Starbucks CEO Doubles Down on Gay-Marriage Support, Telling Shareholder to Sell Stake if He Doesn’t Like Views

Starbucks’ Howard Schultz reaffirmed the company’s support for same-sex marriage, telling shareholders that it’s not an economic decision

  • Share
  • Read Later
Ted S. Warren / AP

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz speaks at the company's annual meeting of shareholders on March 20, 2013, in Seattle

Howard Schultz, the outspoken CEO of global coffee chain Starbucks, calmly but firmly defended his company’s support of same-sex marriage last week at a shareholder meeting.

In response to a challenge from a shareholder that the company’s support of same-sex marriage was hurting the company’s stock price, Schultz explained that it’s not about the bottom line but about “respecting diversity,” according to KPLU-FM, a local affiliate of NPR.

Last year, the Seattle-based company openly supported Washington state’s referendum that legalized same-sex marriage. As a result, the National Organization for Marriage launched a boycott of the coffee giant. During the company’s annual meeting in Seattle last week, shareholder Tom Strobhar spoke up, suggesting that the boycott was affecting the company’s stock value: “In the first full quarter after this boycott was announced, our sales and our earnings — shall we say politely — were a little disappointing,” he said.

(MORE: Starbucks’ Big Mug)

Schultz shot back that Starbucks’ endorsement of marriage equality wasn’t bad for business:

“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much,” Schultz said, to applause from the audience.

But Schultz was quick to underscore that it wasn’t even an economic decision to support gay rights. It was simply right for its people. “The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity,” he retorted.

The heated exchange between Schultz and Strobhar came shortly after shareholders voted for the company’s board to make political contributions. Board members said they wanted the flexibility to promote the company’s policy agenda, the Daily Mail noted.

Starbucks, which last year boasted nearly 18,000 retail stores in 60 countries with plans to continue growing, endorsed the Washington state bill to legalize gay marriage, and released a statement at the time saying it was “deeply dedicated to embracing diversity,” the Huffington Post reported. The bill later became law.

In his five years as CEO, Schultz has taken on a unique role as a political activist, launching campaigns calling for political finance reform and corporate social responsibility. In December, amid the “fiscal cliff” squabbling on Capitol Hill, Schultz asked all D.C.-area Starbucks locations to write “Come Together” on coffee cups in hopes of percolating an agreement.

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton Announces Support for Gay Marriage

301 comments
WilliamFavreSlaterIII
WilliamFavreSlaterIII

It is plain to see that Starbucks' leadership, starting with its CEO zealously respects and defends the rights of gays and lesbians and those who wish to be in same sex marriages.   What if the server had banished a same sex couple that was publicly kissing in their store?

For many years, I was in military training programs (Civil Air Patrol, Army ROTC, and Air Force ROTC), and then served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force.  I remember very well what it was like to be unpopular in civilian society and to be ridiculed and misunderstood for my service.  I will never let that happen again.  


There are 23 million veterans, and about 1.4 million men and women in uniform.  If you count the family and friends of these people, Starbucks has upset a significant number of Americans.  


If they cannot also respect and defend the rights of veterans and U.S. Military Service members, then they do not deserve our business.

WayneU
WayneU

I know this article is old, but I'm just now seeing it online.  I think there are a few things that are both interesting and worth thinking about. 

 #1.  I learned long ago that a CEO's fiduciary responsibility is to his shareholders, not to "respecting diversity." 

 #2  I wonder what the demographics of the 200,000 employees in the US are.  I'm sure there are many that are not in agreement with starbucks' stance on gay marriage.  And even if that percentage were to be less than 1% it still shows up in the company's "lens". 

#3 If you agree with "Howard Schultz, the outspoken CEO of global coffee chain Starbucks" or disagree is really irrelevant.  The true power is found in your wallet and where you decide to buy your next coffee.


AntoniaPaker
AntoniaPaker

Thank you priest idigun for what you've just done, for helping me getting my husband back who left me with my kid years ago, I thank you so much the great priest of owonikoko for bringing back my family and I am grateful and will always be, if you also need his help you can email him (idigunpriest@gmail.com) my name is Antonia Paker I am from the states I want to share my happiness with the general public of what priest idigun of indian has done for me in the last few weeks, I was in love with this guy called Maxwell, We were in love with each other until I travelled out for some month and we promised ourselves to be together forever, when I got back from my journey he was having another affair, when I went to see him, he told me to leave him that I should never come back again, and I love him so much that I can never let go off him, I told a friend of mine about it and she adviced me and recommended this man (idigun) for me, when I visited him at idigunpriest@gmail.com he only asked me to buy some items for sacrifies to help me get my Ex back and he actually did it and it worked and today I am happy with my family again, incase anyone is out there with the same problem or any kind, I advice he or she to contact this man today at idigunpriest@gmail.com and with what he did for me I believe he can also help you. Thanks once again Priest Idigun.

BillyFrady
BillyFrady

As a CWP, Starbucks has stood for the rights of the second amendment and I am very  happy about that. I have also heard Starbucks supported gay rights. Ok I have no problem with that. However the CEO went as far as to say if a customer doesn't support gay rights then they don't want there business, This went to far, a lot of people are torn over this because the religion says it a sin, yet it is legal. I don't object to it , I will not speak against there rights , but I will not speak for it or support it , I don't think that if it goes against some ones beliefs that they shouldn't be made to support something they don't believe in. I understand that under the law they needed protection so that they could get insurance and other death benefits. But to go to the point of forcing some one to support something is not right. people have a right to support what they want , not to force others to think the same way as them.

BeeDeesTweeties
BeeDeesTweeties

@TIME a repeat from March, but SBUX being a leader on doing what's right.Thanks H. Schultz! Waiting patiently for your your political run...

lathropmd
lathropmd

Wow! Talk about proponents of diversity. To flagantly endorse homosexuality and gay marriage which is clearly against God's word, not to mention the natural order of things, then out of the other side of your mouth not allow visible tatoos? What a hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!

So it's OK to hire people that are rotten on the inside (yeah, I said it, call me a hater, but I speak the truth in love.), but not hire someone who has a personal artistic expression on their skin? Where is the equity, much less common sense in that? The gay life style he endorses has nothing to do with a business decision, but is an attempt to legitimize a lifestyle that is an abomination to our Creator.

No more Starbucks for me or my friends.

TommyTomdollar
TommyTomdollar

Here is the point and it is not a religious point, it is a point of logic in our "created" society. : Schultz has gotten away from business. He is now stating that, unknown to me, I once a stock holder, once a patron of Starbucks was helping Schultz covertly with his endeavors with homosexuals. He is using his business i.e, Starbucks for his own personal perversions regardless of the thousands of others within (employees) and outside (customers)  Starbucks. Christian or not the perspective is "perversion" and is perversion as perversion is, business perversion. There is nothing natural about it.
Speaking of natural nature.
Ah, the love of a woman for a man, how nature and true. The love of a man for a woman, how natural and true.  A man wrapped around a woman, a woman wrapped around a man in mutual love and adoration. Why, they (the heterosexuals) can even have children in that loved and hopefully matrimonial commitment, something homosexual cannot create in the least by nature naturally.. 

If it wasn't for the heterosexuals there would be no homosexuals. The homosexuals owe the heterosexual everything even their lives. And yet two homosexuals could never create a heterosexual, alas, the species dies out, no matter how much they (homosexuals) hump each other, nature is the truest witness against the homosexuals and their life style.

So now back to Schultz and he using money, his money? Starbucks share holder's money? My money from purchasing Starbucks coffee, espresso or latte and also for the discounted covert price bought his political perspective? I am, you are paying Schultz's wages and we are also buying his political perspective and his perverted business actions. Schultz, that was not in the original business deal, you Schultz have used many (most) persons wrongly. Schultz, you are suppose to be in the business of coffee beans and beverages to sell to the public with no statement needed other than that....  So long Starbucks...

TommyTomdollar
TommyTomdollar

Schultz has obviously gone off the deep end. Instead of keeping his nose to the grind he now has it up somebody's behind. My shares are sold and no more Starbucks of any kind. Schultz, you are in business to sell beans, not political issues.

ElioCoradin
ElioCoradin

Huston , We got a Big Problem:..."For this cause God gave them up unto vile affection: For even their women change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their LUST one toward another; men with men working that is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their ERROR which was meet" (Romans 1:26-27).  What Cause? verse 21: Because that, when they new God, they glorify Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagination, and their foolish heart was darkened.   Big problem, ah! But He has BLOOD, for that ERROR, The BLOOD of His Son: JESUS.

RuthRagpala
RuthRagpala

The "diversity" Howard Schultz is talking is not new. Embracing this kind of "diversity" was the reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

ChikuMisra
ChikuMisra

This headline reminded me of when I worked at dell computer and some idiot threatened to take his business elsewhere. Dell only had five million customers at the time, as I made certain to point out to him.

TheresaRivera
TheresaRivera

Now why in the hell would Starbucks even get involved or even making such a statement,  why? there business is making gourmet 

coffee. Is this there way on drawing more customers, because if it is well this sucks.  Not everyone likes Starbucks coffee,  I don't even

drink the stuff.

 


ryka797
ryka797

"Respect diversity" but oddly, what they don't respect is the "diversity" of opinions.

sfjetland
sfjetland

Nice to see Starbucks standing up for its employees... im not a fan of their coffee, but i am a fan of their stance!

DonEwald
DonEwald

This customer is going to stop going to Starbucks. There is a local coffee shop that has better coffee anyway. And besides Peets Coffee is probably better also!!!!!! See ya wouldn't want ta be ya!!!!! Bye Starbucks!!!!!

LadeeDianeCampbell
LadeeDianeCampbell

Well thank god I drink Dunkin DOnuts. Starbucks can F off. I dont have to support gay marriage or anything else I dont want to support SO lick me.  Their coffee sucks anyhow

SharonDaRocha
SharonDaRocha

@TIME everybody deserves the right to get married and be happy. Well done on you Starbucks!!!!

Kenrae
Kenrae

@lathropmd Your "Creator" doesn't exist, and if she did, she wouldn't care about something not important like who each of us go to bed with.

I thought we as a society had moved beyond valuing people for what they do in bed. Shouldn't we look on the inside as to what kind of person they are, their character, their moral values, etc.? Oh wait, that would leave bigots like you out of it.

TheTrampRO
TheTrampRO

@Patriot1059 He never said "I don't want your business." He just said if you're not happy with the profits, feel free to sell.

johngar
johngar

@ryka797 because holding negative and prejudiced opinions on "diversity" (of HUMAN BEINGS, might I remind you) precisely disrespects such "diversity". Should we respect the "diverse" opinions of rapists on rape, as well? Come on man, this one's pretty obvious.

lathropmd
lathropmd

Starbucks doesn't stand up for it's employees. You can't even work there if you have visible tatoos. Talk about a double standard. Schultz picks and chooses the diversity he wants to support. In other words it's selective diversity. Huh? Is that really diversity?

Sounds like Schultz is a tatoo bigot to me. I thought we as a society had moved beyond valuing people for how they look. Shouldn't we look on the inside as to what kind of person they are, their character, their moral values, etc.? Oh, wait if we do that, that would disqualify gay marriage as something to support.

Hypocrite!!!!!!!

JasonMarsh
JasonMarsh

@DonEwald

Abercrombie and Fitch, Adobe, Allstate Insurance, Amazon, American Apparel, American Airlines, Apple, Applebee's, Barnes and Noble, Ben and Jerry's, Best Buy, Boeing, Cablevision, Cisco, Clorox, Coca-Cola, Costco, Delta Airlines, Dropbox, DuPont, eBay, Expedia, Facebook, Ford, Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, General Mills, General Motors, Google, Youtube, Groupon, Hewlett-Packard. Home Depot, IBM, Intel, Intuit, J.C. Penney, The Muppets, Kraft Foods, Levi's, LinkdIn, Marriott Hotels, McDonald's, Microsoft, Nationwide Insurance, Nike, Nordstrom, Olive Garden, Office Depot, Orbitz, Oreo, Panasonic, PepsiCo, PG&E, Procter and Gamble, Red Lobster, REI, Rite Aid, Sears, Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, State Farm Insurance, Target, T-Mobile, United Airlines, UPS, Verizon, Walgreens, Disney, ABC, ESPN, LucasFilm, Pixar, Marvel, Wells Fargo, Xerox ... all of these companies wish you luck on your endeavor to be on the wrong side of history, and I wish you luck on your ability to never leaving your home, for fear you may walk on equality endorsed streets, or open an equality endorsed door put on by an equality endorsing company.

TruthOne
TruthOne

@SharonDaRocha @TIME Only if its a man with a woman. Please lets not bring sexual perversion into the definition of true marriage. I say "Well done Starbucks". 

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@Kenrae @lathropmd Um, you say "shouldn't we look on the inside as to what kind of person they are, their character, their moral values, etc.?". That is exactly what this discussion is whole debate is about, moral values. My "moral values" say that homosexuality is wrong. Why? because my Creator (who you said doesn't care about what we do in bed, maybe you should look into that further) said that it was wrong. 

The underlying question here is actually whether God exists or not. And if He does, does he care what we do. Honestly, we can throw insults at each other all day, but no progress will be made in agreeing with one another until we agree on that point. I also know that probably neither of us will be compromising our beliefs any time soon, I know I won't be. So instead of debating this on the internet, which doesn't accomplish anything, we should all just look more into whether or not there is an authority that says homosexuality is wrong. If there is, we shouldn't do it, if there isn't we should do whatever we want. But basing your decision on your own desire for pleasure isn't going to turn out well.

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@EllaWarnock @TommyTomdollar but chick-fil-a didn't say that if you didn't agree with them to stop buying and selling shares. the only thing Cathy said (after being asked) was that he supported traditional marriage. that's all.

Kenrae
Kenrae

@TruthOne Because you're the one to decide what the definition on marriage is, of course. A civil institution that existed far before christianity.

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@pogoplaya1916 @ChristianSmith @Kenrae @lathropmd But if there's nothing wrong with people having homosexual relationships, then what's the big deal about redefining marriage? You say it's a choice and preference who you want to sleep with, but then can't get married? so where do you draw the line? either it's wrong, or it isn't. to say that it isn't wrong, but say they can't get married is discrimination by definition. to say that homosexuality is wrong, and base the decision of whether they should get married on that isn't discrimination. you don't' call it discrimination if you say a murderer is doing wrong. Why? because they're doing wrong. plain and simple. so this issue is totally based on what people believe about God, this isn't an issue of preference. you have to draw a line morally, or anything can go.

pogoplaya1916
pogoplaya1916

@ChristianSmith @Kenrae @lathropmd Actually this as nothing to do with "taking a look on the inside".  This whole debate is about the redefinition of marriage.  Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman.  I don't care if two women and two men want to sleep with each other.  That is there choice and there preference.  I will not hold it against them.  However, I think it is absolutely intolerable to redefine what marriage is and quite frankly I am not sure why it is even a big deal.  If gay couples want to fight for the same "benefits" as married couples, than that is what they should fight for.  But DO NOT call it marriage! 

ElioCoradin
ElioCoradin

@ChristianSmith @TheresaRivera @ScooterSteve91 The Real Problem is that our creator(even if you do not believe in creation, it doesn't matter), will soon show up His commitment to His words in having mercy for the umbel's ones, and judgment to the unrightches  believers of Him. Watch out for the signs.  

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@TheresaRivera @ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 Others have told me that same thing before, and I've always wondered where am I supposed to draw the line. I don't think God would want me to just sit back and let just anything happen if I can somehow have an influence in the situation. I mean isn't that what Christian politicians are doing? If every Christian (or Catholic) politician were to just sit back and let things "go with the flow" there is no telling how much more evil would be permissible in the US. I plan to be a lawyer when I grow up because I see a need for redemption in certain areas of our government. When I hear people tell me just to let it happen, and just love others, I don't know what to do. aren't we to stand up for what we believe in? that verse in 2nd peter seems to imply that we are to. it says to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have". I don't think this just means to say "Jesus" when someone asks you why you believe what you believe. I think this means that we are to have answers to questions about issues such as evolution, abortion, same sex "marriage" and such.

TheresaRivera
TheresaRivera

@ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 Hey Chris your just to young to understand, to judgemental, as a Catholic woman and over 50 years old I have learned  throughout my life that we are not here to judge anybodys choices or how or where they live.  Let he with no sin cast the first stone,  this is what Jesus said, and you as a Christian are casting stones, who care what others are doing, you live your life loving our Lord and Saviour with all your heart, don't let your religion consume you, love people for them just because, Jesus did. When you become older and have experienced life you will one day say to yourself I can't believe I thought that way.  A good Christian person will buy a meal for a homeless, give them a blanket, help a person in need,  not worry about other's sexual preferences it's not anybody's concern.

    

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@johngar @ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 My point wasn't that if you are pro-gay you are pro killing. my point was that same sex marriage was considered a crime just as bad as murder. people 50 years ago would probably be thinking that it is outrageous to even consider that same sex marriage would ever become legal. why? because it was a crime. Just like murder is a crime today. you say that my logic is messed up using that comparison, but is it really? if a crime as bad as same sex "marriage" from 50 years ago is now legal, why wouldn't a crime like murder be legal in another 50 years.

Unless you have a moral code (and not just the "if it feels good do it") based on some moral law, anything is bound to be made legal under the name of "tolerance". I mean, a murderer can give the same excuse a gay person does. "I was just born this way", "I can't help it, it's who I am", "until  you've felt the desire to tear another human beings head off don't tell me it's wrong". I'm not trying to justify murder, all I'm trying to do is show you how your arguments sound to me.

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@johngar @happygirl  Actually I do believe it is a choice. Unlike what is taught today, if you "feel attraction to the same sex" it doesn't mean you are born gay, or that that is just the way you are. Nobody is "born gay". There is no biological trait, or gene that makes you gay. Just because you "have romantic feelings" for a person of the same sex doesn't mean you are biologically "programmed" to be gay. consider this, when you were younger did you not have romantic feelings for individuals of the opposite sex? if you did doesn't that mean you were "straight"? do you change from straight to gay? or is the whole thing about "I was born this way" just an excuse to indulge in perverse pleasures? "feelings" for someone of the same sex is the result of a decline in societies morals, not some biological process.  same sex "marriage" is not natural, and isn't the way marriage is supposed to be. Think about it, the only way to reproduce is between a male and a female, not a male and a male, or female and female. isn't that evidence enough that same sex "marriage" isn't natural?

Daryl
Daryl

@AstridOmega @ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 I am a gay male who would like to marry his biological brother.  Astrid, I can see that you and I are on the same page of evolution and moral codes.  We are two consenting adults and were born this way.  My "straight" brother would like to an open marital relationship with our sister.  I like your "if it feels good do it" approach.  We also have a friend that wishes to legally marry his Mother and then he can continue on her health insurance.  We are going to start our own movement called: FAMILY FIRST.  Based on your flawed thinking and absence of any moral integrity, I am sure we can count on your support.

johngar
johngar

@happygirl well are you gay? have you ever had feelings for the same sex? if so, was THAT a choice? Since when did you get up and decide you were going to "feel romantic inclinations/attractions to this particular opposite-sex individual precisely because he's of the opposite sex"? Doesn't it just happen? You don't know? THEN DON'T SPEAK FOR LGBT PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT /THEY/ FEEL. "You don't know" is "you don't know". Simple as that.

johngar
johngar

@ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 under what "moral standard" is it acceptable to be prejudiced against a person on the basis of who they are and who they prefer to love? Prejudice is prejudice. It's very un-Christian, ask any sensible pastor and he'll tell you he same.

"if just 50 years ago gay "marriage" was looked upon the same way that murder, sexual abuse were looked upon. what makes you think that in another 50 years we won't be accepting murderer's, and sex offender's views so that we can "embrace the diversity"."

Wow kid, you should be more concerned about your logic. It's not like married gay people are out to kill your parents. What the hell are you thinking?!

happygirl
happygirl

Christaina I agree with you and I find it funny when they say equality and diversity; however, the moment another person says I believe in the traditional marriage then everybody get up in arms about how we need to think. As for the black issue, don't get me started becaue I am black and this has nothing do with the color of my skin because I don't have a choice, laying up with the same sex is a choice! Keep standing your ground and I will do the same. This country is going straight to hell in a hand basket and the morality of our chountry has gone to the dogs!!!

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@DennyMcFall Issues, such as this, that will be affecting my generation in devastating ways are very important to me. I feel that I should do something to preserve our christian heritage (because no matter what they teach in schools today, America was founded as a christian nation) for future generations.

DennyMcFall
DennyMcFall

For a sixteen-year-old, you sure seem to have studied the facts well, and certainly you present your opinions with clarity and support them well also. You remind me of a friend I respect very highly for these exact reasons. I wish more of your age put so much thought into their ideas.

4peacefulvictory
4peacefulvictory

@AstridOmega @ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 but to top it all off, why do these political figures have to speak about this in the first place? I mean unless brought up and then gain who says they have to respond?

4peacefulvictory
4peacefulvictory

@AstridOmega @ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 okay, homosexuality and race are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things, I cannot control the fact that I am black, but I can control whether I am going to lay down with someone who is the same sex or opposite sex, I can control whether I am going to have intercourse before marriage unless I am being raped. Don't take this out of context, sin is sin, which is defined as absence of God or turning away from God, in the bible it states that a man with a man or a woman with a woman is an abomination/sin. It states in the bible sex before marriage is a sin, it doesn't state in the bible hat marrying outside of race is a sin. Murder, homosexuality, sex before marriage, they are all sons and what you have done is put them on levels, sin is sin, there are no levels of son defining what sin is worse than the other. That is NOT in the bible at all. Don't try to challenge the bible with your whimsical inadequate supposed logic.

sfjetland
sfjetland

@ChristianSmith @AstridOmega @ScooterSteve91

Your going to have to black list Ebay, Facebook,  Intel, Xerox, AIG ,Cisco 

Get off your high horse, Gay marriage is coming, its a good thing for everyone. Every country that has implemented it has not had any problems.

The USA is not a christian Nation, it says that at several times.

The only way to have a country that respects all religon is to have a government that is totally secular, to do otherwise ALWAYS ends in a theocracy of some kind.

Gay behaviour is clearly natural by definition  as basically all species have it, Look up the bonobo, or just Google "gay behaviour in animals"

The only thing you said that bears a similarity to the truth is that gay marriage goes against the teachings of the bible... which doesnt matter to this discussion.

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@AstridOmega @ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91 I agree with you when you say that laws that make it illegal for a white person to marry a black person are wrong, I also think that slavery is wrong. I wasn't saying that everything they did back then was right, we are only human, and humans make errors. I was just saying that i believe that some of the laws we had back then that we don't have anymore were good laws, and we should still have them. 

you say that because the founding fathers didn't want to have a christian nation the first thing they did was write the first amendment which separated the church and state so that there would be no religion in government at all. you've probably been taught (along with everyone else in the public school system) that the first amendment states: "separation of church and state". but in reality that isn't what it says, it isn't even implied in the way that it is today. the actual text of the first amendment is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… no where in there does it say "separation of church and state".  you have to realize that the authors of this document (the constitution) had just come out of a revolutionary war with a country that had an established religion. they knew first hand how destructive the establishment of a national religion could be. so to avoid a church ruled government they wrote the first clause of the first amendment. the second clause in the first amendment (the free exercise clause) was put in to protect the people's religious views from the government. so that no one would be persecuted because of their religion. so the first clause protects the people from a church dictatorship, and the second clause protects the people from government persecution. the phrase "separation of church and state" actually comes from a private letter, in which Thomas Jefferson was trying to assure a group of baptists that the first amendment "put up a wall of separation between the church and state" in that the government couldn't persecute the baptists because of their religion. the origin of this phrase was actually meant to tell of the implications of the second clause of the first amendment, but today you will hear that it is an implication of the first clause. this simply isn't true.

you say that I'm making you sick with my views, well honestly gay "marriage" makes me sick. there is nothing natural about it, it's not the way relationships are supposed to be. even if you don't believe in a God you have to admit that considering the rest of nature homosexuality is very unnatural. btw I would love to see those statistics that you are talking about, the ones that say that gay relationships function better then heterosexual relationships. thanks.

AstridOmega
AstridOmega

@ChristianSmith @ScooterSteve91

America is not, and has never been, a theocracy. Only four years after the establishment of the Constitution, which is the very essence of America, the first amendment was passed. Do you know what one of the points of the very first amendment to the constitution of this so called 'Christian' country was? That the church of no religion would have no involvement in the law. Period. End of story. That was the first thing the founders of this country believed was necessary for our national stability. Don't confuse morality with theological debates, because they aren't the same. 

I base my moral code on whether or not an action causes others harm. Not because it 'annoys' me, or 'upsets' me, or 'goes against' some skewed value system I have that has no basis in reality. I don't even know how you can call 'sex' immoral. How do you think we procreate? How do you think people in romantic relationships prefer to express that love? Hell, even for recreational purposes, sex hurts no one, unless you give someone an STD--in which case your negligence is immoral--refuse to wear a condom without the consent of one party--immoral because it takes from an individual the right to choose what becomes of their body (so is lying about the effectiveness of condoms, for that matter)--or is rape--for the same reason as before, but more disgustingly unforgivable.

If you think two adults, who pay taxes, contribute to the function of this society and are good, kind people, do not deserve to marry each other, then to me, that would be immoral. Bigotry--which is baseless prejudice--is always immoral. There is no basis for prejudice against gay people beyond, "Oh my gosh, teh gayz, ew!" (which is not a reason) or "The good book says so" (rendered invalid by the consitution) or "Traditional marriage and procreation"  in which case, I think you should outlaw extramarrital affairs before gay marriage, but you're not upset about the legality of that, are you? I guess you're also not upset about old people getting married who can't have children, or people who are infertile, or people who just don't want to have kids. I guess you're also for the 'traditional' type of marriages from the same period you say homosexuality was akin to murder, in such a marriage a man could legally rape his wife. If you think making RAPE illegal in all cases shows a moral degeneration just because some rape was 'permissable' fifty or sixty years ago, then there's something wrong with you.

You realize, sixty years ago, marrying a black person when you were white was also akin to murder, don't you? I suppose you think that shows the sin we have descended to--treating rational adults of different races like human beings? I guess in your mind, a white person marrying black people, or asian people, or hispanics, is like marrying a different species? Because that's what it was, sixty years ago, and the fact that people could even consider other races to be subhuman was disgusting and wrong, even if  people didn't know it was, so if you're going to judge morality now on what it was then, welp, there you go. 

Are you just going to go further and further back in time in order to assert your moral purity? Are you going to say the systematic annihilation of Native Americans was right because 150 years ago, they believed it? Are you going to say slavery was right? How about something that might hit a little closer to home for you: did you know some of the very first American settlers made it illegal for Catholics to settle in some colonies? I suppose you think that was incredibly moral too! And you, you must be thinking, disgusting, terrible thing it is that America now is open to all people of all religions, regardless of what it was 'founded' on! 

Please, don't make me sick. Studies have proven that gay relationships function just as well or better than heterosexual ones. Children from families with gay parents tend to be much more well-adjusted, productive people than those from the average heterosexual one. And this is just me thinking about it, but I imagine gay people are more likely to adopt for obvious reasons (rather than going for surrogacy as an alternative) and that means they do society a service because it seems heterosexual people can't be bothered nearly as often to give a good home to a child that already exists and NEEDS someone to take care of them, than to create a new one.

In any case, getting back to the matter at hand, there are numerous countries, such as Canada, for instance that have legalized gay marriage. I say Canada specifically because Canada is basically the nicer, kinder, stronger, better version of America. I mean, Canada's national stereotype is being really good-natured and polite, if not a bit boring as a result--America's is being uneducated, bigoted imperialists. There's something to be said of the fact that a place with as good a rep as Canada has allowed gay marriage, and has clearly not gone up in flames.

Your moral code is broken--to me, your moral standards or akin to those people who would have said my parents, a white man and black woman, needed to be put in prison for loving each other. If people like you can call that 'morality' then it's you who's doing damage to this country. 

ChristianSmith
ChristianSmith

@MrHogland @ScooterSteve91 MrHogland, I'm going to say right up front that I am against gay "marriage", but at least hear me out. The reason that I will probably stop supporting companies such as apple, Microsoft, google, nike, or Starbucks isn't because I don't like their products (btw nike is my fave shoe brand, Starbucks is my fave coffee, google is my fave search engine, and apple is my fave computer) but because to support them would be to support what they support. I understand that your intentions and the intentions of these businesses in supporting gay "marriage" is because you want to "embrace diversity". and I am fine with embracing diversity, but you have to ask what "diversity" is permissible? Whenever I hear someone who supports gay "marriage" I just want to ask them, what is your moral standard? what is the basis for that standard? do you even have a moral standard? I believe that the underling issue in topics like gay "marriage" isn't whether someone is open to "diversity" but is what has happened to the morals of our nation. unlike what they teach in schools today our nation was founded as a christian nation, with our morals grounded in the scriptures. no amount of historical revisionism will change the facts, it can only blind it's victims which is almost as effective. only 50 years ago gay "marriage" was a crime compared to murder, and yet today if you don't accept it you are "intolerant". so the main issue here is our morals. unfortunately our society is loosing it's moral values, they are being flushed down the toilet in the name of "tolerance". the implications of this are staggering, if just 50 years ago gay "marriage" was looked upon the same way that murder, sexual abuse were looked upon. what makes you think that in another 50 years we won't be accepting murderer's, and sex offender's views so that we can "embrace the diversity". both murderers and sex offenders believe that what they are doing isn't wrong, if they did they wouldn't be doing it. the big question is, will our society get so bad that it will reach a point where it will have to accept these views so that it isn't being "intolerant"? already things like sex, drugs, and killing are being celebrated by one of the most influential forces on a society, pop music. it's only a matter of time before people start thinking that what they are singing should be "embraced" or "tolerated" in real life. you have to draw a line morally, if you don't things will get very bad.


I ask that you would please take into consideration all the things that I have said, think about them seriously. where do you draw the line morally? why? what is your basis for your moral code? do you even have a moral code? If only more people would start asking themselves these questions, I believe our country would be a lot better place to live in.


- A concerned 16 yo about the future of our nation