Chick-fil-A banned from opening at San Antonio airport, council members cite LGBTQ issues

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Civility kind of takes a hit when you diminish people for how they were born.

We are all born all kinds of ways.  There are things about me that are so ingrained in my personality and feelings that I never chose them.  But I doubt either of us would say that just because someone is born with some sort of feeling or inclination that it is therefore to be automatically accepted and celebrated in every way possible.

 

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I mean, I try to avoid absolutes, but I can't think of many things that we haven't improved our understanding on in the last couple millenia. Although the Greeks might've had a way healthier attitude towards homosexuality than we do. I've only heard anecdotes, really.

I think we as humans have gotten better in a lot of ways.  In other ways, I think our ancestors better us.

 

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Oh no, I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about it. You act as though you're the first person I've had this conversation with. 

Thinking it's okay to be gay- since, like, a HUGE percentage of the population worldwide is and has been gay since forever- is not the passing fad that you would have it be. As seen in many conversations in this forum, a LOT of otherwise sane people are REALLY slow on the update when it comes to basic decency. 

It's still lazy.

 

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Oh FFS Titan. I didn't say that or anything like it. Talk about lazy argumentation. Unless you want to try to say with a straight face that sex isn't a component of the full expression of love for the vast majority of human beings. 

I'm just taking what you said and asking you a logical follow up question.  You said "you would deny gay folks full expression of their love for each other" and you at least seemed to agree with homer that for a gay person to have attraction and not act on them means they aren't "being who they are."  It's a logical conclusion to draw or to at least dig into more.

Sex is one way in which love can be expressed.  It's also for many people just a casual satisfaction of hormonal surges that bears no relation to love.  And it's not the fullest expression of love for someone.  There are many ways in which you can express love to someone that is superior to having sex with them.  

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes. I also believe the same about straights who think we are biologically as a result of evolution meant to have sex with as many partners as possible.  There are limits/boundaries/parameters to sexual expression. Sue me. 

I would say that the "as many as possible" thing is evolving in the other direction. Agree with you there. And it's interesting, I sometimes wonder if self-perpetuation of the species is what's behind the early negative attitudes towards homosexuality. 

Quote

I’ve spoken to people about this before. I’m actually finding fewer and fewer Christians who believe how I do on sexual conduct that really care about the nature/nurture debate. 

Excellent news.

Quote

I will tell him no such thing. And he’s not ashamed. He’s open about who he is and who he isn’t. He’s not in the closet. He’s not trying pretend he’s attracted to girls. 

Theres nothing unhealthy about choosing celibacy and singleness. You give up some things. You gain others.

He just doesn't think he's allowed to do certain things that straight people are. But it sounds like he doesn't think he's giving up something important. Good for him. 

Quote

I’m confused. Homer argued and you seemed to agree that unless someone gets to act on their attractions, they aren’t being “who they are.”  Did I misunderstand you?  Because of that’s true, then you and he are saying that my friend’s gayness ultimately boils down to being able to have sex with a man.  Otherwise, he’s not fully “who he is.”

Key word: "fully"

A cake is technically still a cake without icing, buuuuut...

Quote

I’m not playing the victim. I’m saying that you don’t get to chastise me for supposedly not really engaging the subject - acting out of “ignorance and fear instead of making an effort to actually understand theobject of derision,” then turn around and flippantly dismiss my views rather than making an effort to understand them. 

Okay. You were talking about me putting you in boxes with broad names. 

I've been hearing your views my entire life. They've been explained to me many different ways by many different people. I haven't heard a new explanation in a long time. Meanwhile, my own views have grown increasingly divergent from that way of thinking. 

Quote

Thanks. I enjoy good debate. I just hope we can’t argue our points while giving each other the benefit of the doubt on motive and reasoning. 

I'll try. 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

44 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

My mind can not imagine it. I see no need in going to great lengths to refute it though. 

So, if you believe it actually happened, why not just say so? 

And your damn right your mind cannot imagine it.  No sane person - religious or not could entertain the notion that the myth of Noah's ark was literally true.  It's absurd on it's face. 

Do you have any religious-based beliefs about the age of the earth?

Do you think the scientific record is entirely bogus if it conflicts with the literal biblical story?

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But I doubt either of us would say that just because someone is born with some sort of feeling or inclination that it is therefore to be automatically accepted and celebrated in every way possible.

When it doesn't hurt somebody, yes it should be accepted. Celebrated in every way possible? Who said that? You sound offended.

Yes, I celebrate healthy, loving relationships in every way possible. I do not celebrate unhealthy, unloving relationships. I'm glad that more and more people are moving towards opinions based on more meaningful criteria.

Quote

It's still lazy.

Lol, ok.

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Sex is one way in which love can be expressed.  It's also for many people just a casual satisfaction of hormonal surges that bears no relation to love.  And it's not the fullest expression of love for someone.  There are many ways in which you can express love to someone that is superior to having sex with them.  

How many long-term, healthy, committed, romantic relationships are there that don't include sex at all? Very few percentage wise, but here's the thing: it doesn't matter because it's none of our damn business and folks should be free to choose, just like your friend is free to choose no sex. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

When it doesn't hurt somebody, yes it should be accepted. Celebrated in every way possible? Who said that? You sound offended.

Not offended.  Just a snarky response to how it's handled in culture.

 

Quote

Yes, I celebrate healthy, loving relationships in every way possible. I do not celebrate unhealthy, unloving relationships. I'm glad that more and more people are moving towards opinions based on more meaningful criteria.

Who gets to decide what constitutes healthy?  Loving?  Do we take a majority vote?  Do I get to decide?  You?  And what standard are we using?  Who gets to decide that?

 

Quote

How many long-term, healthy, committed, romantic relationships are there that don't include sex at all? Very few percentage wise, but here's the thing: it doesn't matter because it's none of our damn business and folks should be free to choose, just like your friend is free to choose no sex. 

I didn't think we were arguing about whether someone is free to have sex with whomever they want.  I thought we were discussing why various people believe what they believe about sexual expression and whether that belief, regardless of where you fall on the matter, is really enough of a thing to warrant using government into preventing a chicken sandwich restaurant from opening somewhere.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Hoo boy, you're really just going to keep equivocating people who are allowed to have sex as long as they jump through some hoops and people who aren't allowed to have it at all.

Sad.

I am posting the following with all due respect and I certainly have no intent to belittle religious people.  I just think they are mistaken.

Titan - and many other Christians - is a good guy with good values - at least as far as they go - but he is an authoritarian to his very core. That is a common trait among Republicans, conservatives and the religious in general.

Not saying that's necessarily bad in all circumstances,  it's not.  But God - the ultimate authority - is the foundation of their world view.

That's exactly why Titan reverts back to instructions expressed in the literal word of the bible, which are presumably God's own words. 

And fwiw, I am not saying that "God" necessarily does not exist, In fact I suppose it's possible.  But if God exists, Nature is the manifestation of His handiwork, by definition.  (And science is the key to understanding nature.) 

As you implied, ancient manuscripts are interesting from a historical and cultural standpoint, but they have nothing to do with a potential God.  Any religion that relies on such manuscripts as a accurate indicator of what God "demands" is fatally flawed.  They were created by man and are therefore, are 'of' man. 

(This is what I meant when I referred to good values "as far as they go".  If your values ultimately rely on an ancient text written by ancient people, you are selling yourself short.)

I know this is going to cause people to react negatively - or at least with pity that I am not "saved".  That's OK and I appreciate your concern. But some of us - probably more than are willing to admit - just didn't inherent the "God gene".  

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Bingo nothing. I don’t have any particular prejudice against gay people. Frankly it would make my life a whole lot easier just go along to get along. I have no particular desire to take positions that 1) the culture hates me for. I don’t get some kind of weird pleasure from being contrarian. I believe what I believe because I believe him to be actually true about the world, about who we are, and about how we are to live.

I actually take the time to sit down with people whose views are very different from mine, specifically multiple gay friends of mine. Two in particular that I talk and/or go to lunch or grab a drink with regularly are on opposite sides from each other. One is gay and living with his partner. 2) The other is gay, Christian, and chooses celibacy because he studied the issue and came to the conclusion that he agreed with historic biblical teaching on the matter. He disagrees that to not act on attraction means he isn’t “who he is” and would actually be insulted that someone would say that being gay boils down in the end to being able to have sex. We talk on a deep level about these things. They asked me questions about why I believe what I believe.   And I ask them about their experience. I don’t make just a cursory effort to understand another’s position, I make thoughtful, considered and concerted effort to do so. 

Now I realize it’s easier to dismiss me if you can just put me in a preconceived box labeled “prejudiced” or “bigot” or “religious nut”, but it doesn’t withstand scrutiny. 

1) Don't play the victim card.  No one "hates" you for thinking homosexuality is a choice. Hell, you're probably in the majority, at least in the South.

2) So apparently, it's also possible for gays to inherent the "God gene".

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Don't play the victim card.  No one "hates" you for thinking homosexuality is a choice. Hell, you're probably in the majority, at least in the South.

I'm not playing the victim card.  And I have no real opinion about the nature/nurture debate.  It's irrelevant to any belief I hold on sexual matters.  But the culture does increasingly hate anyone who pushes back against the prevailing sexual ethic, especially when it comes to homosexuality.

But whether you describe it as hate or something else is beside the point - which is that it was simply be easier to change my views to swim along with with the cultural tide.

 

Quote

2) So apparently, it's also possible for gays to inherent the "God gene".

Or, sometimes intelligent, thoughtful, deep thinking people come to very different conclusions on matters from you.

[homersapien 11,362]

57 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I’m confused. Homer argued and you seemed to agree that unless someone gets to act on their attractions, they aren’t being “who they are.”  Did I misunderstand you?  Because of that’s true, then you and he are saying that my friend’s gayness ultimately boils down to being able to have sex with a man.  Otherwise, he’s not fully “who he is.”

Now Titan, let's not be disingenuous.  I have never suggested people should necessarily act on their "attractions".  Hell, I am "attracted" to some 16 year old girls.....

I am referring to having the freedom of being able to be who you are. That's essential to happiness.

That some would consider that to be a sin is what I take issue with.

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Sorry. I said huge percentage. It's a huge number. 300 million is a reasonable guess based off studies I've seen.

 

I did some research on that and found the range varied from 1% to 5%.  The most reliable estimate was about 2.5%, which - to your point - is a lot of people.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Now Titan, let's not be disingenuous.  I have never suggested people should necessarily act on their "attractions".  Hell, I am "attracted" to some 16 year old girls.....

I didn't think that's what you actually intended to say.  But it was the logical end of your statement on the gay person "being who they are" as it relates to having gay sex.

 

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I am referring to having the freedom of being able to be who you are. That's essential to happiness.

That some would consider that to be a sin is what I take issue with.

That's just it.  He would tell you he is being who he is and that having sex with a man has nothing to do with that being a thing that is possible.  

There are various things that I and he consider to be sin.  We have the freedom in the sense that there is free will to act on and pursue those things.  But we still don't because of what we believe to be true about right and wrong and so on.  The parameters of sexual expression just happen to be one of those things.  

[homersapien 11,362]

54 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

I would say that the "as many as possible" thing is evolving in the other direction. Agree with you there. And it's interesting, I sometimes wonder if self-perpetuation of the species is what's behind the early negative attitudes towards homosexuality.

Actually, there are valid scientific reasons why promiscuity is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage for humans and many other animals.

Likewise, there are theories as to why the existence of homosexuals is persistent - albeit at relatively low levels - in the human species.

[homersapien 11,362]

42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Who gets to decide what constitutes healthy?  Loving?  Do we take a majority vote?  Do I get to decide?  You?  And what standard are we using?  Who gets to decide that?

There's that authoritarianism raising it's head.

[homersapien 11,362]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not playing the victim card.  And I have no real opinion about the nature/nurture debate.  It's irrelevant to any belief I hold on sexual matters.  But the culture does increasingly hate anyone who pushes back against the prevailing sexual ethic, especially when it comes to homosexuality.

 

Not to quibble, but homosexuality is much less a "sexual ethic" than a state of sexual being.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There's that authoritarianism raising it's head.

It's authoritarian to ask how we decide what is permitted and not permitted and by what standard that decision is being made?  Odd.  I thought those were just run of the mill questions any thinking person could have.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not to quibble, but homosexuality is much less a "sexual ethic" than a state of sexual being.

I didn't say homosexuality was a sexual ethic.  I said there was "a prevailing sexual ethic" held by the culture at large.  That sexual ethic has things to say about sexual expression, including expression within homosexuality and even about the nature of homosexuality (and heterosexuality) itself.

[homersapien 11,362]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Or, sometimes intelligent, thoughtful, deep thinking people come to very different conclusions on matters from you.

Exactly.  And in this case, those people inherited the "God gene" whereas I didn't.

Show me someone who abstains from fully being who they are because they are afraid of what God think's about, inherited the God gene (which is strongly linked to authoritarianism).

But that's fine with me, if it's fine with him. 

Or to put it another way, none of this debate has anything to do with being thoughtful or deep thinking.  The conflict is totally based on religious beliefs (or the lack thereof).

[homersapien 11,362]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's authoritarian to ask how we decide what is permitted and not permitted and by what standard that decision is being made?  Odd.  I thought those were just run of the mill questions any thinking person could have.

It's authoritarian to have a pressing need to know who  - specifically - sets the rules.

Or perhaps more accurately, a pressing need to know there is someone - specifically - who sets the rules.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

40 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Not offended.  Just a snarky response to how it's handled in culture.

Folks are probably a little buoyant since it's been so unnecessarily and stupidly repressed for so long. I certainly think it's worthy of celebration anytime hate takes a hit.

Quote

Who gets to decide what constitutes healthy?  Loving?  Do we take a majority vote?  Do I get to decide?  You?  And what standard are we using?  Who gets to decide that?

You sure as hell don't! Neither do I! But we can both have our opinions! And our opinions need to stay the hell away from how folks go about their business as long as nobody's getting hurt! Maybe you do get it! 

Quote

I didn't think we were arguing about whether someone is free to have sex with whomever they want.  I thought we were discussing why various people believe what they believe about sexual expression and whether that belief, regardless of where you fall on the matter, is really enough of a thing to warrant using government into preventing a chicken sandwich restaurant from opening somewhere.

Okay, yes, let's circle it back around. Good call. But let's just call it a "business", okay? Nobody has said they don't want chicken sandwiches and we all know that chicken sandwiches have nothing to do with this*. Some people want Chick-Fil-As on every corner and other people want them out of business and it's 100% because of their corporate values, so if we're staying on topic, then yes, let's stay on topic. 

If the company doesn't share the community's values, then it seems perfectly appropriate to me for that community's government to enact the will of the people. I've heard countless stories of businesses being denied permits for far more frivolous reasons. And we're talking about this community's airport, which is the gateway to the city. It's important to them that the businesses there communicate a certain message. I'm sure Chick-Fil-A is free to do business elsewhere in San Antonio. 

*Okay, so maybe the chicken sandwiches are so damned delicious that some people put aside their personal values long enough to enjoy them on occasion. I have numerous gay friends who don't give a damn where the money goes. Man, those sandwiches are delicious. And the customer service is amazing. Like, we all really, really want to love Chick-Fil-A unconditionally. 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It's authoritarian to ask how we decide what is permitted and not permitted and by what standard that decision is being made?  Odd.  I thought those were just run of the mill questions any thinking person could have.

No, it's authoritarian to even consider that it's a matter of permission. 

[homersapien 11,362]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I didn't say homosexuality was a sexual ethic.  I said there was "a prevailing sexual ethic" held by the culture at large.  That sexual ethic has things to say about sexual expression, including expression within homosexuality and even about the nature of homosexuality (and heterosexuality) itself.

You included homosexuality as part of the prevailing cultural sexual ethic.

I don't disagree there are culturally expressed sexual ethics, which includes feeling and ethics about homosexuality, but it's not correct to include homosexuality per se' as an "ethic".

That may seem like an overly subtle semantical distinction, but homosexuality per se' is a natural state of human being, not an "ethic".

[McLoofus 35,182]

29 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I didn't think that's what you actually intended to say.  But it was the logical end of your statement on the gay person "being who they are" as it relates to having gay sex.

You were right that Homey and I agreed with each other. He and I both said that sex is a component of what I called the full expression of love. 

I'll offer another analogy. A car with 3 tires is still car, but it's a helluva lot less of one. Maybe some folks like your friend don't really like to drive, but that's not for you or me or an old book to decide. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

No, it's authoritarian to even consider that it's a matter of permission. 

Someone notify literally anyone who’s ever made a rule about anything ever. Apparently even wanting to understand the basis for which we make rules, laws or anything is “authoritarian.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

You included homosexuality as part of the prevailing cultural sexual ethic.

I don't disagree there are culturally expressed sexual ethics, which includes feeling and ethics about homosexuality, but it's not correct to include homosexuality per se' as an "ethic".

That may seem like an overly subtle semantical distinction, but homosexuality per se' is a natural state of human being, not an "ethic".

No, I included views or beliefs about homosexuality in the “prevailing sexual ethic.” I never said anything about homosexuality itself being a sexual ethic.

[homersapien 11,362]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

No, I included views or beliefs about homosexuality in the “prevailing sexual ethic.” I never said anything about homosexuality itself being a sexual ethic.

To me it was implied.  Perhaps the way it was written was ambiguous? 

Anyway, I apologize for miss inferring if that wasn't your intention.