Because that was the argument that Woolworth's used to keep black people from eating at their lunch counter. Woolworth's claimed that blacks could eat somewhere else, but virtually everyone else said the same thing. If you're a public accommodation, you accommodate *all* of the public, or none. They're called public accommodation laws for a reason.
Even the National Organization for Marriage, an extremely anti-gay organization...
Is that really true? I don't think so. As far as I know they only want to maintain the definition of marriage that has existed in all the states only what, 10-15 years ago? That is the same definition that existed since well before the republic was formed.
First off, you think the definition of marriage hasn't changed "since well before the republic was formed"? Back when women were chattel, and people of different races were prohibited from marrying? Or when polygamy was practiced? Or when women could only get a divorce when the man agreed to it? Which republic are you referring to? One that formed 20 years ago?
And furthermore, NOM does NOTHING for anybody's marriage. They're not anti-divorce, they're not anti-polygamy, they're not concerned about people who are unable or choose not to have children getting married. They've completely ignored every other issue related to marriage, and laser-focused on LGBT people exclusively. They've also weighed in very heavily against the repeal of DOMA and DADT, which have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with gay people.
If anybody's using loaded language to mischaracterize their intent, NOM could be their poster boy. Absolutely nothing to do marriage, and everything to do with keeping LGBT people second-class citizens.
You may think that people throw the term homophobia around as a political ploy, but from your very words it seems that you've never been on the receiving end of it, and just think it's one more thing liberals and conservatives argue about.
First off, why be so pedantic about the word homophobia?I don't see you or anyone else complaining that the word hydrophobia doesn't mean that someone has a phobia about water, it just means that their throat is becoming paralyzed and it's becoming difficult to drink. There are lots of words in the English language that don't mean exactly what you'd think they mean by comparing them to other words.
Second off, the people boycotting this movie don't just think that OSC doesn't share their views or beliefs. He's gone on the record saying some outrageous things about LGBT people, not the least of which is claiming that homosexuality should be made a felony, and concentration camps should be set up to imprison them. Even the National Organization for Marriage, an extremely anti-gay organization, has tried to distance themselves from him, and he used to be a prominent member of their board of directors.
I have no difficulty separating art from the creator. I *loved* reading Ender's Game, it was a brilliant book. But I can't abide putting one cent into OSC's pocket no matter how much I may want to see it, and if I had known at the time what kind of person OSC was, I never would have purchased any of his books either.
The last time people thought Apple was making a huge mistake and cannibalizing their own sales was with the iPod nano replacing the iPod mini, and we saw what a *disaster* that was.
Steve Jobs even said that if Apple doesn't cannibalize their own sales, somebody else will. This is such a non-issue that it's laughable.
Maybe HP will buy them. It worked out so well for them last time.
"*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government grant gay people these rights, merely because *their* personal beliefs say that gay people are entitled to acceptance by society."
Nobody's asking for acceptance by society. Gay people are demanding that they be treated as equals in the eye of the law. It seems that 99% of this battle is due to the people who oppose equal rights trying to make the fight about something it's not.
Of course, telling me that *my* religious beliefs cannot, repeat *cannot* be considered a valid for my opinion on this topic, and so invalidates my opinion in their opinion, is hypocritical, but winning in court should soothe their souls.
Nobody's telling you that your religious beliefs are not a valid basis for your opinion, but they sure as hell aren't valid as a defense for passing laws propagating discrimination against an entire class of people.
Minor correction: the Mormon church didn't spend money in support of Prop 8 (this is a matter of public record).
Actually, they spent massive amounts of money by donating to the National Organization for Marriage and the Yes on 8 Campaign, which in turn spent it supporting Prop 8. Of course, that's not a matter of public record because 14 states are currently suing the National Organization for Marriage for refusing to turn over their donor lists. Several sources have corroborated the claim that the vast majority of NOMs funds came from the Catholic and Mormon churches. And the California Fair Political Practices Commission even fined the Mormon Church for nondisclosure of political donations. And that ignores the huge effort they expended via door-to-door campaigns and providing manpower for other lobbying efforts.
So, maybe the public record doesn't show the contributions that the LDS Church made, but the fact remains that they were the single biggest contributor to the support of Prop 8.
I, on the other hand, find it more telling that people feel the need for the federal government to "magically" find rights where none existed before and ignore the actual PROCESS our framers put in place to amend the constitution. There are REASONS why its difficult to change the constitution -- one of which is that wild changes on emotional whims can rip this country apart.
I'd love to see where in our constitution it spells out exactly which rights straight people have, and which ones gay people have. Nobody is "magically" finding rights. It's spelled out in black and white, "all men are created equal". It can't get any plainer than that.
Being against homosexual marriage is *NOT* unusual or extreme by definition. In all 50 states, only about 7 or 8 allow it, and only 2 were by electoral choice of their respective peoples. Even the left-coast liberal state of California (who voted in President Obama for a second term by a wide margin) ALSO passed Prop 8 amending the constitution of the State of CA preventing homosexual marriage.
Actually, it's 12 states, plus the District of Columbia. And furthermore, it was 3 states, Washington, Maine, and Maryland who passed via a direct vote of the people, and 6 more, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia, who passed a vote in the legislature, representing the will of their constituents. Prop 8 in California passed because the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church spent untold millions of dollars campaigning for it. Polls in California before and since the vote show a decided majority of Californians support gay marriage.
People think that EXTREME? If so, to paraphrase a famous swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means".
When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment. Until then, the fed should REALLY stay out of it.
The fed should not stay out of it. One of the express goals of our government is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses. That is exactly what is happening here. Saying that anyone should "stay out of it" is the same as saying, "We're doing a good job of marginalizing these people right now, don't go and do something that would change the status quo."
*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government deny gay people their rights, merely because *their* religious beliefs say that gay people are sinners.
And then they have the pathological gall to explicitly express that their rights are being trampled upon if someone suggests that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.
And furthermore, the government has nothing to do with your "social ritual". Holy matrimony is a religious institution that the government does not regulate. Civil marriage is a contract between two people that the government administers. Just because people use the word "marriage" to refer to both of them does not mean that they are the same thing.
Wolfram Alpha does similar analysis with your Facebook data. Those bubble charts reveal some amazing insights on seemingly insufficient amounts of data.
Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. It’s not. People still want to argue about it. We can’t be any clearer – it’s not. Period.
EA continues to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is not a DRM scheme. It is. EA still wants to lie about it. We can't be any clearer - it is. Period.