Gay Marriage at Cedar Point: Please help us!

But you seem to be good at judging conservatives.

I don't need your prayers. Thanks.

StLCPfan said:

I'm a Christian, Tekwardo. Apparently a very different version than you. Good night. I'll be praying for you.

My favorite passive aggressive response to a logical argument. There is no god, just people who need someone to watch over them so they make the right decision. Educated people can make the right decision on their own without the guidance of a god.

This whole thread has turned into something of a bummer.

I will pray for you.

Ensign Smith you stole the words right out of my mouth. :)

So are people going to support this gay couple so they can try and be considered for the event or........?

lol

LostKause said:
...Edited to add - Nice reply. Totally believable. Now if they'd just get rid of Chik-Fil-A, they would be golden.

Sorry I was vague on where Tony's reply was located, glad gonch got the link for you. I also thought Tonys response was pretty good but then did you read the orginal posters reply to tony? What did you think about that bit?

Let's stop praying for someone to save us and start saving ourselves. -KMFDM

And by the way, the best reason to avoid Chic-Fil-A is that it barely passes as food. Sucks.

StLCPfan said:

..."every sperm is sacred"...

For the record, my sperm are sacred and should be worshipped accordingly.

Better not waste any, then. You know how it makes God irate.

eightdotthree said:

CP Chris said:
Looks like the OP went and ruined it for everybody. As someone who had entered into the contest, I'll issue you the most sarcastic "thanks" I can possibly muster.

He didn't ruin it for everyone actually.

I don't follow. He threw a fit on social media (and aimed it at a party that was powerless to do anything about the real issue at hand) and now nobody gets to participate. Seems pretty black and white to me.

sirloindude said:

Here's my main issue with the whole thing: you don't like Chick-fil-A because they don't support the LGBT community.

There's a very huge difference between not supporting something, and actively going out of your way to prevent it from happening. Chick-fil-A is very much in the latter category. Plenty of people still don't support interracial marriage, but our courts have ruled there is absolutely zip they can do to prevent it. We'll get there with gay marriage eventually.

ApolloAndy said:
Your entire argument hinges on the idea that marriage between gays is a civil right.

And the entire counter-argument hinges on the idea that a particular religious group should get to decide the rules on who's allowed to marry, even though in this case marriage existed long before that particular religion.

ApolloAndy said:
Since when are cultural/religious views not a real standard? And who is the arbiter of "real" standards?

In a secular society (like the US), religious standards should not be forced upon those who don't follow that religion. Just because Christians outnumber other groups doesn't mean they get to make the rules about a social construct they didn't even invent.

I have no problem with any religion making and abiding by any rules or customs so long as those rules or customs don't infringe on others' liberty. Christians deciding who can and cannot marry absolutely infringes on others' liberty.

CP Chris said:
I don't follow. He threw a fit on social media (and aimed it at a party that was powerless to do anything about the real issue at hand) and now nobody gets to participate. Seems pretty black and white to me.

Cedar Point could have continued with the ceremonies provided they found 12 other couples to get married. They could have also allowed them to have the ceremony even if it wasn't legally recognized by Ohio. etrainimac didn't ruin it for "everyone," Cedar Point ruined it for "you."

Alternatively, the State of Ohio ruined it for everyone by not treating everyone equally...?

Also calling what I see on Twitter "throwing a fit" does not accurately describe it. I see less than 12 people politely asking that they allow commitment ceremonies.

Hey! If Cick-Fil-A announced that they were no longer giving millions of dollars from the profit that they make from their customers to groups that try to "cure" gay people and other anti-gay causes, I would totally be in line the next day to purchase some chicken nuggets and waffle fries from them.

But I simply can not allow my money to knowingly hurt gay people. "Reparative therapy" as they call it, is very damaging to the people it is use against.

The really good news is that the largest company who received funding from CFA recently closed down, and released a very long and well-written apology to the gay community. That didn't cause CFA to publicly state that they were no longer supporting other groups who do this to people though.

Never be ashamed of who you are or who you love. Gay people don't need to be fixed or sent to an island or killed. They need to be able to co-exist with the rest. They need acceptance and understanding. People need to stop telling them that God hates them.

Progress is being made and I am guessing in a decade or so, it will not be as big of a deal as it is now.

As for my initial thought about Cedar Fair breaking ties with CFA, no one here has changed my mind. If CFA gave money to groups who fought against other stupid causes, you might see my point. What if they donated money to end interracial marriage, prevent women from reporting rape, or to kill all the Jews? Would you still give them your money? Would you want a seemingly gay-friendly business to stop doing business with them?

Edited - Sorry, I was in a rush this morning and made a few mistakes in spelling and grammar.

Seems to me like the entire concept was poorly thought out (or not thought out much at all) by Cedar Point. One, they should have known that the subject of this thread would become an issue. Two, seems premature based on what Tony said on PointBuzz to the effect the park is working on an official wedding policy (which would include wedding packages and commitment ceremonies). To the extent that official policy isn't in place today, why run with a promotion that is pretty much certain to highlight that lack of a policy at a time when you are trying to put one in place? Three, getting married by a zombie seems pretty dumb to me.

djDaemon said:
And the entire counter-argument hinges on the idea that a particular religious group should get to decide the rules on who's allowed to marry

The entire counter argument is that it's not a civil right because it is immoral.

In a secular society (like the US), religious standards should not be forced upon those who don't follow that religion. Just because Christians outnumber other groups doesn't mean they get to make the rules about a social construct they didn't even invent.

I have no problem with any religion making and abiding by any rules or customs so long as those rules or customs don't infringe on others' liberty. Christians deciding who can and cannot marry absolutely infringes on others' liberty.

Who invented what is irrelevant. Where the morality comes from is irrelevant.

Government routinely creates rules that infringe on people's liberty based on the morality of the many. Drinking/Gambling/Smoking age, seat belt requirements, minimum age to enlist in the army, prohibitions on drug use, suicide prohibitions, statutory rape, polygamy, incest etc. etc. Is your claim that every one of these should be abolished because they're just one group imposing its morality on everyone?

Edit: Mandatory schooling, minimum wage, child labor laws, prostitution, etc. etc. etc.

But since we can't all agree on what's "moral" - isn't that why we went with the idea of secular governance? So that I could pretty much do as I please *provided* that it doesn't harm others or infringe on their rights regardless of whether it offends their belief system?

Across the country, we're having State Legislatures ban Sharia Law. The idea being that the Islamic Faith shouldn't dictate what is legal or not in this country. How is it really much different to impose laws based on the Christian Faith?

P.S. Really glad we can have this discussion sans vitriol...or is it "GLAAD"?

It's not much different to impose laws based on the Christian faith. I agree with that. What you have to consider, though, is that there are clearly many places in this country that don't support marriage for the LGBT community. Right or wrong, we're just not at the point yet where it's considered acceptable across the country. However, you also need to consider that Christians aren't the only ones who might be against it. Honestly, look at how many in this thread are Christians and are in support of the LGBT community. In many cases, Christians are on your side.

I'm not saying you all in any way need to support Chick-fil-A, Christianity, or what have you. What I am saying is that you can't cry persecution and then participate in it. You can't demand that people accept your point of view and deny them the right to even offer theirs.

The sharia law bans are comical and nonsensical. The only laws that apply in the US are federal, state and local. Two ways to be subject to sharia law (or elements of it). One is to expressly agree to it. Parties agree to be bound by the laws of other states and countries in contracts all the time. Not sure why that should be limited in the context of sharia law (assuming the contract itself is enforceable -- willing parties, no fraud, etc). And US courts routinely enforce contracts and interpret laws of other countries and states in contract disputes. Shouldn't be any different with sharia law.

The second way sharia law (or elements of it) could apply in the US is if a federal, state or local law is passed with elements of sharia law in it (same way we got so many judeo-christian based laws to be applicable to us already). I don't see that happening with respect to sharia law on the federal or state levels. I could see it happening on the local level if there is an extremely high concentration of muslims who want to follow sharia law. Though it will still be subject to state and federal laws. But if that happens, they would be enforcing local laws not sharia law.

The bans are just another example of politicians creating a bogeyman, making people afraid of it and then stepping in to purportedly save the day.