A&E decides

#476
#476
govols/cc said:
I believe marriage is between a man & a woman. If gays wanna have a legal binding couple agreement call it something else.
Click to expand...

Why is government in the business of marriage at all? I think my stance on this is pretty well covered. Give everyone civil unions in the eyes of the state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#477
#477
davethevol said:
More and more the minority groups are showing they are the only ones entitled to free speech.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate? Please provide an example of the "majority" not being able to exercise free speech?

A&E made a business decision, as a private company - they should be allowed to do that, no?
 
#479
#479
davethevol said:
More and more the minority groups are showing they are the only ones entitled to free speech.
Click to expand...

This is not a free speech issue. Does anybody actually understand the bill of rights?

This is an issue of voluntary interaction.
 
#480
#480
Burhead said:
Explain?
Click to expand...

Again? Fine.

I said this at post #113:

Can someone choose to act on their violent tendencies if they're just born that way (we all know someone - Type A, right?)?
Can someone choose to act on their addictive tendencies if they're just born that way (alcoholism is a disease, right?)?
Can someone choose to act on their homosexual tendencies if they're just born that way (not all homosexuals do)?

You don't choose your skin color.

That's just one difference.
Click to expand...

Here's another:

You can look at an African American and say "he's black".
You can look at a woman and say "SHE'S hot."

You cannot look at a person with exact certainty (without prior knowledge) and say, "they're gay."
 
#482
#482
govols/cc said:
I believe marriage is between a man & a woman. If gays wanna have a legal binding couple agreement call it something else.
Click to expand...

Cause a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right?

This position is so insignificant, I really don't get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#483
#483
davethevol said:
More and more the minority groups are showing they are the only ones entitled to free speech.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, free speech does not come with a guarantee of no consequence. I could publically say that I hate my job and my boss is a moron; I'm free to do that, but should not be surprised if there are consequences.

No freedom of speech has been violated here. We may not always agree with the consequences, but we all have free speech.
 
#484
#484
n_huffhines said:
Cause a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right?

This position is so insignificant, I really don't get it.
Click to expand...

I get it, understand it's merit but don't personally share it.

The term itself has tremendous symbolic meaning that is distinct from the legal/contractual implications of a partnership.

I understand why some people value that symbolic meaning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#485
#485
davethevol said:
I think the issue is that a very vocal minority is dictating policy over the majority. The squeakiest wheel is getting the grease so to speak. We as a nation are too worried about people's feelings being hurt.
Click to expand...

Everyone looks to get their feelings hurt, no one more than these folks with this lifestyle
 
#486
#486
Phil has the right to say what he wants within the confines of the law.
A&E has the right to suspend him, or not, within the confines of the law.
Consumers have the right to patronize or not patronize A&E.
 
#487
#487
Burhead said:
So you agree the majority has the right to withhold certain rights and privileges, even liberties to minorities?
Click to expand...

No and the minority dosn't have the right to withhold rights or privileges of the majority because they are offended either.
 
#488
#488
gcbvol said:
Respectfully, free speech does not come with a guarantee of no consequence. I could publically say that I hate my job and my boss is a moron; I'm free to do that, but should not be surprised if there are consequences.

No freedom of speech has been violated here. We may not always agree with the consequences, but we all have free speech.
Click to expand...

I will say that I'm impressed that virtually all the talking heads I've heard address this situation (from the right and left) agree that this is not a First Amendment issue and recognize that consequences come with opinion - the debate seems to be about the fairness of the consequences.
 
#490
#490
volinbham said:
I will say that I'm impressed that virtually all the talking heads I've heard address this situation (from the right and left) agree that this is not a First Amendment issue and recognize that consequences come with opinion - the debate seems to be about the fairness of the consequences.
Click to expand...

Yep, and that is perfectly reasonable.
 
#492
#492
volinbham said:
I get it, understand it's merit but don't personally share it.

The term itself has tremendous symbolic meaning that is distinct from the legal/contractual implications of a partnership.

I understand why some people value that symbolic meaning.
Click to expand...

That's quite reasonable and a pretty understandable position. I would imagine however that many folks who profess to be against same sex "marriage" would also be against civil unions that provide the same benefits of a traditional marriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#493
#493
volinbham said:
I get it, understand it's merit but don't personally share it.

The term itself has tremendous symbolic meaning that is distinct from the legal/contractual implications of a partnership.

I understand why some people value that symbolic meaning.
Click to expand...

The institution they cling so tightly too and defend is falling apart from the inside out and has been for years. The death of marriage will not come from letting homosexuals marry but via the destruction by heterosexual couples.
 
#495
#495
Burhead said:
The institution they cling so tightly to and defend is falling apart from the inside out and has been for years. The death of marriage will not come from letting homosexuals marry but via the destruction by heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there is some truth to this.
 
#496
#496
Burhead said:
The institution they cling so tightly too and defend is falling apart from the inside out and has been for years. The death of marriage will not come from letting homosexuals marry but via the destruction by heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...

Yep & sin is sin. These people accept it. Homosexuals can't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#497
#497
gcbvol said:
Respectfully, free speech does not come with a guarantee of no consequence. I could publically say that I hate my job and my boss is a moron; I'm free to do that, but should not be surprised if there are consequences.

No freedom of speech has been violated here. We may not always agree with the consequences, but we all have free speech.
Click to expand...

:good!: 100% correct.

I have no problem with A&E doing what they did, Phil saying what he said or people boycotting A&E and their sponsors. Free country and all.
 
#498
#498
hog88 said:
No and the minority dosn't have the right to withhold rights or privileges of the majority because they are offended either.
Click to expand...

Which "rights and privileges" have been withheld by the minority?
 
#500
#500
I understand that it isn't a violation of the bill of rights. But we see over and over that Christians shouldn't be allowed to discuss their beliefs and that the far left should be allowed. Because Phil has a different view point he should shut up, but the gay parades in San Fran are a beautiful thing because they celebrate natural behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top