August 18, 2009

Ending a Long History, I Guess

Justin Katz

Here's a bizarre explanation for Blount Fine Foods' pulling sponsorship from the traditional marriage event on Sunday:

Corporate philanthropy and good citizenship has been part of Blount's mission since inception. In keeping with that, we have a long track record of donating Blount-brand chowder and other products to all non-profits in our home area that request it for events. These donations of soup are just simple gestures of goodwill and were certainly not intended to be interpreted otherwise. It's very concerning to us that anyone would think otherwise and as a result, we are reviewing our policy going forward.

Additionally, Blount notified the organizers of the Rhode Island event in question that the company would not be providing a donation, soup or otherwise.

A long history of goodwill... until same-sex marriage activists insist that there is no social sphere free of their politics. This speaks to a long-running cognitive dissonance behind positioning of SSM as a live-and-let-live movement. This gay activist (astonishingly the only "news" result for a Google search for "Maggie Gallagher Rhode Island) expresses scorn that Rhode Island is the only state "in the northeast that will tolerate these folks."

Yup, can't tolerate those traditionalists and Christians who gather together to listen to music, have a meal, and renew marriage vows. Rout us out. Lock us up until we swear to conversion.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

The homosexual marriage movement isn't interested in tolerance or debate on the merits.

They go after anyone who dares oppose their political agenda (e.g., Dr. Laura or their invasions of Catholic services in San Francisco).

To them, the understanding and consensus regarding the purpose and meaning of marriage by and between every major civilization - and every major religion - throughout recorded history is "bigoted" and "homophobic" and must be overturned.

For what? So there can be a political pretense that homosexuality is somehow "normal" (how else to explain their refusal to "settle for" civil unions or similar non-marital arrangements)?

People of that "orientation" should be treated with the respect and dignity and tolerance accorded to all human beings.

But that doesn't mean that the concept and purpose of marriage as understood over thousands upon thousands of years should be turned on its head merely to accommodate the political preferences arising from their condition and their (understandable) desire that we engage in willful blindness and pretend that it's normal, when common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of biology dictates a conclusion that it is not.

Posted by: Tom W at August 18, 2009 2:47 PM

Or when McDonalds pulled sponsorship of
a Gay Pride event in Texas under presure
from the American Family Org and other
anti-gay groups

Posted by: Richard at August 18, 2009 3:37 PM

Tom W ?
"People of that "orientation" should be treated with the respect and dignity and tolerance accorded to all human beings"

Tom W, The rude and hatefull comments you have posted here,in the past have shown no respect, dignity or tolerance for Gays and Lesbians.

Posted by: Richard at August 18, 2009 3:45 PM

>Tom W, The rude and hatefull comments you have posted here,in the past have shown no respect, dignity or tolerance for Gays and Lesbians.


It may be hard for you to believe, but I harbor no animosity toward homosexuals.

On the other hand, I refuse to buy into the notion(s) that I should put blinders on (as to what is normal or abnormal) and/or that if I don't agree 100% with the current gay political agenda then I'm a bigot and/or homophobe ... or that such means that I show "no respect, dignity or tolerance for Gays and Lesbians."

I've no issue with existing anti-discrimination laws including sexual orientation as a "protected category."

I've no issue with the relationships that homosexuals (or gays and lesbians if you prefer) choose to engage in with each other, nor with some sort of legal arrangement(s) by which those in a committed relationship can define property rights / visitation rights and the like (e.g., civil unions).

But I draw the line at the institution of marriage.

That is a societal ideal - admittedly one that, like most ideals, many (if not most) humans fail to fully adhere to - which serves as a model for the perpetuation of the species, and culture, via a nuclear family unit composed of a father and mother in a committed relationship, providing not only sustenance for their offspring, but also socialization via serving as role models.

Diminishing that ideal to placate a political movement to serve what is in reality a special interest group is something I cannot support.

That I occasionally use some sarcasm and hyperbole to make my points is just that, not hateful but to those with hyper-sensitive political correctness radar.

Posted by: Tom W at August 18, 2009 4:55 PM

Gays are not willing to live peacefully side by side with traditional marriage.

They are looking to hijack the cause, meaning and need for religious and traditional marriage.

Those two Lesbian women who challenged RI law regarding gay divorces were plants.

Gays just challenge the status quo.

I wonder what they would do if they won the right to marry? Like a gay guy refusing to pay taxes because he believes he was a target of a legal proceeding? Sheesh.

Posted by: Roland at August 18, 2009 7:13 PM

Sorry to hear you were denied the free soup. If hunger has not weakened you to the point of fainting you may want to check the misspelling of "ending" at the beginning of this pathetic plea for a hand out.

Posted by: Phil at August 18, 2009 8:48 PM

Thanks for the correction. For some reason, my browser doesn't spellcheck the titles of posts, and I was trying to get this one up during a too-short lunch break.

Posted by: Justin Katz at August 18, 2009 8:55 PM

Justin, Did you and the missus exchange vows?

Posted by: David at August 18, 2009 9:43 PM

Companies have pulled out of many event sponsorships (see McDonald's example above) under pressure from right-wing groups.
Sucks when the shoe's on the other foot.

Posted by: rhody at August 19, 2009 1:13 AM

Or maybe it's just a case of a business that doesn't want to be pulled into a hotly debated political argument? Nah. Must be a conspiracy.

Posted by: Pragmatist at August 19, 2009 10:01 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.