... but we're joining the McDonald's boycott
Because my money doesn't go to companies that say my beliefs are "hate" (H/T: Illinois Review):
Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald's has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate.So I've had my last steak, egg & cheese bagel for breakfast. And all of us here at the Regular household will be finding somewhere else to drive through.
AFA has asked for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants because of the company’s promotion of the gay agenda. AFA asked McDonald’s to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald’s refused.
In response to the boycott, McDonald's spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying "...hatred has no place in our culture." McDonald's has decided to adopt the "hate" theme used by gay activist groups for years.
Whitman went on to say, "We stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment." Mr. Whitman has intentionally avoided addressing the reason for the boycott. This boycott is not about hiring gays or how gay employees are treated. It is about McDonald's choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting their agenda.
McDonald's donated $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce in exchange for membership and a seat on the group’s board of directors. The NGLCC lobbies Congress in support of same-sex marriage.
McDonald's CEO Jim Skinner said the company will promote issues they approve. "Being a socially responsible organization is a fundamental part of who we are. We have an obligation to use our size and resources to make a difference in the world...and we do." [Emphasis in original.]
40 comments:
Thanks for the info. Hardee's makes a good hamburger. I will have to forgo McD's fries.
My very infrequent trip to McD's just got reduced to zero. Why should I pay them to kill me and call me a homophobe?
Finally, a good reason to go to McDonald's. Thanks. See, you do make a difference!
Well JOhn, believe it or not, the point of this blog is not to make a difference.
The real point is to simply place my ideas in the marketplace, and thereby have just a chance to make a difference.
As for you, by all means, add yet another unhealthy practice to your dangerous and unnatural lifestyle.
And don't forget, they require you to wear socks on the playscape.
ohhhhh noooooooo! Goodbye Sausage McMuffin with Egg. I'll tell the kids goodbye to happy meals.
Hey you know what. Burger King is better anyway.
Hello Sonic. They'll put jalapenos on my cheeseburgers, McD's never did that.
Wow, touchy. And irrational: how do you know anything about my "lifestyle"? But thanks for your concern--I'll be sure to wash my hands, eat only a salad, and not have any unprotected sex while there. My "life partner," a woman with whom I have had a long-term, monogomous relationship, insists on all three.
Well, John, one works with the information one has.
Your "life partner" is "a woman with whom I have had a long-term, monogomous relationship..." But not a permanent relationship? Not marriage? Dude! Way to keep your options open, in case something better comes along!
Or is "marriage" only for homosexuals, in your worldview?
No wonder you support gay marriage. You don't believe in marriage. You're pro-abortion, too, right?
"Hey you know what. Burger King is better anyway."
Burger King supports the NGLCC also, along with many other popular companies, such as Intel, UPS, and Johnson and Johnson. If all of the conservatives boycotted every companies that had anything to do with supporting the gay community, you would never be able to do or buy anything. That would be good though. Then maybe your kind would die out and the us could be free of elitist homophobes. McDonald's obviously isn't threatened by you. If you're truly "christian" you would have boycotted McDonalds along time ago, since gluttoney is one of the 7 seven deadly sins. You never hate on fat people though...only gays and people of other religions...
Oh, yeah, all those heads cut off on YouTube by Christians. What a hateful bunch we are.
I find your idea that we faith-filled folk with large families might die out while gays, and their pro-abortion, contracepting supporters will thrive to be amusing in the extreme. Paul's Law. It's at the top of the sidebar.
Yes, it's well known that only hatred ever prompts anyone to defend traditional marriage. Good luck persuading anyone of that.
Gays aren't the only ones who support gay marriage. You forgot that there's a whole world outside of your church and your blogroll.
I last ate at McDonald's three years ago. I didn't quit McD because of their support for homosexual marriage; I quit because their food is health-threatening as exposed by the movie "Super Size Me". Ever since, I have stuck to Wendy's, who publishes nutrition facts.
I'm going to miss those breakfast burritos.
Gays aren't the only ones who support gay marriage. You forgot that there's a whole world outside of your church and your blogroll.
Yeah, like every friend of yours isn't either gay or else a pro-abortion, contracepting, Obama-supporter.
Gays aren't the only ones who support gay marriage.
And heterosexuals aren't the only ones "against" gay marriage. See specifically this article: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/140806.shtml.
Written by a gay man making a sound argument (shared by us "evil" Christians and heterosexuals) regarding the institution of marriage).
As for the rest of the companies, when they explicitly come out and say my beliefs - my FAITH - is hatred, then yeah, my selections are going to be limited.
But you know what? I put God before Mammon.
Boy... after two weeks of vacation for Paul and family (and I'm glad it was pleasant, albeit sunburn-ridden!), a delay while I finished a correspondence course, and many history-shaping things rampaging through the news headlines, how is it that I can come back and see virtually the *same* old canards thrown by the pro-Same-Sex-Attraction-Disorder crowd? It's worse than the daytime soap operas (i.e. come back 1 year later, and it takes about 2 minutes to catch up on the perennially repeating story lines)!
Okay... here goes nothing, yet again:
For those who support "gay marriage" (and who support restaurants who hurl epithets like "hate-filled", "homophobic", etc., at any "dissenters to the gay orthodoxy"), can you please answer me this? Why, in the name of all that's good and holy, do you take any dissent from your position as "hate"? Do you seriously not realize that it's supernatural patience, long-suffering, and forgiveness that keeps your wild fantasy (of "Christians who reject SSAD marriage" = "hate-filled") from coming TRUE?
If Christians were even 1% as "hate-filled" as you and your sympathizers suggest, do you not realize that you would all have been rounded up and wiped out, long ago, by these hypothetical "hateful Christians"? After being kicked, punched (sometimes metaphorically, sometimes physically), derided, insulted, and faced with the possibility of being driven into the catacombs for expressing our beliefs, doesn't it ever occur to you to wonder why Christians haven't said, "enough of this!", risen up long ago, and wiped you all off the face of the earth? It's not from lack of numbers, or lack of provocation from you and your company, I assure you. No... it's because our God tells us that you are a human person, made in God's Image and Likeness--that He loves you more than you (or anyone else) will ever fully understand, and that He died on a cross to pay for your sins... even despite your ignorance and ingratitude (and the ignorance and ingratitude of every sinner on earth, myself included). Jesus--our God--tells us that you are a prisoner of war, held as a slave to sin (which you've embraced)... and that sin, your new master, has blinded you so as to inhibit your escape. Our God tells us that we fight not against you, but against the principalities and powers of this fallen world, in this corrupt generation. Our God tells us to pray for you, to sacrifice for you, to beg Him to have mercy on you, and--just as importantly--to speak out against the lies that you've imbibed like water for a significant portion of your life.
"Father, forgive them. They know not what they do."
Yes, the occasional Christian will get sick of your self-righteous, bigoted attitude and start pushing back--and who can blame them?--even though they know you and yours will "make political hay" out of that all-too-human lapse in strength. We're fallen humans, and we're weak. I would gently suggest, though, that this doesn't justify your own irrational hatred of Christians, or of Christ's Catholic Church, whose only "offense" is to preach against the errors that happen to be your current "sacred cows". C.S. Lewis once wrote, in "The Great Divorce":
"[...] we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world's garden for the sake of some who cannot abide the smell of roses."
The Church will never cave in to your desires (or to mine, or to anyone else's); She will still preach the truth, even if 99.999% of the world rejects it, and slaughters anyone who dares agree with Her. And She does it out of love--not the distorted, passion-based, feelings-dependent, hormone-ridden love that you probably have in mind, but true love: the free choice to sacrifice oneself for the best good of another, regardless of the cost to oneself. That requires Truth--not simply fervent opinion, political consensus, or any other such passing wisps of nothingness. Truth. What *is*. And if you're ever open enough to explore the question, I (and many on this blog) would be happy to have an earnest discussion with you about what truth is, and how to find it--if only you drop the toys of indignation, and approach with sincerity. Until then, I'm afraid you'll have a lifetime of being disappointed.
In Christ,
Brian
P.S. Amy, you wrote:
As for the rest of the companies, when they explicitly come out and say my beliefs - my FAITH - is hatred, then yeah, my selections are going to be limited. But you know what? I put God before Mammon.
:) Rock on, Amy! I'm right with you...!
One thing to consider in making a decision about a boycott...
Remember that individual McDonalds are owned by franchisees, who -- while not heavyweights compared to the overarching corporation, are still a very important constituency to the bigger company. And I think you'll find they will have their own views on such things.
And, it's fair to ask much or how little your boycott of the local McDonalds will affect the corporation, as opposed to the local business, whose employees and owners may well agree with you.
And it may be that the owner of the local franchises may well join you in pressuring McDonalds, if you approach it the right way.
Brian - Excellent post.
Hi Brian -- As I write, there are 18 comments on this entry, only three of which offer any kind dissent. Two of them (mine) are decidely tepid, polite, and nonconfrontational. The third, by Anonymous, also strikes me as restrained. The one almost-nasty remark in Anonymous's comment is directed specifically at Paul, I think, not at all people who might disagree with the position offered.
Compare that with Paul's response to my initial comment. He knew nothing about me, yet thought it acceptable to insult me because he assumed I was gay. I thought his comments were rather hateful and un-Christian (if you disagree, I feel kind of sorry for you), and I thought that this ONE person isn't so much arguing against gay marriage as he is expressing a distain for/fear of gay people. On reflection, I think my initial impressions were accurate. I think there is unfortunate behavior on both sides of this issue.
I don't hate you, your position, or your religion. I did find your comment rather self-righteous, whiny, and unconvincing: no one here is guilty of what you alledge. Gay people are a part of this society--they are citizens, they pay taxes, they defend the country, and they live productive lives (try to get a good meal in San Francisco without them). I personally don't see why they shouldn't enjoy all the rights bestowed by their "Creator" that other Americans do. That doesn't make me hateful or anti-Christian, I'm sure.
And I don't think Christians deserve any special credit for not slaughtering those who don't agree with them. That, Brian, is just stupid.
I personally don't see why they shouldn't enjoy all the rights bestowed by their "Creator" that other Americans do. That doesn't make me hateful or anti-Christian, I'm sure.
No, but the people who want to shut down churches, who haul Christians before "Human Rights" tribunals, and who spread downright lies about the faith *do* hate and *are* anti-Christian.
A society has a right to establish laws that are in its best interest. Marriage has - for centuries and throughout the world - been recognized as best for society and children in the form of one man, one woman and for life.
We are losing that and - looking to Canada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Mexico, etc. - it's easy to see how what you call "tolerance" has moved into the realm of forced approval.
If we are to enjoy "rights" - where is my right to worship freely, speak and preach freely, and vote freely fall under the umbrella of what is and is not tolerated? There are many out there who would rather see folk like me thrown in re-education camps, stripped of our churches *and* our children, and punished for daring to disagree with someone else's lifestyle.
Did you read the article I linked to? A sound argument against gay marriage written by a homosexual man who understands the purpose of civil marriage in society.
And I don't think Christians deserve any special credit for not slaughtering those who don't agree with them. That, Brian, is just stupid.
You completely missed his point. His point is that if we *truly* hated people, there was nothing to stop us from going the way of evil dictators of the past and totally wiping out those we hate. It would be woven into our ideology - like it is in Islam.
It isn't.
The problem is people use the term "hatred" every time someone makes them feel bad. Our politically correct society has abused that word (like it's abused the term "racist") to the point it's lost all significant meaning and is slapped on anyone and everyone who merely disagrees with another's lifestyle.
Amy,
Because I'm a techno dork, I'll respond by paragraph.
1) So? There are hateful people in the world--that's the news? Reverse the thinking--there are people who want to do the same to nonbelievers, Jews, Muslims, whatever. My point was that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that person hates you.
2) I agree. It's just that I think it is in our best interest to embrace gay people and integrate them into society. We just disagree. But you are wrong about societal conceptions of marriage: many societies have and continue to be polygamous. Besides, just because something has been long accepted doesn't mean it is good. Slavery has been in existence thoughout human history, and I know you wouldn't argue for its legitimacy on that basis.
3)I never used the word "tolerance." It's besides the point for me. I simply think gay people are pretty much the same as anyone else, for better or worse.
4) I think you're a touch paranoid. How has your right to worship been restricted? And what's a "lifestyle," anyway? Is there a heterosexual lifestyle?
5) Yes, I read the link. Thank you. Excellent points, but that doesn't mean there aren't also good arguments for gay marriage.
6) Maybe I did miss his point. If I did, I did so because I projected my own biases and didn't really listen. I'll think about that. If it's true, I thank you for pointing it out to me.
Hi, John,
Pardon the long reply... but complex issues don't usually lend themselves to sound bytes.
You wrote:
As I write, there are 18 comments on this entry, only three of which offer any kind dissent.
Well... you do realize that my post was meant for a general audience of SSAD-supporters, and not simply those who'd posted on this particular thread so far, right? As I mentioned earlier, this is far from the first time that this topic has been debated on his blog...
Two of them (mine) are decidely tepid, polite, and nonconfrontational.
Tepid? Perhaps.
Polite? Only if:
(a) you seriously thought that Paul would be genuinely pleased to hear that his post had "made the difference" of leading you to McDonald's (at which point, if so, I could only wonder what on earth you were thinking!), or:
(b) a sarcastic slap at Paul's message ("Gee, your post did the exact opposite of what you intended, and I'm going to flout your wishes by advertising my choice to patronize your boycott target! That makes you all nice and happy, doesn't it?") fits your definition of "polite". It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of the word "polite"...
Non-confrontational? See "polite", above. Frankly, I have a great deal more respect for those who throw down the gauntlet and challenge someone directly and honorably, rather than being sarcastic, cloying, smarmy, and ready to feign innocence when the first "return fire" is sent. You may also note that Paul didn't (and doesn't as a matter of course) "return fire" until after you'd dropped your own "snarky grenade" (with a smile, granted) into the mix. Are you seriously saying that you exoected a positive response from Paul, or that you were surprised at getting a negative response? I'm genuinely curious, here.
The third, by Anonymous, also strikes me as restrained.
I think we may be using two very different dictionaries. Here's what I saw in the post by "anonymous":
If all of the conservatives boycotted every companies that had anything to do with supporting the gay community, you would never be able to do or buy anything. That would be good though. Then maybe your kind would die out and the us could be free of elitist homophobes.
Does "wishing that his enemies were all dead" really strike you as "restrained"? In comparison to complete raving lunatics, maybe... but I was under the impression that we could at least use the objective definition of "restrained".
Anonymous continues:
You never hate on fat people though...only gays and people of other religions...
Accusing another person of "hate" doesn't strike me as particularly "restrained", either. Maybe I could make this clear: my idea of "restrained" would be something like this:
[warning: devil's advocate alert!]
"Paul, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's a wrong one... and quite frankly, what you suggest here upsets me a great deal."
[/devil's advocate]
See the difference? No accusations, no vitriol.
The one almost-nasty remark in Anonymous's comment is directed specifically at Paul, I think, not at all people who might disagree with the position offered.
You're really going to have to explain how that should make it "okay"...
Compare that with Paul's response to my initial comment. He knew nothing about me, yet thought it acceptable to insult me because he assumed I was gay. I thought his comments were rather hateful and un-Christian (if you disagree, I feel kind of sorry for you),
That's a curious mixture of soft-heartedness and condescension, I must admit!
As for Paul's reply: no offense intended, but the idea of "instigating/picking a fight" (with a snarky, sarcastic, and inflammatory comment), and then "protesting one's innocence" when a pointed reply comes back, is a rather slippery type of hypocrisy. Not meaning to speak for Paul, as such, but I can't help but note that he gave back what you offered him, yes?
and I thought that this ONE person isn't so much arguing against gay marriage as he is expressing a distain for/fear of gay people.
To that comment, I can only say that--at least on this specific point--you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to know Paul's position, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2357-2359.
On reflection, I think my initial impressions were accurate.
Then your reflection seems to be as hasty as was the jump you made toward your original conclusion.
I think there is unfortunate behavior on both sides of this issue.
That's a truism... but I would gently suggest that this earnest complaint would have carried far more weight if you'd stuck to civility and tack in your own 1st post, rather than succomb to the lure of sarcasm, etc.
I don't hate you, your position, or your religion.
I'm glad to hear that. I wish that more vocal SSAD-supporters in San Francisco (as per the original topic of the post!) could say the same.
I did find your comment rather self-righteous, whiny, and unconvincing:
(*ahem*) May I suggest a quick glance at Matthew 7:5, before you go much further on that point?
no one here is guilty of what you alledge.
By "no one here", you're limiting your sample to those who've posted on this particular topic on this particular blog, thus far? I don't see why; my question (which was certainly a "soapbox moment"--I make no bones about admitting that!) was directed at anyone who might stop by, who was in the "pro-SSAD" camp... which includes some rather uncharitable contributors from the recent past (from other threads). Certainly, the people being cited in Paul's original "San Francisco" story were guilty of what I described, and worse. My points still stand, despite the happy fact that some can hold up their hands and say, "Hey, not ME... I'm just a nice person who dropped by!"
Gay people are a part of this society--they are citizens, they pay taxes, they defend the country, and they live productive lives (try to get a good meal in San Francisco without them).
At the risk of tempting you to go off-topic: you do realize that rapists, murderers, embezzlers, child pornographers, and the like all fall under those qualifications? No one is saying that citizenship, tax-paying, defense of country, productivity, etc., are *bad* things... but they're hardly sufficient to excuse wrongdoing (or embracing morally and physically destructive error) in another venue; in fact, they're quite beside the point.
I personally don't see why they shouldn't enjoy all the rights bestowed by their "Creator" that other Americans do.
That can easily be answered by saying that their Creator--God--did not bestow any supposed "right" to have sex outside of marriage, or to have sex with someone of the same gender, etc. Such people *do* have the same rights as do other citizens: males with Same Sex Attraction Disorder have the right to marry females (within just limits--such as sufficient age, not more than one, etc.), as much as I do... and so on. Your idea of a supposed "right to marry a person of the same sex" is entirely a product of your imagination, I'm afraid.
That doesn't make me hateful or anti-Christian, I'm sure.
Not as such, no... though--begging your pardon--it does make you confused about fundamental principles of ethics (and religion), and it does make you wrong.
And I don't think Christians deserve any special credit for not slaughtering those who don't agree with them. That, Brian, is just stupid.
:) Careful... the more insults you use, the less credible you sound when you complain about the "lack of charity" from others! But (and Amy already addressed this skillfully): you misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't trying to prove that "refraining from slaughter of one's opponents" was morally praiseworthy; I was debunking the near-complete lack of logic in the vapid accusations of "hatred" that those in the pro-SSAD camp hurl (with great vigour and frequency) at Christians who object to attempts to *normalize* that disease. I wasn't praising Christians, in that instance; I was refuting an illogical accusation (of "Christians hate homosexuals").
All of the above is predicated on the question, "What is Truth?" If God exists, and Jesus the Christian Gospel is truly His Gospel, then the pro-SSAD position falls to ashes.
So... what do you say, at this point? Are you willing to put aside the verbal sparring match, and discuss the quest for Truth?
In Christ,
Brian
How has your right to worship been restricted?
Look to Canada. Where merely teaching the Christian perspective on homosexuality is a crime - a pastor was penalized for doing so. In New Jersey, a Methodist church lost its tax-exempt status for declining to grant permission for a same-sex couple to use its facilities for their ceremony. In New Mexico, a private business owner who declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony was fined $7,000. In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities shut down its adoption program rather than adopt to same-sex couples.
In each case, the person/church/group found homosexuality to go against their beliefs. In each case, they were penalized/fined/threatened for doing so.
In clear contradiction to the First Amendment, which says no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.
In more than one instance, I've argued with gay marriage supporters who eagerly relish the thought of shutting down churches that won't accommodate gay marriage.
Slavery and racism are a completely different story. And, actually, many African Americans who fought for civil rights are deeply offended that the homosexual rights crowd compares it in any way to the civil rights movement of the 60s.
If you're unaware of the Church's teaching on the issue, "being gay" (or having same-sex attraction) is no more a sin than being heterosexual. It is what it is. However, in accordance with natural law and God's design, the only non-sinful sexual behavior is that between a husband and a wife in the confines of marriage. Gay and straight persons are held to the same standards on sexual restraint.
Supporting gay marriage encourages living in sin just as supporting co-habitation between straight, non-married couples supports sin.
I cannot do that. The eternal punishment for willfully or complacently not witnessing to truth or actively supporting sin is great. That is not a path I'm willing to lead my soul - or the souls of others - down.
Hi, Brian,
Thanks for your response. Nope, I don't run away from these things. Unfortunately (NO, fortunately), I have a life to attend to, and a big, beautiful dog who will kick ass if I don't take her for a walk and a swim. I shall return...
John
Ok John et al: What is normal about shoving one's manhood into another's colon? What is normal about anonymous sex, multiple partners, bug-chasing and all those other sick practices that are so present in "gay culture"? And from what country does this new special protected class originate that it qualifies as being a "culture."
vir speluncae orthodoxae: Surely you know that not all gay man engage in anal sex. And surely you know that many heterosexuals do: are you ready to deny those that do the right to marry on that basis? How exactly would you do that?
And by definition a lesbian can't "shove one's manhood into another's colon." A female bug chaser? That would be a tough one--I just have a feeling it doesn't happen much.
So I don't really get your point as it regards the right to marry whom one pleases. I have no interest in arguing whether or not gay sex is normal or not--I just know it has existed throughout history and is not going away. And I simply believe that nonstraight people should have the same rights as straight people.
"Culture" and "special protected class"? No special culture, just Americans deserving of the same rights as others. How does allowing them those rights establish them as "a special protected class"? On the contrary, I believe it would rectify their current status as a special unprotected class.
Let freedom ring.
So I don't really get your point as it regards the right to marry whom one pleases. I have no interest in arguing whether or not gay sex is normal or not--I just know it has existed throughout history and is not going away. And I simply believe that nonstraight people should have the same rights as straight people.
So once again, the gay "marriage" argument boils to down to what someone wants, not what commitment someone is willing to make.
But John, you say you're straight and in what you call a "long-term committed relationship". You don't believe in marriage.
So of course gays can do something you don't believe in as well as straights can.
(*waiting patiently for John to reply to my own humble, if verbose, post*)
In Christ,
Brian
Brian,
Brain: Well... you do realize that my post was meant for a general audience of SSAD-supporters, and not simply those who'd posted on this particular thread so far, right? As I mentioned earlier, this is far from the first time that this topic has been debated on his blog...
Yes, I know that, because you had previously wrote this:
how is it that I can come back and see virtually the *same* old canards thrown by the pro-Same-Sex-Attraction-Disorder crowd?
You threw me in, condescendingly, with others: that same old crowd. I object to that. I take responsibility for what I say, not for what others say. I didn't accuse anyone of hate, or call anyone a name. Grouping me with others implies that I did.
Brian: Polite? Only if:
(a) you seriously thought that Paul would be genuinely pleased to hear that his post had "made the difference" of leading you to McDonald's (at which point, if so, I could only wonder what on earth you were thinking!),...
Only if? By that reasoning, if I say something that doesn't "genuinely" please Paul, I'm being impolite? Sorry, but I think that is self-evidently nonsensical, and I stand by my assertion that I was polite.
Brian: or:
(b) a sarcastic slap at Paul's message ("Gee, your post did the exact opposite of what you intended, and I'm going to flout your wishes by advertising my choice to patronize your boycott target! That makes you all nice and happy, doesn't it?") fits your definition of "polite". It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of the word "polite"...
His wishes? No, he told the world what he was going to do, and what he thought others should do. In response, I told the world what I was going to do. To each his own. I don't see how this is impolite. Maybe a tad snarky and sarcastic at the end, sure, but still pretty darn tame in my book.
Brian: Non-confrontational? See "polite", above.
See response to "polite," above.
Brian: Frankly, I have a great deal more respect for those who throw down the gauntlet and challenge someone directly and honorably,...
Notice, Brian, that your first comment just might have been just a bit short on some of the above--you didn't even respond to an individual, just a presumed group of SSAD "supporters" who must, don't you know, just all have the same things on their minds, the same arguments, the same beliefs, and the same hostilities. That's stereotyping, and it certainly isn't a respectful rhetoric approach--I expressed no hate, nor did I accuse anyone else of doing so, yet you implied that I did by grouping me with others.
Brian: ...rather than being sarcastic, cloying, smarmy, and ready to feign innocence when the first "return fire" is sent. You may also note that Paul didn't (and doesn't as a matter of course) "return fire" until after you'd dropped your own "snarky grenade" (with a smile, granted) into the mix. Are you seriously saying that you exoected a positive response from Paul, or that you were surprised at getting a negative response? I'm genuinely curious, here.
Returning fire is fine, and no, of course I didn't expect a positive response. A negative response would have been fine. Even creative sarcasm. But a personal insult? Yeah, someone disagrees with you, assume he or she is homosexual and so must have a "unnatural and dangerous lifestyle." How would he know anything about my lifestyle, Brian? Even if I had been gay, how would he know anyting about how I live my life? And whatever happened to accepting me "with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," as the Catholic Church teaches? My tame sarcasm pales in comparison, I'd say.
I (John) had said, "and I thought that this ONE person isn't so much arguing against gay marriage as he is expressing a distain for/fear of gay people."
Brian: To that comment, I can only say that--at least on this specific point--you have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to know Paul's position, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2357-2359.
Sorry, but that's not how I see it. Oh, I get the position. Fine. But I thought Paul's comment was a personal insult, not a reflection of Catholic doctrine. A response like his, a knee-jerk personal one, certainly provokes the type of suspicion I expressed above.
With that, I have to say end of part 1, Brian. I'll finish in the morning. You might want to wait until I finish to respond. And I promise, I won't go to McDonald's until you have a chance to. (Not to put too much pressure on you!)
John
John,
Thanks for your reply. You wrote:
[Brian]
>> how is it that I can come back and see virtually the *same* old
>> canards thrown by the pro-Same-Sex-Attraction-Disorder crowd?
[John]
> You threw me in, condescendingly, with others: that same old
> crowd. I object to that.
"Condescendingly?" You *do* use the English language differently than I do, I must say...
Had you taken up the issue straightforwardly, I would have been far less inclined to "throw you in" with the "lob a snarky verbal grenade, and run" crowd, that's true. I could even understand if you'd done your "snark attack", and *then* gone on to discuss the actual points (perhaps after a disclaimer of "just kidding", a smiley, or something else which would dissuade the average reader from thinking of you as wishing only to use an unprovoked and sarcastic twist of the knife). But if you choose the "drive by snark" method, I should caution you that I won't be the only one to "throw you in" with the "less thoughtful" crowd... and understandably so.
> I take responsibility for what I say, not for what others say.
> I didn't accuse anyone of hate, or call anyone a name. Grouping
> me with others implies that I did.
You're really going to have to explain your reasoning to me, on this one. Paul wrote:
"In response to the boycott, McDonald's spokesman Bill Whitman suggested to the Washington Post that those who oppose SSM are motivated by hate, saying "...hatred has no place in our culture." McDonald's has decided to adopt the "hate" theme used by gay activist groups for years."
...to which you wrote:
"Finally, a good reason to go to McDonald's. Thanks. See, you do make a difference!"
Upon re-reading that, doesn't it sound as if you're taking the "McDonald's accuses SSM opponents of hate" to be "a good reason to go to McDonald's"? That, combined with your (forgive me) "troll-like" drive-by snark, was easily enough to lead me away from the idea that you were "not with the same old crowd", but rather "interested in civil and elevated discourse". Perhaps you can explain...
>> Polite? Only if:
>>
>> (a) you seriously thought that Paul would be genuinely pleased
>> to hear that his post had "made the difference" of leading you
>> to McDonald's (at which point, if so, I could only wonder what
>> on earth you were thinking!),...
> Only if? By that reasoning, if I say something that doesn't
> "genuinely" please Paul, I'm being impolite? Sorry, but I
> think that is self-evidently nonsensical, and I stand by my
> assertion that I was polite.
Perhaps you missed my attempt at understatement (Paul not being "genuinely pleased"). To be sure, I think Paul would have been quite within his rights to write you off as a troll.
>> or:
>>
>> (b) a sarcastic slap at Paul's message ("Gee, your post did the
>> exact opposite of what you intended, and I'm going to flout your
>> wishes by advertising my choice to patronize your boycott target!
>> That makes you all nice and happy, doesn't it?") fits your
>> definition of "polite". It certainly doesn't fit my
>> understanding of the word "polite"...
> His wishes? No, he told the world what he was going to do, and
> what he thought others should do. In response, I told the world
> what I was going to do. To each his own. I don't see how this
> is impolite. Maybe a tad snarky and sarcastic at the end,
> sure, but still pretty darn tame in my book.
You're back-pedalling, I'm afraid: from "polite" to "a tad snarky", and then "sarcastic". Sarcasm could conceivably be "polite", if both parties are on friendly terms. Taking the other side of a position (i.e. McD's not only promotes gravely immoral activity, but calls opponents "hateful") that Catholics regard as a moral outrage (were you truly ignorant of that fact?) certainly isn't very conducive to being on "friendly terms".
(N.B. That was another instance of understatement.)
>> Brian: Frankly, I have a great deal more respect for those who
>> throw down the gauntlet and challenge someone directly and honorably,...
> Notice, Brian, that your first comment just might have been just
> a bit short on some of the above--you didn't even respond to an
> individual,
Well... had an individual given any substance (rather than "snark"), I could perhaps have obliged you on that point.
> just a presumed group of SSAD "supporters" who must, don't you know,
> just all have the same things on their minds, the same arguments,
> the same beliefs, and the same hostilities. That's stereotyping,
> and it certainly isn't a respectful rhetoric approach
See above, re: your expressed sympathies for McDonalds' "hate-calling".
> I expressed no hate, nor did I accuse anyone else of doing so,
> yet you implied that I did by grouping me with others.
Again, see above.
> A negative response would have been fine. Even creative sarcasm.
> But a personal insult?
At the risk of repeating myself interminably: see my comments re: how you were apparently "cheering" McD's labeling of SSM-opponents (including Paul, including me, etc.), and how you were apparently accepting that as a "good reason" to patronize McDonald's! Read this in the light of "Hey... a restaurant who calls faithful Catholics 'hateful' can't be all bad! In fact, they've been bumped to the top of my list!", and you may be able to see the effect that your "drive-by snark" actually had. I'm willing (now) to entertain the possibility that such an implication was unintentional, on your part... but it was given, nonetheless. I categorized you based on *that*--not on your support for SSM, etc.
> Yeah, someone disagrees with you, assume he or she is homosexual
> and so must have a "unnatural and dangerous lifestyle." How would
> he know anything about my lifestyle, Brian? Even if I had been
> gay, how would he know anyting about how I live my life?
I've reached the limits of my ability to speak for Paul (i.e. in generalities which would apply to any faithful Catholic); you can take any specific details up with him. But I'll say this much: you gave every indication of being a mean-spirited troll ("Yay... Catholics were called hateful!"), and it came as no surprise to me that Paul (and other posters) treated you accordingly.
> And whatever happened to accepting me "with respect, compassion,
> and sensitivity," as the Catholic Church teaches? My tame sarcasm
> pales in comparison, I'd say.
Well... you do realize that you're hardly impartial about your own opinions, don't you?
> You might want to wait until I finish to respond.
:) Too late... sorry!
> And I promise, I won't go to McDonald's until you have a chance
> to. (Not to put too much pressure on you!)
:) See? Now *that* was amusing and well-spirited!
In Christ,
Brian
Brian,
John said: Gay people are a part of this society--they are citizens, they pay taxes, they defend the country, and they live productive lives (try to get a good meal in San Francisco without them).
Brian said: At the risk of tempting you to go off-topic: you do realize that rapists, murderers, embezzlers, child pornographers, and the like all fall under those qualifications?
Yes, but so do heterosexuals who are not rapists, murders, embezzlers, or child pornographers. So I don't see your point.
Brian said: No one is saying that citizenship, tax-paying, defense of country, productivity, etc., are *bad* things... but they're hardly sufficient to excuse wrongdoing (or embracing morally and physically destructive error) in another venue; in fact, they're quite beside the point.
Beside the point to you, but not to me. To me, a person's sexual life is his or her own business, as long as it doesn't hurt others (obviously we differ what "doesn't hurt others" entails), and I see no compelling reason to think that same-sex couples are necessarily doing anything morally or physically destructive. And if they are, that's their business and they need to be accountable for it--to themselves, to their God, to whomever. It's their choice. But to me, sexual orientations do exist, and it seems pointless to deny it. We obviously aren't going to agree on this, and that's fine.
John said: I personally don't see why they shouldn't enjoy all the rights bestowed by their "Creator" that other Americans do.
Brian said: That can easily be answered by saying that their Creator--God--did not bestow any supposed "right" to have sex outside of marriage, or to have sex with someone of the same gender, etc. Such people *do* have the same rights as do other citizens: males with Same Sex Attraction Disorder have the right to marry females (within just limits--such as sufficient age, not more than one, etc.), as much as I do... and so on. Your idea of a supposed "right to marry a person of the same sex" is entirely a product of your imagination, I'm afraid.
A product of my imagination? Well, in some places, people DO HAVE the right to marry someone of the same sex. And your argument is based on the assumption that you know who or what the "Creator" is--you believe it is the Christian God. Others will disagree with you (and don't forget, Thomas Jefferson, for one, wasn't a Christian in any sense you would accept) on the nature and intent of the Creator. Still others will assert that no Creator can reasonably be identified (or at least agreed upon) but that certain inalienable rights exist regardless, to be defended for all. I'm of the third group, so your arguments don't convince me, although I certainly see that they are consistent with, and reasonably follow from, what you believe about the nature of God, the universe, and existence. Reasonable people can politely disagree on this--we're just going to have to. (Yes, I disagree with you still, but no, I don't think you're being self-righteous or whiny.)
John said: That doesn't make me hateful or anti-Christian, I'm sure.
Brian said: Not as such, no... though--begging your pardon--it does make you confused about fundamental principles of ethics (and religion), and it does make you wrong.
Baseless assertion on your part, and a bit arrogant. Why? In what way? Even if you think I somehow behaved unethically, how does it follow that I am "confused" about basic principles of ethics? Besides, who's ethics? Who's religion?
John said: And I don't think Christians deserve any special credit for not slaughtering those who don't agree with them. That, Brian, is just stupid.
Okay, I regret that I used the word stupid. I thought I was careful to note that I was saying that what you wrote was stupid, not you. Still, that probably is not sufficient--it's a word I can do without.
At the heart of your argument, though, is a lapse in logic: you assume that not killing is proof of an absence of hate. But people can hate and not kill, so your argument escapes me.
I think SOME people ARE motivated by hate or homophobia in this matter. Still, I think it is unfair and illogical to characterize a whole movement and all people involved with it as being motivated by hate, so I regret having written what I did, as it now seems completely besides the point. No, I don't think the vast majority of Christians are motivated by hate in this matter. I think it is a matter that reasonable people can disagree on, and should. And not engage in name-calling. (I reserve the right to be politely sarcastic.)
I have agreed with McDonald's regarding their treatment of gays.
Their historical treatment of employees was what I was expressing my agreement with. Upon further reflection, yes, it does bother me that someone there seemingly attributed all opposition to their policies as motivated by hate (just as the opposition's use of the term "culture wars" bothers me as being combative). I think that unfair, unfounded, and counterproductive. (Of course, there could be some quote mining going on here, and people can be quoted out of context--don't forget that). So who knows, now maybe I'll stage my own counter, counter protest and stage my own one-man boycott of McDonald's. (I go once or twice a year, to get a Sausage McMuffin while on a roadtrip, so it's all pretty academic.)
Hi, John--time for "part II", it seems!
(Again... my sincere apologies for the shameless waste of electrons, and the wear-and-tear on everyone's eyeballs! These deep issues *do* get me chattering on at length...)
[John]
>>> John said: Gay people are a part of this society--they are citizens,
>>> they pay taxes, they defend the country, and they live productive
>>> lives (try to get a good meal in San Francisco without them).
[Brian]
>> At the risk of tempting you to go off-topic: you do realize that
>> rapists, murderers, embezzlers, child pornographers, and the like
>> all fall under those qualifications?
[John]
> Yes, but so do heterosexuals who are not rapists, murders,
> embezzlers, or child pornographers. So I don't see your point.
My point was that (as I mentioned earlier) "touting homosexuals as productive members of society" is a non-sequitur which has nothing especially to do with the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, per se, or with the issue of SSM; if anything, it's a mere appeal to the gallery ("look at these nice, productive people! Why are you making grief for them?"). It's a bit like saying, "Oh, go ahead and let Johnny smoke cigars in the restaurant! He's a nice boy, behaves well, gets good grades, and even pats little birdies on the head!"
> Beside the point to you, but not to me. To me, a person's sexual
> life is his or her own business, as long as it doesn't hurt others
> (obviously we differ what "doesn't hurt others" entails), and I
> see no compelling reason to think that same-sex couples are
> necessarily doing anything morally or physically destructive.
You're entitled to that opinion--but don't you see that the "extraneous" (i.e. non-sexuality-related) behavior of homosexuals (or anyone else) has nothing, whatever, to do with that point, and doesn't support it in the least? If you think SSM is morally neutral (or if you simply don't care), fine--we'll discuss that--but: since I wasn't arguing that people with SSAD are non-civically-minded, or tax-evaders, or less bold in battle [though I think that's arguable, personally], or more lazy, I fail to see why you'd find any of those factors relevant to the case.
> And if they are, that's their business and they need to be accountable
> for it--to themselves, to their God, to whomever. It's their choice.
You addressed this, above: we have very different ideas about what "not hurting others" means... and we can't both be right, since our views contradict. Don't you care to know whether your view is actually *true* or not? I do, personally... and I don't accept the agnostic position that "no one can ever know something like that".
In addition, I note that you say nothing about the morality of a person hurting *himself*. You'll need to help me understand your position, I think: are you of the opinion that "free consent" makes anything (sado-masochism, SSAD, self-mutilation, suicide, etc.) permissible?
> But to me, sexual orientations do exist, and it seems pointless
> to deny it. We obviously aren't going to agree on this, and that's fine.
Depending on your definition of "sexual orientation", you might be surprised to find that the Church agrees with you, on that point! That's the whole point of calling it a "disorder"; it would be rather silly to urge compassion for disorder-sufferers of a disorder that didn't exist! The Church also admits the possibility that the occasional individual might be *born* with such a disorder--much as a baby might be born with Down's Syndrome. The Church condemns only *actions* by which the disorder is "realized" (i.e. made real, or active). As a comparison, the Church does not blame someone for being born with a violent temperament; but She (the Church) *does* blame that person for freely choosing to *act* upon those impulses (by harming or killing another, etc.). Same here.
I'll continue in the next post; this is getting pretty long, even for me!
In Christ,
Brian
Part II... (Okay, so it's enormous, anyway!)
[John]
>>> I personally don't see why they shouldn't enjoy all the rights
>>> bestowed by their "Creator" that other Americans do.
[Brian]
>> Brian said: That can easily be answered by saying that their
>> Creator--God--did not bestow any supposed "right" to have sex
>> outside of marriage, or to have sex with someone of the
>> same gender, etc. [...] Your idea of a supposed "right to marry
>> a person of the same sex" is entirely a product of your imagination,
>> I'm afraid.
[John]
> A product of my imagination? Well, in some places, people DO HAVE
> the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Under civil law, perhaps... not under any rights "bestowed by their Creator"; that was the specific point I was addressing. As for the merit of any civil "law" permitting SSM, I can only refer them to the "right" of white Americans to own (and mistreat, torture, kill, sell, etc.) any black person who had been "legally bought"--as per the highest court of the land (cf. the SCOTUS decision "Dred Scott vs. Sanford), and the "right" of any American to kill their unborn children (with medical assistance, and with support from taxpayer funds) under the decisions of that same highest court (cf. Roe vs. Wade, Doe vs. Bulton, etc.). The mere fact that a civil law was successfully enacted really doesn't impress me, in that regard. Or are you suggesting that "the law is always right" (i.e. there is no such thing as an unjust law)?
> And your argument is based on the assumption that you know who
> or what the "Creator" is--you believe it is the Christian God.
That is so.
> Others will disagree with you (and don't forget, Thomas Jefferson,
> for one, wasn't a Christian in any sense you would accept) on the
> nature and intent of the Creator.
Two replies to that:
1) Since my positions contradicts that of others (including you), logic insists that at least one of our positions must be wrong; they cannot both be true. And, as I mentioned earlier, I'm personally not content to let the matter lie, arbitrarily; I'd very much like to rest on Truth, not on mere personal opinion or taste.
2) Mr. Jefferson, despite his Deist views, saw fit to say that "certain rights" were endowed "by our CREATOR"--not by Thomas Jefferson (i.e. he didn't believe that it was true simply because *he* said so--he wasn't a modern relativist), not by an act of Congress, and not by any other agency. (That was the whole POINT of the declaration: otherwise, "What the King of England gives, the King of England can take away!") Thus, if we're to examine "rights", we need to examine the Creator from Whom they came... and not just a given legislative body (e.g. the U.S. Congress, the Massachusetts legislature, etc.) which happened to make thus-and-so civil law, rightly or wrongly.
> Still others will assert that no Creator can reasonably be
> identified (or at least agreed upon) but that certain inalienable
> rights exist regardless, to be defended for all.
With all due respect to those who hold such a position: that's palpable nonsense, and it doesn't hold up under even the most cursory logical scrutiny. However would you defend your "list" of "inalienable rights" from those who disagree? By majority vote? Is that your version of "inalienable?" If so, then you're using a very different definition than mine (i.e. "inalienable" = "cannot be removed"), since your "inalienable rights" could be overturned with the stroke of a pen of the next administration, regime, etc.! Aside from an inability to *safeguard* such a "list", this false position abstracts completely from the question, "are the contents of our list, in fact, CORRECT?", along with the question "were these, in fact, bestowed by our CREATOR, or by someone/something else?" These are rather important questions, yes?
> I'm of the third group, so your arguments don't convince me,
> although I certainly see that they are consistent with, and
> reasonably follow from, what you believe about the nature of
> God, the universe, and existence.
They do... but my point is that my view contradicts yours, so (as I've mentioned before) they cannot possibly be true at the same time; one or both must be *wrong* (and not merely "different"). Differences can logically coexist (e.g. I have brown hair, my friend has red hair); logical contradictions cannot (e.g. I am over 35 years old, and I am also younger than 35 years old).
> Reasonable people can politely disagree on this--we're just
> going to have to.
I would suggest a different wording: *Polite* people can disagree politely on this (and we should be polite, certainly); *reasonable* people should--while maintaining civility--analyze the content of the positions, and not be content to accept two contradictory positions as "you're right for you, and I'm right for me". The general question of "Is homosexuality a disorder?" goes far beyond our personal tastes, and it's a monumentally important question; as such, it must be treated accordingly (i.e. not simply swept under the rug, in the name of politeness--politeness doesn't require that).
> (Yes, I disagree with you still, but no, I don't think you're
> being self-righteous or whiny.)
:) Much obliged...
>> Not as such, no... though--begging your pardon--it does make
>> you confused about fundamental principles of ethics (and religion),
>> and it does make you wrong.
> Baseless assertion on your part, and a bit arrogant.
It is not baseless (since I can appeal to logical principles which support what I say), and it is not arrogant (since I don't appeal to my own authority when making such a claim--it's not simply right "because I said so"). As I said earlier: I think only a deep logical analysis of the fundamental principles (i.e. the "starting assumptions" which underpin either your position or mine) can hope to let us progress in a discussion like this. False starting assumptions cannot lead to sound conclusions. This hearkens back to my original question: "what is truth?" It's an important question, and it has an answer.
> Why? In what way?
You appeal to moral relativism ("who am I to say that they're wrong--they don't think so!", "if you're only hurting yourself, and no one else, it's morally permissible", "to each his own; just don't interfere with *my* choices*, and I'll happily return the favour"), which is logically self-contradictory. For example: think of the statement "there are no absolutes!", or the equally absurd statement, "There's no such thing as absolute right and wrong, so it's wrong of you to judge people by your standards!") to get an idea of what I mean. By embracing such a position, you cut the ground out from under any of your *own* attempts to criticize anyone else for, say, fighting SSM, etc.
Aside from this, you seem to subscribe to a sort of "materialist atheism" by which "there are no absolute truths" (at least in the "personal realm"--e.g. "mathematics is fine, but don't talk about absolute truths regarding the morality of what I or another person might wish to do!"), which contains the same logical absurdity.
> Even if you think I somehow behaved unethically,
I didn't claim that you've behaved unethically, in this specific instance; I claimed that you were confused and wrong--i.e. mistaken. It's quite possible to be mistaken innocently; I've done it many a time. (I've also been culpably wrong, too, but that's another issue. :) )
> how does it follow that I am "confused" about basic principles of
> ethics?
By dismantling all possible objective basis for ethics, as a whole! If you do not accept that there exist objective standards for good and evil, you've dismantled ethics (i.e. the study of the morality--the goodness or evilness--of a human act) altogether. If one claims, for example, to study mathematics, but then refuses to acknowledge the existence of numeric values, that could reasonably be called "confused". Just so, in this case.
> Besides, who's ethics?
Ethics is the study of the rightness/wrongness of actions; logic is sufficient to explore the topic, which is what I'm trying to do, here. We seem to disagree about starting assumptions (i.e. definitions of "rightness" and "wrongness"), but I reject the idea that such disagreements can be accepted with a shrug of the logical shoulders, as in the old fallacy, "my truth for me, your truth for you." I'm trying to get you to think critically about your starting assumptions... which--if I guess correctly--you really haven't done. It's not a question of "whose ethics we follow" (that would be a bit like saying, "whose astronomy" or "whose mathematics"); it's a matter of being logically coherent.
> Who's religion?
I am certainly a faithful Roman Catholic (though a sinner, like most of humanity), but I need not appeal to Divine Revelation (i.e. the Bible, and Sacred Tradition as interpreted and preserved by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church) to understand the ethics inherent in the natural law (i.e. the ethics "in the very fabric of reality"). Pure reason alone can get some solid understanding of that; even Socrates could do so, for example, and he had not the benefit of Divine Revelation.
> At the heart of your argument, though, is a lapse in logic:
> you assume that not killing is proof of an absence of hate.
> But people can hate and not kill, so your argument escapes me.
It's true that people can hate, and yet not kill. But the context of my argument explained a bit more:
"After being kicked, punched (sometimes metaphorically, sometimes physically), derided, insulted, and faced with the possibility of being driven into the catacombs for expressing our beliefs, doesn't it ever occur to you to wonder why Christians haven't said, "enough of this!", risen up long ago, and wiped you all off the face of the earth? It's not from lack of numbers, or lack of provocation from you and your company, I assure you."
Amy addressed the substance of this, already, but again: I was suggesting that the accusations of "hate" by the McDonalds' spokespeople are as baseless as they are inflammatory and puerile; they confuse "I'm upset" with "they must have done something hateful", so they subsequently called us (who oppose SSM) "hateful". If you'd like a "lapse in logic", you might look there.
To sum up: I was arguing that, if the "SSM apologist accusations of hate" were actually true, the immense PROVOCATIONS that we've absorbed would have been more than enough to overcome our "scruples" about pushing all our opponents into the sea! At very least, the mere facts that: (a) our religion teaches us to love the sinner while hating (and opposing) the sin (which we've done, yes?), and (b) we *haven't* "pushed our opponents into the sea", can lead any reasonable person to at least *question* their assumptions about "Christian hate of homosexuals".
> I have agreed with McDonald's regarding their treatment of gays.
If you mean that McDonald's should serve food to SSAD-sufferers (or hire them as employees) without bias or discrimination, I'm heart and soul with you in that matter (as is the Catholic Church). If, rather, you suggest that McDonald's is right to promote and enable the "normalization of SSAD" by specific rhetoric, advertising, and financial support to "gay pride" causes, then I cannot disagree with you strongly enough... and I think I have the more logically coherent stance.
> Their historical treatment of employees was what I was
> expressing my agreement with.
Understood.
> So who knows, now maybe I'll stage my own counter, counter protest
> and stage my own one-man boycott of McDonald's. (I go once or twice
> a year, to get a Sausage McMuffin while on a roadtrip, so it's all
> pretty academic.)
:) Ironically enough, my own food allergies prevent me from eating at McDonald's, even if they were to recant their errors and submit completely to the Church! Ah, well...
In Christ,
Brian
Brian, could you please email me privately?
Why the heck is a place that serves food getting caught up in sexuality politics? McDonalds, shut up, serve the burgers, and do what you were orginally set up to do: FOOD. Nothing more, nothing less. Sheesh!!
Why the heck is a place that serves food getting caught up in sexuality politics? McDonalds, shut up, serve the burgers, and do what you were orginally set up to do: FOOD. Nothing more, nothing less. Sheesh!!
Wouldn't that be a concept, though? If only McDonald's could focus on making food (and getting out of the social engineering business), and if teachers' unions could focus on teacher pay and work conditions (and getting out of the social engineering business), and if judges could focus on interpreting the Constitution and legislation (and getting out of the social engineering business), well...! The world would be rather a different place, I think.
(In other words: "amen!")
In Christ,
Brian
P.S. You'd think "social engineering" was the latest corporate "fad", or something. I wish they'd stick to something dumb and harmless (like pet rocks, or hula hoops), rather than something dumb and destructive...
What Walter said (first couple of comments).
I am no longer going to drive-thru McD's. I had no idea, so thanks for keeping us informed (I popped over through Barb SFO's).
Blessings,
Sarah/JOT
Linked to your post from July 30th - Protection of Marriage, conference call expanded
Simple question: Just McD's or these other companies as well?
The plethora of Fortune 500 companies who support and advocate 'alternative lifestyle choices' includes:
Disney
Microsoft
Proctor and Gamble
Kraft
Ford
Nissan
Anheiser Busch
IBM
Intel
JP Morgan Chase
Wells Fargo
Motorola
American Airlines
American Express
McDonalds
Pepsico
And if not all these companies, why pick and choose?
Simple question: Just McD's or these other companies as well? [...]
Well... one possible reply would be, "avoid as many as possible, minimize your patronage of the rest, and let all of them know the reason for your diminished patronage." Some of these might be incredibly hard to avoid completely (try avoiding all Microsoft products, if you have a PC! It's possible, but challenging to the average schlep...), but we can always do our best.
And if not all these companies, why pick and choose?
Feasibility, for one; no one is morally obligated to do the impossible (or even the impractical, given prudent judgment in accord with Church teaching). In addition to that, I have very little trouble singling McDonald's out for "special avoidance", since they went out of their way to call SSM-opponents (including me) "hateful", while the others (with the possible exception of Disney?) haven't done that, lately.
In Christ,
Brian
Post a Comment