charge.

    3. Now you’ve escalated the charge.

    4. You can put up, or

    5. You can shut up.

    I won’t have that kind of accusation going on here unless the accuser has some credible backing for it.

  45. What makes it wrong in this instance is that Chick-Fil-A is not a monstrous businesses as you make it out to be.

    That’s what I was thinking when I thought about answering the question. The reason for taking action rests on falsehoods so it’s wrong to take action for those reasons.

    And somehow this reminded me of this Seinfeld episode (something always reminds me of Seinfeld).

  46. SteveK,

    If (a) then why did you mention religious motivations in connection with the arguments – as if it mattered? If (b) then say hello to the genetic fallacy, Fleegman.

    It’s “a,” obviously.

    So I can say that I didn’t think the arguments were any good (they weren’t), and then say seperately that the whole thing reads like blah blah.

    You know, in the same way that it’s not an ad hominem to disagree with someone, and then insult them.

    That is not the genetic fallacy at play. Will you stop going on about it, now?

  47. @Fleegman(#42)

    On what planet?…

    Please do read a sentence in its entirety next time before critiquing its substance.

    When you write with this much ignorance of the facts, it makes me wonder whether you know anything about the whole CFA issue at all… Why don’t you actually research the groups they’re funding? Then we can talk.”

    Asserting a criterion for a claim to hold true is an expression of ignorance? Curious. Though of course what you mean is that it is apparently so obvious that the organizations CFA supports oppose the rights of gays and gay couples(?) that fulfilment of that criterion is a given. I have done my research and I mostly disagree with that conclusion for reasons we could discuss, though a claim of CFA’s “active opposition to gay right” is still in question either way.

    Are you just parroting your fellow Christians?

    Not sure if red herring or thinly-veiled ad hominem. Anyway, let’s stick to the arguments, shall we?

  48. @d

    Yet their messages are not unlike Nazi propaganda – their senior fellows run around supporting criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour.

    Care to elaborate on “run[ning] around…”? I’m aware of a comment or two made in an interview in 2010…
    As of yet, nothing to compare their general messages (many of which are perfectly reasonable and could easily be the cause of CFA’s support) with “Nazi propaganda”. Given the things I’ve heard, I was expecting to find something far worse than I did when I actually looked up the FRC (which I was previously unfamiliar with). And to peg CFA as direct supporters of the worst of their activities is rather misleading, if not disingenuous. It’s unsettling how McCarthyist the gay rights (or gay marriage, rather) movement has become.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

Clicky