The Chick Fil A Flap

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I know you weren't talking to me but how is your tax paying money maintaining and facilitating same sex marriage?

As a licensed therapist who agrees to work with children (I love working with children), I can't even tell you how close I am to saying I won't do it anymore. Why? Because I am sick to DEATH of fighting, divorced parents. I spent 8 hours in court on Tuesday in a custody case, as an "expert witness" when I could have been in my office, doing therapy. We Christian/heterosexuals are not doing such a great job in the marriage arena.

I know you aren't actually answering what I was saying. My question was perhaps vague. Let me repeat: Why should my tax paying money go to maintain and facilitate marriage (e.g., under current circumstances, opposite sex marriage)?

I agree with you that Christian/heterosexuals have RUINED the institution of marriage, beginning with making it "civil marriage," then no-fault divorce, etc etc ad infinitum. After having destroyed marriage, no wonder they now (statistically) favor giving it gay people like me.

As I think I have mentioned in the past, there are two wonderful works of gay art that were actual movies on the subject of marriage that are very challenging and enriching: 1) Francois Ozon's 5X2 2) Patrik Ian Polk's Noah's Arc: Jumping the Broom. But since American gays (like most American consumers) tend to lack any intellectual or cultural curiosity (and most are also racist), these movies were ignored in favor of those promoted by the mainstream and "gay agenda" publications. Hype wins all. And the discourses hosted here about marriage, The Constitution and The Bible all sound like recycled talking points from cable news. *yawn*

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Some would say, such as Libertarians and me (for different reasons), that such a thing as "legal marriage [that] is a civic function governed by law" constitutes something that some people believe in (I presume you, KarmaContestant, are one such person), and that they (you) are using the force of government "to influence [my] rights and privileges."

Why should my taxpayer money go toward maintaining and facilitating the institution of legal marriage (regardless of how it is defined)?

Me being allowed to marry is not an infringement on your rights or privileges. Even if I marry, you still have the right (and privilege) to disagree, and to not be forced into marriage with another homosexual.

Now, I suppose you technically have a point with the tax issue. If you pay taxes, and those taxes are used to pay the salary of the fellow who is granting me a marriage license, then yes - your tax dollars are being used to support something that you may be opposed to on moral or religious grounds. However, this is an inevitable side effect of being a citizen in a nation funded by taxes. Why should my taxpayer money go toward:

War for profit.
The criminalization of drugs.
Capital Punishment, and in fact our entire American prison system.
Enforcing the requirement that we have drivers license to drive a car.
All oil/gas/corn/wheat/tobacco subsidies.
Any laws or obstacles restricting the free movement of people and animals around the planet.
The enforcement of anti-polygamy laws. (Yes, I support bigamous and polygamous marriages as well.)
Any local requirements to spay, neuter or register your pets.
Elected politicians receiving a salary, not only for doing their elected duty - but for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, one could argue that the taxes I pay are used to make up lost revenue from the tax credits that are given to married heterosexual couples.

I pay taxes that may or may not be used directly or indirectly for implementation or enforcement of any one of these purposes, despite being opposed to them for moral or spiritual reasons. It is the sacrifice I make for being an American citizen - all the money goes into the same pot and none of us gets to pick and choose what it is spent on.

Do you believe that opponents of marriage for gays should be granted an exception?

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Me being allowed to marry is not an infringement on your rights or privileges. Even if I marry, you still have the right (and privilege) to disagree, and to not be forced into marriage with another homosexual.

Now, I suppose you technically have a point with the tax issue. If you pay taxes, and those taxes are used to pay the salary of the fellow who is granting me a marriage license, then yes - your tax dollars are being used to support something that you may be opposed to on moral or religious grounds. However, this is an inevitable side effect of being a citizen in a nation funded by taxes. Why should my taxpayer money go toward:

War for profit.
The criminalization of drugs.
Capital Punishment, and in fact our entire American prison system.
Enforcing the requirement that we have drivers license to drive a car.
All oil/gas/corn/wheat/tobacco subsidies.
Any laws or obstacles restricting the free movement of people and animals around the planet.
The enforcement of anti-polygamy laws. (Yes, I support bigamous and polygamous marriages as well.)
Any local requirements to spay, neuter or register your pets.
Elected politicians receiving a salary, not only for doing their elected duty - but for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, one could argue that the taxes I pay are used to make up lost revenue from the tax credits that are given to married heterosexual couples.

I pay taxes that may or may not be used directly or indirectly for implementation or enforcement of any one of these purposes, despite being opposed to them for moral or spiritual reasons. It is the sacrifice I make for being an American citizen - all the money goes into the same pot and none of us gets to pick and choose what it is spent on.

Do you believe that opponents of marriage for gays should be granted an exception?

I don't know what's so funny. You agree with me then. You agree--as I have said--as an American that all the money goes into the same pot and none us gets to pick and choose what it is spent on (except through voting for those who do choose). Consequently, currently, your preferences--civil marriage--is rammed down my throat (to use a common phrase about government impositions on our lives) and those of anti-gay marriage people are rammed down your throat and mine.

What I don't understand is why YOUR value system is Constitutional while those of anti-gay marriage people are not.

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Furthermore, one could argue that the taxes I pay are used to make up lost revenue from the tax credits that are given to married heterosexual couples.

That's exactly what I was referring to... am I not speaking English? To be clear: I am against civil marriage for any and all people. And no solution would make your dream of multi-definitional marriage come true faster than joining me in calling for the end to all civil marriage. As Bruno Todeschini's character in the gay epic of modern times Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train (Patrice Chereau, 1999) said: "Our lives could be more inventive."

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

But since American gays (like most American consumers) tend to lack any intellectual or cultural curiosity (and most are also racist

Your statement is unfortunately and absolutely true of many - though not all of us.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Your statement is unfortunately and absolutely true of many - though not all of us.

I guarantee you have never seen a movie by Julian Hernandez, Andre Techine, Terence Davies, Patrice Chereau, Francois Ozon, Patrik Ian Polk, Martineau-Ducastel, and I could keep going--not just great contemporary gay filmmakers, but great filmmakers.

But you probably saw Brokeback Mountain.

[TrueFaith77]

For those interested, this is a list I made for a friend of mine (with whom I hadn't spoken in 10 years so it was a means of catching up):

20 Best Gay Films of the 21st Century
1. Raging Sun, Raging Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2009)
2. Broken Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2006)
3. The Witnesses (Andre Techine, 2008)
4. Son frere (Patrice Chereau, 2004)
5. A Thousand Clouds of Peace (Julian Hernandez, 2004)
6. Three Dancing Slaves (Gael Morel, 2005)
7. My Life On Ice (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2003)
8. Infamous (Douglas McGrath, 2006)
9. Garcon stupide (Lionel Baier, 2005)
10. Time To Leave (Francois Ozon, 2006)
11. Changing Times (Andre Techine, 2005)
12. Porn Theater (Jacques Nolot, 2003)
13. The Adventures of Felix (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2001)
14. Bear Cub (Miguel Albaladejo, 2004)
15. I Love You Philip Morris (Glenn Ficcarra & John Requa, 2010)
16. Of Time and the City (Terence Davies, 2009)
17. Father and Son (Aleksandr Sokurov, 2004)
18. Cote d’azur (Olivier Ducastel and Jacques Martineau, 2005)
19. Noah’s Arc: Jumping the Broom (Patrik-Ian Polk, 2008)
20. Circuit (Dirk Shafer, 2002)

NOTE: This list was made before the release of Patrik-Ian Polk's must-see The Skinny (2012) which is a real leap for him as an artist and for American gay cinema. So it would be up there somewhere.

NOTE: This list was also made before the release of Andre Techine's Unforgivable (2012) which is staggeringly great but also so radically redefines the very concepts of gay cinema and of identity politics that I'm not sure if it would even belong on this list... wow.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

What I don't understand is why YOUR value system is Constitutional while those of anti-gay marriage people are not.

My value system grants liberties.

The values of anti-gay marriage people withholds liberties.

The Constitution always giveth - it never taketh away, based of course on prevailing social attitudes of the time. OK, OK - Dred Scott - but that did not last very long.

The public conscience on gays has shifted. The time has come for gays to have equal marriage rights. Ultimately, I believe the Constitution will be interpreted to support this. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it being possible.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

My value system grants liberties.

The values of anti-gay marriage people withholds liberties.

The Constitution always giveth - it never taketh away, based of course on prevailing social attitudes of the time. OK, OK - Dred Scott - but that did not last very long.

The public conscience on gays has shifted. The time has come for gays to have equal marriage rights. Ultimately, I believe the Constitution will be interpreted to support this. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it being possible.

But you have a different definition of liberty. Why is yours better than mine (which says I shouldn't be forced to pay for ANYONE'S marriage) and anti-same sex folk (who feel they shouldn't have to pay for the impediment of man's soul)? Those are the points of view we all bring to the ballot box. Until the Supreme Court rules differently. And if you were right, then the Supreme Court would rule accordingly and/or the people would vote for politicians who would expand the definition of civil marriage. Though I still want civil marriage gone, I personally (just one vote) feel that it should include same-sex marriage if it simply must remain an institution.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I guarantee you have never seen a movie by Julian Hernandez, Andre Techine, Terence Davies, Patrice Chereau, Francois Ozon, Patrik Ian Polk, Martineau-Ducastel, and I could keep going--not just great contemporary gay filmmakers, but great filmmakers.

But you probably saw Brokeback Mountain.

I'm not a big movie watcher, to be honest. I might have seen some of their works, but I can't be certain without checking their entire filmography. I did watch I Love You Phillip Morris just last weekend.

I find TV and movies to largely be a waste of my time unkless they are teaching em something - I love documentaries; or maybe I just always have too much to do and find it hard to divert my attention from whatever is interesting me at the moment.

I did see Brokeback Mountain. I think almost everyone has.

[michelle2677]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

For those interested, this is a list I made for a friend of mine (with whom I hadn't spoken in 10 years so it was a means of catching up):

20 Best Gay Films of the 21st Century
1. Raging Sun, Raging Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2009)
2. Broken Sky (Julian Hernandez, 2006)
3. The Witnesses (Andre Techine, 2008)
4. Son frere (Patrice Chereau, 2004)
5. A Thousand Clouds of Peace (Julian Hernandez, 2004)
6. Three Dancing Slaves (Gael Morel, 2005)
7. My Life On Ice (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2003)
8. Infamous (Douglas McGrath, 2006)
9. Garcon stupide (Lionel Baier, 2005)
10. Time To Leave (Francois Ozon, 2006)
11. Changing Times (Andre Techine, 2005)
12. Porn Theater (Jacques Nolot, 2003)
13. The Adventures of Felix (Olivier Ducastel & Jacques Martineau, 2001)
14. Bear Cub (Miguel Albaladejo, 2004)
15. I Love You Philip Morris (Glenn Ficcarra & John Requa, 2010)
16. Of Time and the City (Terence Davies, 2009)
17. Father and Son (Aleksandr Sokurov, 2004)
18. Cote d’azur (Olivier Ducastel and Jacques Martineau, 2005)
19. Noah’s Arc: Jumping the Broom (Patrik-Ian Polk, 2008)
20. Circuit (Dirk Shafer, 2002)

i'm straight and i haven't seen any of these movies. it has nothing to do with being gay or not gay, it's a personal preference. oh, and saying gay people have no culture is a hell of a stereotype. sh*t.

[TrueFaith77]

^^My point was obviously that most gay people are as stupid as most straight people. That's not a stereotype. That's like saying: Most gay people have two legs (not ALL do, I realize).

[michelle2677]

ok. so i don't understand what the point was, regarding your argument. are we derailing from the topic at hand or was there some cryptic message?

[ButterCookie]

It's funny - sometimes I think I was taught about a different God at school. Because Catholic school taught me that God doesn't hate anyone. In fact, the God I was taught about is more likely to be upset by those who want to deny other humans basic rights than those who didn't do anything except try to love another person regardless of their gender.

People should stop using the Bible as a mask to hide their own personal bigotry behind.

[olive]

Madonna's Speech in St Petersburg Russia , where they threatened to arrest her if she said anything


By these guys

[michelle2677]

Originally Posted by ButterCookie

It's funny - sometimes I think I was taught about a different God at school. Because Catholic school taught me that God doesn't hate anyone. In fact, the God I was taught about is more likely to be upset by those who want to deny other humans basic rights than those who didn't do anything except try to love another person regardless of their gender.

People should stop using the Bible as a mask to hide their own personal bigotry behind.

exactly what i was trying to say, earlier. there are lots of things i find offensive, but you don't see me out with my bible saying "jesus doesn't like you, so i'm forced to dislike you as well". all the while, sinning myself.